Economy, finance and labor executive orders

What this topic covers

This hub covers executive orders that shape economic policy through federal regulation, labor-management relations, government purchasing, competition policy, industrial capacity, financial stability, and worker protections. Some apply mainly inside the executive branch; others set conditions for federal contractors or direct agencies to use authority Congress has delegated. Orders cannot appropriate funds or override labor, antitrust, tax, and trade statutes. Read the specific agency assignment, legal basis, deadline, and exception before deciding what an order changed for workers or businesses.

Clinton’s orders built processes for economic coordination and federal labor relations. EO 12835 established the National Economic Council to coordinate domestic economic policy. EO 12871 directed agencies to develop labor-management partnerships and use collaborative approaches to improve federal operations. George W. Bush amended the regulatory-review framework through EO 13422, expanding OMB oversight of significant guidance and regulatory plans.

Obama’s EO 13563 reaffirmed cost-benefit analysis and directed agencies to review existing rules, while EO 13658 set a minimum wage for many federal contractors. Trump’s first term emphasized regulatory reduction through EO 13771, which instructed agencies to identify existing regulations for repeal when issuing new rules; a later order revoked it. Biden used executive actions to promote competition and alter contractor standards. EO 14036 directed a government-wide competition agenda, but Trump revoked it in 2025 through EO 14337 (Federal Register record). This sequence shows how different administrations can redirect agency priorities while operating within the same statutory system.

Judicial decisions set important limits on these economic actions. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), the Supreme Court overruled Chevron deference and instructed courts to exercise independent judgment when interpreting statutes. In West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (2022), the Court applied the major-questions doctrine to reject EPA’s asserted authority for a broad generation-shifting rule. Neither case voids executive orders as a class; each makes statutory authority and the scale of agency action central in litigation.

Landmark orders and turning points

• EO 12835 formalized White House coordination of domestic economic policy.
• EO 12871 set a government-wide labor-management partnership policy for federal agencies.
• EO 12866 (1993) established the regulatory-planning and OMB-review framework later amended by EO 13422 and EO 13563.
• EO 13422 (2007) amended EO 12866, expanding centralized oversight of regulatory planning and agency guidance.
• EO 13563 (2011) further amended EO 12866, reaffirming regulatory analysis and directing retrospective review of existing rules.
• EO 13771 introduced a regulatory-budgeting approach later revoked by Biden.
• EO 14036 directed agencies to address competition barriers; its Federal Register record documents the order.
• EO 14192 renewed a deregulation strategy in 2025 through agency regulatory planning.

What changed in 2025–26

Trump’s second term shifted regulatory policy through EO 14192, which set a target for identifying regulations for repeal, and EO 14219, which directs agencies to review rules for consistency with administration policy and applicable law. The administration also revoked EO 14036, ending Biden’s prior competition-policy framework. Such directives establish executive-branch priorities; they do not automatically erase regulations. Agencies still need to follow statutes, required procedures, and judicial review when changing binding rules.

Economic orders often announce reviews or reports before any rule, contract, or labor condition changes. Follow the cited statute and later agency action to determine whether a directive produced an enforceable change. Read how EO Explained checks sources and status.