On January 20 and 21, 2025, President Trump made waves by signing executive orders that rolled back numerous policies established by the prior administration. Executive Order 14173 is particularly noteworthy, as it dismantled affirmative action requirements for federal contractors by revoking Executive Order 11246, a policy that had been in place since the Johnson administration. This move reflects a broader effort by the Trump administration to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) mandates, shifting the focus of federal governance toward merit and national security.
Despite holding a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress, lawmakers have not passed legislation to formally establish Trump’s executive orders into law. This has sparked frustration among grassroots supporters. One viral social media post encapsulated the sentiment: “Instead of working on putting President Trump’s executive orders into law, the only thing they can pass is something reversing one of President Trump’s policies? The Republicans in Congress are useless.”
This criticism underscores a conflict between executive actions and legislative action. Although President Trump moved swiftly to rescind DEI mandates, immigration expansions, and across-the-board climate regulations within days of taking office, Congress has lagged in solidifying these changes into law.
Executive Order 14173 replaces affirmative action policies with a broader compliance standard based on existing federal anti-discrimination laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. By scrapping EO 11246, the order limits the Department of Labor’s ability to investigate contractors based on any prior affirmative action goals. The Department of Labor has been mandated to stop enforcing these outdated regulations immediately.
In the same week, Trump signed another executive order that abolished 78 additional directives from the Biden era, covering a wide range of issues from pandemic response and climate policies to voting access and DEI training. These revocations were part of a thorough review conducted by top administration officials intended to “restore common sense” and dismantle what they termed “unlawful and radical” federal policies.
In a striking statement, the executive order claimed: “The injection of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI) into our institutions has corrupted them by replacing hard work, merit, and equality with a divisive and dangerous preferential hierarchy.”
The revocations notably target procurement mandates, such as EO 14057 (Sustainability in Federal Procurement) and EO 14069 (Pay Equity in Contracting), which required contractors to disclose salary data and implement equitable practices. With these orders rescinded, federal contractors now face a regulatory environment in transition, hampered by uncertainty until the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) can be updated.
Even with these executive orders enacted, the implementation process is not immediate. The regulatory framework overseeing procurement and federal compliance requires formal rulemaking, including public comment periods and at least a 30-day waiting period before enforcement can begin. Although agencies have been directed to reassess affected programs, the transition period leaves contractors in a state of uncertainty.
Legal challenges to these executive orders are already surfacing. One federal lawsuit argues that EO 14173’s removal of affirmative action requirements infringes on established civil rights obligations. This issue could have significant repercussions, especially for employees of federal contractors in smaller firms where Title VII protections do not apply—protections that were previously extended by EO 11246.
The administration is not stopping. Other aggressive actions include reviewing all National Security Memoranda issued during the previous administration to eliminate policies perceived as detrimental to U.S. security. This approach covers various issues, from border control to energy independence, and reinforces the priorities identified with Trump’s initial term: law enforcement strength, energy accessibility, and a reduction in regulatory burdens.
However, Congressional Republicans have yet to translate these executive actions into permanent legislation. Unlike executive orders, which can be swiftly overturned by a future president, laws established by Congress demand a more arduous process for repeal. This lack of legislative action drives public concern. As the Trump administration manages to erase many of the Biden-era mandates, it remains to be seen how lasting these changes will be without protective legislation.
The Brookings Institution’s “Reg Tracker” tracks the many regulatory reversals currently underway. Over 120 key actions are logged, ranging from Environmental Protection Agency rule rescissions to labor regulations under review by the Department of Labor. Still, these measures lack the durability found in formal legislation, leaving them open to future judicial reversals or executive changes.
Industry stakeholders are already repositioning themselves to navigate potential policy shifts. Federal contractors in sectors such as energy, construction, and defense are reevaluating their compliance strategies, bracing for a possible diminishment of regulatory pressures. While some contractors may appreciate the alleviation of these burdens, others fear abrupt changes in regulation depending on court rulings or agency updates.
The political ramifications are noteworthy. Lacking legislative backing, the Trump administration must primarily depend on executive action and discretionary agency decisions, rendering policy susceptible to future changes if the administration shifts in 2029. Moreover, federal rulemaking is inherently slow; while executive orders can quickly pivot enforcement or agenda priorities, the overhaul of federal regulations involves prolonged processes mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act.
Ultimately, this absence of Congressional action creates a critical void. President Trump’s executive orders aim to fundamentally alter federal operational practices, but codifying these shifts into law is Congress’s responsibility. The viral tweet encapsulating this discourse highlights a rising anxiety: what exactly is the Republican Party achieving if it cannot embed its priorities into law?
The strategic direction seems evident. The White House is working diligently to undo the perceived ideological overreach of the previous administration. Yet, without legislative reinforcement, particularly in areas like labor protections and contracting law, these changes hinge upon the stability and security of political tenure and favorable court outcomes. For now, the endeavor to reshape federal policy remains incomplete.
"*" indicates required fields
