Donald Trump’s Deregulation Blitz (Video Transcript)

CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE PLAIN TRUTH TODAY VIDEO BROADCAST: Donald Trump’s Deregulation Blitz

Donald Trump’s Deregulation Blitz

The Trump administration, in this first year back, has had its ups and downs and is engaged in a lot of initiatives whose outcomes we don’t yet know.

But there has been one clear success: an unrivaled and sweeping deregulatory agenda that is racking up gains every day.

Here to talk about this unleashing of the private economy is Kent Lassman, president and CEO of the best think tank in the country on federal rules and regulations, the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He is also an old buddy.

Ken, thank you so much for taking the time to come in and share your wisdom.

Well, thank you for having me, Kim. It’s always a treat when we get to chat and catch up.

CEI has long been a leading advocate for regulatory reform. You watch it, track it, and offer ideas for how to make it better and where to cut.

Before we dig into specifics of this second Trump term, start us off: how would you grade this first year, and how does it compare to the last go-round in office?

I’ll tell you, this past year has been much more disciplined.

They clearly have a plan. They’re trying to execute against that plan. They’re moving policies forward in a systematic way.

Sometimes people complain that their favorite issue isn’t at the front of the line or that they didn’t get everything they wanted. But there’s no doubt the team moving the regulatory agenda is being disciplined and thoughtful.

And I think the most significant change is that they know they will have to defend every regulatory or deregulatory action — not just in the court of public opinion, but in a court of law.

That discipline is pointed toward making things that can stick.

That’s so important, and I want to talk about that in regard to one specific move.

But first: is there an overarching strategic vision, or are department heads just being left to get on with it after getting the memo? How is this working in practice?

I think it’s a third path, but closer to your second option.

Very early in the term, the president was signing executive orders left and right. Some accomplished policy goals directly, but many were instructions.

He said: go out, look at this question, and come back with a recommendation. That happened across agencies.

Every big agency has dozens of sub-cabinet bureaus. They all got the memo. They understood the direction the administration wanted to go.

We’ve now had more than 200 executive orders — approaching 225. Many of them were instructions: this is the direction, go find ways to implement it.

And we’re now starting to see that play out.

Your point about having a real plan struck me nowhere more than last week, when we saw the finalization of revoking the “endangerment finding” that allowed prior administrations to regulate greenhouse gases.

The Trump administration calls it the largest deregulatory action in history. That’s probably true if you look at the price tag.

Quite aside from substance, what struck me was the care and attention to detail in getting rid of the rule — very different from the more haphazard approach last time.

Both legally and scientifically, it seemed meticulous.

What are your thoughts, and do you think it holds up in court?

I’m not much of a betting man — notwithstanding the deregulation we saw from the CFTC this morning — but I will make one prediction: the endangerment finding will end up in court within hours of publication in the Federal Register.

Now, to understand how they approached it, we need to step back.

The Clean Air Act is more than 50 years old. There were major legislative battles and compromises that produced its amendments.

Afterward, more restrictive advocates began filing lawsuits. It was some of the original “lawfare” we talk about today.

Throughout the 1990s, especially after the Kyoto Protocol, cases were filed arguing that greenhouse gases should be regulated.

But the Clean Air Act does not mention climate change or climate policy.

Eventually, these cases culminated in Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007.

Since then, we’ve had this battle over what counts as a pollutant. Even though the statute does not name greenhouse gases as pollutants, the question became whether they could be regulated under EPA authority.

Administrator Zeldin and the administration looked strictly at the law and Supreme Court precedent.

From that reading, they concluded it’s very clear the EPA does not have authority to classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.

“Pollutant” is a very specific word with a specific statutory definition.

The Supreme Court has also curtailed how much deference agencies receive and how much they can create regulatory “running room” for themselves.

Given that legal landscape, EPA made a clear-cut case that it lacked authority.

The science will continue to be contested publicly. But courts first ask: do you even have authority? The factual debates come later.

If nothing else, I hope this stops the regulatory ping-pong between administrations.

Let’s run through some other bright spots.

Great work on climate endangerment. Resetting auto markets and rolling back EV mandates. Consumer appliances — freeing my dishwasher to actually clean dishes. Civil service reform. Efforts to rein in independent agencies.

What else would you add to that list?

On appliances, it’s bigger than just your dishwasher.

There are proposals to repeal onerous regulations on washing machines for clothes and dishes.

There’s a proposed rule on air conditioning that would put bookends on future regulation.

Congress also used the Congressional Review Act last April on water heater regulations.

This is an affordability agenda. These are daily-use items that wear out and must be replaced. Layer upon layer of regulatory cost makes them more expensive.

In health policy, there was a rule repealed that restricted flexibility for elder care facility staffing. Hopefully that leads to better care rather than rigid rulebook compliance.

But the big success story is energy.

Not just limiting subsidies in last summer’s legislation, but creating space for new energy development.

Limiting climate policies, auto emission standards, and allowing energy development — that’s a key long-term interest.

Let me ask something related.

Given these successes, will industry embrace this freedom?

There’s long been talk about regulatory capture — agencies dominated by industries.

But in modern times, it’s almost the opposite. Industry has become meek and sometimes “woke.”

Even when given freedom — build a better washing machine, build a powerful truck — companies sometimes hesitate.

What are you seeing?

That’s a great insight.

What’s changed in the last decade is a fusion of regulation and massive subsidies.

Take trucks. I grew up in a farming community. You need a truck that works in cold weather.

Absent subsidies — many of which have now been pared back — the demand for extra regulation evaporates.

Businesses want market share. They respond to consumer demand.

But we should distinguish among businesses.

Incumbent firms behave differently from new or rapidly growing firms.

Companies built around innovation and R&D don’t want regulatory protection. They want dynamism.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page once ran “Down with Big Business.” I still agree with that sentiment.

Where is the administration behind? What could it do more on? And how much is Congress to blame?

Let me start with low-hanging fruit.

In the final months of the first Trump administration, there were strong moves from the Office of Management and Budget to increase transparency in regulatory guidance.

They required databases so businesses could look up where regulations applied to them.

The Biden administration removed that spotlight.

There’s legislation called the GOOD Act — Guidance Out of Darkness — that would codify transparency.

The White House hasn’t strongly pushed Congress on that.

There’s more that could be done to codify regulatory process reforms, including the “ten-for-one” rule eliminating ten regulations for every new one.

But I’m most concerned about areas where the administration has been wobbly.

The president likes deals.

There’s heavy antitrust scrutiny of mergers and acquisitions, with no clear pattern of enforcement.

Then there’s the idea of a “golden share” — the government demanding a stake in private companies as a condition of approvals.

That’s antithetical to American limits on government.

And trade restrictions are a regulatory problem. Full stop.

This has not been a great administration for trade.

I agree. And I worry about a more populist wing of conservatism that wants to bash companies and impose new regulations.

We see strange alliances, like Josh Hawley and Elizabeth Warren.

Or proposals like capping credit card interest rates — very unhelpful to a deregulatory agenda.

Let me end with DOGE.

It didn’t cut $2 trillion as Elon Musk once suggested.

But it did expose horrific examples of inefficiency and fraud.

Looking back, what was its impact?

I recently told a friend: the most important thing DOGE did was shine an intense spotlight on governance problems.

It showed that the federal government is unmanageable — because of its scope and reach into private life.

No one can now say it’s not that big a problem.

That’s the single biggest success.

What we do with that newfound awareness is the critical question.

We’ve seen some progress.

Congress has begun passing appropriations bills annually again — not perfectly, but better than in two decades.

Agency heads now know not just the White House or Congress is watching — but the public.

DOGE made that possible.

And for that, we should all roll up our sleeves and keep exposing the craziness.

Hear, hear.

Progress — even small steps — matters.

Kent, I can’t wait to have you back to see how predictions play out.

In the meantime, thank you so much for coming in.

And thanks to our listeners for tuning in. We’re here every week.

If you like the show, hit subscribe. And if you’d like to write to us, you can at atkimwsj.com.