For the last four decades, benefit–cost analysis has been a mainstay of the U.S. federal regulatory process and, under Executive Orders in effect since 1981, such analysis must generally be used to justify significant federal regulations. While administrations of different parties have occasionally differed on the methodologies used to assess costs or benefits, these disagreements operated within the bounds of approaches that are supported by the economic and scientific literatures. In contrast, the Trump administration has been operating outside such bounds. In particular, as I discuss in this article, it has sought to justify important deregulatory measures by focusing on cost savings, but ignoring the resulting foregone benefits; placing substantial roadblocks in the way of regulatory agencies’ ability to rely on epidemiological studies; promoting discredited threshold models, under which significant air pollutants are assumed to have no adverse effects below a certain level; calling co-benefits into question; downplaying climate change damages; and counting transfer payments in inappropriate ways. I argue that these moves significantly threaten the health and safety of Americans.

中文翻译：

---

社论—特朗普政府对监管利益的攻击

在过去的四十年中，利益成本分析一直是美国联邦监管程序的主体，根据1981年生效的《行政命令》，通常必须使用这种分析来证明重要的联邦法规是合理的。尽管不同政党的主管部门有时在评估成本或收益的方法上有所不同，但这些分歧在经济和科学文献所支持的方法范围内起作用。相比之下，特朗普政府一直在这种界限之外运作。尤其是，正如我在本文中所讨论的那样，它试图通过着重于节省成本而不考虑由此产生的既定收益来证明重要的放松管制措施是正当的；为监管机构依靠流行病学研究的能力设置了实质性障碍；推广信誉不良的阈值模型，在该模型下，假定严重的空气污染物在一定水平以下不会产生不利影响；质疑共同利益；淡化气候变化的破坏；并以不适当的方式计算转移支付。我认为这些举动严重威胁着美国人的健康和安全。