Trump Promises To Get Rid of Bad Regulations. Can He Deliver?
Growth of regulation slowed under former President Trump, but it still increased.

This week, former President Donald Trump will officially become the Republican nominee.
Soon he is likely to again be president, according to the most accurate predictions, which come from people who put their money where their mouths are—people who bet. They currently give Trump a 67 percent chance of winning.
President Joe Biden's chances have fallen below 20 percent.
This is good news to those of us who fear America is gradually being strangled by ever-increasing regulations.
Trump promises to get rid of bad rules.
"Remove the anchor dragging us down!" he said. "We're going to cancel every needless job-killing regulation!"
Trump was a developer, so he knew about the thicket of rules that often make it nearly impossible to get things done.
But Republicans routinely talk about deregulation and then add rules. The media called George W. Bush the "anti-regulator." But once Bush was president, he appointed thousands of new regulators.
Trump was different.
Once in office, he hired regulation skeptics. He told government agencies: Get rid of two regulations for every new one you add!
But they didn't. Growth of regulation slowed under Trump, but it still increased.
Still, I think Trump's anti-regulation attitude was why stock prices rose and unemployment dropped. He sent a message to businesses: Government will no longer crush you! Businesses then started hiring more people.
Of course, the media weren't happy. Reporters love regulation. The New York Times ran the headline, "Donald Trump is Trying to Kill You"!
Regulation advocates don't understand that regulations' unintended side effects often outweigh the good the regulation was supposed to do.
Cars built smaller (to comply with Democrats' rules that require increased gas mileage) kill people. That's because smaller cars provide less protection.
"Should the government tell you what kind of car to buy?" complained Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform in a video I made about Trump.
Norquist says that Trump largely kept his deregulation promise, and that was great for America.
For example, Trump repealed the Obama-era plan to classify franchise businesses like McDonald's as one single business. Why was that good?
"Trial lawyers want to be able to sue all McDonald's, not just the local McDonald's, if they spill coffee on themselves," says Norquist. "Labor unions want to unionize all McDonald's, not just one store. That would have been a disaster."
Trump's Federal Communications Commission repealed former President Barack Obama's "net neutrality" rules, which slowed the growth of internet options by limiting providers' freedom to charge different prices.
Democrats screamed. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) tweeted that repeal would mean "the end of the internet as we know it."
Instead, none of the terrible things predicted (they'll cut you off!) happened. Innovation continued. The internet just got better.
Yet now the Biden administration wants net neutrality reinstated!
They also want to ban election betting, the useful mechanism that gives us better predictions about the future, and the election odds I quote above.
Regulators give their repression nice names to make their rules sound valuable: Today they propose a Data Privacy Protection Act, a Cybersecurity Resilience Act, Fair Lending For All Act, etc.
"The names for these regulations are written by regulators," laughs Norquist. "They're advertisements for themselves."
He jokes that regulators should, like drug companies, list side effects of their rules: "May cause unemployment, reduce wages, raise the cost of energy."
Trump's deregulation record would be better if he hadn't added new regulations, like tariffs, at the same time.
"Trump is a protectionist in many ways," says Norquist, sadly. "Tariffs are taxes, and regulations on the border are regulations on consumers."
When Trump took office, he announced, "We have cut 22 regulations for every one new regulation!"
But it's not true. America's deep state is hard to fight. Many of the 22 million Americans who work for government think they're not doing their job if they don't regulate more.
Despite Trump's promises, he left America with more regulations than we had when he took office.
I hope a future President Trump will cut his tariffs and agricultural subsidies, and kill the Export-Import Bank, drug prohibition, and thousands of other rules that do more harm than good.
Every repealed regulation is a step toward freedom.
COPYRIGHT 2024 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
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
Every repealed regulation is a step toward freedom.
Says it all.
BUT THE APOCALYPSE!!!
(You get to choose which one.)
Regulations are fascism. The function of government is to defend liberty not to micromanage business.
Just saw a headline that Biden wants to reform the supreme court. Like he can do it with legislation or an EO. Term limits, some sort of "ethics code" https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ar-BB1q6pbz
This is the end game of all the coordinated attacks on the SCOTUS the last few years. They've spent a lot of effort to make the court look corrupt as an excuse to end run it when the time comes.
I'll still vote for the guy who tries and doesn't do too well at rolling back the regulatory state over the guy who thinks the Constitution and the Supreme Court are in the way of his doling out money from the public coffers to his preferred constituency.
Trump just barely tapped the brakes on regulation. And because he did pretty much all of his regulatory roll-back by executive order instead of legislation, it was almost entirely undone by the end of February '21. All of his steps in the right direction were quickly swept away, while his worst policies kept right on rolling. If you want my support then offer some hope of lasting reform. A forlorn hope that might marginally slow the damage ain't doin' it.
Does that mean you support the guy who is guaranteed to add regulations? Are you really demanding perfection instead of accepting any progress?
Does that mean you support the guy who is guaranteed to add regulations?
Ah yes. Retarded binary thinking. “No one on my team would ever say anything critical of Trump. Only the other team is critical of Trump. You were critical of Trump. Since everyone is on one or the other team, you just proved that you support Biden! Look how smart I am!”
Good little Jesse Jr. Maybe he’ll give you a cookie.
sarspasstic strikes out again.
Don’t behave like a retarded Jesse (but I repeat myself), and I won’t point it out.
Says the guy who doesn’t even vote. Stupid drunken faggot.
Crawl back into the bottle Drunky.
He didn’t call him anything, he asked if Wizard supported the other guy. A fair question when discussing policy, seeing as Libertarians are t getting anywhere near those positions of power.
Seeing as Chevron is ended, rolling back regulations through rule making is a lot more difficult.
For real reform laws need to be changed which will require a strong GOP takeover to do so.
But even in his first term Trump got the ire of the regulatory state as can be seen in corporate media from the time.
Environmental:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html
And others.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2020/06/29/how-donald-trump-has-cut-regulationbut-also-added-it/
He pulled out of the Paris Accords and other crippling globalist regulatory states.
He did this while he had an active The Resistance of deep staters and democrats fighting him.
There's only so much a president can do about that without either APA proceedings or legislation. And even with APA proceedings, the courts can rule they were arbitrary and capricious because they didn't undo the facts that were established by the proceedings that put the regulation there to begin with. That's how it was with the Reagan administration's attempt to undo the passive restraints rule.
"Trump just barely tapped the brakes on regulation."
FOAD, TDS-addled pile of shit.
This is one of my fantasies.
I've fantasized about that. Every law and regulation would have to list ALL expected consequences, good and bad. And ANYONE can sue to void a law which has unexpected consequences, as judged by 12 random jurors, no judge, and no appeals court.
Same thing with clarity. Get 12 random people in separate rooms with pads of paper, ink pens, and the law or regulation. They write down what they think the law or regulation does. If they cannot agree on what it does, void it for not being understandable. No judge, no appeal.
I fantasize about Ali Larter, and you fantasize about jury trials for laws?
Thank you for showing I live rent-free in your head.
You're Ali Larter?
Did not Trump enforce a rule he made that every new regulation had to be accompanied by 2 being cut? I thought that was the case.
Ended up not quite being 2 to 1. But concurrent corporate media freakouts show it was effective.
OMG... Stossel you can't just defy the Reason narrative like that. 🙂
I don't think he goes to many cocktail parties.
So, less exposed to the TDS virus?
The hope is that Trump will be more careful with who he chooses to surround himself, that he will have more libertarian minded people and remove the Neo-cons from his orbit.
Not holding my breath and expect to be disappointed, but the promise to get rid or reduce is more than the threat of expanding and weaponizing that Biden is doing.
How was this scored? If it was simply by entries in the Federal Register, that picture is distorted by the fact that a new rule to undo or alter provisions of an old one counts simply as a new rule. So I think the best way to score the impact is subjectively by the judgment of experts on these matters.
Stossel is one of the few worth reading on this site anymore.
Yup.
+1
Trump Promises To Get Rid of Bad Regulations. Can He Deliver?
Meanwhile, most of the rest of Reason: "Biden Promises Ever-Increasing Regulations. That's Why We Reluctantly And Strategically Vote For Biden."
Not very 'libertarian' of them. Closet leftists.
"Trump Promises To Get Rid of Bad Regulations. Can He Deliver?"
Let's hope not.
Red tape is good wrapping material tied around bankruptcy filings.
Hopefully the overturning of the Chevron Deference ruling will make the job a little bit easier.