We don’t see how much it costs us.
Recently, members of the Trump administration found themselves in a tug of war between two groups of people who have opposing views about how or whether the federal government should regulate artificial intelligence.
Critics say that moving too fast on AI could create risks. Others say that America can’t compete against China under a tight regulatory regime. We are, after all, competing in one of the most important technological races of the 21st century.
But the fundamental question is much bigger than AI. Whether it is regulatory debates centered around tech, housing, energy, or healthcare, American policymakers should start each policy debate by asking themselves one important question: How much progress must we sacrifice for the sake of caution?
For decades, DC politicians and bureaucrats devoted enormous attention to the supposed dangers of approving a new technology, project, or product too quickly. Far less attention gets paid to the consequences of government delays.
Flawed as its economic thinking sometimes is, the Trump administration still deserves credit for challenging a regulatory culture that often treats delay as cost-free.
Medical innovation, where the administration is routinely trying to cut down on FDA approval times, provides perhaps the clearest example.
In late May, the Committee to Unleash Prosperity Senior Research Fellow and former Trump White House Council of Economic Advisers Acting Chair Tomas Philipson published a study that addressed this very topic.
The study said that speeding up FDA development and approval timelines for drugs, biologics, and medical devices by one to six years could generate up to $61 trillion in combined value to consumers and producers. Patients would receive help faster, and it would encourage more research and investment.
What about housing?
Too many Americans say that they can’t afford to have a home. Polls consistently show that they want the government to enact policies that increase the number of available homes.
Yet local, state, and federal regulations add years to development timelines and inflate construction costs. What’s left is a shortage of houses. Families must pay higher prices to try to buy or even rent.
The Trump administration pushed to streamline permitting and environmental reviews. Critics then cried foul about insufficient oversight. But every year that a housing project spends trapped in regulatory limbo is another year that families pay higher rents, higher home prices, and have fewer housing options.
Energy projects have challenges of their own. AI, advanced manufacturing, and population growth are continually increasing energy demands. And yet, critical infrastructure projects spend years undergoing regulatory reviews before construction even begins.
Delayed projects mean delayed supply—and delayed supply often means higher costs.
As expected, Trump’s efforts to speed up approvals for pipelines, transmission lines, power plants, and other types of energy infrastructure created fierce opposition. Critics claim environmental risks. Supporters, however, see a permitting system that can delay vital projects for 4.5 years on average for major energy infrastructure and 6.5 years or more for transmission lines. This, while Americans pay higher utility bills and businesses struggle just to have reliable power.
The debate over deregulation is frequently portrayed as a choice between caution and recklessness. In reality, the choice is more complicated. Moving too quickly creates court costs. But moving too slowly creates costs as well.
Trump’s efforts to streamline approvals and reduce bureaucratic obstacles will no doubt go on to attract criticism, with perhaps some of that criticism warranted. But before Americans dismiss these reforms outright, they should ask and answer one simple question.
What is the cost of doing nothing?
Increasingly, the answer appears to be one the country can no longer afford.
