🎧 Listen to the summary:
Cutting red tape has been transformed from an abstract goal into a program with teeth: a clear timetable, a public dashboard, and a mandate to deliver measurable savings. The administration’s ten‑for‑one rule does more than promise lower compliance costs — it imposes a discipline on agencies, pairing a commitment to ease burdens on households and businesses with a centralized, relentless search for obsolete requirements. Early accounting from the government’s deregulation scoreboard already credits billions in savings as rules are delayed, withdrawn, or slated for repeal. That accounting, contested in places, nonetheless signals a purposeful reorientation: regulators must show results, not just intentions.
The policy succeeds because it is layered and procedural. A January directive ordered agencies to rescind at least ten existing rules for every new rule issued and to keep the net cost of regulation “significantly less than zero” through the fiscal year. Energy rules that languish unrenewed now face automatic expiration, creating a disciplined rolling review that forces agencies to update or sunset old mandates. Central review at the White House was tightened with strict timelines — most deregulatory actions are expected to clear within twenty‑eight days, and rules deemed “facially unlawful” move on an even faster track. The message is unambiguous: speed, repetition, and verifiable output are the measures of good governance.
A new hub, the Department of Government Efficiency, is turning that message into action. Its algorithmic screening tool is scanning the federal rulebook with a scale and speed no human team could match. Internal planning describes roughly 200,000 regulatory sections in the target universe and an ambition to flag up to half for possible removal by the administration’s first anniversary. Pilots moved at a breakneck pace: one housing office reviewed more than a thousand sections in under two weeks; another regulator said the tool drafted every proposed repeal it pursued. That software is not a magic wand but a force multiplier — it saves time on rote review so experienced staff can focus on legal judgment and policy trade‑offs.
Agencies have adopted varied but complementary routes to the same end. The Federal Communications Commission’s “Delete, Delete, Delete” proceeding — blunt in its title and purposeful in practice — invited industry and the public to nominate rules for elimination or modernization. Bureaus exercised delegated authority to waive or streamline requirements, using direct‑final rules to clear outdated broadcast provisions swiftly while preserving an automatic pause if serious objections emerged during the comment window. Those tactics demonstrate a pragmatic blend of openness and resolve: the public gets a voice, but the government also acts without unnecessary delay.
Budget and workforce decisions are marching in step with the regulatory campaign, and here too the administration has chosen consequence over complacency. At the Environmental Protection Agency, probationary terminations were announced and a proposed restructuring would shrink the Office of Research and Development, with leadership projecting hundreds of millions in savings. Staff dissent and reports of a potential workforce reduction approaching a quarter of the agency have been inevitable byproducts of an overhaul of this scale. State and local officials have warned that deep cuts to categorical grants could complicate delegated programs if enforcement and monitoring are not resourced elsewhere — warnings that underscore an unavoidable truth: reorientation at the center will force partners to adapt.
That adaptation has real costs. In climate and energy agencies, freezes and new approval layers have slowed grant processing, lab access, and exercises tied to emergency management. Watchdogs have flagged concerns where funds were withheld in separate decisions, and courts issued early restraining orders against elements of the reorganization. Administrative lawyers point out that rapid reorganizations collide with the government’s own rules on reductions‑in‑force and labor agreements, which require notice, sequencing, and consultation. These frictions are not failures so much as evidence that the government is serious about reshaping itself — the bureaucratic pain is the price of structural gain.
The policy’s fiscal posture is similarly strategic. Civilian operations are being slimmed so resources can be redirected toward immigration and defense priorities. Reported plans to reclassify tens of thousands of policy roles as at‑will and to pursue lasting staffing cuts are controversial, but they are consistent with an approach that consolidates decision‑making for deregulatory priorities and removes layers that often slow action and diffuse responsibility. The consequence — a government that looks and operates differently — is precisely the outcome proponents intended.
The ledger of benefits is already public and sizable. The efficiency office’s leaderboard credits deregulation with tens of billions in savings, citing reversals of rules on credit‑card late fees and select appliance standards among the largest contributors. Economists and consumer advocates have questioned the construction of those totals and warned that market adjustments could shift costs elsewhere; that debate will rightly follow the rollbacks into the courts and the public square. But the raw scale of claimed savings is itself a form of accountability: when a program produces measurable dollars-and-cents outcomes, the conversation moves from abstract values to concrete trade‑offs.
Those trade‑offs are visible in process as well as outcome. Compressed White House review windows raise the prospect that legal records assembled to justify reversals will be lean, inviting preliminary injunctions and repeated do‑overs. Agencies are being asked to shed experienced analysts even as they inventory huge rule sets, draft legal rationales, and answer comments on tight clocks. The algorithm can nominate candidates for deletion, but statutory interpretation and factual baselines still decide survival in court — pilots have already returned misreads that required manual correction. Those imperfections are not signs of incompetence but of operating at a new tempo; cleaning up errors is part of the work of rapid institutional reform.
Some consequences reach beyond Washington. International weather centers reported measurable dips in U.S. observational feeds after staffing and program changes at the national weather agency, prompting agencies to purchase more commercial data — a sensible, if costly, stopgap that shifts reliance toward vendor contracts where public networks once sufficed. In environmental programs, reduced categorical grants mean states will likely shoulder more enforcement and monitoring, increasing the role of citizen suits and local budgets. Those burdens are unwelcome to many, but they are explicit trade‑offs: higher state and private responsibility in exchange for a leaner federal footprint and faster rulemaking.
The calendar ahead is firm and unapologetic. Agencies are under White House deadlines to deliver repeal lists and shepherd proposals through shortened review, with the efficiency office pressing for a sizable cut list before January 20, 2026. Direct‑final actions will post and take effect unless significant objections arise; larger rollbacks will run the full notice‑and‑comment course under the Administrative Procedure Act. Oversight remains in place — courts, the Government Accountability Office, and appropriators can and will check excesses — but the system is now designed to move faster. The administration’s point is clear: achieving big change requires deliberate disruption, and those willing to undertake it must accept the costs as confirmation that their intentions are real.
—
Greg Sanders covers federal oversight, administrative restructuring, and the mechanics of government reform. He holds a degree in public policy from the University of Texas and began his career auditing municipal budgets before moving to federal-level investigative reporting. His work focuses on how agencies evolve, consolidate, and expand under the banner of efficiency.
Greg Sanders serves as the Senior Correspondent for Corporate Power and Antitrust at Just Right News, where he brings a principled, conservative perspective to the complex intersection of big business, government regulation, and the American consumer. With a career dedicated to investigative depth and economic clarity, Greg has become a leading voice in examining how the consolidation of industry power impacts the foundational values of the free market and individual liberty.
Raised in Denver, Colorado, Greg’s reporting is deeply informed by the Western spirit of independence and a healthy skepticism of centralized authority. Growing up in the shadows of the Rockies, he witnessed firsthand the importance of local entrepreneurship and the vital role that small-medium enterprises play in sustaining vibrant communities. This upbringing instilled in him a belief that the American Dream is best preserved when the playing field remains level and when competition—rather than backroom deals between corporate lobbyists and federal regulators—dictates success. For Greg, the rugged individualism of his home state serves as a constant reminder that the economy should serve the people, not the other way around.
Now based in Chicago, Illinois, Greg operates from the heart of the nation’s industrial and financial crossroads. His location in the Midwest provides him with a unique vantage point to observe the real-world consequences of corporate overreach. From the boardrooms of the Loop to the manufacturing hubs that define the region, he tracks the movement of capital and the shifting tides of market influence. Chicago’s history as a center of trade and labor offers a rich backdrop for his work, allowing him to bridge the gap between high-level economic theory and the lived experiences of hardworking Americans who feel the squeeze of monopolistic practices.
At Just Right News, Greg’s beat focuses on the “new monopolies” and the rise of “woke” corporate culture. He argues that when corporations become too large, they often abandon their fiduciary duties to shareholders in favor of social engineering and political posturing. His reporting seeks to hold these “Titans” accountable, ensuring that the power of the purse is not used to silence dissent or bypass the democratic process. He is a firm advocate for the idea that true conservatism requires a vigilant defense of competition, preventing any single entity—public or private—from exerting undue control over the lives of citizens.
This mission is most clearly seen in his acclaimed feature series, “The Titans and the Toll.” In this ongoing project, Greg explores the human cost of market consolidation, from the erosion of consumer choice to the decline of local economies. Through rigorous analysis and boots-on-the-ground reporting, he documents how the concentration of power in sectors like tech, agriculture, and finance creates a “toll” paid by the average family.
Greg Sanders remains committed to the idea that a transparent, competitive market is the greatest engine for prosperity ever devised. Through his work at Just Right News, he continues to provide the essential oversight necessary to protect that engine from the encroaching influence of corporate giants and the bureaucratic structures that enable them.