logo
There's hope for pruning federal regulations. Some state experiments are paying off

There's hope for pruning federal regulations. Some state experiments are paying off

President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act includes $100 million for the Office of Management and Budget 'to pay expenses associated with improving regulatory processes and analyzing and reviewing rules.' Following the Department of Government Efficiency initiative, this small investment won't make many headlines — but it should. If that money is put to use in the way several states have done to reduce built-up red tape, the return on investment will make even the crankiest budget hawk crack a smile.
A recent Council of Economic Advisers report found that just a modest portion of the president's deregulatory agenda could save the nation some $907 billion. Californians, who live in America's most-regulated state, understand these costs better than most.
Take housing, for example. California's thriving economy and broad appeal are a recipe for expensive homes, but its famously stringent building and other restrictions create something else: enough scarcity to propel home prices to around 2.5 times the national median. The costs extend further than the sticker price. They make it harder to rebuild after a natural disaster. They send workers and employers fleeing for other states or far-flung areas. They keep young people from finding their way to Westwood, Berkeley or Silicon Valley for better futures.
All of this adds up, and it's about more than a handful of 'good' or 'bad' regulations. It's about moving too slowly to streamline an entire system that fails millions of people. Federal officials now have resources and a mandate to identify failures in the federal code — the question is 'how?'
The answer is taking shape. Federal officials can look at a specific playbook that's getting results in nearby Richmond, Va. Shortly after taking office in 2022, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin issued an executive order setting the ambitious goal of cutting regulatory requirements by 25% by the end of his term. As of this month, his administration has hit the target, and Virginia's Office of Regulatory Management anticipates cutting nearly 33% — and 50% of the words in related guidance documents — by the end of his term.
These numbers are not smoke and mirrors or budgeting gimmicks. Virginia painstakingly and comprehensively inventoried its regulations, including third-party standards that are referenced (which therefore become regulations, too) and guidance documents. Every change has been meticulously and transparently cataloged on the state's regulatory town hall website.
And what's the return on investment? So far, it's saving Virginia businesses and citizens more than $1.2 billion per year.
From reducing the number of training hours required to earn a living as a licensed cosmetologist to streamlining housing regulations (estimated to shave $24,000 off the construction cost of a new house and enable construction professionals to work much faster), working people are coming out ahead.
Virginia is showing Washington that substantial regulatory reform can be accomplished on a shoestring budget. The office that was stood up to oversee the reforms — the Office of Regulatory Management — consists of only four dedicated employees: a director, a deputy director and two policy analysts. Going forward, artificial intelligence will further reduce the costs of cataloguing and processing untold amounts of regulatory requirements.
The technology is a perfect fit for regulatory text. It can process thousands of pages in a tiny fraction of the time it takes a person — and given the hundreds of thousands of pages of such text on the books in Washington, investing in AI-driven regulatory review tech should be a top priority for that $100-million budget.
The White House can also learn from Virginia's specific application of AI. The state is undertaking a pilot program with at least two separate approaches.
First, its AI tool will scan both statutory and regulatory codes side by side and identify the regulatory requirements that go beyond the minimum laid out by statute. Many of these 'discretionary' requirements may still prove necessary to protect public health and safety, but some will not. A human being will then look at the mismatches and examine which regulations to consider scaling back.
Second, the tool will compare each government agency's regulatory code against the corresponding codes of other states. A human being will again review the results and identify instances in which Virginia regulation is needlessly stricter than that of other states.
For example, the algorithm might flag that Virginia requires professional masseurs to undergo 500 hours of training, while the least restrictive state requires only 300 hours. Absent evidence that the other state produces subpar or unsafe practitioners, Virginia officials might decide the 500-hour requirement is too strict.
Of course, a state may have a perfectly legitimate reason to impose stricter regulatory restrictions than others. That's why the algorithm merely creates a 'heat map' to start the process of identifying onerous burdens. By producing the necessary analysis in a matter of seconds, it allows officials to focus on applying human insight and judgment.
Led by Gov. Greg Abbott, Texas officials — noting my findings that their state is America's fifth-most-regulated and could see a half-trillion-dollar economic boost with its own deregulation effort — are now taking a similar approach to Virginia's.
Imagine if the federal government were to implement similar technology. Gone would be the days of regulations from different agencies contradicting each other or outdated rules remaining on the books because humans haven't had the time to update them.
The Trump administration hasn't shied away from making big bets and pushing fundamental reforms. With just a $100-million investment, officials in the Office of Management and Budget can now transform the way Washington regulates. They should start by talking to their counterparts in Richmond.
Patrick A. McLaughlin, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, created the RegData and QuantGov projects, which quantify regulations using data-science tools and have informed reforms in several states.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How DeepSeek and Open-Source Models Are Shaking Up AI
How DeepSeek and Open-Source Models Are Shaking Up AI

Bloomberg

time2 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

How DeepSeek and Open-Source Models Are Shaking Up AI

Tech companies and academics have long wrestled with the risks and rewards of building open-source software. But the frenzy around generative artificial intelligence has lent new significance to the debate. DeepSeek and other Chinese companies have pushed out a wave of low-cost, open source models that rival software from the top American AI developers. In response, OpenAI, a leading US AI company, has released a new open model, its first in six years. The Trump administration has called for more US tech companies to do the same.

You'll need more than luck in the Visa Lottery: Trump administration wants to change the rules
You'll need more than luck in the Visa Lottery: Trump administration wants to change the rules

Miami Herald

time3 minutes ago

  • Miami Herald

You'll need more than luck in the Visa Lottery: Trump administration wants to change the rules

The rules for the popular Diversity Visa Lottery — which allows thousands of people each year to legally immigrate to the United States and apply for a green card — could soon change under a new proposal from the U.S. Department of State. The proposed measures, published Tuesday in the Federal Register, are aligned with several immigration and national security policies reinstated under the Trump administration. Officially known as the Diversity Immigrant Visa (DV) Program, the initiative is now under review to improve 'vetting and combatting fraud.' The Department of State's proposal would increase screening for applicants to the program, whose immigrant visas are granted through a computerized lottery. The agency is seeking to require DV applicants to submit 'valid, unexpired passport information and a scanned copy of the passport biographic page and signature page uploaded with their electronic entry form.' Another change would involve replacing the term 'gender' with 'sex,' in compliance with Executive Order 14168, as well as using 'date of birth' instead of 'age' in an effort to improve 'the accuracy of information collected and maintained by the Department throughout the immigrant visa process.' The DV Program is administered by the Department of State and benefits countries with historically low rates of immigration to the U.S.: specifically, nationals of countries from which fewer than 50,000 people have immigrated to the U.S. over the past five years. According to official data, millions of applicants submit their DV entries every year through an online registration form. The Department of State says the proposed requirements would strengthen the security framework against fraud in the DV application and adjudication process. 'Requiring passport information with the DV entry would make it substantially more difficult for unauthorized third parties to submit entries on behalf of individuals with partial information,' the rule states. 'This requirement would also enable the Department to more effectively and efficiently confirm the identities of entrants. The Department also anticipates that this requirement would reduce the number of fraudulent marriages that occur within the DV Program.' Early identification of potential fraud would reduce the need to dedicate 'significant resources' to resolving inconsistencies between the DV entry and the visa application, and to 'determine whether the explanation provided by the applicant is credible or whether the entry was fraudulent.' Each year, 55,000 Diversity Visas are made available to those who meet eligibility criteria and qualify under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and State Department regulations. The proposal includes amending certain visa application forms to require 'a passport number or unique identification number associated with the applicant's valid, unexpired passport; the name on the passport; the country or authority that issued the passport; and the expiration date of the passport.' Additionally, DV applicants would be required to submit a scanned image of the passport's biographic and signature pages. This would, according to the proposal, 'significantly enhance' the department's ability to verify applicants' identities — part of the response to Trump's Executive Order 14161, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States, issued on January 20, 2025. With access to a scanned passport image, the department 'seeks to reduce the likelihood of a falsified passport number' and enable adjudicators 'to compare the spelling of the principal entrant's name in the native alphabet on the passport with the spelling of the entrant's name in English as provided on the entry form.' Under the new rules, some applicants would need to obtain a valid passport at the time of submitting their DV entry, rather than after being selected for an interview at a consular office or embassy. The proposed rule is open to public comment for 44 days and is scheduled to close on September 19, 2025.

Stanford Daily sues Trump administration over deportation threats
Stanford Daily sues Trump administration over deportation threats

San Francisco Chronicle​

time3 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Stanford Daily sues Trump administration over deportation threats

Stanford's student newspaper sued the Trump administration on Wednesday for threatening to deport any noncitizen who criticizes Israel or U.S. foreign policy, saying the government is violating freedom of speech and intimidating campus journalists into censoring their own articles. 'In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion,' lawyers for the Stanford Daily, the university's independent 133-year-old publication, wrote in a lawsuit filed in federal court in San Jose. They said staff writers holding legal U.S. visas 'are declining assignments related to the conflict in the Middle East, worried that even reporting on the conflict will endanger their immigration status.' One editor resigned from the newspaper, another editor and present and former reporters have asked to have their articles removed from the website and 'international students have also largely stopped talking to Stanford Daily journalists,' the suit said. It was filed a day after Stanford officials announced that they might lay off 363 non-teaching employees this fall because of a $750 million tax increase imposed by President Donald Trump's budget bill. The lawsuit is among multiple legal challenges to the Trump administration's attacks on pro-Palestinian protesters and their universities. A central issue, cited by the newspaper's lawyers, is Secretary of State Marco Rubio's claim that he can order deportation of any noncitizen for statements he considers 'anti-American' or 'anti-Israel.' Rubio cited a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 that allows the secretary of state to revoke a noncitizen's legal status if the secretary decides the person's 'beliefs, statements or associations … compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.' He invoked that provision against Mahmoud Khalil, a legal U.S. resident and pro-Palestinian activist at Columbia University who was arrested in March and held in a Louisiana jail for 104 days before a federal judge ordered his release. Other campus activists have also been jailed, and Stanford reported that the visas of six students were revoked less than two weeks after Rubio's announcement in March. The lawsuit said Rubio's claim that a student's criticism of Israel harms a 'compelling United States foreign policy interest' is questionable — but regardless, his actions violate the Constitution's First Amendment, which protects noncitizens under a 1945 Supreme Court ruling. 'The First Amendment cements America's promise that the government may not subject a speaker to disfavored treatment because those in power do not like his or her message,' wrote the attorneys, Marc Van Der Hout of San Francisco and Conor Fitzpatrick of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. They asked a federal judge for an injunction that would halt the threats of deportation against critics of Israel or U.S. foreign policy. Tricia McLaughlin, spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security in the Trump administration, called the suit 'baseless.' 'DHS takes its role in removing threats to the public and our communities seriously, and the idea that enforcing federal law in that regard constitutes some kind of prior restraint on speech is laughable,' McLaughlin said in a statement. She said the United States has 'no room' for 'the rest of the world's terrorist sympathizers.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store