Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis: Policy Analysis

On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed the executive order titled “Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis,” aiming to address escalating costs in energy, housing, and healthcare. While presented as a solution to inflation, this policy raises significant concerns from a social justice perspective, particularly regarding its impact on marginalized communities and environmental sustainability.

The executive order mandates the removal of climate-related regulations to lower fuel and energy prices, promotes domestic fossil fuel production, and seeks withdrawal from international climate agreements, such as the Paris Accord. These actions prioritize short-term economic gains over long-term environmental health, disproportionately affecting low-income and minority communities who are more vulnerable to pollution and climate change impacts. By expanding drilling and pipeline projects, the policy threatens to exacerbate environmental injustices faced by these populations.

In the realm of housing, the order directs federal agencies to review and eliminate regulations that contribute to higher construction costs, encouraging state and local governments to streamline housing approval processes. While increasing housing supply is essential, deregulation without safeguards may lead to reduced affordable housing and gentrification, displacing long-standing communities and eroding cultural heritage. The absence of explicit measures to protect affordable housing raises concerns about exacerbating housing inequities.

Regarding healthcare, the executive order focuses on reducing administrative costs and promoting pricing transparency. However, without comprehensive reforms addressing systemic issues, these measures may fall short of providing meaningful relief to underserved populations. The emphasis on market-driven solutions neglects the structural barriers that contribute to healthcare disparities, leaving marginalized groups at a continued disadvantage.

This policy aligns with the broader objectives of Project 2025, which advocates for deregulation and economic nationalism. However, the pursuit of these goals without consideration of social equity and environmental sustainability undermines the well-being of vulnerable communities. The rollback of protections in the name of economic relief poses a significant threat to the progress made in addressing systemic inequalities and environmental justice.

Key Provisions

1. Energy Policies
   • Removes climate-related regulations to lower fuel and energy prices.
   • Promotes domestic fossil fuel production and increases drilling and pipeline projects.
   • Seeks withdrawal from international climate agreements, such as the Paris Accord.
2. Housing Costs
   • Mandates reviews of federal regulations that contribute to higher construction costs.
   • Encourages state and local governments to adopt streamlined housing approval processes.
3. Healthcare Expenses
   • Focuses on reducing administrative costs in healthcare.
   • Promotes transparency in pricing and practices among healthcare providers.
4. Federal Agency Oversight
   • Requires federal agencies to identify and eliminate regulatory barriers within 30 days.
   • Implements regular reporting on progress to ensure accountability.

Historical Context and Precedent

• Relation to Past Policies:
  • Builds on the Trump administration’s first-term efforts to deregulate energy and housing markets, often at the expense of environmental protections and public health.
  • Reflects a continuation of policies aimed at prioritizing fossil fuels over renewable energy investments.
  • Contrasts with the Biden administration’s regulatory approach to climate change, affordable housing, and healthcare reform.
• Economic Context:
  • Rising inflation and cost-of-living increases have fueled public frustration, creating a political opening for this executive order.
  • Simplifies complex economic issues, ignoring structural inequalities and global market influences.
• Environmental Justice:
  • Deregulation of energy production disproportionately impacts marginalized communities, exacerbating pollution and health risks.

Broader Policy Context

The executive order reflects key priorities outlined in Project 2025, which advocates for:

• Deregulation: Framing federal oversight as a barrier to economic growth.
• Fossil Fuel Dominance: Expanding domestic energy production to achieve “energy independence.”
• Federal-State Dynamics: Shifting responsibilities to states while promoting a centralized federal approach to enforcement.

Project 2025 describes deregulation as essential to reducing costs and revitalizing the economy. For example:

“American families should not bear the burden of unnecessary regulations that stifle growth and increase prices. This administration will prioritize economic freedom to alleviate the cost-of-living crisis.”

The alignment with Project 2025 is evident in the order’s emphasis on removing barriers to fossil fuel production, housing development, and healthcare transparency. However, this approach raises concerns about its long-term impact on equity and sustainability.

Predicted Outcomes

1. Economic Impact:
   • Positive: Short-term reductions in energy and housing costs may benefit middle-income families.
   • Negative: Deregulation risks increasing economic disparities by prioritizing corporate interests over public welfare.
2. Environmental Impact:
   • Expanded fossil fuel production accelerates climate change and increases pollution.
   • Marginalized communities face heightened health risks from environmental degradation.
3. Social Equity:
   • Removal of equity-focused regulations disproportionately impacts low-income households.
   • Reduced federal oversight may widen the gap between privileged and marginalized groups.
4. Global Standing:
   • Withdrawal from climate agreements diminishes U.S. credibility on environmental leadership.
   • Signals prioritization of domestic economic concerns over global responsibilities.

State and Public Reactions

1. Legal Challenges:
   • Probability: 90%
     • Progressive states with robust regulatory frameworks, such as California and New York, are likely to sue over federal overreach.
     • Environmental and civil rights groups may challenge deregulation efforts.
2. Public Sentiment:
   • Probability: 80% Polarization
     • Supporters frame the order as a necessary response to inflation and economic hardship.
     • Opponents highlight its long-term consequences for equity and sustainability.
3. Federal-State Relations:
   • Probability: 75% Resistance
     • Sanctuary states may implement countermeasures to uphold environmental and housing standards.
     • Increased tensions between federal and state governments.

Legal and Constitutional Considerations

• Interstate Commerce Clause:
  • Potential challenges to deregulation’s impact on interstate commerce and state autonomy.
• Environmental Protections:
  • Conflicts with federal and state environmental laws may prompt litigation.

Expanded Probability Estimates

• White House – Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis
• “Trump’s Energy Priorities.” The Guardian, 22 Jan. 2025.
• “Housing Price Relief Executive Order.” World Property Journal, Jan. 2025.
• “Boosting Gas Output While Keeping Prices Low.” Reuters, 22 Jan. 2025.
• “Trump Announces Emergency Price Relief for Cost-of-Living Crisis.” Just the News, Jan. 2025.