Latest news with #deregulation
Bloomberg
20 hours ago
- Business
- Bloomberg
Byron Allen Looks to Offload $1B in Local TV Stations to Manage Debt
Producer Byron Allen has hired Moelis to shop local TV stations to potential buyers in an effort to reduce debts. Bloomberg's Romaine Bostick breaks down the move and how the company is taking advantage of potential deregulation in the TV industry. (Source: Bloomberg)
Bloomberg
a day ago
- Business
- Bloomberg
Byron Allen Hires Moelis to Shop $1 Billion in Local TV Stations
Producer and host Byron Allen has hired Moelis & Co. to find buyers for 28 local TV stations his company owns, in an effort to reduce debt while taking advantage of potential deregulation in the broadcast business. Allen, who got his start as a standup comic, owns 21 affiliate stations of major networks — ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox — in 21 markets. He spent more than $1 billion acquiring the portfolio over the past six years, according to a statement from his Allen Media Group on Monday.
Forbes
2 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
Many Trump Spending And Deregulatory Executive Orders Bypass DOGE
Media gloating over Elon Musk's departure from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is fairly widespread and overly unfair. However as a Special Government Employee, the Musk Max was always 130 days. WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 30: Tesla CEO Elon Musk shakes hands with U.S. President Donald Trump as they ... More speak to reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on May 30, 2025 in Washington, DC. Musk, who served as an adviser to Trump and led the Department of Government Efficiency, announced he would leave his role in the Trump administration to refocus on his businesses. (Photo by) The broader project, however, has more than a year to run—set to dissolve amid the July 4, 2026 America 250 celebrations and present a final report of findings and recommendations. The overarching Trump-Vance deregulatory program has, of course, nearly another four years remaining (at least). A $9 billion set of recissions targeting 2025 fiscal year funding—such as foreign aid and taxpayer-funded broadcasting—is being sent to Congress this week. No DOGE cuts had been included in the recent 'Big Beautiful Bill' recission package. If one had to choose, the hallmark of Musk and DOGE's four-month tenure has been a bold stand against the entrenched federal employee, contractor, and NGO complex—an apparatus whose relentless pursuit of taxpayer funds at times strays far from the ideals of limited constitutional government. The initial recission package reflects elements of this challenge. DOGE has also moved to delete non-statutory programs and agencies, deflate others (by shifting functions to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for example), and implement federal reductions in force. Efforts to centralize information collection and electronically track funding flows are underway—moves that, if successful, could uncover what even the House Oversight Committee sees as money laundering spanning the federal government. DOGE's remit spans both federal spending and regulation, so tight reviews of procurement and grants can advance the goal of terminating regulatory laundering through those channels. The real test of Congress's commitment to DOGE will be whether spending-cut votes this year go beyond the few billion announced so far—and whether terminations extend to statutory agencies and commissions, not just the non-statutory ones. Curiously, most of Trump's executive orders implementing his spending and deregulatory agenda don't assign DOGE as the lead. Of the 157 executive orders issued by Trump through May 23, only eight by my handcount explicitly invoke DOGE. Milestone directives that do not mention DOGE include the 10-for-one regulatory rollback (surprisingly enough), a groundbreaking order aimed at ending regulatory overcriminalization, the torpedoing of a Central Bank Digital Currency, and even defunding National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service. While DOGE is prominent, it's one piece of a larger hierarchy of streamlining actions coordinated by the White House OMB, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and other agencies. A large increase in funding for OMB in the House-passed Big Beautiful Bill to address regulatory matters with considerable discretion supports this notion. Trump's eight executive orders that do invoke or instruct DOGE appear below. Despite the impression of DOGE as a go-it-alone entity, perusing text of these directives reveals that OMB and other agencies play prominent roles in regulatory streamlining efforts that will persist beyond America 250. Some presidential memoranda invoke DOGE, such as April 9's 'Directing the Repeal of Unlawful Regulations,' which builds on EO 14219 by employing the Administrative Procedure Act's 'good cause' exemption to bypass notice-and-comment procedures for certain unlawful and harmful rules. In keeping with the first Trump administration, some actions are interventionist and swampy, potentially overwhelming savings from deregulation. Tariffs, concert ticket pricing, capping drug prices (EO 14273) and a teased DOGE dividend that would advance the progressive left's goal of a universal basic income all raise red flags. Some of Trump's ostensibly deregulatory measures could create unwelcome public/private entanglements, like an energy dominance council (EO 14227), healthcare pricing disclosure mandates (EO 14221) and a continuation of broadband subsidies by the Department of Commerce. Looking beyond DOGE (and beyond the swampy aspects), a broader survey of Trump's executive orders reveals DOGE as one part of a larger agenda streamlining spending and regulation—sometimes with greater fervor than the DOGE directives themselves. Beyond the aforementioned ten-for-one rule elimination and overcriminalization orders, Trump's directives target a range of priorities that overlap with or reinforce DOGE. These include recissions of numerous Biden 'whole-of-government' regulatory executive orders—ranging from clean energy mandates to DEI social policy to censorship of dissent—as well as measures on immigration, border security, foreign aid, federal disbursement controls, energy access, federal employment accountability; and the termination of small agencies. Others address digital financial innovation, regulatory relief for critical industries, and enact routine administrative adjustments typical of any presidency. While Elon Musk drew headlines, Trump's deregulatory push isn't confined to DOGE's 18-month lifespan. It leverages OMB and other agencies, making them the real engines of the agenda. Bigger DOGES, perhaps?
Forbes
3 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
Pouring Funds Into Untested Weapons Is A Recipe For Failure
Administration officials and leaders of the emerging military tech sector are determined to get rid of excess regulations that slow the development and production of new weapons systems. It is a reasoTrump administration nable goal, as long as the drive to deregulate doesn't eliminate rules and personnel that serve essential functions like preventing flawed weapons programs from going into full production before they have been adequately tested. Spending more won't make us safer if a significant part of the new funding goes to systems that don't perform as advertised, are difficult to maintain, or are not useful for the kinds of conflicts the U.S. military is likely to face in the coming period. Unfortunately, the administration seems to be doing just that, announcing that it will cut staffing at the Pentagon's Independent Office of Testing and Evaluation (IOT&E) in half. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has spoken out against the move: 'How is it 'efficient' to gut the office responsible for testing our equipment and making sure it's safe for servicemembers to use?' Warren said. 'This dangerous decision should be immediately reversed.' An analysis by the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense concurred with Sen. Warren's assessment: 'If the end result of this directive is to speed major weapons programs into the field before they're adequately tested, then the $300 million in savings identified by the [adminstration's executive] The independent testing office was created by Congress in 1983 The basis of its independence was the fact that it did not report to any of the military services, which are often too invested in new systems to assess them objectively. The office has earned its keep over the years by producing detailed, unbiased analyses of the cost and performance of major weapons systems like the F-35 combat aircraft. The testing unit's assessments have been invaluable to members of Congress and the media in identifying problems with weapons in the development phase, thereby providing a chance to fix problems early in the process, before they get out of control. At a time when the Pentagon budget is on the verge of hitting $1 trillion per year, and ambitious new initiatives like Golden Dome and the F-47 combat aircraft are scheduled to get huge infusions of cash, independent testing is more important than ever. Not all regulations represent unnecessary bureaucratic interference, as some in the Pentagon and industry seem to believe. The independent testing office is an example of an regulatory unit that can save taxpayers money and put more reliable weapons systems in the hands of the troops. This is not to say that there should be no effort to streamline the Pentagon's weapons buying process. There are no doubt a significant number of regulations that require useless paper work that slows down the development process. But distinguishing unnecessary regulations from essential ones would involve a level of patience and careful analysis that has yet to be exhibited by the administration or its Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Most Americans have never heard of the Pentagon's testing office, but if it is weakened they could pay a high price in wasted tax dollars and dysfunctional weapons systems. Not only should the office be scaled back, it should be strengthened to monitor the flood of new weapons programs in the pipeline, especially complex systems driven by artificial intelligence, which could cause serious damage if they are not developed with adequate scrutiny.
The Guardian
3 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
‘Going to increase prices on everybody': US energy department workers sound alarm over cuts
Workers at the US Department of Energy say cuts and deregulations are undermining the ability for the department to function and will result in significant energy cost hikes for consumers. Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' will raise energy costs for American households by as much as 7% in 2035 due to the repeal of energy tax credits and could put significant investment and energy innovation at risk, according to a report by the Rhodium Group. The non-partisan think tank Energy Innovation calculated the average US household will see its utility bills rise by over $230 by 2035 as a result of cuts to renewable energy investments. The rises are being driven in part by cuts to the agency. Trump has proposed cutting the department's budget by $19.3bn. More than 3,500 employees at the Department of Energy have reportedly taken delayed resignation buyout offers, though the Department of Energy declined to provide final numbers or an estimate on the departures. Some 43% of its workforce of nearly 16,000 employees was deemed 'non-essential', not including 555 probationary employees that were fired earlier this year. The US Department of Energy announced on 12 May plans to eliminate 47 regulations, comprising mostly of energy efficiency standards for appliances, claiming the cuts would save nearly $11bn, but did not provide any analysis or data for how it came to that savings estimate. The Department of Energy estimated in December 2024 that stronger energy efficiency appliance standards would save consumers about $1trn over the next three decades. An analysis by the Appliance Standards Awareness Project found the energy efficiency cuts would add $54bn in utility energy costs. 'The impact of a lot of what I was working on in the energy efficiency and electrification space is aimed at saving folks money. The business case around energy efficiency has been made for the past 30 years. Reducing the cost of energy, any of those fixed costs for folks, can really be life changing, freeing up their budget for other necessities,' said a US Department of Energy employee who requested to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation as they have accepted a resignation buyout offer. 'Changing that has so many effects down the line,' they added. 'We already know things are getting more expensive. Budgets are getting tighter for many households in the state, and also territories and tribes. The work that I did was not only with states, but also with us, territories and tribes as well, and a lot of these communities, every dollar matters, and that's not unique to red or blue areas or anything like that.' Another employee at the US Department of Energy said morale at the department sank after attacks on civil servants by the so-called 'department of government efficiency' (Doge) and the chaos and uncertainty of the firings of probationary employees, contractors, and employees resigning, leaving a drain on resources, talent and knowledge throughout the agency. 'Appointees came in with a clear agenda to dismantle programs and shrink staff,' they said. 'It is very clear they don't care about the work or the workforce. Many were looking to score points with Doge and made quick cuts without concerns for long-term damage, such as the chaos and lost knowledge caused by the delayed resignation program.' A former senior Department of Energy official who requested to remain anonymous explained the totality of the cuts to personnel, grants, regulations, and budget for the department are 'going to increase prices on everybody'. 'As much as the election was on affordability, there's a reason that Trump is doing incredibly poorly on affordability and inflation. I think what's happening at the Department of Energy is just such a great example of a whole variety of efforts that near-term, medium-term and longer-term are going to raise prices on consumers, on companies, and make us less competitive internationally,' they said. 'The efficiency regulations end up saving consumers an awful lot of money, certainly as a percentage of their budget. I don't think there is any truth whatsoever, if you talk to anyone who's ever done analysis and rigor on this, that somehow not doing these regulations is actually saving money. It's the exact opposite if you think of the whole system.' They also criticized the fact that many of these actions will result in lawsuits and legal changes, and the negative impacts of research and development cuts to renewable energy. They cited the demand for energy to power emerging AI and data centers and energy consumption is expected to rise significantly and wind, solar, and battery energy storage are relatively quick and cheap to construct. About 96% of added US energy capacity to the grid in 2024 was from carbon-free sources. 'If you stop any research for next generation solar or battery technology, or wind or geothermal or other pieces, what you're effectively doing is compromising a huge range of technology that has the potential to reduce costs, and of course, has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But even if you don't care about that, these are the technologies that could reduce costs for consumers,' they added. 'The chaos with the tariffs, with the regulations, with the not fully thought through and analyzed nature of this is just causing a lot of confusion, a lot of incoherence, a lot of inconsistency and uncertainty. And that's just not good for businesses, let alone consumers.' A spokesperson for the US Department of Energy refuted claims of costs due to eliminating regulations. 'President Trump and Secretary Wright pledged to restore commonsense to our regulatory policies and lower costs for American consumers – that is exactly what these deregulatory actions do. To argue consumers benefit from being forced to purchase more-expensive, time-intensive products that are often less energy efficient because they don't do the job right the first time is total nonsense,' they said in an email. 'DOE's approach recognizes that consumer choice and market-driven innovation, not bureaucratic mandates, lead to better-performing and more affordable consumer products. DOE's deregulatory actions empower consumers to choose products that meet their needs and budgets, while also supporting American manufacturers.'
