President Trump’s executive order directing the Labor Departmentto undertake a new economic and legal analysis of the fiduciaryrule was immediately embraced by lawmakers and stakeholdersopposed to the regulation.

In a statement issued after she attended President Trump’ssigning of the order, Rep. Ann Wagner, R-MO, a sponsor of billsthat would have blocked the Labor Department from implementing therule, said she applauds the President’s order to “delay” therule.

Related: Carl Icahn, horse whisperer to Trump onregs, fierce critic of fiduciary rule

But some proponents of a fiduciary standard say language in theorder offers more questions than answers as to the rule’s ultimatefate.

The final executive order stripped language from an earlierdraft specifically calling for a six-month delay of the rule.

In lieu of an explicit mandate to delay the rule’s April 10implementation date, the order instructs Labor to consider if thatdate is “likely to harm investors” by reducing access to financialadvice and retirement investment products, and whether thescheduled implementation date has resulted in industry disruptionsthat will adversely impact retirement investors.

The order also instructs Labor to assess if the rule will createan increase in litigation, and an increase in the price ofretirement investment services.

Related: See all fiduciary rule coverage

How long will the rule’s new analysis take?

Rob Foregger, co-founder of NextCapital, which provides automated investmentplatforms for 401(k) plans and retirement advisors in the retailsegment, does not think a thorough economic and legal analysis canbe completed quickly.

“Given how far-reaching the rule is, and that comment periodsduring the rulemaking process took as long as they did, I thinkthey will have a hard time completing a full and accurate analysisbefore April 10,” said Foregger, who advocated for the regulationin its existing form.

Further complicating the question of timing is the fact that theLabor Secretary and Asst. Sec for the Employee Benefits SecurityAdministration positions are still vacant. The confirmation hearingfor Andrew Puzder, President Trump’s Labor nominee,has been delayed a fourth time and has yet to be rescheduled.

“I would think to complete a new analysis of the rule in theright way you would have to have the agency head in place,” saidForegger. “To initiate the process without a Labor Secretary wouldbe a bad idea irrespective of who it is—it would be putting thecart before the horse.”

Trump’s priority: help people save for retirement

Facilitating the ability to save for retirement is a priority ofthe Trump administration, according to the President’s executiveorder.

So is empowering Americans “to make their own financialdecisions,” the order says.

If the Labor Department’s new analysis of the rule finds that itadversely impacts access to investment advice, or if the rule isfound to be inconsistent with President Trump’s priority tofacilitate Americans’ ability to save, then the order directs Laborto write a new regulation “rescinding or revising” the existingrule.

Related: DOL rule could lead to broader tech use,spread of fiduciary standard

“The ultimate litmus test of the order seems to ask whether therule is at odds with the President’s populist priority of helpingpeople save for retirement,” said Blaine Aikin, executive chairmanof Fi360, a provider of fiduciary compliance tools.

“People have looked at this order and presumed the outcome willbe a decision to rescind or replace the rule, but I’m not surethat’s a layup from a practical perspective,” added Aikin, aproponent of the rule.

He points to the strong consumer protections in the rule, andargues it clearly comports with the higher priorities the executiveorder places on expanding access to retirement products andadvice.

The specific questions the order raises as to whether the rulewill drive up the cost to invest and reduce access to advice havealready been answered, says NextCapital’s Foregger.

“Industry has clearly stepped up to the plate responding to therule,” said Foregger. “What we are witnessing is more people aregoing to have access to advice, and because of new competitiveforces created by the rule, the cost of advice is going to go down,as well as the cost of specific products.”

Related: Even if rule delayed, many firms preparingto serve as fiduciaries

The first directives in the President’s executive order—thepriorities to “empower Americans to make their own financialdecisions” and “to facilitate the ability to save forretirement”—are clearly advanced by the rule, thinks Foregger.

“The rule increases the opportunity for the average American toget financial advice by aligning client and industry interests,” hesaid. “The rule’s entire purpose is about empowering Americans toget better financial advice from the professionals they relyon.”

Will stakeholders have input into new impact analysis?

An inquiry to the Labor Department as to whether it will beginits economic and legal analysis before the Labor Secretary andAssistant Secretary are confirmed was not returned before presstime.

Also unclear is what role stakeholders will have in the newimpact analysis. “That’s a big wildcard,” said Foregger.

“Clearly the executive order directs Labor to open up thepatient,” added Foregger. “The question is are they going to killit before it goes live on April 10, or are they are going to keepthe examination going after. It feels like the latter ishappening.”

Both Foregger and Aikin expect there will ultimately berevisions to the rule, particularly its Best Interest ContractExemption, which serves as the main enforcement mechanism for theregulation and includes a provision allowing investors to bringclass-action claims for breaching fiduciary requirements.

Related: Under proposed exemption, IMOs will need$15M in cash reserves

Revisions may also include how the rule treats fixed indexed annuities and other productsclassified as prohibited transactions.

But even revisions that satisfy the rule’s opponents will notcome quickly. Aikin thinks rewriting the rule could take up to twoyears, and could potentially incur legal challenges if the economicand legal analysis doesn’t adequately prove that the rule impairsthe priorities laid out in President Trump’s executive order.

In the near term, Aikin expects the April 10 date to be delayedin order to assure the needed time to complete the new impactstudy.

“The odds favor a delay, but a delay is not a solution,” saidAikin. “It would only perpetuate the current state of limbo.”