Increasing Economic and Geographic Mobility
Record date: 2020-12-17
Executive Order 13966 of December 14, 2020 Increasing Economic and Geographic Mobility By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 305 of title 5, United States Code , and section 301 of title 3, United States Code , it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1 . Policy and Principles. As expressed in Executive Order 13777 of February 24, 2017 (Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda), it is the policy of the United States to alleviate unnecessary
What this record contains
- Federal Register document
- 2020-27948
- Publication date
- 2020-12-17
- Citation
- 85 FR 81777
- Issuing office
- Executive Office of the President
Official record excerpt
Executive Order 13966 of December 14, 2020 Increasing Economic and Geographic Mobility By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 305 of title 5, United States Code , and section 301 of title 3, United States Code , it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1 . Policy and Principles. As expressed in Executive Order 13777 of February 24, 2017 (Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda), it is the policy of the United States to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people. Overly burdensome occupational licensing requirements can impede job creation and slow economic growth, which undermines our Nation's prosperity and the economic well-being of the American people. Such regulations can prevent American workers and job seekers from earning a living, maximizing their personal and economic potential, and achieving the American Dream. The purpose of this order is to reduce the burden of occupational regulations in order to promote the free practice of commerce, lower consumer costs, and increase economic and geographic mobility, including for military spouses. My Administration is committed to continuing this important work by partnering with State, local, territorial, and tribal leaders throughout the country to eliminate harmful occupational regulations, which are frequently designed to protect politically connected interest groups. To this end, in October 2019, my Administration announced the establishment of the Governors' Initiative on Regulatory Innovation, which works with State, local, and tribal leaders to advance occupational licensing reforms, better align State and Federal regulations, and eliminate unnecessary regulations that drive up consumer costs. Occupational regulations can protect practitioners from competition rather than protect the public from malpractice. Unfortunately, the number of occupational regulations has substantially increased over the last few decades. Since the 1950s, the percentage of jobs requiring a government-mandated occupational license has increased from less than 5 percent to between 25 and 30 percent. By requiring workers to acquire new licenses when they move to a new jurisdiction, occupational regulations reduce worker mobility, disproportionately harm low-income Americans, and are particularly burdensome to military spouses who must relocate to support the service members committed to keeping our country safe. Additionally, blanket prohibitions that prevent individuals with criminal records from obtaining occupational licenses may exacerbate disparities in employment opportunity and increase the likelihood of recidivism, particularly as regulatory barriers to enter lower- and middle-income occupations are associated with higher recidivism rates. Licensing requirements unnecessary to protect consumers from significant and demonstrable harm also frequently impose expensive educational requirements on potential job seekers, even for occupations with limited future earnings potential. According to recent research, licensing requirements have cost our country an estimated 2.85 million jobs and over $200 billion annually in increased consumer costs. Therefore, it is the policy of the United States Government to support occupational regulation reform throughout the Nation, building on occupational licensing reforms enacted most recently in Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Missouri, and South Dakota, guided by six principles: ( printed page 81778) Principle 1. All recognized occupational licensure boards should be subject to active supervision of a designated governmental agency or office. Principle 2. All occupational licensure boards recognized by a State, territorial, or tribal government that oversee personal qualifications related to the practice of an occupation should adopt and maintain the criteria and methods of occupational regulation that are least restrictive to competition sufficient to protect consumers from significant and demonstrable harm to their health and safety. The policies and procedures of such boards should be designed to protect consumer and worker safety and to encourage competition. Principle 3. State, territorial, and tribal governments should review existing occupational regulations, including associated scope-of-practice provisions, to ensure that their requirements are the least restrictive to competition sufficient to protect consumers from significant and demonstrable harm. State, territorial, and tribal governments should also regularly review and analyze all occupational regulations, including associated personal qualifications required to obtain an occupational license, to ensure the adoption of the least restrictive requirements necessary to protect consumers from significant and demonstrable harm. Principle 4. Individuals with criminal records should be encouraged to submit to the appropriate licensure board a preliminary application for an occupational license for a determination as to whether
The excerpt is reproduced from the public federal record and may omit later sections, tables, signatures or attachments. Open the official source for the complete text.
Questions for accountability
- What legal authority does this economy action cite?
- Which agencies or officials were directed to act?
- What measurable implementation, cost, deadline or later court action followed?
How to use this page
This is a source-record entry, not a truth-rating by itself. It preserves the action, date and original government publication so it can be connected to later claims, implementation records, court decisions, costs and measurable outcomes. Editorial claim reviews on this site use separate finding labels and explain the evidence for those findings.