Tag Archives: united states

Time for Congress to Reform the SEC’s Outdated Accredited Investor Definition

Startup Ecosystems, Startups, , , , , , ,

Public policy isn’t just a framework for startups and investors, it’s a gatekeeper deciding who gets to play the game. And few policies are as restrictive as the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) definition of an “accredited investor.” This definition has long determined who can and cannot invest in private securities offerings (i.e. startups), not based on financial literacy, experience, or sophistication, but rather on wealth thresholds set decades ago.

The SEC’s framework for accredited investors is outdated, in a manner that contributes to assertions of discrimination, and actively harming the ability of startups to access early-stage capital. The 2025 Trump administration is clearing taking different approaches to financial regulations, but the real power to fix this issue lies with Congress.

What Is an Accredited Investor and Why Does It Matter?

An individual who meets one of the following financial criteria is considered accredited:

  • Income: An individual must have earned at least $200,000 per year ($300,000 if combined with a spouse or spousal equivalent) in the previous two years, with the expectation of maintaining that level.
  • Net Worth: Alternatively, an individual must have a net worth of at least $1 million, excluding the value of their primary residence.

These thresholds, established in the early 1980s, were designed to protect investors from financial ruin due to risky, illiquid investments – which, let’s be absolutely clear, investing in startups is exceptionally high risk, and most people should NOT. The mistake underlying that threshold though is that wealth equates to financial sophistication or understanding of startups – and let’s also be crystal clear, that’s just b.s. The implication: A fundamentally flawed system that limits investment opportunities to a small, likely inexperienced or actually unqualified class of individuals, disproportionately excluding minorities, rural investors, and those without generational wealth.

For decades, these financial thresholds have remained unchanged, despite inflation and the rapid expansion of financial literacy tools. If indexed for inflation, today’s accredited investor requirements would be closer to $3.5 million in net worth and $700,000 in annual income. Meanwhile, countless capable investors remain locked out, unable to support entrepreneurs and contribute to the startups that drive our economy.

The Impact of Restrictive Investment Rules on the U.S. Economy

Startups and small businesses are the backbone of the American economy. With over 35 million small businesses employing nearly 46% of the private-sector workforce, and startups the source of most job creation, early-stage capital is an essential economic engine (best left to the private sector and investors). However, a lack of investor diversity and access to funding networks remains one of the biggest barriers to capital for these businesses.

  • Fewer than 19% of U.S. households qualify as accredited investors, meaning the vast majority of Americans are legally barred from funding startups.
  • Only 1.3% of angel investors are Black, and 2.3% are Hispanic.
  • Just 1.7% of VC-backed startups have a Black founder, and 1.3% have a Latino founder.

By restricting who can invest, the SEC is artificially suppressing the flow of capital that could be fueling new businesses, technological breakthroughs, and job creation. These regulations aren’t protecting investors — they’re harming economic growth and, frankly, restricting individual rights.

What’s worse? The SEC has been considering raising the financial thresholds, further reducing the number of people who qualify to invest. If enacted, this would mean fewer investors, fewer startups getting funded, and even greater economic inequality.

Since so Risky, should we Expand Investment Access for All??

The argument for reform is straightforward:

  • Financial education and experience, not wealth, should determine investment eligibility. Wealth is not a proxy for sophistication. Millions of professionals — accountants, financial advisors, startup operators, startup development organization leaders, economists, and business owners — possess the expertise to evaluate investment risks yet remain excluded under the current definition.
  • Cost-of-living differences distort the thresholds. High-income earners are concentrated in coastal cities, meaning investors in lower-cost regions (often in the Midwest and South) are disproportionately shut out. This creates a geographic imbalance in startup investment that disadvantages companies outside of major hubs; this is in part why, venture capital seems flusher from Silicon Valley and New York – not better startups, per se; simply the fact that the wealth able to invest is concentrated there, because of the higher cost of living.
  • Congress has already shown bipartisan support for reform. Last session, multiple bills aimed at expanding accredited investor eligibility passed the House with broad support. With the 2025 administration likely to take a more deregulatory stance, now is the time for Congress to revisit and pass these reforms.
  • Simple matter of individual rights. Particularly in the matter of startups, with which policy-makers and government employees are, pragmatically, among the least qualified to vet, we have here an circumstance of good intentions causing harm. A somewhat understandable goal of protecting people from investing in an asset class with a 90% likelihood of losing everything, results in inexperienced legislators preventing people from doing so simple because they aren’t wealthy enough. In the classic sense of Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right, the limits here infringe upon an individual right that should be protected: the personal decision to do so.

A study in the Journal of Business Venturing found that diverse investor groups are more likely to fund diverse entrepreneurs, leading to greater innovation and stronger economic growth. Expanding the definition of an accredited investor isn’t just about fairness, it’s about economic competitiveness. The U.S. cannot afford to stifle capital access while other nations modernize their financial markets.

The Role of the 2025 Administration and the Call to Congress

The Trump administration has historically favored deregulation and economic expansion, meaning there is a real opportunity to push for SEC reforms that open private market investment to a broader swath of Americans. It could be again, but let’s be clear: this issue is not solely in the hands of the White House.

Congress must take legislative action to modernize the accredited investor definition. The SEC has had decades to fix this problem and has only inched toward minor reforms. Lawmakers must step up and mandate real change that reflects modern investing knowledge, not just outdated income brackets.

Call on Congress, particularly U.S. House Committee on Financial Services Chairman French Hill and Ranking Member Maxine Waters, and U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Chairman Tim Scott and Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren to, at least:

  1. Expand accreditation criteria beyond wealth thresholds. Allow financial education, industry certifications, and work experience to qualify investors.
  2. Index financial thresholds to inflation. If wealth remains a factor, it should at least reflect economic reality.
  3. Incorporate cost-of-living adjustments. Ensuring investors in lower-cost regions aren’t unfairly excluded.

Engine, a policy coalition that connects startups and government, has drafted a letter to Representatives (you can read it here), but better than that, they have a simple online form to fill out to get your signature behind it (do that here).

Later this month, policymakers from the House Financial Services Committee are expected to hold a hearing to consider proposals to improve capital access for startups. Expanding the accredited investor definition would allow greater participation in the startup ecosystem, giving more people the opportunity to invest in startups, and resulting in more startups receiving funding.

The Government is Being Run Like a Startup — And Maybe it Should Be

Economic Development, , , ,

For decades, we’ve spent an obscene amount of time arguing about whether the U.S. Constitution is a living document or set in stone. Whether the Amendments should be revisited, rewritten, or left alone. Whether the rules written by men in powdered wigs should still govern a nation where you can generate artificial intelligence in your pocket, get groceries delivered by drone, and pay for them with crypto you earned selling NFTs of cartoon apes.

Maybe — just maybe — we’re asking the wrong question.

It’s not if our laws should change. Of course they should. Everything evolves. The better question is: why are we still operating as a government modeled in 1776 with so much of 2025 freely available?

  • The Industrial Revolution (Factories, mass production, transportation)
  • The Railroad System (Connecting an entire continent at high speed)
  • The Telephone & Radio (Instant communication across distance)
  • The Internet (Borderless commerce, knowledge, and interaction)
  • Venture Capital (Scalable, high-performance investment in ideas)
  • Global Markets (The ability to trade, hire, and build across nations)
  • Artificial Intelligence (Automated decision-making at speeds government could never dream of)
  • The Gig Economy (Flexible workforces responding to demand in real-time)
  • Blockchain & Cryptocurrencies (Secure, decentralized transactions outside of legacy banks)

And yet, somehow, the one thing that hasn’t changed is how we run the government.

We’ve rebuilt our economy, our transportation networks, our communication systems, and even our money. But Washington, D.C. still operates like a bloated 18th-century bureaucracy, drowning in inefficiency, slow-moving committees, and archaic decision-making.

So much so, that in 2025, as it’s clearly trying to change, voters, establishment, and institutions are publicly and very vocally trying to fight that change.

Spend a few minutes with me and let’s explore what being like startups might mean as a government, and while you’re here with me, keep me in check because I don’t want this to be about left or right, the current administration, or the political parties; though indeed, the last few weeks have made this rise to the majority of my headspace. This is about the fact that government is outdated, inefficient, and structured in a way that would bankrupt any private-sector organization forced to compete in the real world.

What if, instead of running the U.S. like a legacy institution, we ran it like a portfolio of startups?

What if we applied the best practices of modern innovation — lean operations, market-driven policies, rapid iteration, and performance accountability — to the most powerful entity in the world?

For the first time in history, the U.S. government is being pushed to behave more like startups. Not perfectly. Not always intentionally. But undeniably, it’s being run in a way that prioritizes speed, experimentation, and market feedback rather than the slow to turn ship that we’ve been riding.

I’ve been thinking about this and want to ensure you are too, because while I’d argue this shift is an improvement, there’s one fatal flaw: taxpayers aren’t acting like investors. The methodologies of startups work exceptionally well but only because ownership, accountability, and reward, align with risks taken. And let me point out so it’s clear, I’m not saying “a startup” (as I’ve noticed some claim or criticize); startups do indeed fail, frequently, and no we don’t want or can’t have our government failing, but we can expect it to operate more like a portfolio of startups, behaving as such, because it’s the startup sector of our economy that solves problems, creates jobs, and develops wealth. Which is what we want.

If we want a government that actually works, we need to stop treating taxes like a blank check to an incompetent bureaucracy and start demanding venture-style ROI.

Remove Yourself from Partisan Opinion, Government is Bloated

On hopefully that most can agree, for decades, government has operated like a bloated legacy corporation, drowning in bureaucracy, resistant to change, and terrified of risk. We are today seeing something new and while you might not like it, or who’s involved, we should explore and understand it: a government that moves fast, breaks things, and iterates based on real-world feedback.

This is the essence of startup methodology — and we could explore what we teach entrepreneurs about minimum viable products (MVPs), gathering user feedback, pivoting when necessary, and scale only when demand proves it’s worth it.

  • We’re seeing new policies rolled out as prototypes—tested in real-time, refined based on public response, and sometimes scrapped altogether when they fail.
  • The administration is obsessed with market signals—paying attention to social media sentiment, economic indicators, and even pop culture in ways we’ve never seen before.
  • There’s a focus on iterating policy fast—from economic stimulus experiments to regulatory overhauls designed to meet the moment.

America, for the first time in modern history, is acting like an ambitious startup: making bets, testing theories, and adapting to reality instead of pretending to be all-knowing. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than the alternative: governments that double down on bad decisions just to save face; we can agree, we collectively haven’t been happy with it for decades.

Consider What Actually Kills Startups — To Understand if the Government is Meaningfully Trying

The two biggest reasons startups fail are:

  1. They ignore what the market actually wants.
  2. They have the wrong team running the company.

Sound familiar? That’s government dysfunction in a nutshell.

(1) Market-First Government: What Do People Actually Want?

Startups succeed when they’re market-driven, not idea-driven. The same is true for governments and so we can ask, are policy makers?

  • Paying attention to real-time sentiment data (polling, social trends, voter engagement).
  • Rolling out policies in response to actual demand, rather than ideology alone.
  • Using A/B testing on legislation, trying localized pilot programs before implementing nationwide policies.

The administration should be obsessed with real-world feedback loops. Whether it’s economic stimulus, immigration policy, or foreign relations, policy being tested, reviewed, and revised constantly, in public is what we want – stop demonizing when they discern or discover that something proposed is NOT what we want or not going to work, that’s the point!

It’s not always clean. But it’s responsive. And that’s the first step to making government work.

(2) The Right Team at the Right Time

Startups don’t fail because they have bad ideas. They fail because they have the wrong people running them.

Of course, who that should be is a matter of clearly contentious debate but if you’re in the camp that we should just trade career politicians on the one side for career politicians on the other side, clearly we’re not fixing the team so that something better works. What we’re witnessing in 2025 is a government that behaves like a talent-driven startup. Agencies are getting tech founders, private sector executives, and data analysts to run key initiatives—treating government less like a static bureaucracy and more like a team of entrepreneurs solving a real-world problem.

That means fewer career politicians running government programs like they’re stuck in 1985, and more execution-focused operators who actually understand scale, growth, and efficiency.

This is a radical shift from the old way of doing things. But if we want government to work, it has to operate like a high-growth, results-driven venture—not a job security program for lifers.

Fail Fast, Learn Faster—A Government That ‘F*s Around and Finds Out’

If you’ve spent more than 30 seconds in the startup world, you know one thing to be true: failure is necessary. The faster you fail, the sooner you succeed.

That’s exactly what we’re starting to see in government, finally. Keep in mind though my thesis, not as one startup that succeeds or fails, but iterative tests and as though many startups are validating and pivoting; no, we don’t want the government to just outright fail, but we can and should want government offices and initiatives to fail fast, when they’re not working out.

Consider the last 25 years, we still take off our shoes at the airport, push standardized curriculum throughout our schools, and bail out companies on the regular, despite American sentiment reflecting our knowledge that such things aren’t working.

Now, policies are being tested in real time; exposed publicly, such as the H1B Visa debate just weeks ago. Some work, some don’t. Instead of doubling down on bad decisions out of pride, we could be seeing an administration that’s willing to address failure, scrap what doesn’t work, and move on.

This is the ‘Fail Fast, Learn Faster’ model that has defined every successful startup ecosystem on the planet.

  • Pandemic Response ? Instead of rigid, top-down mandates, responses are increasingly tailored, revised, and adapted based on actual results.
  • Economic Stimulus ? Direct payments, tax incentives, and industry-specific bailouts deployed like test cases, instead of blindly throwing money at problems as though money will solve the underlying issue.
  • AI & Tech Regulation ? Policy crafted in real-time, with an eye on innovation rather than knee-jerk overregulation, ready to change at the pace of innovation and given the access to information and data.

Does every experiment work? No. But that’s the whole point, you can’t expect policymakers removed from the private sector where this matters, to get it right; what we can expect is that they decide, admit when they’re wrong, and change things, so that we can move forward with decisions in place.

Where we Need Attention: Where’s the ROI?

A startup succeeds because its investors, and the market, demand performance. The better part of why our government has become bloated and inefficient, is that it isn’t held financially accountable for a significant return on our investment; at best, we remove policymakers with whom we disagree, and we hope for the best that those there are acting ethically, responsibly, and effectively.

Now, American taxpayers shouldn’t be thought of as investors — we’re more like grant providers.

If the U.S. is going to operate like a startup, then taxpayers need to behave like venture capitalists. That means:

  • Holding government accountable for ROI. No more blank checks. No more unlimited budgets with zero performance benchmarks.
  • Social media accountability. Viral outrage has already proven to be the best way to force government action—so let’s focus it on efficiency, not just scandal.
  • Demanding performance-based funding. If a government initiative isn’t delivering measurable results, it doesn’t get more funding. Period.

Right now, we’re funding government like a venture studio that never expects exits. pumping in capital to keep trying things, occasionally changing the team, and building more and more solutions, regardless of performance, value, or efficiency. That needs to change.

On the bright side, the performative employment changes evident in the recent executive orders, hint that out government is moving this direction; simply in the sense of requiring that people be in the office. While you might not agree with that policy, or that it’s the best decision, what it reveals is that the government is expecting more accountability of the team.

America as a High-Performance Startup: What Comes Next?

Right or left, Republican or Democrat, we all agree on one thing: government doesn’t work the way it could and perhaps should.

But for the first time, we’re seeing a model that makes some sense for an information age era; startup methodologies implementing policymaking and market-driven solutions, focus on the team, and failing fast to find success.

We need to fund it like a high-growth startup—demanding returns, cutting waste, and rewarding success.

Puerto Rico: The Crossroads of U.S. Access, Global Innovation, and Island Resilience for Startups

Regional Development, , , , , , ,

Puerto Rico’s history is one of resilience, adaptation, and strategic importance. As a U.S. territory since 1898, Puerto Rico enjoys a unique position: it benefits from U.S. federal systems and protections while maintaining its cultural and legislative autonomy. This blend offers startups and entrepreneurs an unparalleled advantage — access to U.S. markets, legal frameworks, and capital, paired with the tax incentives and cost efficiencies of operating in Puerto Rico.

After World War II, Puerto Rico launched Operation Bootstrap, wonderfully using the term “bootstrap” well before its population in modern entrepreneurship, then, in transitioning its economy from agriculture to manufacturing, and later to services and innovation. This foundation fostered a culture of ingenuity and resourcefulness — traits critical for entrepreneurship. Today, the island’s tax-friendly policies, such as Act 20 and Act 22 (now consolidated into Act 60), provide additional fuel, offering incentives to companies and individuals who relocate to the island.

Puerto Rico in Innovation

The Commonwealth has emerged as a quiet powerhouse in several areas of technology and engineering. Historically, the island played a pivotal role in the pharmaceutical and biotech industries, hosting manufacturing facilities for global giants such as Pfizer, Amgen, and Johnson & Johnson. Its highly skilled STEM educated workforce, combined with affordable labor costs, makes it an ideal hub for innovation in advanced manufacturing and biopharma.

Puerto Rico has also become a significant player in renewable energy innovation; in which, with my roots in Texas, my attention was first drawn. In the aftermath of Hurricane Maria, the island adopted a proactive stance on rebuilding its energy infrastructure. Microgrids, solar energy initiatives, and resilient power systems have attracted clean tech startups eager to test and scale solutions.

As with most of the world in the time passed since internet experience emerged beyond Silicon Valley, the ecosystem in Puerto Rico is maturing, with emerging strengths in software development, fintech, and blockchain. Much of our assessment is drawing from the impact of the strong university system, particularly the University of Puerto Rico, which consistently produces top talent in engineering and computer science.

  • At the UPR Medical Sciences Campus, the Biomedical Innovation Unit (BIU) plays a pivotal role in promoting biomedical research with commercial potential. The BIU assists in identifying ongoing research activities that can be commercialized and supports the protection and commercialization of new and existing patents.
  • The UPR Mayagüez Campus (UPRM) is renowned for its engineering programs and research centers. The College of Engineering offers advanced laboratories for teaching and research, focusing on areas such as fatigue and fracture analysis, product design, and manufacturing processes. Research initiatives include the development of solar-powered vehicles, satellite imagery analysis for earth phenomena, and environmental impact studies of industrial toxins.
  • UPR fosters innovation and entrepreneurship through various programs and centers. The Center to Foster Innovation and Commercialization adapts programming to support local entrepreneurs, helping them pivot and excel in changing environments. The Business and Economic Development Center (BEDC) at UPRM offers resources and support for business development and economic growth

More, UPRM is a significant center for tropical marine science research. Facilities like the Puerto Rico Water Resources and Environmental Research Institute and the Caribbean Coral Reef Institute (CCRI) support studies in marine ecosystems, water quality, and environmental conservation while The Puerto Rico Seismic Network, based at UPRM, monitors seismic activity in the Caribbean region, providing critical data for understanding and mitigating earthquake risks.

Recent Developments in Startups and Venture Capital

Puerto Rico has caught the attention of major venture capital funds and accelerators, most notably Rebel Fund., which has launched a $175M seed-stage venture capital fund located in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and investing exclusively in Y Combinator startups. Rebel Fund’s work is rooted in the Rebel Theorem, which posits that the best way to identify and support transformative startups is to find and back individuals who are intrinsically motivated to solve significant problems. The theorem suggests a heavy reliance on data-driven analysis and rigorous founder evaluation — methods that align well with Puerto Rico’s emerging culture of high-quality, purpose-driven entrepreneurship.

“Rebel Fund has now invested in nearly 200 top Y Combinator startups, collectively valued in the tens of billions of dollars and growing. As an extremely data-driven fund, along the way we’ve built the world’s most comprehensive dataset of YC startups outside of YC itself, now encompassing millions of data points across every YC company and founder in history.” – Jared Heyman, Managing Partner

In addition to Rebel Fund, programs like Parallel18, an internationally recognized accelerator run through the Puerto Rico Science, Technology & Research Trust, have contributed to Puerto Rico’s reputation as a startup hub. Parallel18 not only provides funding but also access to mentorship and a global network. The island’s government has doubled down on these efforts with initiatives such as Invest Puerto Rico, which seeks to attract foreign investment and foster local economic growth through entrepreneurship… I just need one of Parallel18’s t-shirts: #workhardplaytropical

Puerto Rico’s vibrant culture is one of its greatest assets. Its unique blend of Spanish, African, and Indigenous influences is reflected in everything from music and art to cuisine. The island is home to world-famous beaches, a thriving culinary scene, and rich historical sites like Old San Juan.

For entrepreneurs, this cultural richness translates into a creative and energetic environment. Networking events are just as likely to happen at beachfront cafés as in boardrooms, fostering a laid-back yet productive atmosphere. English and Spanish are widely spoken, making it easy for U.S.-based entrepreneurs to integrate while benefiting from bilingual and bicultural talent.

The island’s sense of community and pride also extends to its startup scene. Founders, investors, and policymakers are deeply invested in Puerto Rico’s future, creating a collaborative ecosystem where partnerships are encouraged and celebrated.

How to and Why Work with Puerto Rico in Innovation

Puerto Rico’s status as a U.S. territory means businesses operating there have direct access to the U.S. market — the largest consumer economy in the world — without the complications of international trade barriers like tariffs, customs, or additional regulatory hurdles. Startups can scale and export products or services to mainland markets seamlessly while enjoying the protections of U.S. intellectual property laws, a stable currency (the U.S. dollar), and federal agencies such as the FDA and SEC. Puerto Rico offers a unique mix of tax benefits, such as low corporate taxes under Act 60, without losing the security of U.S. financial and regulatory systems. For entrepreneurs, this means they can enjoy cost savings similar to those in international tax havens, but with the reliability and transparency of operating under U.S. governance.

Cultural and legislative autonomy allows Puerto Rico to retain its distinct heritage, language, and identity, creating a bilingual environment where English and Spanish fluency are common. This positions Puerto Rico as a bridge between the U.S. and Latin America, ideal for companies looking to expand into global markets. Businesses based there can tap into diverse perspectives and operate effectively in both English-speaking and Spanish-speaking markets. While businesses in Puerto Rico must comply with certain U.S. labor laws, the island also has unique legislation that provides additional flexibility. For example, wage structures and work-hour requirements are often more favorable to startups and small businesses than those in the mainland U.S., allowing for cost-effective scaling of operations.

Resilience and Entrepreneurial Mindset

Autonomy has fostered a sense of community-driven problem-solving and resilience, especially in the wake of the natural disasters of hurricanes. This culture of ingenuity and adaptability makes the local workforce and entrepreneurial ecosystem particularly dynamic. Startups that base themselves in Puerto Rico benefit from working in an environment where innovation is often driven by necessity and collaboration. For international entrepreneurs, Puerto Rico offers the credibility of a U.S. jurisdiction while still feeling distinctively global. It provides a safe and regulated platform to test ideas, attract international capital, and establish credibility with U.S. investors while maintaining flexibility in operations.

To engage, tap into its networks and incentives. Startups and investors can explore the tax benefits of Act 60, which offers significant reductions on corporate income tax and personal income tax for qualifying businesses. Partnering with accelerators like Parallel18 or connecting with Rebel Fund can provide access to resources and mentorship.

What I can offer is that I’d love to hear from everyone there, there seems to be much more that can be done for entrepreneurs, together.

How the 2025 White House Could Shape a Bold Economy for Startups and Innovators

Economic Development, Startup Ecosystems, Startups, , , , , ,

With the dust still settling, I thought I’d wade into a precarious subject because I believe this Presidential election and the outcome were so substantial in what transpired, that humanity will be studying and evolving from it for generations to come. The 2024 season has been a dynamic intersection of ideologies and passions; as such, I would love to challenge everyone to forego emotional opinions, and in recognizing that the White House is about to change such as it is, we explore a positive take on what it might mean for entrepreneurs and innovation. While viewpoints may differ, there are clear and potentially positive signals that suggest a Trump administration could be advantageous to startups.

Notice that what I’m attempting to do first and foremost, is draw your focus away from the President elect. The individuals surrounding his campaign each bring disruptive, entrepreneurial, independent, and reformist, ideas to the table and if these people round out the Cabinet directing the administration for the next four years, founders and investors would do well to start now appreciating the likelihood: an environment that could catalyze startup growth, from easing regulatory challenges to fostering a culture of economic resilience and self-reliance.

Tulsi Gabbard: Bridging Independent Thinking with Policy Reform

Former Democratic congresswoman turned independent, Gabbard has long been an advocate for questioning the status quo. Gabbard brings an unconventional but pragmatic approach to economic policy, having advocated for stricter antitrust enforcement, specifically targeting tech giants who she believes engage in anti-competitive practices. Her influence could foster policy changes that benefit startups by leveling the playing field while a dedication to transparency, accountability, and anti-establishment sentiment resonates with entrepreneurs seeking autonomy in a world dominated by legacy corporations.

Moreover, Gabbard’s bipartisan experience could be instrumental in shaping policies that reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and regulatory barriers — two elements that notoriously slow startup innovation. Her drive to support the “little guy” aligns well with the needs of early-stage businesses and freelancers, who often feel left behind by policy frameworks designed primarily for larger, more established entities.

JD Vance: Championing Middle America and the Blue-Collar Entrepreneur

JD Vance, an author and venture capitalist through Peter Thiel’s Mithril Capital, Revolution, a venture capital firm co-founded by former AOL CEO Steve Case, and his own firm out of Ohio, Narya Capital, brings a fresh perspective that could benefit startup hubs outside traditional regions such as Silicon Valley. Coupled with his advocacy for working-class Americans, Vance reinforces the untapped potential in rural and underserved communities. A White House with his influence should lead to policies that encourage decentralized innovation, thereby creating opportunities for founders across America — not just in major metropolitan areas.

His emphasis on supporting the “real economy” and the manufacturing sector could lead to initiatives that revitalize domestic production. Startups focusing on industrial innovation, sustainability, and local manufacturing may find more support and incentives under this administration. The potential for startups in sectors like clean energy, agriculture, and advanced manufacturing would be promising as Vance’s advocacy works to shift attention back to the backbone of American labor and ingenuity.

Vivek Ramaswamy: The Entrepreneurial Spirit in Government

Vivek Ramaswamy, an entrepreneur and investor, is no stranger to the challenges founders face. Known for his anti-establishment stance and focus on disrupting traditional corporate norms, Ramaswamy could advocate for policies that favor disruptive innovation, lower regulatory hurdles, and even tax incentives tailored to startups. He has previously voiced support for reining in government agencies’ power over businesses, a stance that could simplify the path for new ventures that often struggle with complex regulatory frameworks.

If Ramaswamy’s views, evident in his work in Roivant Sciences, a biopharmaceutical company, or as an investor in BuzzFeed, translate into policy influence, we could see increased support for research and development tax credits, reduced compliance costs for young companies, and a broader encouragement of risk-taking. His presence signals that this administration is open to policies that make entrepreneurship a more accessible path for more people — a positive development for anyone considering starting a business.

Elon Musk: Technological Optimism and Scaling Innovation

Musk’s influence and alignment with certain aspects of Trump’s economic vision could play a notable role in shaping the startup ecosystem. While a controversial figure, Musk’s push for regulatory reform in the transportation and aerospace sectors and his belief in bold innovation resonate with an entrepreneurial mindset that encourages experimentation and calculated risk.

Musk’s own ventures in renewable energy, space exploration, and transportation innovation provide a blueprint for ambitious startups looking to tackle massive problems. His support could lead to initiatives aimed at increasing funding for science and R&D or creating “sandbox” regulatory environments where startups can test innovative concepts with less red tape. Musk’s ethos—where “the impossible” is simply an uncharted path—may inspire the administration to make the U.S. a more hospitable place for pioneering ventures.

RFK Jr.: Public Health and the Rise of HealthTech Startups

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., though politically independent, brings a keen focus on public health, which has broader implications for the health and biotech sectors. With costs and regulatory challenges posing significant hurdles for health-related startups, RFK Jr.’s influence could pave the way for policies that reduce respective barriers to market entry. His focus on transparency and choice in healthcare aligns well with the burgeoning digital health sector, telemedicine, and wellness startups, which thrive in environments where consumers demand better information and accessibility.

Startups innovating in HealthTech, from personalized medicine to digital health apps, may find a more supportive environment under policies inspired by his principles. Let alone his interests aligning with CleanTech and healthy innovation and food, his questioning traditional healthcare approaches would benefit startups by challenging monopolistic practices within the industry, encouraging competition.

Less Directly Involved but Possibly

Marco Rubio: Advocating for Small Business Growth

Senator Marco Rubio has been a vocal supporter of small businesses and entrepreneurship. His legislative efforts have focused on providing access to capital and reducing regulatory burdens for startups. Rubio’s potential involvement could lead to policies that foster a more conducive environment for new ventures.

Doug Burgum: Tech Entrepreneur Turned Governor

North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, invested in Great Plains Software, becoming its president in 1984, and taking the company public in 1997. Sold the company to Microsoft for $1.1 billion in 2001, Burgum then managed Microsoft Business Solutions. He has served as board chairman for Australian software company Atlassian and SuccessFactors, as well as founding Arthur Ventures, a software venture capital group. His understanding of the challenges startups face positions him to advocate for policies that support innovation. Burgum’s influence could be instrumental in creating a favorable landscape for risks in tech.

Robert Lighthizer: Championing Fair Trade Practices

As the former U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer has been a proponent of fair-trade practices that protect American businesses such that his expertise could help ensure that startups have a level playing field in the global market, promoting competitiveness, and growth.

Bill Hagerty: Bridging Business and Government

Senator Bill Hagerty’s background in business and diplomacy provides a unique perspective on fostering public-private partnerships. His approach could facilitate collaborations that benefit startups, particularly in sectors like enterprise hardware and manufacturing.

Kristi Noem: Championing Business-Friendly Policies

South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem has been recognized for her pro-business stance, emphasizing minimal regulations and low taxes. Her approach has fostered an environment conducive to entrepreneurship and innovation, and her involvement could lead to policies that further reduce barriers for startups, encouraging economic growth and job creation.

Tim Scott: Advocating for Economic Empowerment

Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina has been a strong advocate for economic empowerment in underserved communities. His Opportunity Zones initiative aims to stimulate investment in economically distressed areas, providing startups with access to capital and resources. Scott’s influence could promote inclusive growth, ensuring that entrepreneurial opportunities are accessible to a diverse population.

Byron Donalds: Supporting Small Business Development

Representative Byron Donalds of Florida brings a background in finance and a commitment to small business development. He has emphasized the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and increasing access to capital for startups; work that could lead to initiatives that support the growth and sustainability of new ventures, particularly in minority communities.

Ron Paul: Libertarian Economics and Fiscal Responsibility

With Elon Musk’s nod to Ron Paul, we’d be remiss without highlighting the implication of his advice. Ron Paul’s long-standing libertarian views add a critical lens on fiscal policy and limited government, principles that resonate with many entrepreneurs. Known for advocating lower taxes, reduced government spending, and less interventionist policies, Paul’s influence could lead to a more laissez-faire approach, allowing startups greater freedom in navigating their growth. His commitment to economic freedom and personal responsibility aligns with the independent mindset inherent to entrepreneurship, where individuals assume the risks and rewards of their own ventures.

If Paul’s principles are reflected in this administration, startups could see a reduction in the tax burden and regulatory oversight that often stymie growth. His vision of fiscal responsibility could translate into policies that prioritize economic sustainability, making the business environment more predictable—a boon for startups looking for stability in which to grow.

Opportunity for the Entrepreneurial Future

The diversity of thought surrounding the White House that might become, is a signal that this administration will foster a unique environment. From Gabbard’s independent stance to Musk’s ambition, each brings a perspective that values the entrepreneur’s role in shaping society and creating economic opportunity. Collectively, they could push forward a vision where startups thrive not just in coastal hubs but to a greater extent such as is already happening, in places like Texas and across the country, promoting a decentralization of innovation.

In a time when economic self-reliance, resilience, and independence are more critical than ever, the administration, influenced by these figures, could offer a pathway for innovators of all backgrounds to make their mark. We’re likely to see several economic indicators trend favorably for entrepreneurs and the broader startup economy. Historically low taxes and streamlined regulations for small businesses, hallmarks of Trump’s first term, are expected to make a return, creating a more accessible and competitive environment for startups. This administration could prioritize pro-growth policies that lower corporate taxes and incentivize domestic manufacturing and innovation. Additionally, the focus on energy independence, trade deals that favor American manufacturing, and new financial support for opportunity zones promises a boost in job creation and capital availability, particularly in underserved areas. Combined, these policies aim to foster a stable, business-friendly economic landscape where startups can thrive, helping founders and investors find renewed confidence in their ventures amidst an environment that encourages innovation and economic resilience.

This administration’s approach to fostering a landscape of independence and reduced barriers presents a moment I would encourage we all consider optimistically for founders — a chance for entrepreneurs to take bold steps and for the nation to champion the power of individual initiative in shaping a prosperous future.

SEC’s Enhanced Disclosure Rules Could Transform Startup Fundraising

Monday Ventures, , ,

Monday Ventures: Weekly What’s Shaping the Startup Economy

In late October, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) passed new rules on private capital raise disclosures that have drawn widespread attention in the startup community. Historically, private companies and venture capitalists in the U.S. have enjoyed relatively light regulation in fundraising disclosures, which has allowed startups and investors to operate under minimal scrutiny. However, the SEC is now mandating greater transparency for companies raising private capital, especially those at higher funding stages.

What Does This Mean for Startups?

These new rules require more detailed disclosure on performance, governance, and risk factors for companies at later growth stages, especially those with higher revenue thresholds or those involved in continuous private capital raises. For early-stage startups, the impact may be limited, but as companies mature and prepare for larger rounds, they will now face increased regulatory compliance.

The SEC aims to protect smaller investors and promote market integrity, but critics argue this could stifle startup growth by adding bureaucratic burdens that previously didn’t apply. Startups might need to allocate more resources to legal and compliance efforts, which could affect their ability to scale rapidly. While this change may bring in additional protections and transparency, it may also reduce the flexibility that has been foundational to Silicon Valley’s rapid innovation and high-growth culture.

For more in-depth analysis on this SEC ruling, TechCrunch provides coverage.

What’s Next?

As these regulations begin to take effect, we may see startups either adjusting their growth plans or rethinking their funding strategies. Companies in later stages might even opt to go public sooner to avoid ongoing private fundraising restrictions. How this impacts the U.S. startup ecosystem is yet to be fully seen, but the SEC’s decision marks a major shift in regulatory oversight, signaling a new era in startup funding.