Editor's Note:Chris Gagliardi is a consulting partner at Armanino, focusing on advising CFOs of mid-sized companies. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.

It is well known that President Trump is pursuing economic policies that include aggressive deregulation. This phenomenon has been seen before, but in his second term, the anti-regulation push has intensified. Similar to his first term, this policy direction presents both immediate opportunities and long-term risks and governance challenges for CFOs.

CFOs cannot afford to wait for these changes to fade on their own, especially in the financial services, technology, and manufacturing sectors. The reason is that regulatory trends are not static. While some industries will continue to enjoy a relaxed regulatory environment, others may face renewed scrutiny under subsequent administrations or other future shifts. The current environment requires CFOs to weigh the benefits of leveraging existing changes against the risks of volatility.

Extreme Flexibility and Cost Savings

For financial leaders, the most immediate benefit of deregulation is a reduction in compliance costs, which generates immediate operational surplus. The SEC's streamlined disclosure reforms are one example, simplifying S-1 and S-3 filing requirements related to initial public offerings.

These changes allow public companies to raise capital faster and more cheaply. For example, UiPath, a mid-sized automation and AI company, appeared to accelerate itscapital raising strategyin 2025 to fund AI infrastructure and product innovation. The updated SEC disclosure rules enabled it to quickly advance offerings and reinvest in AI projects. This newfound flexibility allows CFOs to redirect resources toward growth initiatives rather than costly compliance burdens.

Under Trump's policies, the scope for capital allocation has also expanded.Executive Order 13771, known as the "one-in, two-out" rule, was signed in January 2017, requiring agencies to eliminate two existing regulations for every new one introduced.

Although the order is considered an administrative measure, its impact is significant because it sought to cap incremental regulatory costs at zero. For many companies, this meant fewer unexpected compliance expenses and more predictable budgeting.

Large public companies have used this policy to accelerate M&A strategies. For example, JPMorgan noted in September that the top 13 U.S. banks held about $200 billion in excess capital and argued that deregulation shouldenable banks to deploythese funds for stock buybacks and acquisitions rather than leaving them idle under stricter capital constraints.

Today, tech companies benefit from a "build first, regulate later" approach. Tech Magazine notes that the revocation ofBiden-era AI safety directiveshas allowed companies like OpenAI, Microsoft, and Google Cloud to release advanced models without lengthy federal testing requirements. This deregulated environment has spurred billions of dollars in investment in AI and cloud infrastructure. For growth-stage tech companies, the ability to rapidly deploy new products is transformative, enabling aggressive go-to-market strategies that might have been shelved under stricter guidelines.

Uncertainty and Scrutiny

That said, deregulation is not a panacea for all of a CFO's current challenges. One of the most pressing concerns is regulatory uncertainty. Many of the Trump administration's rollbacks face legal challenges. The Brookings Institution think tank reports that during Trump's first term, only 22% of challenged deregulatory actionssurvived court review, and similar lawsuits are currently underway.

This means that today's investments could lead to "buyer's remorse" in the future, manifesting as high compliance costs. Reputational risk lurks within these actions. Despite federal deregulation, some investors and state regulators have stepped in, as is often the case during periods of dramatic change.

Companies leveraging federal leniency may still face lawsuits or shareholder actions. For tech companies, the absence of AI safety directives has drawn criticism from some groups, raising concerns about bias and misinformation. The challenges are real. CFOs must weigh short-term speed gains against long-term reputational damage costs.

Finally, systemic vulnerabilities never truly disappear. Critics argue that the "one-in, two-out" rule prioritizes cost cutting while neglecting rigorous risk analysis, creating blind spots in operational resilience. For CFOs, this means that even with external deregulation, strong internal controls must be maintained, as the absence of regulation does not absolve responsibility.

Seeking Balance

How should we view all this? The current environment presents new opportunities and obligations for financial leaders. Deregulation offers a chance to streamline operations, accelerate growth, and innovate, but only when paired with forward-thinking. The wisest CFOs do not view deregulation as a license to cut corners, but rather as a catalyst for informed, disciplined risk-taking.

Corporate financial leaders should seize such moments to invest in robust internal governance and develop scenario plans for regulatory reversals. They should work with stakeholders in full transparency. These safeguards enable CFOs to benefit from a more lenient regulatory environment while avoiding the pitfalls of overconfidence.