The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) 2025 showcased intense discussions on some of the most pressing issues in America today. Among them were three panels that delved deep into the impacts of government overreach: the Regulatory Panel, the Health Care Reform Panel, and the HHS/FDA Politicization of Nutrition Guidelines Panel. Moderated by Scottie Nell Hughes and Jerry Rogers, these panels brought together top policy experts and analysts to expose the hidden costs of regulatory burdens, the flaws in America’s health care system, and the dangers of ideological influence in nutrition policies.
Regulation: The Unchecked Power of Bureaucracy
Moderated by Scottie Nell Hughes, the Regulatory Panel featured Andrew Langer (CPAC Foundation Center for Regulatory Freedom), Wayne Crews (Competitive Enterprise Institute), and Matthew Jensen (America First Policy Institute). The discussion focused on the growing power of unelected bureaucrats and the urgent need to rein in regulatory overreach.
One of the most alarming points discussed was the concept of "regulatory dark matter", a term coined by Wayne Crews. This refers to the vast number of rules, guidance documents, and interpretations that agencies impose without congressional oversight. These regulations act as de facto laws, burdening businesses and individuals with compliance costs that can reach $2 trillion to $4 trillion annually.
Andrew Langer emphasized how the Supreme Court’s overturning of the Chevron Doctrine provides an opportunity to shift power back to Congress. The doctrine had allowed federal agencies to interpret vague laws as they saw fit, leading to massive expansions of regulatory power. With its reversal, Congress now has the responsibility to reclaim its legislative authority. Langer also emphasized the importance of understanding that while tariffs have an economic impact, the economic impact of regulations is far deeper, and that on-balance, the implementation of tariffs would have negligible economic impact if regulatory costs to the economy were kept in check.
Matthew Jensen highlighted how regulatory burdens stifle small businesses and innovation. Unlike large corporations, startups lack the legal teams necessary to navigate complex regulations, leading to reduced competition and economic stagnation. The panelists also warned about "midnight regulations", last-minute rulemaking by outgoing administrations, which could be difficult to overturn.
Proposals for reform included automatic sunsetting of regulations and requiring agencies to justify their existence periodically. The panelists stressed that deregulation should not be seen as merely a partisan effort, but as a necessary step to restore economic freedom and constitutional governance.
Health Care Reform: Exposing Price Controls and Foreign Exploitation of U.S. Innovation
The Health Care Reform Panel, moderated by Jerry Rogers (Real Clear Health), featured Andrew Langer (this time speaking for the Coalition Against Socialized Medicine), Steve Moore (Unleash Prosperity), and Phil Kerpen (American Commitment). The discussion centered on health care transparency, foreign exploitation of American pharmaceutical innovation, and the harmful effects of price controls.
Steve Moore opened the discussion by pointing out that 18 of the last 20 major medical innovations originated in the U.S., yet foreign countries benefit from them without contributing fairly to research and development costs. American consumers and taxpayers foot the bill while nations with socialized medicine impose compulsory licensing and price caps, creating an unfair system where Americans pay more for drugs.
Phil Kerpen highlighted the disastrous effects of the Inflation Reduction Act’s drug price controls, which have stifled innovation and led to unintended consequences. One example is the so-called "pill penalty", where the government imposes harsher price controls on oral medications than on injectable drugs. This has created a perverse incentive for pharmaceutical companies to develop more injectable medications, even though patients overwhelmingly prefer oral treatments.
Andrew Langer added that the Biden administration attempted to seize pharmaceutical patents under "march-in rights", a policy pushed by progressives to force price reductions. This, he argued, destroys the incentive to innovate, leading to fewer life-saving drugs.
A solution proposed was the EPIC Act, which aims to correct the pill penalty by ensuring oral medications receive the same protection from price controls as injectable treatments. The panelists stressed that health care reform should focus on expanding competition, increasing transparency, and eliminating bureaucratic price-fixing mechanisms that distort markets and harm consumers.
HHS and FDA: The Politicization of Nutrition Guidelines
The final panel, also moderated by Scottie Nell Hughes, tackled the politicization of nutrition guidelines by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Panelists included Andrew Langer again, Guy Bentley (Reason Foundation), and Gabriella Hoffman (Independent Women's Forum).
The panel focused on the proposed revision to U.S. Dietary Guidelines for 2025-2030, which suggests that no level of alcohol consumption is safe, recommending Americans limit themselves to one drink per week. This is a drastic shift from the previous guidelines, which allowed moderate consumption (one drink per day for women, two for men).
Guy Bentley criticized the proposal, arguing that it lacks scientific consensus and cherry-picks studies to fit a predetermined ideological agenda. He pointed out that research from Harvard and other reputable institutions contradicts the notion that all alcohol consumption is harmful. Historically, moderate alcohol consumption has been linked to positive health outcomes, particularly in heart health.
Gabriella Hoffman discussed how nutrition policy is increasingly being driven by climate ideology, rather than sound science. She warned that plant-based diet mandates and restrictions on meat consumption are being pushed under the guise of environmental sustainability. This approach, she argued, ignores the regenerative role of livestock in agriculture and dismisses the importance of dietary freedom.
Andrew Langer emphasized the lack of transparency in the dietary guideline review process, with many committee members having documented anti-alcohol biases and even foreign affiliations. The panelists agreed that regulatory agencies should be held accountable to scientific rigor, public input, and transparency, rather than being influenced by political and ideological agendas.
Conclusion: A Call for Regulatory Accountability and Personal Freedom
The CPAC 2025 panels made one thing abundantly clear: government overreach is a growing threat to personal freedom, economic innovation, and scientific integrity. Whether in regulations, health care policy, or nutrition guidelines, unelected bureaucrats continue to exert influence in ways that limit choice, increase costs, and erode public trust.
Key takeaways from the panels include:
The need to curtail regulatory dark matter and ensure Congress—not agencies—makes the law.
Fighting foreign freeloading on American medical innovation and repealing harmful price controls that reduce incentives for new treatments.
Keeping ideological influence out of nutrition guidelines, ensuring public health recommendations are based on scientific evidence, not political narratives.
As CPAC 2025 demonstrated, conservatives must continue pushing for deregulation, transparency, and individual liberty in every aspect of governance. The battle is far from over, but with growing public awareness and political momentum, there is hope for real, lasting reform in the years to come.
