Biden's Record-Breaking Regulatory Run
In four years, Biden issued regulations costing an estimated $1.8 trillion, by far the highest total in American history.

The fourth and final year of the Biden administration included record levels of federal regulations—including more than a dozen new rules finalized in the last hours before Inauguration Day.
Former President Joe Biden's final year in office "set a blistering pace," writes Clyde Wayne Crews, a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), in a piece for Forbes. During 2024, the Biden administration created 3,248 new rules, by Crews' count, and finished out the year by publishing 107,262 pages in the Federal Register, the weekly publication that lists all new rules, proposed rules, and other public notices.
The number of pages in the Federal Register is a blunt, imperfect way to track the activities of the administrative state. Still, it offers a useful view of historical regulatory trends, and Biden's output in 2024 is the highest total ever recorded.
But the Biden administration didn't stop when the new year hit. In the first three weeks of 2025, Crews notes in a blog post for CEI, the outgoing administration issued 243 new rules across 7,641 pages of the Federal Register. That includes 15 final rules and 23 proposed rules that weren't published until Tuesday, January 21—the day after Trump was sworn into office—because they'd been wrapped up over the previous weekend.
That final flurry of regulatory activity cemented "Biden's legacy as a prolific regulator," writes Crews.
Not only did the number of regulations approved by Biden set new records, but the costs associated with those rules soared to new heights too. His administration issued $1.8 trillion in cumulative regulatory costs over four years, according to an analysis by the American Action Forum (AAF), which tracks the estimated regulatory costs published in the Federal Register.
That shatters the previous record, set by the Obama administration, which over eight years pushed through regulations costing $493.6 billion.
The biggest single regulation issued by the Biden administration was the new tailpipe emissions for automobiles that are scheduled to take effect in 2027. That alone will cost more than $870 billion. Even without that big hit, however, the Biden administration would have easily landed in first place.
The Trump administration has already rolled back some Biden-era rules and has signaled its intent to do more. In an executive order signed on Inauguration Day, for example, President Donald Trump ordered executive branch agencies to identify regulations that "impose an undue burden" on "consumer choice of vehicles." That doesn't undo Biden's costly tailpipe emissions rule, but it suggests an effort to loosen or remove them could be coming down the, well, pipeline.
Congress also has an opportunity to push back. As Crews notes, the Congressional Review Act allows lawmakers to rescind rules finalized within the past 60 legislative days—that is, days when Congress is in session. That could put many of Biden's last-minute regulations on the chopping block.
The Biden administration may be remembered first and foremost for its mishandling of inflation and the scandalous attempt at hiding the president's fading mental and physical abilities. Its aggressive expansion of the federal regulatory state—a record that will hopefully not be surpassed for a long time—deserves recognition too, and not in a good way.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Trying to put on my pragmatic solutions hat for once, instead of just complaining that Reason has forgotten all about liberty and individualism, I wonder if it would be possible to have an official lame duck status. From the time the polls open until inauguration and the new legislative session begins, the government can't issue any new regulations, Congress can't pass any new laws, etc. Courts and everything else would still function. You'd have to have sessions and inauguration use the same date.
Or have a shortened campaign season. Start the lame duck season as soon as the first candidates are officially accepted.
I'd push for a much shortened lame duck session. A constitutional lockdown would seem to have too much potential for unintended results in unanticipated situations or emergencies.
re: lame duck period - somewhere around a week sounds right. The new administration wouldn't be able to "hit the ground running" but there's absolutely no reason they need to.
Won't matter; the lame duck will start earlier.
Well, that would assume that Congress or the Executive branch would actually follow the laws or their own rules, a fact no currently in evidence. Or the proposed "lame duck" limitations would have so many weasel words and loopholes that the Rules Committee (now that Massie has been dumped) would have no problem doing whatever the Whip wanted them to do.
Fuck Joe Biden
Fuck Joe Biden
Joe Biden? Fuck!
No, thanks.
I prefer women.
Guess it is finally okay to mention this now that the election is done. Right eric?
Sarc is going to pissed when he sobers up and reads this.
So he'll never be pissed because he's always pissed? (Brit slang sure is confusing)
Sarc has also pissed himself….. again.
If ONLY someone had stopped Biden when they had the chance! What good is the FBI when they can't stop a corrupt candidate from running for office?
If only!
ETA: https://reason.com/2024/11/06/if-trump-wins-its-because-neither-party-had-the-guts-to-stop-him/
I'm not sure if the "karma's a bitch" meme applies to that article, but Eric sure pissed in his corn flakes with that one. I do, however, think that "Trump Derangement Syndrome" can certainly be applied to Eric when considering the bias of the Reason commentators. Although I don't admire Trump as a human and I disagree with almost everything he did during his first term, he was clearly not even remotely as bad as Biden's term, illustrating the problem with "Anyone But Trump" idiocy. The first week of Trump's second term has actually been very creative in a "wrecking ball" sort of way. Since I'm strongly in favor of taking a wrecking ball to almost everything in the Federal government lately - before completely reforming the defense department in a much more careful way - I am enjoying the spectacle for now.
Yeah, but Orange Man Bad.
Does that mean you actually admit to this article existing? That would make it the very first Reason article about regulations, right?
You are still trying the strawman argument you three retards (you, Jeff, mike) came up with? Even after being corrected dozens of times at this point?
We've never claimed these articles dont exist. We state there is an open and consistent bias to either write few of these or write them late.
You three retards realize this so created your strawman and persistent despite constantly being corrected.
It is part of your pathalogical conditions.
Oh, you moved the goalposts from "Reason never writes about regulations which makes them a bunch of leftists" to "Reason doesn't write about regulations as fast and often as I want which makes them a bunch of leftists".
Understood.
Cite?
Your pathalogical lies are happening again lol.
Question sarc. How many articles on tariffs fo we have compared to the regulatory growth? Choose your own time frame.
Look, I get you're a retarded pathalogical fool, but this is just sad.
Now why is my focus on regulatory creep. This article points out 1.8T in costs. Current tariffs are 50B and estimates of new tariffs add 20-30B more. Which cost is much much much higher? Or did you fail math as well? What is one of the primary drivers of offshoring manufacturing? Could it be the regulatory costs?
We get it. You're a fucking moron. Lol.
How many articles on tariffs fo we have compared to the regulatory growth?
More than you would like, obviously.
Which cost is much much much higher?
You're missing the point. You cite the revenue as the only cost. That is blatantly dishonest because tariffs cost the economy a lot more than just the revenue that's taken in. They incentivize the continued production of things where we do not have a comparative advantage as opposed to things where we do, which leads to opportunity cost. They are a drag on the economy because the raise the price of inputs, and they are a drag on the economy because they result in fewer exports thanks to retaliatory tariffs. They costs a lot more than just the tax revenue because they're sand in the gears of the economy.
Why are they talked about more than regulations? I think that's pretty simple. It's a matter of pragmatism. Getting rid of regulations is very difficult. Not imposing tariffs is very easy.
What is one of the primary drivers of offshoring manufacturing? Could it be the regulatory costs?
The US is still a manufacturing powerhouse. Manufacturing output has not declined. What has declined is employment in manufacturing. Why is that? Automation. People who talk about how we don't make anything anymore are uninformed, or liars like you who deliberately conflate employment with output.
So both of your arguments, tariffs only cost tax revenue and regulation is the reason we're losing manufacturing jobs, are based upon lies.
Fuck off and die, steaming pile of lefty shit.
I don’t understand how it’s “moving the goal posts” when ”Reason doesn’t write these articles” was never the claim. Could you explain it to me?
You're telling me you don't see the constant refrain of "Reason never talks about..." or "Reason ignores..." when there are articles on the subject?
Sure they don't use those exact words, but the sentiment is the same.
I won’t speak for anyone else, but when I bitch about the obvious editorial slant, my sentiment is that there is a slant, not that they never slag on Democrats.
What a stupid fucking post.
Consider the source; imagine engaging with turd!
Strategic and reluctant regulations.
Rules.
Regulations.
Red tape.
Laws.
Diktats.
Restrictions.
That's what the proggies call "good government."
You wanted the adults to be in charge, Boehm.
THE ADULTS WERE IN CHARGE BOEHM!
Tariffs though, right sarcjeff?
4 years of listening to Reason complain about Trump, a year of them wanting someone, *anyone* else, an election where they finally got 'the adults back in charge' . . .
And then we spend the rest of eternity reading them complain about the Biden administration - now that Biden is irrelevant.
Exactly. At this point they are just monkeys flinging poo.
Seems like rolling back many of these regulations will be a good thing. It's always possible that one or two of the regs were actually good/effective so let's hope the baby isn't thrown out with the bathwater.
Which ones shrike?
There’s got to be a pony buried in all this shit!
"It's always possible that one or two of the regs were actually good/effective"
I sincerely doubt it. But after you comb through the uncountable thousands of regs in the Code of Federal Regulations, please let us know if you find one! I say take a wrecking ball to the entire system, hold a huge bonfire for the CFR. Wait three months and see if anything really, really bad happens as a result, and then submit one (1) new bill in Congress of no more than ten pages to put that regulation back on the books, with specifically stated measurable time-limited goals to track the performance and an automatic sunset if unsuccessful.
Three months may not be long enough for some of the regs concerning the environment or citizens' health. But perhaps that's your intent. You don't want any regs regardless of how demonstrably beneficial.
"...You don't want any regs regardless of how demonstrably beneficial..."
Cite missing, lefty shit.
Not as-if Democrats constantly lobbying about ?free? ponies could ever possibly be associated with Costing anything! /s
Leftards really do live in a mind-f of contradictions.
So the cost of regulations completely dwarfed the cost of the tariffs that Biden continued or expanded?
Weird.
Yeah, but no mean tweets. Right reason?