With a new administration maybe we can turnback the downsizing the FCC has been doing with regard to their field offices and enforcement.
That was Congress' doing, and the word from the affected parties was that it was in reprisal for the Commission's stance on net neutrality. Granted, things could always be more efficient, but the concept of reducing the field profile and forming their centralized "tiger team" places the response way behind the curve.
I'm not sure any president could change that back by executive order, as Congress continues to hold the purse strings for the FCC. The organization that falls under the Executive branch is the NTIA. They have parallel responsibilities to the FCC to some respect, but their goals with non-federal resources are more 50,000 feet as compared to ground level for civil matters.
Here's the controversial part: A number of people in the industry think that the overall strategy is to shift communications to revenue-bearing platforms. Many of the architects of that concept were appointees of the soon-to-be former administration. Conjecture around that is probably a Tavern conversation, but it shouldn't be ignored. For NJ, the reduction in enforcement and what is still an imminent loss of spectrum (the heavily-used T-Band) leave little alternative. To an extent, we're seeing "pay-to-talk" already by some agencies leasing spectrum from auction winners or renting time on FB6 systems. I'm thinking specifically of Palisades Park's using Horizon's frequency pair for their system, and also the use of Part 22 frequencies which had to be bid on outside of the normal process.
If we had a significant turnover in Congress (I wasn't paying attention to the Congressional vote... my bad), perhaps these things can be revisited. I suppose the bottom line is that it's way too early to tell what the climate will be after the "first 100 days" of the new administration.