The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is at a crossroads, facing leadership instability, regulatory slowdowns, and potential legislative shifts. With changes in political priorities and budget constraints, aerospace professionals must prepare for an evolving regulatory environment that could impact certification timelines, compliance efforts, and industry growth.
What’s Happening?
The Federal Aviation Administration is experiencing significant leadership instability, which is creating uncertainty in regulatory decision-making, delaying key initiatives, and affecting industry confidence. The FAA has been operating with multiple acting officials in critical leadership roles, which has persisted for several years. The Administrator position, the highest-ranking role in the agency, has seen frequent turnover, with acting administrators frequently stepping in without long-term policy direction. This instability disrupts continuity in aviation regulations, certification processes, and modernization efforts.
The FAA Administrator is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for a five-year term, providing stability to the agency’s operations. However, recent political transitions have resulted in short tenures, with several acting administrators leading the agency in an interim capacity. The departure of Michael Whitaker, who was expected to serve a full term, has further compounded concerns about the agency’s ability to provide consistent oversight and regulatory guidance. With no permanent administrator, the agency is left with temporary leadership that often hesitates to implement long-term policies, fearing the next appointee may overturn them.
In addition to the Administrator position, other key FAA roles remain vacant or occupied by acting officials. The Deputy Administrator, Chief of Staff, and multiple senior leadership positions responsible for aviation safety, air traffic operations, and certification oversight are managed by interim officials. This lack of permanent leadership weakens the agency’s ability to make decisive regulatory changes, delays critical rulemaking processes, and creates uncertainty for the industry.
One of the most significant consequences of this leadership instability is its effect on aircraft certification and regulatory approvals. The FAA plays a crucial role in ensuring airworthiness, but with key decision-makers in acting roles, there is often a reluctance to approve new regulations or major policy shifts. This hesitation is particularly concerning for companies working on innovative aviation technologies such as electric propulsion, EVTOL aircraft, and autonomous flight systems, as they rely on clear regulatory pathways to bring their products to market.
The uncertainty extends beyond new technology approvals. The ongoing slowdown in rulemaking, issue paper reviews, and oversight activities can create significant bottlenecks for aerospace manufacturers, airlines, and suppliers. Without permanent leadership pushing forward key initiatives, businesses may face extended delays in obtaining necessary certifications, increasing costs and slowing the pace of innovation.
Congressional oversight committees have expressed frustration with the FAA’s lack of stable leadership, calling for more decisive action to ensure regulatory consistency. However, political divisions and the broader challenges of appointing a long-term administrator continue to delay progress. As a result, the industry must remain adaptable, closely monitoring policy shifts and engaging with lawmakers to advocate for greater stability within the FAA.
The long-term impact of leadership instability at the FAA will depend on how quickly a permanent administrator and senior leadership team can be appointed. Until then, companies should prepare for potential delays in approvals, shifts in regulatory priorities, and continued uncertainty in aviation policy.
Another looming issue is regulatory rollback. While deregulation can encourage efficiency and lower costs, it also introduces uncertainty for aerospace companies, manufacturers, and operators who rely on a stable and predictable regulatory environment. The Federal Aviation Administration, one of the country's most heavily regulated agencies, is now facing pressures to streamline its operations in line with broader government efforts to limit regulation.
Summary of Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation
President Donald Trump’s Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation executive order establishes a 10-to-1 regulatory rollback requirement, significantly expanding upon his previous 2-for-1 rule under Executive Order 13771. Signed on January 31, 2025, Executive Order 14192 mandates that at least ten existing regulations must be identified for elimination for every new regulation introduced. The goal is to reduce regulatory burdens, encourage economic growth, and streamline government operations through a stricter regulatory budgeting process.
Under this order, agencies are required to ensure that the total incremental cost of new regulations is “significantly less than zero” for fiscal year 2025. This means that cost savings from deregulation must exceed any costs introduced by the new rules. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) oversees implementation, defines regulatory cost calculations, and sets agency-specific regulatory cost caps for future fiscal years.
The order includes exemptions for regulations related to national security, foreign affairs, homeland security, immigration, and internal agency management. It also revokes OMB Circular A-4 of 2023, reinstating its 2003 version to reshape regulatory impact analysis in favor of more pro-business cost-benefit assessments.
Potential Impact Based on Lessons from Executive Order 13771
The aviation industry, particularly the FAA, will likely face challenges like those experienced under Executive Order 13771. The previous 2-for-1 rule led to regulatory uncertainty, new rulemaking delays, and inconsistent safety measures enforcement. The 10-to-1 rule amplifies these risks, potentially forcing the FAA to remove vital airworthiness, certification, or operational safety regulations before implementing new aviation policies.
Delays in Airworthiness Certification and Safety Regulation
Under 13771, the FAA struggled to introduce new safety rules due to the requirement to eliminate two existing ones. With a 10-to-1 ratio, the agency will face even greater constraints in updating aircraft certification standards, EVTOL integration frameworks, and emerging aviation safety protocols. These delays could stall technological advancements and slow the approval process for next-generation aviation systems.
Regulatory Uncertainty Could Impact Investment and Industry Growth
Aerospace companies require clear, predictable regulations to develop and certify new aircraft. The uncertainty created by a high deregulation threshold may discourage investment in new technologies such as urban air mobility (UAM), electric propulsion, and autonomous flight systems. Companies may also shift focus to international certification bodies such as EASA, further complicating FAA alignment with global aviation standards.
Increased Congressional and Legal Challenges
Executive Order 13771 faced legal scrutiny and opposition from lawmakers who viewed it as an arbitrary constraint on agencies. The expanded 10-to-1 rule will likely face even stronger pushbacks from Congress, regulatory agencies, and industry groups, particularly in sectors like aviation, environmental protection, and healthcare, where regulatory frameworks are crucial for public safety.
How Will Deregulation Shape the Future of Part 23, Part 27, and Part 25?
With the 10-to-1 deregulation mandate, how will the FAA approach regulatory consolidation without compromising safety? Could Part 27 (Small Rotorcraft) be absorbed into Part 23 (General Aviation Aircraft) as part of a broader effort to streamline certification? If so, would performance-based amendments sufficiently address the unique characteristics of helicopters, or would critical safety provisions be lost in the process? Similarly, what would a performance-based Part 25 (Transport Category Airplanes) mean for the industry? Would increased flexibility in compliance enhance innovation, or would fewer prescriptive requirements weaken safety margins? If deregulation accelerates these changes, will they be driven by a structured regulatory strategy or the pressure to eliminate existing rules?
As the aviation industry navigates these uncertainties, the key question remains: Is deregulation shaping a more efficient certification framework or creating regulatory gaps that could have long-term consequences?
Conclusion: A Deregulation Mandate with High Risks for Aviation
The 10-to-1 rule introduced in Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation represents one of U.S. history's most extreme regulatory rollback efforts. While proponents argue that it will reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies, the aviation industry should prepare for delays in safety approvals, pressure to remove existing airworthiness standards, and increased regulatory uncertainty.
To mitigate these risks, aerospace stakeholders should:
Engage with industry associations and policymakers to advocate for safety-critical regulations.
Monitor FAA regulatory actions to track how the rule impacts certification and compliance.
The long-term implications of this executive order will depend on how aggressively agencies implement it, whether exemptions are granted, and whether legal or congressional actions modify its scope. The aviation sector must remain proactive in ensuring that safety and technological progress are not sacrificed in the name of deregulation.
Legislative Players and Policy Influence
Several congressional committees and subcommittees are crucial in shaping FAA policies, overseeing regulatory actions, and determining the agency’s budget. Understanding their functions can help industry stakeholders anticipate changes and engage effectively in policy discussions.
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s Aviation Subcommittee oversees the FAA and is responsible for shaping policies related to air safety, air traffic management, aircraft certification, and airport development. It plays a central role in drafting FAA reauthorization bills, which define the agency’s long-term funding and regulatory priorities. Decisions made here influence aviation safety regulations, modernization funding, and the integration of new technologies such as electric propulsion and autonomous aircraft.
The House Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development (THUD) controls the FAA’s budget. It determines how much funding is allocated to regulatory enforcement, airport infrastructure projects, and aviation research. Any budget reductions could lead to slower certification processes, delays in rulemaking, and limited resources for regulatory updates. This subcommittee’s decisions directly impact the FAA's operational efficiency, affecting everything from the agency’s ability to hire inspectors to its capacity to oversee emerging aviation technologies.
The House Science, Space, and Technology Committee’s Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics focuses on research and development efforts in aviation and aerospace. It works closely with NASA and private industry to guide advancements in urban air mobility, EVTOL aircraft, and the integration of new propulsion technologies. Companies developing next-generation aviation solutions should pay close attention to this subcommittee, as its regulatory recommendations will shape the future of air transportation systems.
On the Senate side, the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee’s Aviation Subcommittee significantly regulates commercial aviation. This subcommittee is responsible for setting policies on pilot training standards, aviation safety protocols, and FAA modernization efforts. It works alongside the House Aviation Subcommittee to draft and negotiate FAA reauthorization bills, ensuring legislative alignment on funding and regulatory direction. Key decisions from this committee influence the pace at which new aviation regulations are introduced and how compliance requirements evolve.
The Senate Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development (THUD) mirrors its House counterpart in determining FAA funding levels. Its decisions affect how much money is allocated to air traffic control modernization, safety oversight programs, and infrastructure projects. If financial constraints arise, these budgetary decisions could limit the FAA’s ability to hire staff, conduct inspections, and implement new regulatory frameworks.
The Senate Armed Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Airland focuses on military aviation programs, overseeing how commercial technologies integrate into defense applications. This subcommittee evaluates funding for military aircraft programs and dual-use aviation technologies that could impact commercial and defense sectors.
The decisions made by these committees shape the pace of regulatory change, the availability of FAA resources, and the overall trajectory of the aviation industry. Legislative actions taken in these subcommittees determine whether certification processes are expedited or delayed, how safety regulations evolve, and what funding is available for industry advancements. Aerospace companies must monitor developments closely and engage with industry trade associations or lobbying efforts to ensure their interests are represented in policymaking.
Why These Subcommittees Matter?
The interplay between these legislative bodies determines how quickly regulatory changes take effect, how well FAA is funded, and how smoothly certification processes run. Businesses operating in the aerospace sector should monitor developments in these subcommittees, as their decisions can directly impact compliance requirements, safety protocols, and industry growth opportunities. Engaging with these committees through industry trade associations, lobbying efforts, or direct outreach can help companies advocate for policies that support innovation while ensuring a stable regulatory framework.
Lobbying efforts remain a critical tool for influencing policy. Large corporations, manufacturers, and industry groups invest heavily in advocacy, but grassroots lobbying—where businesses directly engage with lawmakers representing their districts—can also be highly effective. Legislators respond to economic concerns from local businesses, making it vital for aerospace companies to communicate the impact of regulatory delays and funding constraints on job creation and technological advancements.
Final Thoughts
The aviation industry is entering a period of transformation where regulatory shifts, budget constraints, and political decisions will shape future operations. Companies actively engaging in policy discussions and adapting to evolving compliance requirements will be better positioned to thrive. The question remains: How will the industry balance the need for innovation with regulatory stability in the coming years?
Let’s discuss what you think the biggest challenge will be for aerospace companies navigating these changes.
Links
Comments