As part of the massive shift of power from the federal government and the public interest, NYT reports (not paywalled) about djt's planned repeal or freezing of hundreds of regulations of public health, food, workplace safety, transportation and other critical government functions:
At the Department of Health and Human Services, Trump administration officials want to reverse a regulation that has required nursing homes to have more medical staff on duty.
At the Mine Safety and Health Administration, powerful lobbying groups have asked the administration to eliminate a rule to protect miners from inhaling the dust of crystalline silica, a mineral that is used in concrete, smartphones and cat litter but that can be lethal in the lungs.
And at the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates radio and television broadcasting and satellite communications, President Trump’s appointees published a seemingly exuberant notice asking for suggestions on which rules to get rid of, titled “DELETE, DELETE, DELETE.”
DELETE, DELETE, DELETE
Across the more than 400 federal agencies that regulate almost every aspect of American life, from flying in airplanes to processing poultry, Mr. Trump’s appointees are working with the Department of Government Efficiency, the cost-cutting initiative headed by Elon Musk and also called DOGE, to launch a sweeping new phase in their quest to dismantle much of the federal government: deregulation on a mass scale.
Usually, the legal process of repealing federal regulations takes years — and rules erased by one administration can be restored by another. But after chafing at that system during his first term and watching President Joseph R. Biden Jr. enact scores of new rules pushed by the left, Mr. Trump has marshaled a strategy for a dramatic do-over designed to kill regulations swiftly and permanently.The approach, overseen by Russell T. Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, rests on a set of novel legal strategies [e.g., breaking the law] in which the administration intends to simply repeal or just stop enforcing regulations that have historically taken years to undo, according to people familiar with the plans. The White House theory relies on Supreme Court decisions — some recent and at least one from the 1980s — that they believe give them the basis for sweeping change.
“Many people don’t realize how high the American quality of life is because of the competent and stable enforcement of regulations, and if that goes away a lot of lives are at risk,” said Steve Cicala, co-director of the National Bureau of Economic Research’s Project on the Economic Analysis of Regulation. “This affects airplane safety, baby formula safety, the safety of meat, vegetables and packaged foods, the water that you drink, how you get to work safely and whether you’re safe in your workplace.”
OK ladies 'n germs, prepare for tainted food, nursing home hell, lung cancer, poisoned babies, rotten meat, accelerating global warming, more air pollution, gigatons of MAGA bullshit, lies and slanders from MAGA radio and television broadcasting and satellite communications, and all kinds of fun-fill freedom (and profit) for deregulated special interests. It will be so much fun that some people are going to literally be deregulated to death.
But not to worry. What could go wrong? As MAGA constantly tells us, paraphrasing, grunt, grunt, government bad, unregulated markets good, stop whining, pull self up by bootstraps, pain is good.
Note the key dark free speech tactic here: djt and MAGA elites frame deregulation as one thing, namely benefits for industry, and at least by implication its also good for consumers. The propaganda never mentions the costs to the public and public interest. The problem is this:
Also accurately expressed like this:
Q: Analyze this article, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/15/us/politics/trump-doge-regulations.html, and asses it for what impact it will have on the balance of power between the public interest, generally the things the targeted regulations are designed to protect, relative to the special interests that break free of eliminated or unenforced regulations. About how much will this be worth to the deregulated special interests and about how much will it cost consumers and how many people will it kill? On balance is this mostly pro-public interest politics or pro-special interest politics?A: [Normal persons' reactions --- Pxy isn't a normal person]
[Pxy's calm response] This initiative presents "a significant opportunity for businesses and their advocates, who have long lobbied for a reduction in regulations and now find receptive allies within the administration" 4. Major industry groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute, and the National Association of Manufacturers have provided lists of regulations they wish eliminated 4.
Costs to consumers and the public
In stark contrast to industry benefits, the public faces substantial costs:
- A Public Citizen report estimated that deregulation deprives consumers and the economy of more than $2.1 trillion in benefits 12.
- American households could lose approximately $17,000 over two decades, or about $840 annually 12.
The dismantling of consumer protections against hidden fees, reduced food safety inspections, and weakened environmental safeguards all represent direct costs to the public that are not captured in administrative savings calculations.
- These figures substantially exceed the average annual costs of the rules to industry, estimated at nearly $21 billion 12.
Health and Safety Implications
The health consequences of large-scale deregulation are potentially severe:
- During Trump's first term, The Lancet Commission found that his policies contributed to approximately 461,000 deaths in 2018 alone 16.
- Environmental protection rollbacks specifically resulted in about 22,000 deaths in 2019 16.
In the context of the current deregulation agenda, experts warn: "Many individuals fail to recognize how high the American quality of life is due to effective and stable regulation enforcement, and if that disappears, numerous lives could be at risk" 4. This affects "the safety of airplanes, baby formula, meat, vegetables, packaged foods, drinking water, commuting safety, and workplace safety."
- Workplace safety rollbacks disproportionately affect vulnerable populations in hazardous industries 4.
Balance of Power Analysis
The deregulatory agenda fundamentally shifts power from the public to special interests in several ways:Procedural Changes Favoring Special Interests
- Bypassing public comment periods eliminates crucial opportunities for citizen input 4.
- Rapid implementation timelines prevent thorough analysis of impacts.
- Sunset provisions create constant uncertainty about regulatory protections 10.
- Direct industry participation in drafting deregulation proposals.
Institutional Power Shifts
The administration has simultaneously weakened the government's capacity to protect public interests:
- Federal worker unions fighting against DOGE have been targeted with executive orders stripping them of representation rights 20.
- Whistleblowers reporting concerns about DOGE's activities have faced intimidation, including one who received "physically taping a threatening note" to his door with sensitive personal information 3.
This systematic weakening of institutional safeguards amplifies the power imbalance created by deregulation itself.
- Scientists at agencies like the NIH report "chaos and confusion" with restrictions on communications and research 18.
Conclusion: Pro-Public or Pro-Special Interest?
The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the Trump-DOGE deregulation agenda primarily serves special interests rather than the public interest. While portrayed as eliminating "waste" and increasing "efficiency," the targeted regulations predominantly protect public health, safety, consumer rights, and environmental quality. The beneficiaries are clearly industries seeking reduced compliance costs.The significant economic costs to consumers, projected loss of life, and procedural changes limiting public input all suggest a substantial shift in power away from the public interest. As one expert notes, this initiative is not about eliminating mere bureaucratic inefficiencies, but dismantling "an extensive network of regulations perceived by many as protective measures, but regarded by [the administration] as impediments to industry" 4.
Q: Is that loud sucking sound we all hear the huge flow of wealth and power from the people and the public interest to special interests and corrupt, cruel elite MAGA freaks and djt, whatever he might be?
