Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

"Because of Trump's pervasive regulatory conflicts, any attempt by the administration to gut public protections should be preceded by a detailed and thorough accounting of how such actions will impact the president and his business interests," the new analysis concludes. (Photo: Mike Maguire/Flickr/cc)

As Trump Pushes Massive Deregulatory Agenda, One Key Beneficiary: Donald Trump

"Trump's refusal to cede ownership of his businesses means the president can personally profit from gutting environmental, worker, health, and financial protections."

Jake Johnson, staff writer

As President Donald Trump and his cabinet move aggressively to implement their far-reaching and "potentially devastating" deregulatory agenda—slashing everything from environmental rules protecting the public water supply to labor standards shielding workers from harmful chemicals—many have begun to loudly raise the all-important question: who benefits? According to a Public Citizen report unveiled Wednesday, the answer in many cases is Trump himself.

"Trump promised to drain the swamp, but that's not what he's doing. He's undermining regulations in order to benefit himself, his family, and his close friends."
—Rep. David Cicilline

Authored by Public Citizen research director Rick Claypool and Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), the new analysis finds that "Trump's flurry of deregulatory policies and executive orders—especially his unconstitutional 'one in, two out' order—all point to one goal: allowing reckless corporations to regulate themselves, a model that has been spectacularly unsuccessful in the past."

"Meanwhile," Claypool and Cicilline add, "Trump's refusal to cede ownership of his businesses means the president can personally profit from gutting environmental, worker, health, and financial protections."

The report examines a total of six cases in which Trump's decision to slash a particular rule or public safeguard could ultimately be profitable for his vast business empire at the expense of workers and the environment.

Among the examples spotlighted are:

  • The EPA's proposal to repeal the Clean Water Rule, which would impose higher compliance costs on a wide variety of businesses, including golf courses ("Trump owns 12 golf courses in the U.S. that could be affected by the drinking water rule," the report notes);
  • The Trump administration's elimination of the Obama Labor Department's expansion of overtime pay to cover employees who earn up to $47,400 a year, which would have benefited many of Trump's tens of thousands of employees; and
  • EPA chief Scott Pruitt's decision to halt a planned ban on the toxic pesticide chlorpyrifos (which was supposed to take effect March 31, 2017), which is frequently used by golf courses.

Also examined are broader areas of concern, particularly Trump's sweeping proposal to overhaul the U.S. tax code and deliver massive benefits to the wealthiest Americans, the largest corporations, himself, and his family.

"If Trump's net worth is $3.5 billion, as has been reported, Trump's heirs would benefit from an estate tax repeal by at least $857 million," the analysis notes.

Claypool and Cicilline conclude their report by arguing for higher standards of government transparency, particularly for an administration awash in scandals and conflicts of interest.

"The public deserves to be informed about how the president stands to gain when his administration and legislators call for axing protections that improve and protect American lives." 
—Public Citizen
"Because of Trump's pervasive regulatory conflicts, any attempt by the administration to gut public protections should be preceded by a detailed and thorough accounting of how such actions will impact the president and his business interests," the report concludes. "The public deserves to be informed about how the president stands to gain when his administration and legislators call for axing protections that improve and protect American lives."

Public Citizen released the new analysis to coincide with Rep. Cicilline's introduction of the DRAIN the Swamp Act, which would require federal officials to disclose any potential conflicts of interest before they can carry out changes to the regulatory system.

"Trump promised to drain the swamp, but that's not what he's doing," Cicilline concluded. "He's undermining regulations in order to benefit himself, his family, and his close friends."


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
We need your help.

Support progressive journalism.

Common Dreams is not your average news site. We don't survive on clicks or advertising dollars. We rely entirely on your support. And without it, our independent progressive journalism simply wouldn’t exist. Every gift of every amount matters.

Join the fight and support our common dreams today.

MSNBC Declines to Voluntarily Recognize Newsroom Union Effort

Organizers said that "we want to support one another and make this an even better place to build a career."

Jessica Corbett, staff writer ·


Sanders Speaks Out Against 'Dangerous' Chorus Pushing for New Cold War With China

"Developing a mutually beneficial relationship with China will not be easy," the senator writes. "But we can do better than a new Cold War."

Brett Wilkins, staff writer ·


Indigenous Women Invite Deb Haaland to See Devastation of Line 3 for Herself

The tar sands project "poses a significant threat to water, Indigenous treaty rights, and worsens the global climate crisis," the group wrote to Biden's Interior Secretary.

Kenny Stancil, staff writer ·


After SCOTUS Upholds ACA, Progressives Set Sights on Medicare for All

Now, said campaigner Michael Lighty, "we can instead go to a system that will actually guarantee healthcare to everybody, which the ACA does not do and cannot do."

Jessica Corbett, staff writer ·


McConnell Makes Clear 'All Republicans Will Oppose' Manchin Voting Rights Compromise

"The idea that Manchin can pass a law to protect the vote with help from the very people it needs protecting from is suspect at best."

Jake Johnson, staff writer ·