Trump’s Deregulation Impacts Mirroring Reagan’s Era: An Overview

The Trump administration’s decision to eradicate a number of U.S. climate policies was underlined with staunch resolve by Lee Zeldin, the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, who compared the move to a decisive strike against the very core of the climate change doctrine. This resolution to both remove environmental safeguards and fuel skepticism towards scientific consensus is indicative of the Trump administration’s stance on environmental policy. This trend of deregulation is deeply ingrained in the Republican environmental strategy.

The friction between the duty of public wellness protection and the pursuit to invigorate markets is a conflict that has echoed through time, revisiting from the era of Ronald Reagan’s reign. Reagan possessed a firm belief that government itself was the problem, not the solution. This philosophy has substantially influenced subsequent Republican administrations. A memorable encounter took place at the White House in 1987, wherein President Reagan interacted with a youthful Trump, marking a possible handover of ideology.

Reagan was a staunch critic of the slowdown in economic prosperity, attributing it to increased governmental expenditure and escalated oversight on businesses. Environmental regulations were frequently caught in Reagan’s line of fire. Fast forward four decades, America witnesses a reflection of these same theories in Trump’s governance but with potentially more far-reaching consequences than Reagan had anticipated.

Governments can impede the efficacy of their agencies in various ways, such as implementing drastic budget reductions, severing critical staff members, or putting in leaders who aim to lessen the impact of the agency they’re meant to spearhead. Reagan and Trump displayed similar attitudes towards the EPA with differing degrees of severity. Remarkably, Trump’s budget plan for the EPA in 2026 features an aggressive 50% reduction compared to the preceding year, marking the lowest budget proposal in real terms since Reagan’s time.

Far-reaching staff cuts occurring within the first six months of Trump’s second administration brought the EPA’s total workforce down from 16,155 to just 12,448. Reagan’s strategy to curtail ‘unnecessary regulation’ included the dissolution of the EPA Office of Enforcement, triggering a steep 80% drop in actions to enforce environmental protocols. Paralleling this, Trump has suspended enforcement actions, disassembled the EPA’s Science and Research Office, and politicized the very science the agency utilizes by introducing politically aligned supervisors.

These maneuvers threaten the autonomy and technical acumen of the EPA. Although both administrations slashed EPA’s budget, it’s not just financial constraints that weaken an agency’s effectiveness. Taking a step back to 1970, when the EPA was established under the Nixon administration, it served as a symbol of bipartisan agreement. Emerging from a backdrop of decades of air pollution, contaminated waters, and exhaust-flooded roads, it was clear that safeguarding the environment had become an issue of national importance.

However, the industries subjected to EPA’s scrutiny held a contrasting view, arguing that the financial burdens of compliance with EPA’s directives were overly excessive. This divergence created a rift between economic aspirations and scientific knowledge, propagating a tension between the ecological and the commercial. Reagan’s maxim of ‘government is not the solution’ was palpable when he issued an executive order in 1981, requiring federal agencies to submit all proposed regulations to the White House Office of Management and Budget before public announcement.

Seen through Reagan’s lens, this was a strategy to nip onerous regulations in the bud, centralizing authority within the presidential office before they even saw the light of public attention. In line with his disdain for governmental intervention, he appointed an EPA administrator who echoed his sentiments, leading them to handpick a leadership team for the EPA with strong links to the regulated industries.

Such appointments were seen as case studies of ‘regulatory capture’, with an industry gaining undue influence over the regulatory body designed to supervise it. The resultant scandals, drain on budgets, eroding staff spirit, and policy disagreements significantly tarnished the EPA’s reputation. Today, the crosshairs seem to be trained on EPA initiatives that diverge from the administration’s viewpoints. Programs dedicated to ensuring environmental justice for underprivileged communities find themselves under threat.

The selection of individuals from the chemical, fossil fuel, and corporate sectors for key regulatory and legal roles has raised eyebrows. There are growing concerns about potential regulatory capture; will their efforts be directed more towards the welfare of the industries they regulate rather than public health? Trump’s first term of administration maintained a focus on overhauling bureaucracy and granting permissions, which at first glance seemed radical.

While the addition of industry representatives in scientific boards, the revocation of power plant regulations, and the decrease in enforcement hindered, but did not entirely gut the agency. The subsequent Trump administration took a more direct approach, fervently supporting fossil fuel ‘energy dominance.’ Not only seeking to scrap existing regulations but also devising legal strategies to prevent future administrations from reinstating regulations, particularly those related to greenhouse gas emissions.

Simultaneously, efforts were made to undermine scientific research in an endeavor to downplay the threats of global warming. Despite its push for deregulation and expanded oil, gas, and coal leases, the Reagan administration did show some commitment to environmental preservation. Evidence of this commitment includes designating over 10 million acres of land as protected wilderness and the passage of Coastal Barriers Resources Act, which provided security for 3.5 million acres of shoreline from construction.

When the Montreal Protocol was inked in 1988 to safeguard the ozone layer, Reagan showcased scientific data indicating the rising threat of ozone-depleting chemicals. The resolution to nullify U.S. climate policies is a formidable task and will undoubtedly encounter numerous legal challenges over time.

As we can see, these two administrations, while sharing some perspectives on economic growth, industry regulation, and government role, expressed these ideas in significantly different ways. From Reagan’s skepticism of government regulation to Trump’s outright dismissal of climate change, the evolution of American policy is evident.

Regardless of the era, these policies serve as poignant reminders of the perennial tension between economic growth and environmental protection. Yet, the question about the ultimate goal of these administrations remains: Is it the prosperity of the industries they oversee or the health of the public and the planet that they are truly prioritizing?

In a world confronted with increasing environmental disasters and a rapidly changing climate, these questions become more vital than before. Today, the responsibility lies with the people and the government alike to reassess these policies, and to strike a balance between economic growth and the well-being of our planet. The fact that they act upon these questions could very well determine the world future generations inherit.