Federal Competition Policy Reset: What the Revocation of EO 14036 Means for California Business Owners in 2025

Introduction

Recent changes in federal competition policy—particularly the revocation of President Biden’s Executive Order 14036 by President Trump’s Executive Order 14337—present new considerations for California business owners navigating both state and federal regulatory landscapes.

Factual/Policy Context (with recent framing)

Throughout the early to mid-2020s, policymakers, scholars, and business leaders scrutinized the effects of market consolidation across sectors like technology, agriculture, and healthcare (see, e.g., Khan, The New Brandeis Movement: America’s Antimonopoly Consensus, Harv. L. Rev. 2022; CEA, Benefits of Competition and Indicators of Market Power, May 2016). Contemporary commentary observed continued industry concentration, prompting antitrust lawsuits, agency rulemakings, and legislative proposals at both the federal and state levels (Weiser, Antitrust Enforcement in the Digital Era, Yale L.J. Forum 2024). California remained a leader in enacting pro-competition measures, including statutory bans on non-compete clauses and increased enforcement against unfair business practices (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600).

By 2024–25, some factions, including national business coalitions and select industry groups, expressed concern about regulatory overlap, compliance costs, and the potential for federal activism to chill innovation (see U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 2025 Antitrust Policy White Paper). This context formed the backdrop for the recent federal shift.

EO 14036: Key Provisions/Summary

Executive Order 14036, signed July 9, 2021, declared that excessive market concentration threatened economic liberty, worker opportunity, and consumer choice (Exec. Order No. 14036, 86 Fed. Reg. 36987 (2021)). The Order instructed all federal agencies to actively address anticompetitive practices through enforcement actions and rulemaking, with a focus on sectors like Big Tech, agriculture, telecommunications, and finance. It encouraged agency scrutiny of non-compete agreements, occupational licensing, and mergers, and established the White House Competition Council to coordinate government-wide action.

For California businesses, EO 14036 telegraphed heightened federal scrutiny and the possibility that state and federal regulatory priorities would converge, sometimes creating overlapping compliance burdens.

EO 14337: What Changed

Executive Order 14337, issued August 13, 2025, revoked EO 14036 in full (Exec. Order No. 14337, 90 Fed. Reg. 40227 (2025)). EO 14337 eliminated the “whole-of-government” federal approach to competition, dissolved the White House Competition Council, and reverted federal agencies’ competition oversight to their underlying statutory authorities. The Order also clarifies that it does not create any substantive or procedural right, benefit, or enforceable expectation for private parties.

Reasons for EO 14337

The revocation of EO 14036 was driven by several factors. Critics cited regulatory duplication and confusion between stringent state regimes (notably California) and new federal initiatives. Business organizations and some policymakers argued that EO 14036’s proactive approach increased compliance costs and potentially hampered innovation (see U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 2025 Antitrust Policy White Paper). The Trump Administration favored returning competition policy to a more traditional agency-driven model, in line with longstanding federalist principles (Weiser, 2024).

Implications/Anticipated Effects

For California business owners, most day-to-day compliance obligations stem from state law, which remains unchanged and continues to prohibit non-compete agreements and regulate unfair trade practices (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600). Federal antitrust and consumer protection law remains in force, but without a coordinated presidential directive, agency enforcement is expected to become less centralized and more variable. Tech, agriculture, and healthcare firms may see a winding down of policy-driven investigations, while ongoing federal cases will proceed on existing statutory grounds.

California is expected to remain a regulatory outlier, with strong pro-competition rules regardless of the federal administration's posture.

Practical Guidance for California Business Owners

• Continue to prioritize compliance with California law, which remains among the most aggressive and protective competition regimes in the country.

• Monitor agency advisories and litigation trends, especially relating to federal antitrust and consumer protection enforcement.

• For businesses operating across multiple states, assess variations in federal and state regulatory priorities when designing contracts or business strategies.

• Participate in industry advocacy where policy direction is unsettled or under agency review.

Bottom Line

The revocation of EO 14036 by EO 14337 shifts federal competition policy away from centralized presidential activism, but leaves California’s regulatory framework—and practical compliance obligations for state businesses—essentially unchanged. Federal enforcement risk may become more variable, but California business owners should expect and prepare for continued robust enforcement at the state level (Exec. Order No. 14337, 90 Fed. Reg. 40227 (2025); Exec. Order No. 14036, 86 Fed. Reg. 36987 (2021)).

Citations

Exec. Order No. 14036, 86 Fed. Reg. 36987 (2021); Exec. Order No. 14337, 90 Fed. Reg. 40227 (2025); Khan, The New Brandeis Movement: America’s Antimonopoly Consensus, 135 Harv. L. Rev. 1197 (2022); Council of Economic Advisers, Benefits of Competition and Indicators of Market Power (2016); Weiser, Antitrust Enforcement in the Digital Era, 133 Yale L.J. Forum 220 (2024); U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 2025 Antitrust Policy White Paper; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600.