American Prosperity Above Regulation

• 10 min read
• Bookmark
• Main Blog Page

The Trump administration has prioritized reducing the burdens placed on American industries and the American public that are a result of federal regulation. During his first administration, he demonstrated the push to reduce regulatory burden by issuing an order to eliminate two regulations for every new regulation finalized. That was notable, but it could be said that his second term’s aim at shrinking regulatory oversight has been placed on steroids. With the issuance of Executive Order 14192 on Jan. 31, federal agencies are required to identify at least 10 regulations, rules or guidance documents to be repealed whenever that agency implements a new regulation. As is noted in the Executive Order, it is the Executive Branch’s policy “to be prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private sources, and to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people.” By repealing 10 regulations for every new regulation enacted, the cost associated with a new regulation that is inherently passed on to the American people will be offset and contribute to maintaining the prosperity of the public.

One very clear example of the current administration’s commitment to maintaining the well-being of American industry and American citizens is the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent decision to withdraw the proposed rule titled “Clean Water Act Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category.” This rule, proposed in January 2024, considered lowering the allowable discharge thresholds for various constituents that are contained in wastewater discharged from meat and poultry processing facilities.

The 2024 proposed rule was the result of two issues. The first is the EPA requirement to periodically review ELGs for various industries. Knowing this is a requirement of the Clean Water Act, the meat and poultry industry was not surprised by the EPA’s announcement in September 2021 that indicated revisions may be appropriate to the ELGs for the meat and poultry products (MPP) industrial category. The second driver of the proposed regulation was a lawsuit filed against the EPA that alleged the EPA failed to revise ELGs for the MPP industry and that the EPA had violated the Clean Water Act. Despite the EPA’s earlier announcement that signaled its commitment to review and potentially revise MPP industry ELGs before the lawsuit was filed against the EPA, the administration at that time chose to sign a settlement agreement that bound the EPA to propose a regulation by December 2023 and take a final action on the proposed rule by August 2025. This was a short duration considering the highly technical effort required to review the science and economics that would be needed to justify the regulation.

As required by the Administrative Procedures Act, the EPA is required to perform an economic analysis of a regulation to determine its impact on the industry. To apprise the EPA on the current wastewater treatment technologies used by industry and the State and local regulatory standards they operate under, as well as the pollutant removal efficiencies they achieve, USPOULTRY and other representatives from the MPP industry cooperated with the EPA as they performed their regulatory review. This cooperation included providing the EPA information and data associated with current treatment technologies and their efficiencies, as well as holding several information-sharing meetings and facility site visits.

While the EPA’s analysis during the proposal stage recognized the regulation would have a substantial economic impact on the MPP industry and potentially drive the industry to close 16 facilities, their economic analysis was highly flawed. It was flawed because the EPA used industry revenue data from the timeframe associated with the worldwide outbreak of COVID-19. Typical MPP industry revenues are up to five times lower than the revenues seen during the worldwide pandemic, a fact the meat and poultry industry made the EPA aware of during the comment submittal period. EPA’s faulty economic analysis would have a far greater impact on the potential facility closures -- 74 facility closures to be specific. Furthermore, the projected number of near-term job losses directly associated with these facility closures would increase from nearly 17,000, which the EPA estimated in their Regulatory Impact Analysis, to nearly 78,500.

In a Sept. 3 announcement in the Federal Register, the EPA communicated its decision to withdraw the proposed rule based on the EPA’s “statutory discretion to determine whether such revision is ‘appropriate', (CWA section 304(b)) and factors for establishing such requirements, including ‘‘such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate.’’ The EPA further explained, “In the EPA’s judgment, it is not appropriate to impose additional regulation on the MPP industry, given Administration priorities and policy concerns, including protecting food supply and mitigating inflationary prices for American consumers following a protracted period of high inflation from 2020 through 2024. The MPP industry is critical to the nation’s food supply, and there is a shift in national policy toward ensuring the reduction of the cost of living and reinvigorating American industry.”  Additionally, the Sept. 3 publication of the Federal Register emphasized a Jan. 20, 2026, Presidential memorandum titled, “Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis.” This memorandum highlighted inflationary pressures that affected the price of food and called for deregulatory action to reduce the cost-of-living for Americans.

While adhering to standards and regulations is necessary and an accepted business function, too often the nearsightedness of federal regulators fails to recognize the consequences of over-regulating industry and the effect those regulations have on the American public. Intuitively, nothing prosperous can come from the closure of 74 MPP facilities; nor can anything positive result from the loss of more than 78,000 well-paying jobs. Avoiding both of those outcomes contributes to the well-being and prosperity of the American public. And at the end of the day, that is what guided the EPA under the Trump administration to withdraw the proposed regulation.

<Article Tags>

• Regulatory
• EPA
• Administration
• Clean Water Act