Deregulation has been a conservative mantra for decades, but Republicans seem to have finally given up on it. Yes, they typically oppose new regulations. But deregulation as a governing principle, actually combing through federal or state codes to determine what’s needed and what isn’t, has been relegated to the empty rhetoric of Bush-era Republicanism.
It shouldn’t be.
Idaho has proven that it’s possible, raising an uncomfortable question: Have the conservative leaders who campaign on deregulation been too lazy to pursue it, or was it never a serious goal?
From 2019 to July 2026, Idaho cut its regulatory code by 49.1 percent, an astonishing reduction for a state hardly known for overregulation. It did so through a two-step process that forced agencies to explain why their rules should stay.
By the end of its 2019-26 review, Idaho had eliminated 49.1% of its regulatory code after requiring agencies to justify the rules they retained. https://t.co/U4YNGSus5n
— Human Progress (@HumanProgress) October 8, 2026
First, in 2019, the legislature failed to pass its customary bill extending existing regulations. That meant the rules would expire unless the state acted to keep them. Republican Governor Brad Little then directed agencies to republish only the rules they considered necessary, keeping them in effect as temporary rules. Anything they didn’t bring back expired. Existing regulations no longer got to survive simply because they were already there.
Then, a 2020 executive order required agencies to review their remaining rule chapters on a staggered, five-year schedule covering 2021-2025, with legislative review concluding in 2026. In simple terms, agencies reviewed roughly one-fifth of the rules each year. To keep a chapter, they generally had to repeal the old version and put a replacement through the rulemaking process, explaining what was worth keeping and cutting what wasn’t.
The result, broadly speaking, was a streamlined regulatory code: outdated or ineffective rules were eliminated, useful ones were retained, and unnecessary overlap and conflicts were reduced.
While the broader economic impact remains unclear, pharmacy offers one example of the changes in practice. The review process removed or relaxed rules that made it more expensive to enter the profession, required ordinary retailers to obtain extra licenses, and restricted how pharmacies could deliver services.
The result? More pharmacists and pharmacies, including pharmacies opening in communities that had gone without one for decades. Two national companies also moved major central pharmacy operations to Idaho. And despite the more permissive regulatory framework, no corresponding increase in legal violations was reported.
Imagine what a similar effort could do in California, New York, or across the federal regulatory code. Idaho was hardly known for overregulation, yet it still found nearly half its code worth cutting. That success should put a serious review of the rules governing much larger economies near the top of the conservative agenda.
The principle is simple: people should be free to make their own economic choices unless the government can demonstrate a compelling reason to restrict them. Idaho’s approach deserves a national counterpart. Make agencies justify their rules, keep only what serves a clear and necessary purpose, and clear away the rest. The burden of proof belongs on the government seeking to limit economic activity, not on the people seeking to build themselves a better life.
Republicans have spent decades promising to get government out of the way. Idaho has shown them how to start. Now they should take that model nationwide and make economic freedom the starting point for conservative governance.
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Townhall's conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the Conversation
VIP members get the ability to comment on articles.