Federal regulations/ Musk Ramaswamy DOGE/ Supreme Court rulings/ U.S. deregulation process/ West Virginia v. EPA/ Loper Bright Enterprises/ regulatory rollback challenges/ WASHINGTON/ Newslooks/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy plan to leverage recent Supreme Court rulings to eliminate federal regulations through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Experts argue their approach misinterprets the decisions and overlooks the complex, resource-intensive administrative process. Skepticism also surrounds their proposed staffing cuts and personal business interests.
Musk and Ramaswamy’s Deregulation Agenda: Quick Look
- DOGE Initiative: Aims to reduce regulations using Supreme Court precedents.
- Misinterpretation: Experts say rulings don’t simplify overturning old rules.
- Administrative Challenges: Revoking regulations requires years of resources and legal review.
- Workforce Paradox: Proposed staff cuts could undermine deregulation efforts.
- Conflict of Interest: Musk and Ramaswamy’s businesses stand to benefit from fewer regulations.
Musk, Ramaswamy Face Hurdles Cutting Federal Regulations
Deep Look
Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, appointed by President-elect Donald Trump to head the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), are promoting an aggressive agenda to slash federal regulations. They claim two recent Supreme Court rulings—West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022) and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024)—empower them to achieve this goal. However, legal and regulatory experts argue their interpretation of these decisions oversimplifies the complex reality of federal deregulation.
Key Supreme Court Rulings
The Loper Bright decision eliminated the precedent of judicial deference to ambiguous agency rulemaking, requiring stricter scrutiny of new regulations. Meanwhile, West Virginia restricted federal agencies from addressing major economic or political issues without clear congressional authorization.
Musk and Ramaswamy believe these rulings invalidate numerous regulations. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, they argued that President Trump could use executive action to pause enforcement and begin rescinding such rules, which they claim would boost economic growth.
However, Nicholas Bagley, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, says the rulings don’t grant additional authority to reconsider old regulations. Instead, they constrain agencies’ discretion in creating new ones, making Musk and Ramaswamy’s strategy legally fraught.
Challenges of Deregulation
Reversing regulations involves a labor-intensive process. Agencies must follow administrative procedures, propose replacements, justify changes, and allow public input. This lengthy process, which typically takes years, is open to lawsuits challenging the new rules. Richard Pierce Jr., a George Washington University professor specializing in administrative law, describes this approach as “painstaking” and likely to fail in most cases.
Adding to the complexity, Musk and Ramaswamy propose staffing cuts proportional to the reduction in regulations. This approach, experts warn, could undermine their own goals.
James Broughel, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, notes that experienced civil servants are essential for navigating the regulatory landscape. “They’re going to need the very people they plan to cut,” he said.
Historical Context
During Trump’s first term, deregulation efforts were more successful in slowing the issuance of new rules rather than rescinding existing ones. The Council of Economic Advisers reported in 2019 that Trump’s regulatory freeze could raise household income by $3,100 over a decade. Still, significant rollbacks were rare due to the legal and procedural challenges now facing DOGE.
One viable option is the Congressional Review Act, which allows lawmakers to repeal rules enacted in the final months of a presidency. Republicans could overturn roughly 100 Biden-era regulations without facing a Senate filibuster, according to Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group.
Conflicts of Interest
Both Musk, CEO of Tesla, SpaceX, and Neuralink, and Ramaswamy, a biotech entrepreneur, stand to benefit financially from deregulation. Musk has criticized government oversight, citing delays in Neuralink’s approvals for advanced brain-computer interface technology. While their business interests align with reducing regulatory burdens, critics argue this raises ethical concerns about their leadership at DOGE.
Expert Skepticism
Experts remain doubtful about the feasibility of Musk and Ramaswamy’s plans.
“These Supreme Court rulings won’t make it easier to slash existing regulations,” Broughel said. Instead, the duo faces a slow, uphill battle requiring extensive resources—precisely what their proposed staffing cuts would limit.
Key Takeaways
- Supreme Court Limits: Recent rulings constrain new regulations but don’t simplify rescinding old ones.
- Administrative Burden: Overturning rules requires years of effort and legal compliance.
- Staffing Risks: Proposed workforce reductions may impede progress on deregulation.
- Conflicted Interests: Musk and Ramaswamy’s businesses could benefit from fewer federal rules.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.