Trump’s Red-Tape Cuts Shine Bright—Until Tariffs, Industrial Policy, and Government Takeovers Expose the Chaos

President Trump continues to deliver a master class in regulatory restraint that should warm the heart of every taxpayer weary of bureaucratic overreach. As the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Wayne Crews documents, the administration is on pace for fewer than 3,000 final rules in the Federal Register this year—something that has happened only twice before in modern history, both under Trump. Predecessors routinely pumped out 3,000 to 4,000 or more. Many of this year’s “significant” rules are actually deregulatory, unwinding prior mandates rather than piling on new ones. Agencies are spending more time undoing than doing, and the sky has not fallen. This is principled federal neglect at its best—government leaving citizens alone to produce, innovate, and keep more of what they earn.

Yet this impressive record is badly tainted by Trump’s eagerness to substitute one form of intervention for another:

• He has implemented a substantial and broad array of tariffs, which function as hidden taxes on American importers and, by extension, American consumers and businesses. These taxes raise costs across supply chains and act as rule-equivalents that never even appear in the Federal Register.

• Industrial policy—government using subsidies, priorities, and directives to favor certain industries over others—represents a misguided effort to override the free market and steer capital where political calculations, not productivity, dictate.

• Demands for government equity stakes in private companies amount to outright cronyism and partial nationalization, the very antithesis of free markets, limited government, and property rights. Once the government owns a piece of Intel or U.S. Steel, the distortions multiply. Why would competitors invest or expand when they know a favored rival enjoys the full weight of federal power behind it? Customers, especially business customers, will naturally gravitate toward the government-backed player—either to curry favor with the administration or out of fear that buying from the “wrong” supplier could invite regulatory disadvantage or retaliation. The result is a tilted playing field that punishes innovation, entrenches inefficiency, and signals that private enterprise now serves at the pleasure of the executive branch. Given that zero-government ownership is free market, and 100%-ownership is communism, why would Trump want to slide down that slippery slope?

The lesson is clear and timeless. True economic freedom requires consistent principle, not selective restraint paired with authoritarian impulses in trade and industrial planning. Partial victories on regulation are welcome, but they cannot excuse a broader disregard for individual rights and sound economics. Americans deserve leaders who cut red tape and then step back—not ones who tear it up only to weave new ropes of their own design.