In the Trump era, more policymakers are looking for ways to cut back outdated rules, using data and new technology to reconsider mandates. Adrian Moore says government works best when it measures impact rather than spending, and allows markets and modern tools to do most of the work.
Moore is senior policy leader at the Reason Foundation. He researches privatization, regulatory reform, transportation, air quality, urban growth, prisons, and utilities.
According to Moore, structure matters in regulatory terms. This includes the potential for better outcomes when new realities–including new technology tools–are incorporated. “Agency appointees do the heavy lifting when they have data and a clear green light, like the two-for-one rule,” he says, adding that statewide models in Florida and Virginia offer templates when central management falls short.
Moore says data-reliant and deliberative processes are best, but balance is needed. “Somewhere between first-glance changes and six months of study sits the right answer,” he says. A problem arises by over-dependence on agencies. Congress, he says, fails to “pass the laws to back up the efforts,” leaving regulatory advances and reforms exposed. Technology in particular offers new leverage. “These AI tools work like a research assistant,” he says, because “they can parse hundreds of thousands of code pages. This means “you see outdated rules, weird add-ons, and conflicts that no one spots piecemeal.”
The tendency of government to over-regulate or exceed authority create a unique challenge, according to Moore. “Now, proposals try to prophylactically prevent imagined future harms before markets even have a chance to solve problems,” he says. The trend shows up in the rush to regulate AI. “I can’t answer with data,” he says, “when the market never works unencumbered.” The result can be skewed views about what is actually required to improve outcomes.
Moore p[oints to local housing as a case in point. When “demand outruns permits, prices rise,” he points out. He references housing approaches in Texas, Florida, and Montana that, “make it easier to add duplexes and similar homes and harder to block new construction.” The principle is to “allow the supply of housing to keep up with demand.”
Local transportation concerns should follow the same logic, according to Moore. “Buses now beat rail on flexibility and cost,” he says. “Bus rapid transit increases ridership when agencies compete to make transit attractive instead of restricting cars.” He says rail remains valuable for freight and gets smarter, too. “Automated rail inspection with AI reduces cost and improves safety.” An added benefit is, “fewer derailments follow when you find problems early.”
Moore believes the government should reduce compliance burdens and unnecessary rules. “Those goals go together.” Agencies, he argues, should adopt continuous review as technology advances. “Our process doesn’t let go when tech solves the original problem,” he says. “That has to change.”
