How has Trump’s deregulatory order worked in practice?

From: Brookings

[Brookings] Editor’s Note: This report is part of the Series on Regulatory Process and Perspective and was produced by the Brookings Center on Regulation and Markets.

Connor Raso

The Trump administration’s executive order requiring agencies to eliminate two rules for every new rule (“one in, two out”) has received a great deal of attention but little analysis of how it has worked in practice. Has the order chilled regulation that imposes new costs altogether? Or have agencies added new rules that impose costs while diligently eliminating old ones?  Or have agencies managed to skirt the order and issue rules that impose new costs without providing deregulatory offsets?  In short, how has the order actually affected rulemaking?

These questions can be more fully addressed now that the order has been in effect for approximately 18 months. This piece analyzes two key questions.  First, have agencies under Trump issued new rules with costs?  If so, what motivated these rulemaking efforts and how did they justify such rules?  Second, did agencies issue deregulatory rules to offset new rules that impose costs?  If so, were these deregulatory rules meaningful or relatively minor?

Read Complete Article

Comments are closed.