Illuminating Logo Illuminating Logo
☰ Menu
Share Icon Share on Facebook Share on Bluesky Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn
Back to Top

Andrew N. Vollmer

Role: Contributor

Position: Senior Affiliated Scholar, Mercatus Center at George Mason University; Former Deputy General Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

Background:
Andrew N. Vollmer is a Senior Affiliated Scholar at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. He has an extensive background in securities law, having served as the Deputy General Counsel at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In addition to his academic and legal career, Vollmer has been a prominent voice in criticizing regulatory overreach, particularly in the financial sector. His work at the Mercatus Center focuses on promoting free-market principles and limiting government intervention in the economy.

Relation to Trump:
Vollmer’s involvement in Project 2025 aligns him with broader conservative efforts to reshape the federal government, which were central to the Trump administration’s agenda. Although not directly tied to Trump during his presidency, Vollmer’s policy positions and contributions to Project 2025 indicate a shared commitment to deregulation and reducing the influence of federal agencies.

Scandals or Controversies:
Vollmer has been a part of controversial discussions surrounding Project 2025, particularly concerning the radical proposals to dismantle parts of the federal government and replace career civil servants with political appointees. These plans, which echo some of the strategies employed during the Trump administration, have drawn criticism for potentially undermining the stability and impartiality of federal institutions.

Potential Concerns:
Vollmer’s advocacy for limiting the power of regulatory bodies, like the SEC, raises concerns among those who believe in the necessity of strong financial oversight. His participation in Project 2025 suggests that he may play a role in future efforts to significantly alter the structure and function of federal agencies, potentially leading to reduced regulatory safeguards.

Sources