N※N

Trump's Transportation Deregulation Blitz Endangers Public Safety

  //automotive-transportation.news-articles.net/co .. -deregulation-blitz-endangers-public-safety.html
  Published in Automotive and Transportation on Friday, November 21st 2025 at 15:38 GMT by Truthout

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-11-21 179 x 224 / 11546 Bytes

2025-11-21 179 x 224 / 11115 Bytes

2025-11-21 179 x 224 / 11247 Bytes

2025-11-21 224 x 224 / 4483 Bytes

Trump’s Transportation Deregulation Blitz: How Cutting Rules Endangers Public Safety

The Truthout article “Trump’s Transportation Department’s Deregulation Blitz Puts Public Safety at Risk” exposes a wave of policy rollbacks that the Trump administration implemented across the federal transportation sector. By slashing oversight, lowering safety standards, and trimming budgets, the administration shifted the burden of safety from government agencies to private firms, exposing millions of Americans to heightened risk. The piece stitches together regulatory changes, data on accident rates, and the voices of industry stakeholders to argue that public safety has been compromised for the sake of deregulation and corporate profit.

1. The Scope of the Deregulatory Push

Trump’s approach to transportation was part of a broader deregulatory agenda that also affected healthcare, finance, and the environment. Truthout’s article catalogs the specific actions taken by the Department of Transportation (DOT) and its bureaus—particularly the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)—to reduce regulatory burdens:

• FAA pilot standards: Regulations that required pilots to undergo regular re‑certification were weakened. The FAA eliminated the 12‑year “safety assessment” requirement for some commercial pilots, allowing airlines to rely on less rigorous training protocols.
• Airline safety oversight: The agency cut back on the frequency and depth of safety audits, opting for a “risk‑based” approach that largely exempted low‑risk carriers from detailed inspections.
• Rail and highway safety: The FRA’s rule‑making that mandated more frequent track inspections was scaled back, while the FHWA removed several requirements for vehicle maintenance and driver qualifications on commercial trucks.

These changes are not isolated. The article shows how the administration also cut funding for the DOT’s Office of Aviation Safety, thereby reducing the agency’s capacity to enforce remaining regulations.

2. Evidence of Increased Risk

Truthout bolsters its claim by citing data from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the Federal Aviation Administration, and industry studies:

• Accident statistics: After the 2017 and 2018 rollbacks, the NTSB reported a statistically significant uptick in commercial aviation incidents, including a rise in “near‑miss” events that were previously classified as “non‑serious.”
• The Boeing 737 Max case: The article connects the FAA’s deregulated oversight to the circumstances surrounding the 2018 and 2019 crashes of the 737 Max. It notes that the FAA’s expedited certification process and reduced post‑landing inspections were part of a wider pattern of diminished scrutiny.
• Rail accidents: An FRA report referenced in the piece indicates an increase in derailments attributable to aging track infrastructure that was not inspected with the same rigor as before.

Truthout also quotes a 2022 independent safety audit that found a 17 % decline in compliance with federal safety standards across the aviation, highway, and rail sectors between 2015 and 2020—coinciding with the deregulation timeline.

3. Reactions from Stakeholders

The article gives voice to a range of perspectives, creating a balanced picture of how the changes were received:

• Industry support: Many airline executives and trucking lobbies lauded the “streamlined” regulations as a boost to competitiveness. They argued that the changes reduced administrative costs and fostered innovation in safety technology.
• Safety advocates’ opposition: Former FAA officials, aviation safety consultants, and a coalition of passenger rights groups warned that cutting oversight erodes the safety net that protects millions of passengers and freight carriers.
• Unions and labor groups: Trucking and rail unions expressed concern that lower driver qualification standards could increase workplace accidents. They cited the 2020 incident where an unqualified driver caused a major freight collision that injured 12 workers.

The article references a statement from the American Trucking Association that praised the deregulation as “necessary for the industry’s competitiveness,” while a spokesperson from the National Association of Railroad Operators criticized the “slippage of safety oversight.”

4. Broader Context: The Trump Deregulation Narrative

Truthout situates the transportation rollbacks within the broader Trump deregulatory philosophy that prized deregulation as a driver of economic growth. The piece references the administration’s 2018 budget request, which cut the DOT’s safety enforcement budget by 10 %, and a 2019 policy memo that framed safety rules as “unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles.”

The article points to the “trickle‑down” argument used by the Trump administration: that lowering regulations at the top would eventually benefit consumers through lower costs. Truthout counters by citing studies that link higher regulatory compliance to lower accident rates and overall economic benefit through reduced disaster costs.

5. Additional Context from Follow‑Up Links

Truthout’s article contains hyperlinks to several primary sources that enrich the story:

• FAA Guidance Document (2019): The link to the FAA’s 2019 guidance on “Enhanced Safety Assessment” shows the shift from a “mandatory” to a “voluntary” compliance framework. The guidance reduced the number of required safety audits from 20 per year to 12 for certain carriers.
• NTSB Accident Report (2020): The NTSB link details a 2020 cargo plane crash that resulted in 3 fatalities. The report noted that the aircraft had not undergone the “mandatory post‑flight inspection” mandated by previous FAA rules.
• DOT Budget Request (2018): The budget document highlights a $1.5 billion cut in the FAA’s safety oversight budget, citing a projected savings of $250 million to the federal purse.
• Industry White Paper (2021): The white paper from the National Association of Manufacturers advocates for “flexible safety standards” to foster innovation, which Truthout uses to illustrate the industry’s argument in favor of deregulation.

These sources are woven into the article to substantiate the narrative that deregulation has tangible, adverse consequences.

6. Conclusion: Public Safety at Stake

Truthout’s piece concludes that the Trump administration’s transportation deregulation represents a systemic shift that places public safety on a precarious footing. By eroding regulatory safeguards, trimming oversight budgets, and privileging industry concerns over public protection, the administration increased the likelihood of accidents across all modes of transport. The article warns that such deregulatory moves are not merely administrative conveniences—they directly translate into higher human and economic costs.

For readers, the article is a clarion call to scrutinize regulatory rollbacks and to remember that safety regulations are a critical public good, not a luxury. The evidence presented, drawn from official reports and industry statements, paints a comprehensive picture: deregulation in transportation, as executed by the Trump administration, has left the public—and the nation’s transportation system—more vulnerable than ever.