Last Congress was the wild west in Washington, DC, and this year doesn’t seem to be much different. With everything moving at the speed of a meme coin, sometimes it is important to slow things down like a scenic train ride and reflect on all of the changes. For instance, one issue that has gotten a bit lost in the DOGE frenzy is that a group of Republicans actually supported adding regulations to the rail industry last Congress.
Although it was President Carter, a Democrat, that spent an extraordinary amount of effort deregulating the rail industry, over the last two decades the realm of burdensome regulations has largely been the left’s. However, the recent demand for populism, for better or worse, has blurred those lines, as a key group of Republicans began calling for more regulations on trains after the East Palestine, Ohio incident.
In some ways it made sense for politicians to react to an incident that affected their constituents, but instead of searching for answers, they picked up the regulatory hammer and went after one of the most regulated and longest regulated industries in the world. Fortunately, there was some pushback, as well as calls for the Senate to do what it does best and let the issue cool down before passing a bureaucratic nightmare that would have made rail more expensive, shipping more cumbersome, and possibly even the roads we drive on more dangerous.
Now, with Republicans in control of the White House and both chambers of Congress in 2025, it appears that the future of rail “safety” legislation has thankfully taken a back seat. Key Republican leaders, including Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Commerce Committee Chair Ted Cruz, have been vocal opponents of last Congress’ legislation, which they argue is laden with provisions that go far beyond safety and cater to organized labor’s agenda.
Additionally, Democratic Senators Sherrod Brown and Bob Casey, two prominent advocates for the Rail Safety Act, lost their reelection bids. And, Marco Rubio and JD Vance became Secretary Rubio and Vice President Vance, removing two Republican supporters of the legislation from their Senate seats. The departure of these four leaves a leadership void among proponents of the bill. While Vance could potentially influence the issue from his new role, the combined opposition from Thune and Cruz makes significant changes to the legislation almost certain.
Critics of the bill have long argued that its most controversial provisions, such as a federally mandated minimum crew size and restrictions on leveraging new technologies, are less about safety and more about benefiting specific labor interests. These provisions, they say, restrict operational flexibility and reduce incentives to adopt technology that could improve efficiency and safety. Organized labor, particularly SMART-TD, played a central role in shaping the legislation, but new research reveals that the union’s political spending overwhelmingly supports Democrats and progressive causes, highlighting its partisan alignment.
Opposition to the legislation has also come from outside conservative and center-right groups, such as Americans for Prosperity (AFP), which was instrumental in helping Republicans reclaim the Senate. AFP and other organizations have argued that provisions in the legislation would lead to unintended consequences, including a significant shift of hazardous materials from rail to trucks on highways, a far riskier mode of transport.
Safety experts have also weighed in, expressing concerns that some provisions could inadvertently compromise overall safety. “Pushing freight off of railroads and onto highways not only increases the likelihood of accidents but also exacerbates congestion and emissions,” said a transportation analyst.
The legislation’s future now rests with the Commerce Committee, chaired by Cruz, who has been critical of federal overreach in regulatory matters. With both Thune and Cruz steering the Senate, the bill is likely to undergo significant revisions, with controversial labor-driven elements being the first to be stripped out.
While proponents of the legislation may hope for compromise, the Republican majority’s stance signals a fundamental reevaluation of the bill’s core elements. Like the Senate, they have had time to really reflect on the bill and everything that it would do the industry and those how changes would affect safety, investment, and the economy. Hopefully their long train ride to get there has led the Senate to the same place that everybody else got to as well. More regulations won’t necessarily mean a safer stronger market, and this case would likely mean a worse industry with worse outcomes. We should all be glad that last Congress’ ideas were derailed by the craziness of Washington, DC.
Charles Sauer (@CharlesSauer ) is president of the Market Institute.
Read Full Article »