“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” ― Thomas Jefferson
The recent passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a landmark victory for American prosperity, partially addressed this timeless truth. By making pro-growth tax cuts permanent, the law has secured the fuel for a manufacturing renaissance. However, a greater threat remains: a federal code comprising over 185,000 pages of regulations—a system that forces small manufacturers to pay over 30% more in compliance costs than their larger competitors. With the tax battle won, we must now pivot to the next front in the war for our economic future. It is time for a Great Unburdening.
Fuel is useless if the engine of industry is seized. Today, the modern regulatory state is a seized engine. The next great battle for the reshoring of American manufacturing is not just about policy. It is about dismantling the unaccountable, unconstitutional administrative state that chokes our prosperity. We celebrated the tax cut victory. Now, we must pivot to the next front in the war for our economic future. It’s time for the Great Unburdening. The fight ahead has three key fronts. First, we must end the paralysis of the permitting process that stalls critical projects for years. Second, we must confront the ideological overreach of agencies like the EPA that wage war on American industry. Third, we must challenge the unconstitutional nature of the bureaucracy itself. This is the roadmap to freedom.
The Silent Killer: Quantifying the Crushing Weight of Regulation
The regulatory state does not announce its costs on a tax form. It is a silent killer of prosperity, imposing its burdens quietly and relentlessly. But the costs are very real. We measure them in trillions of dollars, in millions of lost jobs, and in the slow decay of our industrial might. To win this fight, we must first understand the true scale of the enemy.
The $2 Trillion Hidden Tax
The most conservative estimates place the annual economic cost of federal regulations at nearly $2 trillion. This is a staggering figure. It is larger than the entire GDP of Canada or Italy. It is a hidden tax on the American economy that dwarfs what most Americans pay in federal income taxes. Corporations alone do not bear this burden. Every single American bears it.
When broken down, this amounts to a regulatory tax of over $15,000 per American household each year. Businesses pass these costs on to consumers, incorporating them into the prices of cars, groceries, homes, and energy. This hidden charge functions as a deeply regressive tax. The burden disproportionately harms working families and those on fixed incomes, who spend a larger portion of their budget on these essential goods.
The Death by a Thousand Cuts: Compliance and Uncertainty
Beyond the direct costs, the regulatory state imposes a crippling burden of compliance. It diverts our most valuable resource—human capital—from productive work to endless paperwork. Our economy needs more engineers, innovators, and skilled technicians. The administrative state demands more lawyers, lobbyists, and compliance consultants. This is a profound misallocation of talent and energy.
This system also creates a fog of regulatory uncertainty. The constant threat of new rules from unelected bureaucrats chills long-term investment. Why would a company commit billions of dollars to a 30-year project like a new semiconductor fab or a modern steel mill? A bureaucrat’s pen stroke in year five could render that entire investment unprofitable.
This uncertainty is not merely theoretical. Recently in California, the governor and the mayor of Los Angeles used emergency orders to suspend a state law. The law, S.B. 9, allowed property owners to build duplexes in single-family zones, a measure intended to increase housing supply. They suspended it in wildfire-ravaged neighborhoods, citing safety concerns. The move, however, came after a pressure campaign from wealthy homeowners who opposed new development. The message to any builder was clear: the rules can change at any moment based on political whims. This is the very definition of regulatory uncertainty.
The Human Cost: Lost Jobs and Shuttered Factories
Ultimately, we measure the cost of regulation in human terms. We see the price in the factories that companies never built and the high-paying jobs shipped overseas. The corporate decision to offshore production is often not about chasing lower wages. It’s about fleeing a hostile and unpredictable regulatory environment for the certainty and speed of building elsewhere.
A Reshoring Trend Held Back by Red Tape
Yet, despite these hurdles, a powerful trend is emerging. A recent Boston Consulting Group study found that a vast majority of North American companies have already begun moving production back to the continent. Their reasons are clear: they seek supply chain resilience and proximity to American customers. This is not a retreat, but a strategic advance towards a more stable and predictable business environment. This proves that the desire to build and hire in America is strong. The corporate decision to offshore was never the first choice; it was a last resort forced by a punitive regulatory state.
A Case Study in Self-Inflicted Dependence
Consider the critical case of rare earth minerals. These elements are essential for everything from fighter jets and semiconductors to electric vehicles. Yet for years, we allowed ourselves to become dangerously dependent on imports, with China supplying 70% of our needs between 2020 and 2023. Beijing has already demonstrated its willingness to weaponize this supply chain, temporarily suspending exports and exposing a critical vulnerability in the American economy.
For decades, permitting battles and litigation made opening a new domestic mine nearly impossible. This summer, however, Ramaco Resources broke ground on the Brook Mine in Wyoming, the first new rare earth mine in America in over 70 years. This is not just any mine. It will use pioneering methods to extract these elements from coal deposits and projects to supply over 30% of the rare earths needed for our defense applications. As Ramaco’s CEO stated, this is about creating a viable domestic supply line to power our economy and national security.
The fact that it took seven decades to open one such mine is a testament to the scale of the problem. We have regulated ourselves into a state of dependence on our adversaries. The Brook Mine is a victory, but it must be the rule, not the exception. Imagine the jobs and prosperity that would appear if dozens of those projects could be approved in two years rather than seventy.
The Three Heads of the Hydra: Targeting Key Regulatory Failures
The regulatory state is a multi-headed monster. To defeat it, we must attack it on multiple fronts. We must target the specific processes, agencies, and legal doctrines that give it power. There are three key areas where a concerted effort can yield a historic victory for economic liberty.
The Permitting Paralysis: Reforming NEPA and Ending Litigation Abuse
Congress signed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) into law in 1970 with a modest intent. Its purpose was to make sure federal agencies considered the environmental impact of major projects. It has since metastasized into the single greatest obstacle to building anything in the United States. Radical environmental groups have weaponized the law to wage a war of attrition against American infrastructure.
Through a tactic known as “sue and settle,” these groups file endless lawsuits against projects. They often collude with friendly administrations to reach settlements that create new, more stringent regulations outside of the public and congressional process. Litigation abuse can delay a critical pipeline, a new bridge, or a modern factory for years, driving up costs until the project becomes unviable.
The TransWest Express Transmission Project is a prime example. This project, vital for carrying renewable energy from Wyoming to the desert Southwest, took over 15 years to approve. It was a process bogged down by duplicative reviews from dozens of agencies, each with its own agenda and interests. This is not an outlier. It is the norm.
The solution is a set of specific, principled reforms. First, we must impose hard deadlines on the environmental review process. A two-year “shot clock” for all major projects is a reasonable and achievable goal. Additionally, we must limit judicial review to prevent endless challenges after a project is approved. Third, we must enact “loser pays” provisions. This would require litigants who bring frivolous lawsuits and lose to pay the court costs of the defendant. This would be a powerful deterrent to litigation abuse.
The EPA’s War on Industry: A Case Study in Ideological Overreach
No agency has been more aggressive in expanding its power than the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA consistently exceeds its statutory authority. It uses vague clauses in laws, such as the Clean Air Act, to create new national energy and economic policies effectively. The EPA does this without a single vote from Congress.
Consider the “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule. Through this rule, the EPA has sought to claim regulatory authority over nearly every body of water in the country, including ditches and farm ponds. This is a massive power grab that threatens farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers alike. Similarly, the EPA’s ever-tightening ozone standards and its attempts to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Power Plan and its successors represent a direct assault on our energy sector. These rules impose immense costs on the economy for often negligible or scientifically dubious environmental benefits. They are a clear example of a political agenda masquerading as science. This is not about protecting the environment. It is about centrally planning the American economy.
The Constitutional Crisis: A Landmark Victory Over the Administrative State
The deepest problem with the regulatory state is not just its cost, but its unconstitutionality. The rise of the administrative state violates the fundamental principle of the separation of powers. For forty years, a flawed legal doctrine known as “Chevron deference” formed the legal foundation of this unaccountable fourth branch of government. This doctrine forced courts to defer to a bureaucrat’s “reasonable” interpretation of an ambiguous law, representing a massive abdication of judicial duty.
This past summer, in a historic victory for constitutional order, the Supreme Court overturned this precedent in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The Court has ended the era of judicial surrender. No longer will unelected agency officials have the power to write the laws they are supposed to enforce. The power to interpret the law has been rightfully returned to the judiciary.
Critics of the decision, such as Justice Kagan in her dissent, argue that this will turn judges into “administrative czars.” This is a scare tactic. The true czars were the agency heads who could impose their policy preferences with the force of law. Judges interpreting the law as written is not policymaking; it is their constitutional duty. This ruling does not give judges new power. It restores the balance of power intended by the Founders.
With Chevron deference relegated to the ash heap of history, the next step is clear. Congress must pass the REINS Act (Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny). This simple, powerful bill would require any “major rule” with a significant economic impact to face an up-or-down vote in Congress. This is not a technical legal issue. It is the next fundamental fight to restore self-government and ensure that those who make our laws are accountable to the American people.
The Unburdened Future: A Vision of American Industrial Might
Imagine an America where the dead hand of the regulatory state has been lifted. This is not a distant utopia. It is an achievable goal. It is the next necessary step in reshoring American manufacturing. An unburdened America would be a more prosperous, more innovative, and more secure nation.
The Power of Speed and Certainty
In this future, the permitting process for a new factory is clear, predictable, and completed in months, not years. This speed and certainty would unleash a flood of new investment. Capital, both foreign and domestic, seeks stability. When a company can reliably forecast a project timeline, it is far more likely to commit the billions of dollars required for a new facility.
This environment would make the United States the premier destination for foreign direct investment. International firms would choose to build here not because of subsidies, but because of the unparalleled stability of our legal system and the efficiency of our approval processes. American companies, in turn, would find the calculus of offshoring completely reversed. The benefits of building at home—closer to customers and within a secure legal framework—would vastly outweigh the perceived advantages of moving abroad. We would see a surge in the construction of new plants, infrastructure, and energy projects.
A Renaissance of American Innovation
Freeing nearly $2 trillion from the dead weight of compliance costs would have a transformative effect. This capital would not simply vanish into corporate profits. Companies would redirect the capital to research and development, new technologies, higher wages, and worker training. When businesses are not required to allocate a significant portion of their resources to non-productive paperwork, they can invest in the tools and talent that drive genuine growth.
This would accelerate the adoption of advanced manufacturing techniques. We would see greater investment in automation, robotics, and artificial intelligence on the factory floor. This does not mean fewer jobs. It means better, higher-skilled, and higher-paying jobs. A worker overseeing a fleet of advanced robots is more productive and more valuable than one performing a repetitive task by hand. This is how we compete and win in the 21st-century global economy.
The Return of “Made in USA”
Ultimately, deregulation connects directly to the primary goal of reshoring. Significantly reducing the cost and risk of building in America makes the economic case for offshoring less compelling. The free market, unburdened by punitive regulation, will naturally choose to produce here. This will rebuild our industrial commons, create more resilient supply chains, and enhance our national security, fulfilling the promise of the free-market blueprint.
The return of a major manufacturer to a community does more than create jobs within that factory’s walls. It creates a ripple effect of prosperity. It supports a network of smaller, local suppliers—the machine shop that makes a specialized part, the logistics company that handles shipping, the tech firm that services the equipment. This revitalizes the entire economic ecosystem, creating a virtuous cycle of investment and opportunity.
A Call to Action for Economic Liberty
The recent tax victory was an essential first step. It has provided the fuel for our industrial revival. The Great Unburdening is the necessary and urgent second step. We must now clear the path for the fuel to be used.
This is not a choice between the economy and the environment. It is a choice between a prosperous, innovative, and clean nation driven by free enterprise, and a stagnant nation strangled by its own unaccountable bureaucracy. We can have both a strong economy and a healthy environment. The best way to achieve both is through innovation and efficiency, which only a free market can provide.
The charge before us is clear.
- We must demand that our elected representatives take up the fight against the administrative state.
- We must champion the cause of government deregulation for manufacturing.
- We must fight for a future where the American spirit of enterprise is finally, truly unburdened.
The fight for economic liberty is ongoing.