White House sets record for deregulatory actions with 129-to-1 ratio in semiannual agenda

The Trump administration just published what it’s calling the most ambitious regulatory agenda in American history. And for once, the superlative might actually be warranted.

The Spring 2025 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions revealed 646 finalized deregulatory actions compared to just 5 new regulatory actions. That’s a 129-to-1 ratio, which doesn’t just clear the administration’s own stated goal of 10-to-1. It laps it roughly 13 times over.

The numbers behind the regulatory rollback

Of the 778 active items in the agenda, 76% were classified as deregulatory. OMB Director Russ Vought framed the effort as historically unprecedented, and the raw numbers make it hard to argue otherwise.

The administration pegged net cost savings at $211.8 billion. For context, that’s roughly the annual GDP of a mid-sized European country like Greece.

What this means for crypto and digital assets

The administration revoked Executive Order 14067, which was the Biden-era framework for digital asset oversight.

In its place, the White House established a President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets. The group’s mandate leans toward fostering innovation rather than constraining it.

Then there’s the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, created in March 2025. The reserve signals a level of institutional acceptance that goes beyond simply tolerating crypto’s existence.

Why investors should pay attention

The 129-to-1 ratio matters beyond its headline value because it reveals the administration’s willingness to use bureaucratic machinery aggressively. Regulatory agencies aren’t just pausing new rules. They’re actively unwinding existing ones.

Deregulation this aggressive tends to invite backlash. If a future administration reverses course, companies that built their strategies around light-touch oversight could find themselves exposed.

There’s also the question of whether $211.8 billion in claimed savings will hold up to scrutiny. Cost-benefit analyses for deregulatory actions are notoriously squishy. The savings are often theoretical, while the costs of removing protections can take years to become visible.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.