$FMKT: Why Washington Is Quietly Loosening Rules Into the 2026 Election Cycle
Deregulation rarely dominates election-year headlines, yet Washington is steadily unwinding rules across energy, technology, and banking. This shift isn’t a wholesale return to past free-market eras. It’s a targeted recalibration aimed at boosting America’s competitiveness as global rivals expand their own industrial and technological ambitions.
Corporate leaders have already taken notice. Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon recently remarked that the current regulatory posture is improving America’s competitive standing, suggesting that after years of regulatory tightening, the pendulum may finally be swinging back.¹ With permitting eased, compliance burdens trimmed, and agencies re-evaluating their rulebooks, investors are beginning to wonder whether this quieter deregulatory turn could create a real economic tailwind.
Below is a concise look at where deregulation is unfolding most rapidly—and how it may shape markets heading into 2026.
Energy: Rewiring the System for Reliability and Speed
Energy is experiencing the most visible and aggressive unwind. The Environmental Protection Agency recently reversed or paused more than 30 rules in a single day, an unprecedented string of rollbacks touching air, water, and power-plant regulations.²
The EPA argues that rapidly rising electricity demand—especially from energy-hungry data centers—makes premature plant closures unrealistic. The grid, they say, needs every available source of baseload power. To that end, the agency has delayed tougher wastewater standards, granted emissions exemptions to dozens of coal plants, and rolled back carbon and mercury rules once treated as core pillars of federal environmental policy.³ Administrator Lee Zeldin has framed the shift as balancing cleaner air with affordability and reliability.⁴
Meanwhile, the Interior Department has revived lease sales for oil, gas, and coal on federal lands.⁵ The Energy Department has also launched a sweeping “zero-based regulation” review aimed at eliminating or shrinking dozens of rules—from appliance standards to industrial reporting mandates—to reduce cumulative drag on domestic energy output.⁶
The practical effect is unmistakable: lower compliance costs, faster permitting, and new life for projects that once stalled under regulatory scrutiny. LNG terminals, pipelines, refinery expansions, and uranium mining are suddenly facing fewer hurdles. Supporters say this keeps prices stable and infrastructure aligned with demand; critics warn of environmental risks and potential legal battles.
For investors, the near-term message is clear: traditional energy and power-intensive industries are operating under a materially lighter regulatory load.
Technology: Deregulation as a Competitive Weapon
If energy deregulation is about shoring up reliability, tech deregulation is about accelerating innovation.
The administration’s AI blueprint favors rapid construction of data centers, expedited environmental reviews, and flexibility around power-intensive infrastructure. Agencies have been instructed to carve out NEPA exemptions, accelerate grid-connection approvals, and—significantly—allow construction to begin before all permits are finalized.⁷
The rationale is simple: innovation velocity determines leadership. At a recent summit, President Trump argued that over-regulation poses a greater threat to U.S. AI leadership than foreign competitors.⁸
Deregulation extends beyond physical infrastructure. Earlier initiatives to develop “trustworthy AI” guardrails have been paused, algorithm-bias rules shelved, and certain chip-export restrictions loosened for allied nations.⁹ Regulators have also taken a lighter approach toward fintech and digital-asset enforcement as part of a broader effort to retain high-growth technology within U.S. borders.¹⁰
This environment reduces uncertainty for cloud providers, chipmakers, AI developers, and data-center operators. Faster approval cycles translate into faster deployment and scaling. The divergence from Europe—moving toward heavier digital oversight—also gives U.S.-based companies a relative advantage.
Risks remain, from privacy concerns to the possibility that innovation outruns governance. But for now, Washington is essentially telling the tech sector: build, expand, and innovate with fewer constraints.
Banking: A Quiet but Consequential Rule Shift
Banking deregulation is less visible day-to-day but potentially more transformative. For the first time in more than a decade, large U.S. banks appear likely to face lower capital requirements rather than higher ones.
Analysts estimate that the deregulatory agenda could reduce large banks’ capital buffers by roughly 14%, unlocking more than $100 billion currently sitting idle on balance sheets.¹¹ That capital can be redeployed into lending, investment, and technology. Executives at JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs have already highlighted this shift to investors.¹
Supervisory tone has changed as well. Regulators have delayed or canceled examinations, paused climate-risk reviews, and taken a more permissive stance toward regional-bank mergers.¹² The OCC is emphasizing streamlined, risk-focused exams rather than wide-ranging compliance sweeps.¹³
More deployable capital typically means more credit creation, more liquidity, and potentially higher returns on equity. The U.S.–Europe regulatory divergence reinforces these dynamics: European banks face increasingly strict rules even as American banks see relief.
Critics warn that loosening oversight risks repeating past excesses, and some economists have urged caution.¹³ Regulators counter that core safeguards remain intact—what’s being removed are duplicative layers that suppress lending and competitiveness.
Markets are treating the shift as meaningful, with bank stocks responding favorably to early signs of relief.
Investing in Deregulation: The Free Markets ETF
The Free Markets ETF (FMKT) was built explicitly to capture this environment—an ETF designed to benefit from deregulation across sectors.¹⁴
Its holdings range from uranium producers to fintech platforms to regional banks—industries where managers believe regulatory relief is most likely to boost earnings. The thesis is straightforward: deregulation acts like a structural cost reduction, freeing capital that companies can redirect toward expansion, hiring, acquisitions, and technology upgrades.
FMKT is actively managed, giving the team flexibility to rotate as the regulatory landscape evolves. Political reversals remain a risk—its prospectus warns that policy trends can shift quickly—but if current momentum continues through 2026, the ETF offers a direct way to express a bullish view on freer markets.¹⁶
The Bottom Line
Across energy, technology, and banking, Washington is quietly reshaping the regulatory climate in ways that could influence corporate investment, profitability, and growth for years. Whether one sees this movement as overdue modernization or risky overreach, the direction is unmistakably toward less red tape.
For investors, the opportunity lies in identifying where regulatory relief translates into earnings power and accelerated growth. Deregulation may not dominate headlines, but its market implications rarely remain quiet for long.
Footnotes
Tatiana Bautzer and Nupur Anand, “US banks cheer regulators’ steps toward easing capital requirements,” Reuters, October 14, 2025.
Valerie Volcovici, “Trump moves to unwind over two dozen US air, water regulations,” Reuters, March 12, 2025.
Valerie Volcovici, “Trump seeks to ease US regulations for coal-fired power plants,” Reuters, November 25, 2025.
EPA Press Office, “Administrator Zeldin Announces Actions to Unleash American Energy,” EPA, September 29, 2025.
Nichola Groom, “Trump administration plans coal lease sales in Alabama, Montana and Utah,” Reuters, September 3, 2025.
U.S. Department of Energy, “Energy Department Slashes 47 Burdensome Regulations,” May 12, 2025.
Timothy Gardner, “Trump gives U.S. agencies power to fast-track big infrastructure projects,” Reuters, January 20, 2025.
Jarrett Renshaw and Alexandra Alper, “Trump administration to supercharge AI sales to allies, loosen environmental rules,” Reuters, July 24, 2025.
Reuters, “Winning the AI Race Summit – Trump Remarks,” July 23, 2025.
Alexandra Alper, “White House names David Sacks as AI and crypto czar,” Reuters, June 2025.
Financial Times, “Bank deregulation set to unlock $2.6tn of Wall Street lending capacity,” October 12, 2025.
Hannah Lang, “FDIC moves to roll back merger policy,” Reuters, October 2025.
George Tchetvertakov, “‘Regulatory Rollback’ to Unlock $2.6T in Bank Lending,” TipRanks, October 16, 2025.
Suzanne McGee, “US firms launch ETF to capitalize on Trump’s deregulation push,” Reuters, June 10, 2025.
Free Markets ETF Prospectus, SYKON Asset Management, 2025.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
The Fund’s investment objectives, risks, charges, expenses and other information are described in the statutory or summary prospectus, which must be read and considered carefully before investing. You may download the statutory or summary prospectus or obtain a hard copy by calling 855-994-4004 or visiting www.freemarketsetf.com. Please read the Prospectuses carefully before you invest.
Investing involves risk including the possible loss of principal.
FMKT is distributed by Foreside Fund Services, LLC.
Find full holding details and learn more about FMKT at
http://www.freemarketsetf.com.
Holdings are subject to change.
Deregulation Strategy Risks.The Fund’s strategy of investing in companies that may benefit from deregulatory measures entails significant risks, including those stemming from the unpredictable nature of regulatory trends. Deregulation is influenced by political, economic, and social factors, which can shift rapidly and in unforeseen directions. Changes in government priorities, political leadership, or public sentiment may result in the reversal of existing deregulatory policies or the introduction of new regulations that could adversely affect certain industries or companies. Further, while the Fund invests in companies expected to benefit from deregulatory initiatives, not all of these companies may achieve the expected advantages, whether fully, partially, or at all. The actual impact of deregulatory measures may vary widely depending on a company’s specific operational, financial, and competitive circumstances. Companies may also face challenges adapting to new regulatory environments, or their competitive positioning may be undermined by other market factors unrelated to deregulation. These risks could negatively affect the performance of the Fund’s portfolio.
Underlying Digital Assets ETP Risks. The Fund’s investment strategy, involving indirect exposure to Bitcoin, Ether, or any other Digital Assets through one or more Underlying ETPs, is subject to the risks associated with these Digital Assets and their markets. These risks include market volatility, regulatory changes, technological uncertainties, and potential financial losses. As with all investments, there is no assurance of profit, and investors should be cognizant of these specific risks associated with digital asset markets.
● Underlying Bitcoin and Ether ETP Risks: Investing in an Underlying ETP that focuses on Bitcoin, Ether, and/or other Digital Assets, either through direct holdings or indirectly via derivatives like futures contracts, carries significant risks. These include high market volatility influenced by technological advancements, regulatory changes, and broader economic factors. For derivatives, liquidity risks and counterparty risks are substantial. Managing futures contracts tied to either asset may affect an Underlying ETP’s performance. Each Underlying ETP, and consequently the Fund, depends on blockchain technologies that present unique technological and cybersecurity risks, along with custodial challenges in securely storing digital assets. The evolving regulatory landscape further complicates compliance and valuation efforts. Additionally, risks related to market concentration, network issues, and operational complexities in managing Digital Assets can lead to losses. For Ether specifically, risks associated with its transition to a proof-of-stake consensus mechanism, including network upgrades and validator centralization, may add additional uncertainties.
●Bitcoin and Ether Investment Risk: The Fund’s indirect investments in Bitcoin and Ether through holdings in one or more Underlying ETPs expose it to the unique risks of these digital assets. Bitcoin’s price is highly volatile, driven by fluctuating network adoption, acceptance levels, and usage trends. Ether faces similar volatility, compounded by its reliance on decentralized applications (dApps) and smart contract usage, which are subject to innovation cycles and adoption rates. Neither asset operates as legal tender or within central authority systems, exposing them to potential government restrictions. Regulatory actions in various jurisdictions could negatively impact their market values. Both Bitcoin and Ether are susceptible to fraud, theft, market manipulation, and security breaches at trading platforms. Large holders of these assets (”whales”) can influence their prices significantly. Forks in the blockchain networks—such as Ethereum’s earlier split into Ether Classic—can affect demand and performance. Both assets’ prices can be influenced by speculative trading, unrelated to fundamental utility or adoption.
● Digital Assets Risk: Digital Assets like Bitcoin and Ether, designed as mediums of exchange or for utility purposes, are an emerging asset class. Operating independently of any central authority or government backing, they face extreme price volatility and regulatory scrutiny. Trading platforms for Digital Assets remain largely unregulated and prone to fraud and operational failures compared to traditional exchanges. Platform shutdowns, whether due to fraud, technical issues, or security breaches, can significantly impact prices and market stability.
● Digital Asset Markets Risk: The Digital Asset market, particularly for Bitcoin and Ether, has experienced considerable volatility, leading to market disruptions and erosion of confidence among participants. Negative publicity surrounding these disruptions could adversely affect the Fund’s reputation and share trading prices. Ongoing market turbulence could significantly impact the Fund’s value.
● Blockchain Technology Risk: Blockchain technology underpins Bitcoin, Ether, and other digital assets, yet it remains a relatively new and largely untested innovation. Competing platforms, changes in adoption rates, and technological advancements in blockchain infrastructure can affect their functionality and relevance. For Ether, the dependence on its proof-of-stake mechanism and smart contract capabilities introduces risks tied to network performance and scalability. Investments in blockchain-dependent companies or vehicles may experience market volatility and lower trading volumes. Furthermore, regulatory changes, cybersecurity incidents, and intellectual property disputes could undermine the adoption and stability of blockchain technologies.
Recent Market Events Risk. U.S. and international markets have experienced and may continue to experience significant periods of volatility in recent years and months due to a number of economic, political and global macro factors including uncertainty regarding inflation and central banks’ interest rate changes, the possibility of a national or global recession, trade tensions and tariffs, political events, war and geopolitical conflict. These developments, as well as other events, could result in further market volatility and negatively affect financial asset prices, the liquidity of certain securities and the normal operations of securities exchanges and other markets, despite government efforts to address market disruptions.
New Fund Risk. The Fund is a recently organized management investment company with no operating history. As a result, prospective investors do not have a track record or history on which to base their investment decisions.
. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC is not an affiliate of Tidal/Toroso, Tactical Rotation Management, LLC, SYKON Asset Management, Point Bridge Capital, or ACA/Foreside.