The DOL’s new retirement fiduciary rules, set to take effect in April, are now in jeopardy after Donald Trump’s upset presidential election win, leaving financial advisers unsure on how to proceed with implementation. During his campaign, Trump had called for a temporary moratorium on all new regulations from federal agencies. 

Now, the question is ... will he follow through on that pledge to halt or dismantle the Labor Department’s so-called fiduciary rule?

Financial advisers and brokerages had been bracing themselves for the rule, which aims to eliminate conflicts and ensure that brokers put the interests of retirement savers first. The complex rule brings a host of changes with it, including the elimination of compensation incentives for brokers and changing how investors pay for retirement advice, among others.

While the Obama administration says conflicted advice costs American families $17 billion a year and pushes down annual returns on their retirement savings by a percentage point, financial-industry leaders have said those figures are too high and have fought against the regulation. But some brokerages, such as BofA Merrill Lynch, have been vocal defenders of the rule’s intent to hold brokers to a higher standard.

A move to slow implementation wouldn’t be dissimilar to actions President Barack Obama taking office in 2009, when he froze a number of regulatory efforts that hadn’t yet been implemented.

“It is extremely likely the DOL fiduciary rule will not go into effect as planned in April 2017,” said Edward Mills, a policy analyst at investment bank FBR Capital Markets. Mr. Mills said Mr. Trump would most likely delay or block the rule through legislation, “most likely through a rider to an appropriations bill.”

Mr. Trump hasn’t directly addressed the rule during his campaign. But a top adviser to the Republican, Anthony Scaramucci, who manages hedge-fund firm SkyBridge Capital, said at an industry conference last month that Mr. Trump should repeal the rule. And, Republicans led by House Speaker Paul Ryan have opposed the rule, saying it is too complex and costly and would deprive small retirement savers of advice.