Whenever a new presidential administration takes office, change is bound to happen.

We’re not here to talk politics. But, as we discuss on this episode of the Advantaged podcast, there’s no getting around the fact that a new administration, new policies, and new regulations (or lack thereof) will greatly impact the domestic and international business environment and cause corporations and startups alike to pivot their strategies over the next year-plus.

Advantaged host and High Alpha Innovation VP of Marketing Drew Beechler spoke with the General Manager of our Go-to-Market team, Lesa Mitchell, to get her thoughts on how corporate strategy leaders and startup founders will navigate the new regulatory landscape in 2025 and the innovation opportunities that will be presented to those operating in healthcare, AI, crypto, energy, privacy and security, and more.

Key Takeaways

‍

• Lesa noted how, outside of some near-term executive orders, many regulatory changes will take time to unfold. So, while the broader business community braces for overhauls of measures enacted by previous administrations and new rules and standards to be implemented, patience is essential. The best way to approach this era is to “not [think] of regulation or deregulation as good or bad, writ large,” Lesa shared.

• Constraints that could be placed on organizations across industries, like pharmaceutical and healthcare companies, from deregulation could cause near-term pains. However, big-picture, Lesa stated they could present new opportunities for much-needed innovation in those sectors and other highly regulated spaces — the results of which could lead to more impactful solutions being produced.

• The new regulatory landscape will likely open the door for accelerated growth with emerging technologies like AI and crypto, according to Lesa. That said, it’ll also be a bit like the Wild West, with incumbents and insurgents alike both trying to make headway with building novel, cutting-edge tools and gaining greater market share in 2025 and beyond.

‍

Check out the entire 25-minute discussion to get more of Drew and Lesa’s thoughts on the ripple effect deregulation will cause in 2025 and how large enterprises and early-stage startups can and should adapt.

‍

‍Sign up for our Wavelength newsletter to get new Advantaged episodes and other corporate innovation-centric content sent to your inbox, and subscribe to our podcast on Apple or Spotify.‍

‍

Transcript

Drew Beechler: Welcome everyone to Advantaged, a High Alpha Innovation podcast. I'm Drew Beechler, our VP of marketing here at High Alpha Innovation and your host today of Advantaged.

High Alpha Innovation, if you're unfamiliar, is a venture builder. We partner with leading organizations and entrepreneurs to unlock growth and transformation through startup creation and co-creation of these advantaged companies.

This episode today is part of our 2025 Innovation Trends mini series that we're doing. 

We recently published an article diving into 10 trends that are going to shape the innovation landscape in 2025. And we decided to turn that into more concrete discussions with a number of our team members to go deeper on these trends and where things are heading in the new year.

With me today, we have our General Manager of our Go-to-Market team, Lesa Mitchell. Thanks Lesa for joining me. 

Lesa has such an incredible background, including stints at Techstars, Kauffman Foundation, which is, the largest foundation in the world focused on entrepreneurship, both policies and practices, the Milken Institute, and 15 years as an entrepreneur and executive, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry.

Lesa is just a wealth of knowledge. At High Alpha Innovation specifically, Lesa and her team work every day to get our companies off the ground, set them up for success, embed them with advantage — as in, the name of this podcast — and, over time, help those companies build that product-market fit.

So today, we're going to have a very fun discussion around big changes that are likely to take place, particularly within the kind of regulatory landscape, here in 2025, and what that means for both incumbents and startups across a number of different industries and how they can navigate what is certain to be kind of a year of uncertainty.

But, also, I think it’ll be a year of probably what we'll talk a lot about is kind of it's also a year of opportunity because of that as well.

In that 2025 innovation trends article, Lesa, you noted, the new administration is focused on deregulation. We are a week into the new administration. Now, we're starting to see some of that come to reality, but still, a lot is up in the air.

In particular, this presents, I think, a huge opportunity in a number of highly regulated industries. You know, we talk a lot about energy, healthcare, finserv, education and many, many more.

And so as we are likely to see regulations ease and change, we believe there's just going to be massive opportunities for new entrants to innovate, where programs go at the at the government level, it really opens up a lot of the canvas where for-profits may need to be created where there used to be government-funded programs that have stood for decades.

So let's start it off there and we can dig a little bit deeper on this. Why are we talking about this today? Why is this top of mind for startups, for innovators, for corporate leaders? And why did this come to your mind, as you're talking about these major trends in 2025?

Lesa Mitchell: Yeah. Well, you said, this podcast is called Advantaged, and, at the end of the day, you have to think about the advantaged version of deregulation or even of new regulations.

How do you take advantage of any of that, especially if you're an entrepreneur or a big company, that's what you're thinking about right now. And while we're all sitting around, waiting for what has been termed on X the next shoe to drop in terms of policy changes.

I do think you have to pause just a second and say, can you actually change policies overnight? What does that actually look like? And so I looked into it, just for fun for a minute. And the Institute for Policy Integrity tracked all of the Trump administration's policy changes during his first four years.

By its count, the administration was successful 58 times and unsuccessful 200 times. And what that means by unsuccessful is, you know, you put a new policy or a regulation forward, and then you literally live in a legal unhappiness, where lots of lawyers get involved and decide if you can actually overturn a regulation or you can't.

So, I think people that are waiting for something to happen tomorrow are probably going to be somewhat disappointed, because it takes a long time to change regulations, and I do think this administration has been through this before. So I think they came into it much smarter and will figure out workarounds to some of those things.

But again, I think we have to be somewhat measured in what we're going to see and how soon. In some cases, hopefully, they'll take advantage of regulations that were already created and in some cases expand those.

So, let's start by not thinking of regulation or deregulation as good or bad, writ large. It depends.

And sometimes, the unintended consequences that are caused by constraints that new regulations give you make us think more deeply about new models, which also is not a bad thing. It's a good thing.

And I think, just in the last three days, we've seen an example of what new models look like that come out of constraints, like the launch of DeepSeek, you know, in their case, the constraint was export control policy, that kept them from having access to NVIDIA chips.

They also ignored the ‘We must build proprietary models’ approach that most companies have not ignored and came out with something that was a complete leapfrog. But again, partially, that leapfrog was tied to constraints that were put on them, due to policy.

So that's kind of my point: It's not all bad. Some good things can happen. 

Drew Beechler: Yeah. Startups, by their very definition, are all about constraints. They're able to do more with less, and you're forced into making prioritization decisions, product decisions, focus, ICP, all sorts of decisions within constraints.

We talk about this a lot, even in our business of, at the simplest version: We co-create advantaged startups, usually with large corporations — startups on one end and corporations on the other. And we sit in this middle, and we talk a lot about corporations, inherently, lack the constraints that help them innovate from within because they have access to capital, you know, access to resources.

They can deploy these resources in a number of ways, which is kind of almost counterintuitive. It makes it harder for them to learn, harder for them to innovate, harder for them to disrupt, to be, you know, truly kind of transformative anyway.

So I think, back to just our whole premise really, is why startups are transformative in and of themselves. Why I think I love working with founders and startups. Every day is just that magic of constraints, I guess.

Lesa Mitchell: It’s not only constraints that shape the world, but we've seen, world events, help us rethink policy and practice that also has a huge advantage.

To entrepreneurs. I mean, the best example is COVID. It was an accelerant of sorts for the tech industry. I mean, Shopify went crazy, because we needed ecommerce. PayPal, because suddenly everybody wanted to buy things online, but they needed a trusted system.

And I think, you know, the biggest constraint that we saw that was lifted out of COVID that has positively impacted healthcare was suddenly, I didn't want to go see my doctor in person. And it created millions of questions out of COVID about why we have regulations that won't allow me to use telehealth. That's insane. Why can I not do that?

This is an example of where you can see really quick exceptions in regulations to go fast. I mean, we saw that happen overnight. It probably wasn't fast enough, but we saw it overnight that telehealth suddenly was allowed and was going to be reimbursed, which is what matters in the healthcare field.

Overnight, you could talk to your doc on the phone, you could submit scans over the internet, and then suddenly when COVID was over. Then, the question became, why would I go back?

I mean, there were literally people thinking, ‘We need to take this constraint off and remove telehealth as something that you can do because it might violate HIPAA,’ or all sorts of other things. But I think the entrepreneurs and the big companies figured out a workaround to the potential issues that were in there and figured out how we could go forward.

Now you can, you know, see a therapist online. You can get a prescription online from Amazon. You could do everything online. The upside of COVID is a lot of big companies woke up to constraints that they might have had previously and started questioning them or policy barriers they had previously in questioning them.

I think that's happening today, whether it be healthcare, energy, sustainability, whatever. I think there are lots of entrepreneurs sitting in the wings. I actually got an email from one, five minutes before we started this podcast, telling me, and I'll talk about this in a few minutes, that he was leaning into the new ICRA, which I'll explain what that is in a minute.

But entrepreneurs are sitting around kind of waiting to see what is coming out in the moment, you know, new policies do come out a great example, you know, that we've heard a lot in online chatter is that the Trump administration would like to get rid of the ability to advertise if you're a pharmaceutical company.

I mean, if that ends up happening, we already work with pharma companies. We will work with pharma companies to co-create a company that enables different kinds of communications that can go directly to consumers. And so, just because it's just a fork in the road, we'll figure out a new workaround. 

I can keep going on and on. I mean, other big policy lean-ins that we can expect in healthcare around drug pricing and transparency, I can't imagine what this will look like in terms of deregulations. There'll probably be more new regulations.

If that should happen, it'll be a benefit to Mark Cuban's new company. And, if we are, in fact, focused on if we do see some regulations come down that are really seriously pushing lowering of drug pricing, I think every CEO of a pharma company is going to lean more aggressively into AI.

They can't continue to just add people and reduce prices. And so they'll probably also have to consider in the pharmaceutical industry, it's called pre-competitive, you know, what's pre-competitive and what's not pre-competitive could be things that they're doing in preclinical operations. Maybe suddenly a new company will come out of that.

That's focused on preclinical, so every single pharmaceutical company wouldn't have to do it, but it's a company that will become customers of every pharmaceutical company. So those kinds of policies will almost make pharma completely look at themselves inside out and reinvent how they work.

Drew Beechler: Maybe shifting gears just a little bit, let's talk about some other specific industries and what, maybe what startups, looking at it from an opportunity lens, or incumbents, but kind of where we want to take it. But let's look at maybe a couple other specific ones.

We hosted an Energy Summit in our offices in 2023 and brought together leaders and entrepreneurs across the energy industry. It's a wildly complex space. And so let's talk about that one. The scale, the regulation, capital intensity, supply chain, you know, all of that makes it almost impossible in some of that sector within energy to really kind of do truly innovative things.

But maybe on that side of things, are there other things you're keeping an eye on?

Lesa Mitchell: Let me just use some examples, very specifically in that case.

There are a couple of corporate partners that we have worked with in co-creating companies, in that space that are leaning into new regulations and, and frankly, leaning into, CO2 commitments that corporations have made. I mean, the best example of all. are a company that we co-created with NorthStar Clean Energy called Woodchuck.AI.

Originally, Woodchuck had a goal of providing sustainable feedstock into the NorthStar biomass facilities. Then, they realized that there are so many different types of wood that's being thrown away that they could build their entire company around streamlining wood-waste diversion and processing.

The knock on benefits there are just as great examples are we're building data centers all over the world and tons of wood is being thrown away in the process. And that type of wood might not necessarily be able to go into a biomass facility, but it would be reusable in a different kind of way.

And, frankly, the companies that are building these data centers, I won't name names of their customers, but the companies that are building these data centers are desperate to get, you know, CO2 emission reports that Woodchuck can produce based upon the kind of wood that's being diverted.

It's a great example of we started that road with wanting more renewables in biomass, and here's one little dent that we can make by turning more renewables into biomass, which is wood stock, and uncovered we could clean up landfills in a way that we had never imagined before.

And it's just leaning into, not just new policies, but new practices that companies want to take as well. Another great example is Amplio. Amplio is a company we co-created with Koch Industries and it was originally meant, it was, during COVID and originally created to address all the supply chain issues that everybody was screaming about during COVID and feeling during COVID.

But post-COVID, companies now have so much surplus inventory and big giant companies have so much surplus inventory that, in many cases, that's just old technology. They're not used anymore, but they could be used by other companies. It could be used by smaller companies, etc. And so, you know, essentially, Yeah, absolutely.

Amplio has turned into a surplus marketplace, some of the policy implications that one could think about this that would benefit them are tax credits for waste reduction, same thing, would benefit a company like Woodchuck, diversion credits.

Any kind of ability to incentivize these kinds of marketplaces for waste are opportunities that we should want to see, some different kinds of, policy changes in.

Drew Beechler: Yeah, totally. There's an incredible opportunity there, and we have a handful of companies that are all kind of touching some version of that space and really excited for I think the opportunities next year too.

And maybe just broadly, I know the Trump administration is very focused on cost-cutting, from, from DoGE and other kinds of areas too. A lot of the executive orders that we saw signed even here in the last kind of week have focused on that.

So maybe just in that realm, are there things that should keep startup founders up at night, or how should they be thinking about it? And, or even on the kind of incumbent BigCo side as well? How has that impacted some of their decision-making and thinking here in early 2025 as well?

Lesa Mitchell: Yeah. So what's interesting, you know, there's a convergence of so many things happening at the same time. I mean, we know, or we hear at least that there's an interest in cutting.

Federal funding to all sorts of things, and that will trickle down to state funding because a lot of those federal funding grants go specifically to states and if they disappear from the federal government they're going to disappear from the states as well.

One of the really interesting ones is what's going to happen to all the workforce programs. There's a million workforce programs out there and they're all there for some really good reasons in terms of manufacturing companies having jobs.

It's one of the probably most open jobs in the country now that engineering jobs aren't the most open jobs. It's things like welders, people that work on the manufacturing floor and, and frankly, things that are just neither AI or robots are going to take these jobs anytime soon.

And so you put a slash in federal funding at the same time that we're seeing the silver tsunami of people, and now, on top of that, you have this potential for deportations that definitely impacts probably some of those jobs and, and a cut of funding to some of these workforce organizations.

We're kind of, this is going to create a real crisis, but interestingly, I think it's going to create opportunities for for-profit companies that are going to be able to lean into that crisis. And I've seen a lot of them start over the last five or six years. A lot of them died. And I think they died there were so many not for profits or federally funded programs that were in place.

A company that we co-created with Notre Dame and funded through our 1842 Fund is called SlateUp. It is specifically focused on these massive labor shortages in the manufacturing industry, especially entry-level to mid-level positions.

SlateUp has created some technology to build essentially matchmaking in that schema, and, in today's world, what they're doing is working with a lot of these workforce organizations to help them become more efficient.

But we can't be blind and not assume that some of those monies will go away. And so organizations like SlateUp and others that are sitting out there are probably going to have to take a much bigger mindshare than they originally thought that they were going to have to do in terms of accomplishing their goals.

So, you know, at the end of the day, cutting money out of the federal government will be awful for some, but it will create opportunities for many others. And probably almost all of those opportunities are going to be in for-profit industries. 

Drew Beechler: Are there any industries that historically maybe kind of have been overlooked in terms of what regulatory policy will impact their industry? Maybe ones they haven't had to deal with quite as much rigid compliance that maybe they should be kind of thinking about this in 2025? Are there any that come to mind in that realm to you? 

Lesa Mitchell: Yeah, I mean, I'm guessing education and you're already starting to see it. And, frankly, when I'm thinking about education, I'm thinking more on the research side. There's a massive amount of federal dollars at the National Institute of Health, National Science Foundation, et cetera — in the billions, not millions.

And, while I know that there's been lots of oversight, I'm guessing with just everything that we've seen in this last week, about halting of speaking engagements, halting of funding, halting of this and the other means that there's a lot of people really starting to rethink, are we actually getting the actual outcome, that we expect from all of this money that is flowing.

And, I don't know enough and can't be a judge of whether that's right or wrong. But my guess is that's the area that has seen the least scrutiny over the years, and has lots of lobbyists that try to raise money for universities, and we're just going to see how that plays out.

Drew Beechler: I'm really curious to get your thoughts on AI in particular too. And like, do you think we'll see some or more or less regulation around AI, we, we talked about DeepSeek even a little bit earlier, like maybe from a startup's perspective.

What should they be thinking about, whether it's competition or regulation this year too, if they're starting a company in AI? I'd love to just get your kind of perspective on, right now, some of the AI headwinds and tailwinds.

Lesa Mitchell: Yeah, I mean the current administration has come out and it almost looks like less regulation, around AI, which, I'm sure frightened and creates happiness at the same time for people that are in the marketplace.

But I do think, at the end of the day, it will be based upon where we are using the AI. I mean, if you're using AI in, you know, research and development and pharma, I'm confident that there's going to be and continue to be lots of regulations surrounding that.

Hopefully the same thing in FinTech. There will be lots of regulation around privacy and security mostly around security, but everywhere else, I'm guessing it will be the Wild West. 

Drew Beechler: Related to AI in. Because this is in David Sacks’s title, you know, as the AI and Crypto Czar, like what thoughts on crypto too? How will crypto companies either, you know, bloom or shudder or kind of change in this next year?

Lesa Mitchell: Yeah. I think there's no question. I mean, based upon the people that they've put into a variety of different roles, crypto is going to be center light. I saw an interview with Brad Garlinghouse today. I think crypto will become mainstream in the United States, if it has not already, by the end of this administration.

Drew Beechler: Thank you so much, Lesa, for chatting with me. This was just a ton of fun. And I think, the, the biggest takeaway is just a lot of, to your point. You know, uncertainty kind of also produces opportunity and there's so much opportunity here.

Without even kind of having a political stance, the message is just, ‘Lean into the opportunities that you see kind of ahead of you, if you're a founder and a startup or a corporate leader.’

We don't know what the future is going to be, but we know, you know, it will be different from today and probably much different than we could imagine, and I think we are right in the belly of an exponential curve, whether it's around AI, whether it's around, private-public spending, in many of these areas around healthcare and pharma.

I think we're right in this inflection point. I think it'll be really, really interesting to see, even just a year from now, where we are, and I, for one — I know you are as well — am just excited for the opportunities.

All the new companies we're going to create over the next year and the new opportunity that those companies are going to create — it's going to be a ton of fun. 

‍Lesa Mitchell: Yeah. And I frankly think that corporations will embrace whatever happens. And I think it will, in many cases, drive them to probably innovate faster change than they might otherwise have.