In Debate Over Railway Safety Bill, J.D. Vance and Donald Trump Are Leaning to the Left
In 2019, the Trump administration blocked a costly and ineffective mandate for two-man railroad crews long sought by unions. Now, the former president wholeheartedly supports it.

Under the watch of then–President Donald Trump in May 2019, the Department of Transportation withdrew a proposed regulation that would have required all freight trains in the United States to operate with two-person crews.
That rule, which the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) had been contemplating since the waning days of the Obama administration, was backed by labor unions as a way to protect railroading jobs from automation that allows trains to operate safely with only a single person in control. After three years of investigating the issue, the FRA reported that accident data did not show two-person crews to be any safer than one-person crews. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) agreed, telling the FRA that "There is insufficient data to demonstrate that accidents are avoided by having a second qualified person in the cab."
Then, in February, a train derailed in East Palestine, Ohio. It spilled vinyl chloride, a chemical long used to make PVC plastics, into a trackside ditch, and a controlled burn used to clean up the mess launched towering plumes of black smoke over the town.
In the media and political frenzy that followed, there has been little opportunity for a sober discussion about railroad safety. Instead, a bipartisan group including Ohio Sens. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, and J.D. Vance, a Republican, have rushed forward with the Railway Safety Act, a bill that would impose the two-person crew requirement that the FRA considered and rejected in 2019.
The rule still has nothing to do with safety. Indeed, the train that derailed in East Palestine had a crew of three aboard.
Rather than being focused on policies that will actually improve the safety of American railroads, the bill—which could get a final vote this week—is all about politics. As such, it is a useful illustration of how right-wing populists like Vance are actually advancing long-running goals of the political left in their muddled pursuit of reorienting the Republican Party.
That includes Trump, of course. Even though it was his administration that killed the two-man-crew mandate in 2019, the former president is now a strong supporter of the bill that would impose the same mandate in 2023.
"JD Vance has been working hard in the Senate to make sure nothing like this EVER happens again, and that's why it's so important for Congress to pass his Railway Safety Act," Trump posted on Truth Social last month. "JD's terrific bill has my Complete and Total Endorsement."
Trump has never been one to think deeply about policy—or to let hypocrisy get in the way of political opportunism. Still, the fact that Trump, Vance, and seven other Republican senators have jumped to endorse a bill full of labor policies unrelated to railroad safety is telling. It's perhaps the clearest legislative signal yet of a political trend identified by Reason's Stephanie Slade, which she calls right-progressivism.
It's not the first time this has happened. Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson heaped praise on Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) in 2019 for a list of economic policies that Carlson said "sound like Donald Trump at his best." Sens. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.) and Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) sided with unionized rail workers during a recent labor spat with the Biden administration. Much of Trump's protectionist trade agenda might as well have been pulled directly from the progressive playbook.
As Slade notes, those on the political right who are advocating for a larger, more powerful federal government are often "unapologetic proponents of actual left-wing policies, such as tariffs, industrial subsidies, and aggressive antitrust action."
Add costly and unnecessary regulations to the pile.
The two-man-crew mandate is just the start. The Railway Safety Act also grants broad new powers to Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who would be responsible for creating a new regulatory regime to govern trackside sensors and the power to write new regulations for railcars and their routine inspections. Regulations that make it more difficult or expensive to ship goods by rail will actually undercut safety by pushing more hazardous materials onto roadways, warns Philip Rossetti, a senior fellow at the R Street Institute.
Rail accidents have been steadily declining for years, notes Michael Gorman, a business and logistics professor at Dayton University, in a recently published paper. Meanwhile, trucking accidents are on the rise, and trucking accidents involving hazardous materials have caused more property damage and loss of life than train derailments in recent decades. Legislation that exclusively piles new regulations onto rail will trigger "higher rail shipping costs and more goods traveling by truck, which would be a decidedly inferior outcome for society," Gorman concludes.
In supporting the Railway Safety Act, Vance and Trump are signaling support for a litany of left-wing goals: growing the regulatory state, giving bureaucrats more power over American businesses, and protectionism for union jobs. They're also falling into the same trap as many progressives: ignoring trade-offs and obvious unintended consequences.
If the so-called New Right is reorienting the conservative movement to help accomplish the goals of the progressive left, one might wonder why America has a conservative movement at all.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Working on the web pays me more than $120 to $130 per hour. I learned about this activity three months ago, and since then I have earned around $15k without having any online working skills. open the webpage below to check it
.
.
.
HERE——-⫸≻ Reason7.com
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link..........>>> http://Www.SalaryApp1.com
I get paid more than $90 to $100 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this I have earned easily $10k from this without having online working skills . Simply give it a shot on.the accompanying site…
.
.
Following this information:-:-:-:-:-:-:- https://Www.Coins71.Com
Well Biden will probably veto it, because Trump and him are so distinctly different on policy.
Trump doesn’t need your stupid left vs right paradigm.
'...I applaud the bipartisan group of senators for proposing rail safety legislation that provides many of the solutions that my administration has been calling for....' Joe Biden So 'lean left' occasionally, and that will see you attacked as if you are a rabid animal roaming around a playground while being far far left, 24/7 365 for almost all of your career doesn't even warrant putting Biden's name in the article.
Making Cash more than $15k to $18k consistently just by doing basic online work. I have gotten $18376 a month ago just by working on the web. Its a simple and basic occupation to do from home and its profit are greatly improved than customary office work. Each individual can join this activity now just by pursue this link……..go to this site home media tech tab for more detail
SITE. ——>>> workingbitecoin12.com
+100000... TDS runs rampant at Reason.
So to The Kleptocracy left looters and right looters are still the same blob united against iindividual rights while fighting over the carcasses and properties of victims of their violent laws. That's some huge difference allright.
Economics was something that conservatives and libertarians could agree on until Trump came along and make a hard left turn.
If by "libertarians" you mean "billionaire trust fund babies who want supranational global governance and 'normalized' trade through supranational trade organizations that benefits themselves while leaving everyone else less free than they were before - and the retarded piece of shit section 8 welfare queens who were self-admittedly too stupid to finish a 150 page book written at an eight grade reading level who love them." It was Bill Clinton who signed the Chamber Of Commerce crafted NAFTA into law, not a conservative. It's surprising you're so sympathetic to capital considering you've never had a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of, being a self-confessed homeless alcoholic and drug addict who subsists on welfare.
Yet all along you've been telling everyone that Trump was always despicable. Now you pretend it's just a recent shift?
No I haven't. Try arguing with what I say instead of the voices in your head.
Never. Republicans caused most major crashes and depressions using superstitious fears to pass cruel laws, rob and murder till the economy collapses. Dems are abettors in the crime and the dissimilation to blame something else--even if it means memorizing some economic slang. Libertarians are mostly taken in by the play-acting. Only Ayn Rand had a clue as to what was going on. She and Aldous Huxley independently wrote stuff exculpating wealthy patsies on whom government shifted blame. But prohibition still causes crashes.
Regulations that make it more difficult or expensive to ship goods by rail will actually undercut safety by pushing more hazardous materials onto roadways
That is probably true but does it matter? Rail carries a lot of bulk freight (like the Palestine train). Hell you can see that easily on a transport tonnage map of the US with the Wyoming coal trains.
Rail is basically irrelevant in the US for container freight. The 4 biggest container ports with tonnage and % rail: LA/Long Beach – 20 million TEU’s – maybe 15% rail NY/NJ – 8 million TEU’s – maybe 10% rail Savannah – 4 million TEU’s – less than 10% Sea/Tac – 4 million TEU’s – maybe 70%
My guess is that rail is no longer relevant in LA/NY because the rail companies sold their track which is now highway. In the US, rail was always more a form of land/asset speculation than of transport infrastructure. Which is why featherbedding regulation of operations doesn’t matter much. Fixed costs of assets is much more important.
If hazardous materials start getting shipped by highway because it’s cheaper and more efficient, then isn’t that why markets exist? If that produces some big ugly death tolls, then so fucking what! It’s cheaper right?
I AM Making a Good Salary from Home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it's my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart ......
SITE. ——>>> dollarsalary.com
"...If hazardous materials start getting shipped by highway because it’s cheaper and more efficient, then isn’t that why markets exist? If that produces some big ugly death tolls, then so fucking what! It’s cheaper right?"
Pretty sure that chicken little is serious here, and that marks him as a total and complete ignoramus; anyone surprised?
This is the argument that the market is governed by one and one only variable: Price.
The bone-headed argument that selling poison food cheap is the 'correct' response to a free market, as if being in business tomorrow has zero value.
It takes a true shit-for-brains to make this argument, but we have one right here, folks.
Eat shit and die, asshole.
one might wonder why America has a conservative movement at all
There's a conservative movement in America? Where?
In the transgender movement. Radicals for sexism.
Democratic platform of 1856. It proudly defined conservatives as slavers threatening to break up the customs Union in order to keep black female (and male) slavery on the books. Dred was quickly decided with US Marshals enlisted into the catching of fugitive slaves, even after a Northwestern court had decided contrariwise. Stowe's book documents how Protestant Christian mysticism stayed out of the controversy. After all, nothing in the Wholly Bauble says there is anything wrong with slavery.
reason dot com taking a brave pro-rail accident stance by arguing against effective oversight of critical infrastructure.
the koch brothers (and other parasites) could spend their money more effectively than funding this drivel
For your edification, shreek, there is only one living Koch brother and he's butt-buddies with the guy who wrote the grant to Media Matters so you can make your 50 cents per post spamming ActBlue talking points 16 hours a day at a poorly trafficked blog.
"...(and other parasites)..."
That mirror is tough sledding, right, scumbag?
The masked Army of God infiltrating the Gee Oh Poo is soiling its skivvies after costing Orange Hitler the election. The LP is bristling with girl-bullying Landover Baptists and Reason has been under clumsy fire for years with only Matt and Madschen to show for it. Sad. The Prohibition Party and Klan did the same thing to the same party in 1928. It took them another 32 years of Nazi-praising to smuggle Richard Nignew in as veep. Here's hoping history rhymes again.
Reverse Hitler revolutionary revolutions keeps the House of Orange subserviant to the Children of Jacob as PROVEN in the pneumatic pronouncements of the god's own news channel, MSDNC.
The cause of the Palestine disaster was failure to heed existing warning sensors. Simple human error.
What other effects does the bill have? Maybe you're cherry-picking one item that you think shows Trump et al. to be pro-regulation and ignoring the rest that might not be.
Trump does a RINO move and media picks at it to no end in sight..
Media; The medium through which the TDS plague spreads.
Yes; Boehm is right on his master topic. The way he words it is a partisan disgrace. "Trump, of course" -- WTF.. If it's hypocritical why is the wording predictable? Trump I guess, is wrong when he's right and wrong when he's wrong so no matter what he does it's just all wrong. Right Boehm?
So the antichoice infiltraitors at Reason are doubling down on the fantasy that "right" means something other than coercive mistical bigotry and that "left" means something other than the closest thing going to secular communism consistent with women retaining some rights for a while. Rotsa ruck.
"with women retaining some rights for a while"
Apparently Hank hasn't left the house since 2012.
"In 2019, the Trump administration blocked a costly and ineffective mandate for two-man railroad crews long sought by unions. Now, the former president wholeheartedly supports it."
Toss him in jail and throw away the key!
Stuff it up your ass Boehm.
How is it possible that people STILL think Trump is a conservative? He has no core guiding principles.
Sadly; He's the only self-proclaimed 'conservative' to have a De-Regulation committee. That's how/why. You'd have better luck asking how it's possible hundreds of RINO'S still think they're conservatives when over 60% of what they vote for is the Democrats pipe-dream. Worst example being the Cares Act.