US Domestic De-Regulation & Global Re-Regulation
Trump’s second term isn’t just a sequel—it’s a radical overhaul. Deregulation at home, dominance abroad. But when do systems break?
Executive Summary
A seismic shift is underway, one that will redefine both America’s internal structure and its standing on the global stage.
The second Trump presidency is not merely an extension of his first—it is a full-scale recalibration of America’s economic and geopolitical posture.
Those who assume a return to familiar patterns will find themselves blindsided by the ferocity of change.
Domestically, the administration has embarked on a sweeping deregulatory crusade, one that aims to shrink the machinery of government and strip away its reach into the private sector.
At the center of this effort is the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency, helmed by none other than Elon Musk.
With a mandate to identify and eliminate bureaucratic excess, Musk and his team have wasted no time in targeting what they deem to be bloated agencies, inefficient programs, and regulatory overreach.
From Trump’s perspective, the intricate web of federal oversight—tightened during the Biden years—has strangled American industry, stifled growth, and weakened the nation’s economic backbone.
Now, that web is being torn apart.
The administration’s vision is clear: an economy liberated from regulatory burdens, freed to grow at an unfettered pace. And with Trump’s final term offering no need for political restraint, this effort carries an unmistakable sense of urgency.
The goal is not just to deregulate but to fundamentally reshape the role of government in economic life—perhaps even to prepare the ground for a political heir who will carry the torch forward.
Yet, while the administration is busy dismantling domestic guardrails, it is simultaneously erecting new barriers on the global stage.
In matters of international trade and diplomacy, Trump is taking a decidedly interventionist and aggressive stance. The era of multilateral concessions is over.
America, as the world’s largest consumer market, is done playing nice.
The administration is determined to wield this advantage with renewed force, renegotiating trade deals, imposing economic pressures, and asserting dominance in areas like intellectual property protection and global market access.
Gone is the passive, conciliatory tone of past administrations.
In its place stands a doctrine of power projection—one that seeks to restore the United States to its undisputed place at the helm of the global order.
The administration sees this as long overdue.
For too long, in their view, America has relinquished leverage, allowing competitors to exploit its markets, its innovations, and its influence.
Now, Trump intends to turn the tide.
Whether one views Trump’s agenda as a long-overdue course correction or a reckless upheaval is ultimately irrelevant.
These policies are not theoretical debates or campaign rhetoric—they are already in motion, reshaping the economic and geopolitical landscape in real time.
The question is not whether this transformation should happen, but rather how prepared we are for the consequences.
In an environment where change is unfolding at breakneck speed, failing to acknowledge reality is a luxury no serious investor can afford.
Because such a dual-pronged approach—one of domestic deregulation and global re-regulation—is inherently volatile.
Sweeping away the constraints of government at home while tightening America’s grip on international markets creates friction in all directions.
And when complex systems are pushed to their limits, they don’t bend—they break. The financial markets, however, so far remain eerily indifferent.
Despite the sheer scale of the shifts underway, valuations remain elevated, investors unshaken. But history offers a clear lesson: such complacency is a mirage.
Once the full magnitude of these transformations becomes apparent, the question will no longer be if something snaps, but when.
Background
A second Trump presidency will not merely continue his first-term policies; it could fundamentally alter the trajectory of both U.S. domestic and foreign policy, creating a new political and economic order both at home and abroad.
The hallmark of this agenda will likely be a dramatic shift toward economic deregulation domestically, paired with an aggressive push for global power projection, seeking to fundamentally change the structure of the global order and assert U.S. dominance in a manner unseen in recent history.
Trump’s core belief is that the U.S. government, under his leadership, should shrink its domestic regulatory role to unleash the full potential of American business, while using economic and military tools abroad to dictate terms to foreign nations, forcing them to align with U.S. interests.
Trump believes that America has chosen to avoid using its global leverage and power, to its own detriment.
The combination of unfettered domestic capitalism with a hardline approach to foreign policy would be a stark departure from traditional models of governance, where international interests and domestic stability are often balanced more cautiously.
Domestic Deregulation: Unshackling U.S. Industry
At the heart of Trump’s domestic agenda is the belief that the burden of regulation has suffocated the U.S. economy.
His second term will likely be marked by an all-out assault on the regulatory state, with a focus on drastically reducing or even eliminating entire regulatory agencies that Trump perceives as impediments to economic growth.
Trump will target agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), to name just a few.
The result of these changes will likely be an economic landscape where corporations, particularly in sectors like energy, finance, and technology, would be largely free from government constraints.
On environmental deregulation, Trump could push to fully dismantle the EPA’s powers, particularly its authority over emission standards and climate change policies, favoring policies that promote fossil fuel consumption, including new oil drilling, coal mining, and natural gas production.
The fracking industry, in particular, could see a revival under a more laissez-faire approach to environmental oversight.
The consequences of such policies could be significant, leading to lower energy prices, but also an intensification of the climate crisis as emissions rise, and the U.S. withdraws from global efforts to limit global warming.
In finance, Trump’s administration could seek to gut regulations implemented after the 2008 financial crisis, including key provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act that limit the risk-taking of banks.
This would allow banks and investment firms to increase leverage and expand lending with fewer oversight restrictions, potentially triggering financial instability in the long term.
Similarly, healthcare deregulation could also see major changes, with private insurers gaining more control over healthcare plans, while the Affordable Care Act would likely be weakened or eliminated.
The goal would be to create a system that encourages private sector innovation but could also result in a more fragmented and unequal healthcare system, where access to quality care is directly tied to individual income and corporate interests.
Trump’s corporate tax policies would further contribute to deregulation, possibly extending the tax cuts initiated in his first term.
Trump’s goal here would be to ensure that U.S. businesses are global competitors, by lowering their tax burden and removing barriers to expansion.
This would likely benefit major industries, such as energy, defense, and manufacturing, as well as big tech and finance, creating a business environment focused on expansion at all costs.
The regulatory state is being dismantled at a breakneck pace, reshaping industries overnight.
But what happens when that same philosophy is turned outward—toward global markets and military strategy?
The answer is as volatile as it is consequential.
(Continue reading for a deep dive into the geopolitical consequences of Trump's second-term doctrine.)