President Trump has prioritized deregulation, tasking Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency with recommending steps to reduce red tape. Some progressives cautiously back deregulation, but more should join in.

From Jimmy Carter to Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), progressives have recognized the benefits of cutting red tape, particularly when it advantages industry insiders at the expense of consumers and competition.

After the election, Adam Jentleson, former chief of staff to Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), advocated for “supply-side progressivism,” calling for limited deregulation aligned with liberal policy goals. Democratic candidates like Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) and Jared Golden (D-Maine) have highlighted concerns about excessive regulation.

Vice President Kamala Harris has acknowledged that current regulations can impede progress, proposing to dismantle bureaucratic barriers that inhibit addressing issues like the housing crisis at state and local levels.

While some Democrats like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have opposed deregulation, believing it favors the wealthy elite, it’s essential to recognize that regulations can also benefit the wealthy at the expense of consumers, as evidenced by historical regulations that increased prices and limited competition.

Deregulation can address inefficiencies in various industries, including finance, agriculture, and healthcare. Specific regulations have raised prices and restricted consumer choice, failing to provide meaningful protection.

Efforts to reform laws hindering service availability at the state level, as seen in Rhode Island, indicate a growing recognition of the importance of regulatory reform.

By dismantling unnecessary regulations, progressives can diminish the influence of powerful entities and reduce inequality. Historical examples reveal how deregulation in sectors like aviation can improve consumer options by fostering competition.

Trump’s deregulation initiatives face challenges, but progressive support could enhance their effectiveness in benefiting lower-income individuals.