The Biden administration’s recent burst of regulatory activity might signal a sense of urgency due to pessimistic outlooks about the upcoming election, according to Fox News commentator Liz Peek. Over the past few weeks, the administration has launched an array of new initiatives and rules that could have long-lasting impacts on various sectors of the American economy.
Peek suggests that this flurry of activity appears to be an attempt by the White House to cement certain policies before a potential loss in the November elections. Notable among these are efforts to ban developments in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve, introduce new FTC rules banning non-compete agreements, and a series of other significant changes in regulations that span employment, environmental policy, and consumer protections.
A CNN poll showing Trump leading Biden by six points, along with Fox News surveys indicating Trump’s lead in several critical swing states, seem to add to the administration’s concerns. Peek interprets these proactive measures as a strategy to secure legacy initiatives that could be quickly overturned if delayed until the end of the term, particularly if a Republican wave reclaims Congress.
The administration’s regulatory push includes potentially contentious decisions such as forgiving student loans and not banning menthol cigarettes—moves that could appeal to specific voter blocks. Other regulations, such as those affecting employment laws, might satisfy progressive agendas but have raised concerns about their long-term economic impacts.
Peek also criticizes the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) under Chair Lina Khan for what she views as overzealous regulatory enforcement, particularly against corporate mergers. For instance, the FTC’s attempt to block the acquisition of luxury fashion firms and its aggressive stance against non-compete clauses in employment contracts reflect a broader critique of the administration’s approach to business and economic policy.
In summary, Peek argues that while the Biden administration might be positioning these policies as necessary reforms, they could also be seen as hurried attempts to secure a progressive legacy in the face of potential electoral defeat. This perception is further complicated by concerns about the practicality and efficacy of these sweeping changes, which might face legal challenges or reversal under a future administration.