WASHINGTON, September 17 — The Trump administration’s second-term assault on the federal regulatory apparatus has now produced measurable shrinkage across the government, and the strategic question facing both parties is no longer whether the bureaucracy can be rebuilt, but what rebuilding should look like. According to some estimates, the administration’s job cuts have reduced the size of the federal workforce by 10 percent within the last year.
The Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency has driven much of that effort, working alongside funding reductions at certain agencies, presidential firings of independent agency heads, and the targeting of other federal workers. President Trump has signed several executive orders directing agencies to reduce existing regulations.
One directive requires agencies to identify ten regulations to eliminate for every new regulation issued.
Consequences Across Agencies
The effects are showing up in specific agencies. As of July 2025, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had reduced its tracking of foodborne illnesses from eight to two pathogens. Cuts to the Social Security Administration have meant that certain regional offices have faced significant staffing challenges, leading to increased wait times and criticisms of reduced service quality.
And according to a report published by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, workforce reductions at the Federal Emergency Management Agency have shrunk disaster response capacity at a time when extreme weather events are growing more frequent. Observers worry that, taken together, these changes have unraveled longstanding federal regulatory structures and hollowed out critical agencies with direct effects on the public.
The first Trump term featured a professed distaste for regulation and limited rollback steps. The second, beginning in January 2025, moved far faster.
The Rebuilding Debate
What comes next is the subject of a series of essays in The Regulatory Review, which ran from September 14 to September 18, 2026, featuring five regulatory experts. Joseph V. Rodricks of Ramboll argued on September 14 that a unified food safety agency is needed to ensure that foods are safe for the consuming public.
Martha G. Roberts of the New York University School of Law argued on September 15 that designating OIRA early as the lead project manager would allow for a more effective rulemaking process.
Adam M. Finkel of the University of Michigan School of Public Health argued on September 16 that addressing exposures to harmful chemicals requires an integrated agency. Robert Goble of Clark University’s George Perkins Marsh Institute argued on September 17 that politics will inevitably shape how U.S. regulatory agencies can be restructured for better performance in the future.
Vicki Bier of the University of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering argued on September 18 that when the federal government fails to act, state and private actors can fill the void. Additional themes in the series include that governments cannot ignore the indirect effects of regulations to reap their full benefits, and that new poultry and swine processing rules misapply a recent Supreme Court decision and ignore worker safety.
Former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg has noted that it is not possible, or even desirable, to restore a previous status quo. That view is reflected in comments by numerous elected officials and policy leaders today.
If a reform-minded administration takes office in 2029, and if it has sufficient support in Congress, it may find itself with a distinctive opportunity to do more than just reestablish administrative agencies as they existed prior to 2025 but to make changes that address more longstanding concerns about the regulatory system in the United States. The broader stakes are structural.
An administration that inherits hollowed-out agencies will face a choice between simple restoration and deeper redesign — and the experts writing this week have laid out competing blueprints for what that redesign might entail. What this signals is that the regulatory state’s future is now an open argument, not a settled inheritance.
