Federal Register executive orders — 2025-04-18

Ensuring Commercial, Cost-Effective Solutions in Federal Contracts

By the authority vested in me as President, by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1 . Purpose . A major goal of my Administration is to eliminate unnecessary and imprudent expenditures of taxpayer dollars. Previous administrations evaded statutory preferences and abused the Federal contracting framework by procuring custom products and services where a suitable or superior commercial solution would have fulfilled the Government's needs. Doing so simultaneously stifled the integration of commercially available innovations in Government procurement while increasing Government spending, resulting in avoidable waste and costly delays to the detriment of American taxpayers. My Administration will enforce existing laws directing the Federal Government to utilize, to the maximum extent practicable, the competitive marketplace and the innovations of private enterprise to provide better, more cost-effective services to taxpayers.

Sec. 2 . Policy . It is the policy of my Administration that agencies shall procure commercially available products and services, including those that can be modified to fill agencies' needs, to the maximum extent practicable, including pursuant to the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-355, as amended) (FASA).

Sec. 3 . Definitions . For purposes of this order:

(a) “Agency” means an executive department, a military department, or any independent establishment within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 101, 102, and 104(1), respectively, and any wholly owned Government corporation within the meaning of 31 U.S.C. 9101(c).

(b) “Approval authority” means the senior procurement executive, designated pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1702(c), who is responsible for management direction of the acquisition system of an agency, including implementation of the unique acquisition policies, regulations, and standards of the agency.

(c) “Contracting officer” has the meaning given in 48 C.F.R. 2.101.

Sec. 4 . Review of Pending Actions . (a) Within 60 days of the date of this order, each agency's approval authority shall direct the agency's contracting officers to conduct a review of all open agency solicitations, pre-solicitation notices, solicitation notices, award notices, and sole source notices for non-commercial products or services, such as highly specialized, Government-unique systems, custom-developed products or services, or research and development requirements where the agency has not identified a satisfactory commercial option. Each contracting officer shall consolidate each such agency solicitation, pre-solicitation notice, solicitation notice, award notice, and sole source notice into a proposed application requesting approval for the purchase of the non-commercial products or services, which shall be submitted to the agency's approval authority. The proposed applications shall contain the market research and price analysis used to determine the availability of commercial products and services to meet the Government's needs and to justify the procurement of a non-commercial product or service, as required by 41 U.S.C. 3307(d) and 10 U.S.C. 3453(c) and 3453(d), as applicable, and the rationale for pursuing a Government-unique, custom-developed or otherwise non-commercial product or service.

(b) Within 30 days of the date of the receipt of the proposed applications for solicitation of non-commercial products or services under subsection (a) of this section, each approval authority shall:

(i) assess each proposed application's compliance with FASA, including the sufficiency of the market research and price analysis provided in support of the procurement of non-commercial products or services, and take appropriate action with respect to any deficiencies in the proposed application, including returning the application or any portion of the application to the contracting officer for additional research or action with respect to potential commercial products or services; and

(ii) make appropriate recommendations to advance the solicitation of commercial products or services where those products or services would be sufficient to serve the applicable procurement needs.

(c) Within 120 days of the date of this order and annually thereafter, each agency's approval authority shall provide a report to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) detailing the agency's compliance with FASA and its progress toward implementing the policies of this order.

Sec. 5 . Oversight of Non-Commercial Procurements . (a) Whenever an agency proposes to solicit a non-commercial product or service, the applicable contracting officer shall provide the agency's approval authority with a description of the proposed procurement, which shall include the specific reasons a non-commercial product or service is required, including all market research and price analysis in support of the proposed solicitation for such product or service. The approval authority shall review and approve or deny the proposal in writing.

(b) In conducting the review under subsection (a) of this section, the approval authority may seek input regarding the proposal from the Director of OMB. In such cases, the Director of OMB, in consultation with the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, shall review and assess the validity of the proposal, including the thoroughness of the market research and price analysis, and shall notify the approval authority in writing whether the Director of OMB recommends that the proposal be approved or denied.

Sec. 6 . General Provisions . (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Trump.EPS

Ensuring National Security and Economic Resilience Through Section 232 Actions on Processed Critical Minerals and Derivative Products

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1862) (the “Act”), it is hereby ordered:

Section 1 . Policy . A strong national defense depends on a robust economy and price stability, a resilient manufacturing and defense industrial base, and secure domestic supply chains. Critical minerals, including rare earth elements, in the form of processed minerals are essential raw materials and critical production inputs required for economic and national security. Critical mineral oxides, oxalates, salts, and metals (processed critical minerals), as well as their derivative products—the manufactured goods incorporating them—are similarly foundational to United States national security and defense.

But processed critical minerals and their derivative products face significant global supply chain vulnerabilities and market distortions due to reliance on a small number of foreign suppliers. These vulnerabilities and distortions have led to significant United States import dependencies. The dependence of the United States on imports and the vulnerability of our supply chains raises the potential for risks to national security, defense readiness, price stability, and economic prosperity and resilience.

Processed critical minerals and their derivative products are essential for economic security and resilience because they underpin key industries, drive technological innovation, and support critical infrastructure vital for a modern American economy. They are key building blocks of our manufacturing base and foundational to sectors ranging from transportation and energy to telecommunications and advanced manufacturing. These economic sectors are, moreover, foundational to America's national security.

Processed critical minerals and their derivative products are essential for national security because they are foundational to military infrastructure, energy infrastructure, and advanced defense systems and technologies. They are key building blocks of our defense industrial base and integral to applications such as jet engines, missile guidance systems, advanced computing, radar systems, advanced optics, and secure communications equipment.

The United States manufacturing and defense industrial bases remain dependent on foreign sources for processed critical mineral products. Many of these foreign sources are at risk of serious, sustained, and long-term supply chain shocks. Should the United States lose access to processed critical minerals from foreign sources, the United States commercial and defense manufacturing base for derivative products could face significant shortages and an inability to meet demand.

Associated risks arise from a variety of factors. First, global supply chains are prone to disruption from geopolitical tensions, wars, natural disasters, pandemics, and trade conflicts.

Second, major global foreign producers of processed critical minerals have engaged in widespread price manipulation, overcapacity, arbitrary export restrictions, and the exploitation of their supply chain dominance to distort world markets and thereby gain geopolitical and economic leverage over the United States and other competitors that depend on processed critical minerals to manufacture derivative products essential to their economic and national security and national defense. Therefore, the import dependence of the United States on processed critical minerals from foreign sources may pose a serious national security risk to the United States economy and defense preparedness.

Third, the risks arising from America's import dependence on processed critical minerals also extend to derivative products that are integral to the United States economy and economic and national security. For the United States to manufacture derivative products, it must have ready access to an affordable, resilient, and sustainable supply of processed critical minerals. Simultaneously, a resilient and sustainable manufacturing base for derivative products is vital to creating a stable demand base for processed critical minerals. Both must coexist to ensure economic stability and national security.

Finally, overreliance on a small number of geographic regions amplifies the risks posed by geopolitical instability and regional disruptions.

In light of the above risks and realities, an investigation under section 232 of the Act (section 232) is necessary to determine whether imports of processed critical minerals and their derivative products threaten to impair national security.

Sec. 2 . Definitions . As used in this order:

(a) The term “critical minerals” means those minerals included in the “Critical Minerals List” published by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) pursuant to section 7002(c) of the Energy Act of 2020 (30 U.S.C. 1606) at 87 FR 10381, or any subsequent such list. The term “critical minerals” also includes uranium.

(b) The term “rare earth elements” means the 17 elements identified as rare earth elements by the Department of Energy (DOE) in the April 2020 publication titled “Critical Materials Rare Earths Supply Chain.” The term also includes any additional elements that either the USGS or DOE determines in any subsequent official report or publication should be considered rare earth elements.

(c) The term “processed critical minerals” refers to critical minerals that have undergone the activities that occur after critical mineral ore is extracted from a mine up through its conversion into a metal, metal powder or a master alloy. These activities specifically occur beginning from the point at which ores are converted into oxide concentrates; separated into oxides; and converted into metals, metal powders, and master alloys.

(d) The term “derivative products” includes all goods that incorporate processed critical minerals as inputs. These goods include semi-finished goods (such as semiconductor wafers, anodes, and cathodes) as well as final products (such as permanent magnets, motors, electric vehicles, batteries, smartphones, microprocessors, radar systems, wind turbines and their components, and advanced optical devices).

Sec. 3 . Section 232 Investigation . (a) The Secretary of Commerce shall initiate an investigation under section 232 to determine the effects on national security of imports of processed critical minerals and their derivative products.

(b) In conducting the investigation described in subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary of Commerce shall assess the factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1862(d), labeled “Domestic production for national defense; impact of foreign competition on economic welfare of domestic industries,” as well as other relevant factors, including:

(i) identification of United States imports of all processed critical minerals and derivative products incorporating such processed critical minerals;

(ii) the foreign sources by percent and volume of all processed critical mineral imports and derivative product imports, the specific types of risks that may be associated with each source by country, and those source countries deemed to be of significant risk;

(iii) an analysis of the distortive effects of the predatory economic, pricing, and market manipulation strategies and practices used by countries that process critical minerals that are exported to the United States, including the distortive effects on domestic investment and the viability of United States production, as well as an assessment of how such strategies and practices permit such countries to maintain their control over the critical minerals processing sector and distort United States market prices for derivative products;

(iv) an analysis of the demand for processed critical minerals by manufacturers of derivative products in the United States and globally, including an assessment of the extent to which such manufacturers' demand for processed critical minerals originates from countries identified under subsections (b)(ii) and (b)(iii) of this section;

(v) a review and risk assessment of global supply chains for processed critical minerals and their derivative products;

(vi) an analysis of the current and potential capabilities of the United States to process critical minerals and their derivative products; and

(vii) the dollar value of the current level of imports of all processed critical minerals and derivative products by total value and country of export.

(c) The Secretary of Commerce shall, consistent with applicable law, proceed expeditiously in conducting the investigation as follows:

(i) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce shall submit for internal review and comment a draft interim report to the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the United States Trade Representative, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and the Senior Counselor to the President for Trade and Manufacturing.

(ii) Comments to the Secretary of Commerce from the officials identified in subsection (c)(i) of this section shall be provided within 15 days of submission of the draft interim report described in subsection (c)(i) of this section.

(iii) The Secretary of Commerce shall submit a final report and recommendations to the President within 180 days of the investigation's commencement.

(d) In considering whether to make recommendations for action or inaction pursuant to section 232(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1862(b)), the Secretary of Commerce shall consider:

(i) the imposition of tariffs as well as other import restrictions and their appropriate levels;

(ii) safeguards to avoid circumvention and any weakening of the section 232 measures;

(iii) policies to incentivize domestic production, processing, and recycling; and

(iv) any additional measures that may be warranted to mitigate United States national security risks, as appropriate, under the President's authority pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq .).

Sec. 4 . General Provisions . (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Trump.EPS

Lowering Drug Prices by Once Again Putting Americans First

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1 . Purpose . My first term included numerous significant actions, including some of the most aggressive in recent history, to deliver lower prescription drug prices to American patients. The message was clear: no longer would the executive branch sit idly by as pharmaceutical manufacturers charged patients in our Nation more than those in other countries for the exact same prescription drugs, often made in the exact same places.

These actions included encouraging the development of generic and biosimilar alternatives to higher cost brand name prescription drugs and biologics to harness competitive forces and increase access to affordable medicines. The United States also, for the first time, established a pathway to expand access to lower cost drugs imported from outside of the country. Reform efforts ensured that Government-mandated discounts were passed through to patients instead of being retained by middlemen. New price transparency rules were promulgated to allow patients, doctors, and employers to see the actual cost of prescription drugs before purchase. Insulin copayments were capped for Medicare beneficiaries, and manufacturers, instead of patients and taxpayers, were forced to foot the bill through the provision of larger discounts. I also called on the Congress to come to the table to help craft sustainable solutions that would promote innovation and affordable access for the long-term. When the Congress refused, I proposed the test of an innovative new payment mechanism that would prevent drug manufacturers from charging our patients much higher prices than those found abroad.

Combined, these bold actions were delivering real savings for American patients and set the foundation to dramatically narrow the price disparity between the United States and foreign nations over time.

Unsurprisingly, the Biden Administration reversed, walked back, or neglected many of these initiatives, undoing the progress made for American patients. The Biden Administration then signed into law the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act, which included the Medicare Prescription Drug Negotiation Program. While this program has the commendable goal of reducing the drug prices Medicare and its beneficiaries pay, its administratively complex and expensive regime has thus far produced much lower savings than projected. Further, accompanying changes to the Medicare Part D program led to inflated premiums and diminished coverage choices for seniors, prompting a taxpayer-funded bailout of insurance companies offering Part D plans. Finally, the program imposes price controls on small molecule prescription drugs, usually in tablet or capsule form, 4 years earlier than on large molecule biological products. Known as the “pill penalty,” this discrepancy threatens to distort innovation by pushing investment towards expensive biological products, which are often indicated to treat rarer diseases, and away from small molecule prescription drugs, which are generally cheaper and treat larger patient populations.

The American people deserve better. It is time to restore the progress our Nation made in my first term to deliver lower prescription drug prices by putting Americans first and making America healthy again.

Sec. 2 . Policy . It is the policy of the United States that Federal health care programs, intellectual property protections, and safety regulations are optimized to provide access to prescription drugs at lower costs to American patients and taxpayers.

Sec. 3 . Improving upon the Inflation Reduction Act . (a) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary), consistent with sections 1191 to 1198 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320f-1320f-7) and other applicable law, shall propose and seek comment on guidance for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program for initial price applicability year 2028 and manufacturer effectuation of maximum fair price under such program in 2026, 2027, and 2028. The guidance shall improve the transparency of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, prioritize the selection of prescription drugs with high costs to the Medicare program, and minimize any negative impacts of the maximum fair price on pharmaceutical innovation within the United States.

(b) Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, in coordination with the Secretary, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Director), and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, shall provide recommendations to the President on how best to stabilize and reduce Medicare Part D premiums.

(c) The Secretary shall work with the Congress to modify the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program to align the treatment of small molecule prescription drugs with that of biological products, ending the distortion that undermines relative investment in small molecule prescription drugs, coupled with other reforms to prevent any increase in overall costs to Medicare and its beneficiaries.

Sec. 4 . Reducing the Prices of High-Cost Drugs for Seniors . Within 1 year of the date of this order, the Secretary shall take appropriate steps to develop and implement a rulemaking plan and select for testing, consistent with 42 U.S.C. 1315a(b)(2), a payment model to improve the ability of the Medicare program to obtain better value for high-cost prescription drugs and biological products covered by Medicare, including those not subject to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program.

Sec. 5 . Appropriately Accounting for Acquisition Costs of Drugs in Medicare . Within 180 days of the date of this order, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register a plan to conduct a survey under section 1833(t)(14)(D)(ii) of the Social Security Act to determine the hospital acquisition cost for covered outpatient drugs at hospital outpatient departments. Following the conclusion of this survey, the Secretary shall consider and propose any appropriate adjustments that would align Medicare payment with the cost of acquisition, consistent with the budget neutrality requirement in section 1833(t)(9)(B) of the Social Security Act and other legal requirements.

Sec. 6 . Promoting Innovation, Value, and Enhanced Oversight in Medicaid Drug Payment . Within 180 days of the date of this order, the OMB Director, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, in coordination with the Secretary, shall jointly provide recommendations to the President on how best to ensure that manufacturers pay accurate Medicaid drug rebates consistent with section 1927 of the Social Security Act, promote innovation in Medicaid drug payment methodologies, link payments for drugs to the value obtained, and support States in managing drug spending.

Sec. 7 . Access to Affordable Life-Saving Medications . Within 90 days of the date of this order, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, the Secretary shall take action to ensure future grants available under section 330(e) of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 254b(e), are conditioned upon health centers establishing practices to make insulin and injectable epinephrine available at or below the discounted price paid by the health center grantee or sub-grantee under the 340B Prescription Drug Program (plus a minimal administration fee) to individuals with low incomes, as determined by the Secretary, who:

(a) have a high cost-sharing requirement for either insulin or injectable epinephrine;

(b) have a high unmet deductible; or

(c) have no healthcare insurance.

Sec. 8 . Reevaluating the Role of Middlemen . Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, in coordination with the Secretary, the OMB Director, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, shall provide recommendations to the President on how best to promote a more competitive, efficient, transparent, and resilient pharmaceutical value chain that delivers lower drug prices for Americans.

Sec. 9 . Accelerating Competition for High-Cost Prescription Drugs . Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary, through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, shall issue a report providing administrative and legislative recommendations to:

(a) accelerate approval of generics, biosimilars, combination products, and second-in-class brand name medications; and

(b) improve the process through which prescription drugs can be reclassified as over-the-counter medications, including recommendations to optimally identify prescription drugs that can be safely provided to patients over the counter.

Sec. 10 . Increasing Prescription Drug Importation to Lower Prices . Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary, through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, shall take steps to streamline and improve the Importation Program under section 804 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to make it easier for States to obtain approval without sacrificing safety or quality.

Sec. 11 . Reducing Costly Care for Seniors . Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary shall evaluate and, if appropriate and consistent with applicable law, propose regulations to ensure that payment within the Medicare program is not encouraging a shift in drug administration volume away from less costly physician office settings to more expensive hospital outpatient departments.

Sec. 12 . Improving Transparency into Pharmacy Benefit Manager Fee Disclosure . Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Labor shall propose regulations pursuant to section 408(b)(2)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to improve employer health plan fiduciary transparency into the direct and indirect compensation received by pharmacy benefit managers.

Sec. 13 . Combating Anti-Competitive Behavior by Prescription Drug Manufacturers . Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary or his designee shall conduct joint public listening sessions with the appropriate personnel from the Department of Justice, the Department of Commerce, and the Federal Trade Commission and issue a report with recommendations to reduce anti-competitive behavior from pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Sec. 14 . General Provisions . (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Trump.EPS

Restoring Common Sense to Federal Office Space Management

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1 . Purpose . The American people are spread across more than 3.8 million square miles in urban, suburban, and rural areas. To provide the highest quality services in an efficient and cost-effective manner, executive departments and agencies (agencies) must be where the people are.

President Carter signed Executive Order 12072 of August 16, 1978 (Federal Space Management), ordering the Federal Government to prioritize central business districts when siting Federal facilities in urban areas. Intended to improve these districts, President Carter's order has instead prevented agencies from relocating to lower-cost facilities.

Building on Executive Order 12072, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13006 of May 21, 1996 (Locating Federal Facilities on Historic Properties in Our Nation's Central Cities), to encourage agencies to locate their facilities in historic properties and districts, especially when located in central business areas. Much like President Carter's order, President Clinton's order failed to adequately prioritize efficient and effective Government service.

Revoking these orders will restore common sense to Federal office space management by freeing agencies to select cost-effective facilities and focus on successfully carrying out their missions for American taxpayers.

Sec. 2 . Revoking Executive Orders . (a) Executive Order 12072 is hereby revoked.

(b) Executive Order 13006 is hereby revoked.

(c) The Administrator of General Services is directed to initiate the process to amend the regulations at title 41, parts 102-79 and 102-83, Code of Federal Regulations, and to take any other steps necessary in accordance with applicable law to conform Federal office space management policy with this order.

(d) Agencies that acquire or utilize federally owned or leased space under authority other than the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 101 et seq .), as amended, shall conform to the provisions of this order to the extent consistent with applicable law.

Sec. 3 . General Provisions . (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Trump.EPS

Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1 . Purpose . The Federal Government is the largest buyer of goods and services in the world—yet conducting business with the Federal Government is often prohibitively inefficient and costly. More than 40 years ago, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) was implemented to establish uniform procedures for acquisitions across executive departments and agencies (agencies). The “vision” of the Federal Acquisition System, codified at section 1.102 of the FAR, is to “deliver on a timely basis the best value product or service to the customer, while maintaining the public's trust and fulfilling public policy objectives[,]” but since its inception, the FAR has swelled to more than 2,000 pages of regulations, evolving into an excessive and overcomplicated regulatory framework and resulting in an onerous bureaucracy.

Federal procurement under the FAR receives consistently negative assessments regarding its efficiency. Comprehensive studies such as the 2024 Senate committee report entitled “Restoring Freedom's Forge” and the 2019 report by the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations, created by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) and made up of experts in acquisition and procurement policy, conclude that the FAR is a barrier to, rather than a prudent vehicle for, doing business with the Federal Government. Its harmful effects permeate various items paid for by American taxpayers, from commercial products like laptops and office supplies to major defense weapons systems. The management and expenditure of nearly $1 trillion annually in procurements cannot continue on this trajectory. Fortunately, its inadequacies are self-inflicted and can be remedied through a comprehensive reform of the FAR.

Executive Order 14192 of January 31, 2025 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation), established that the policy of the executive branch is to be prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds and to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people. Reforming the FAR will advance this objective.

Sec. 2 . Policy . It is the policy of the United States to create the most agile, effective, and efficient procurement system possible. Removing undue barriers, such as unnecessary regulations, while simultaneously allowing for the expansion of the national and defense industrial bases is paramount. Accordingly, the FAR should contain only provisions required by statute or essential to sound procurement, and any FAR provisions that do not advance these objectives should be removed.

Sec. 3 . Definitions . (a) “FAR” means the Federal Acquisition Regulation codified at title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

(b) “Administrator” refers to the Administrator of the Office of Federal Public Procurement Policy.

(c) “Agency” means an executive department, a military department, or any independent establishment within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 101, 102, and 104(1), respectively, and any wholly owned Government corporation within the meaning of 31 U.S.C. 9101.

Sec. 4 . Reforming the Federal Acquisition Regulation . Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Administrator, in coordination with the other members of the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council), the heads of agencies, and appropriate senior acquisition and procurement officials from agencies, shall take appropriate actions to amend the FAR to ensure that it contains only provisions that are required by statute or that are otherwise necessary to support simplicity and usability, strengthen the efficacy of the procurement system, or protect economic or national security interests.

Sec. 5 . Aligning Agency Supplements to the FAR .

(a) Within 15 days of the date of this order, each agency exercising procurement authority pursuant to the FAR shall designate a senior acquisition or procurement official to work with the Administrator and the FAR Council to ensure agency alignment with FAR reform and to provide recommendations regarding any agency-specific supplemental regulations to the FAR. The Administrator, the FAR Council, and each agency designee under this subsection shall collaborate to identify and appropriately address FAR provisions that are inconsistent with the policy objectives described in section 2 of this order.

(b) Within 20 days of the date of this order, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the Administrator, shall issue a memorandum to agencies that provides guidance regarding implementation of this order. That memorandum shall ensure consistency and alignment of policy objectives and implementation regarding changes to the FAR and agencies' supplemental regulations to the FAR.

(c) The memorandum issued pursuant to subsection (b) of this section shall propose new agency supplemental regulations and internal guidance that promote expedited and streamlined acquisitions. With respect to such proposals, the Administrator shall direct the appropriate agency and its subordinate agencies to adhere to the ten-for-one requirement described in Executive Order 14192.

(d) The Administrator and the FAR Council shall issue deviation and interim guidance, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, until final rules reforming the FAR are published.

Sec. 6 . Regulatory Sunset . In amending the FAR under section 4 of this order, the Administrator, in coordination with the FAR Council, shall:

(a) identify all FAR provisions not required by statute that will remain in the FAR;

(b) consider amending the FAR such that any provisions identified in accordance with subsection (a) of this section will expire 4 years after the effective date of the final rule promulgated in accordance with section 4 of this order unless renewed by the FAR Council; and

(c) consider whether any new FAR provision not required by statute that is promulgated after the effective date of the final rule promulgated in accordance with subsection (b) of this section should include a provision stating that it will expire 4 years after its effective date unless renewed by the FAR Council.

Sec. 7 . General Provisions . (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Trump.EPS