The 2024 presidential election has come and gone, and once again, Donald J. Trump will serve as president. While many Americans view this as a return to sanity, limited government, and a revitalization of free-market principles, the left has erupted in claims that a Trump presidency would lack “guardrails.” Such rhetoric is as hollow as it is inflammatory, especially in the face of recent judicial decisions that are, in fact, already working to check the power of the executive branch—no matter who occupies the White House.
Among the most significant of these decisions is the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling earlier this year in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which dismantled the Chevron Doctrine. For nearly 40 years, Chevron deference allowed federal agencies to interpret ambiguous statutes as they saw fit, expanding their reach and imposing ever-more-onerous regulations on Americans without true accountability. By overturning Chevron, the Supreme Court has taken a powerful step toward reining in the “fourth branch” of government—the bureaucratic behemoth that has operated largely outside the bounds of constitutional checks and balances.
What’s ironic, of course, is that while the left is panicking over the alleged dangers of a Trump administration, some of its leading figures, like Senator Elizabeth Warren, are actively working to restore the very overreach that Loper has restrained. Warren’s Stop Corporate Capture Act purports to reinstate a Chevron-like deference, once again empowering unelected bureaucrats to define their own powers without meaningful oversight. As America embarks on a new chapter under a Trump administration, it’s time to recognize that Loper isn’t just a victory for limited government and accountability; it’s a much-needed guardrail for the left as well.
The Chevron Doctrine: How We Got Here and Why Loper Matters
To understand the significance of Loper, we must first examine what Chevron deference meant for federal regulatory power. The 1984 decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. established a legal precedent that, when a statute is ambiguous, courts should defer to an agency’s “reasonable” interpretation. On its face, this doctrine may sound harmless, perhaps even sensible. After all, who better to interpret technical laws than the agencies tasked with enforcing them?
In practice, however, Chevron became a blank check for agencies to expand their power far beyond what Congress intended. Over time, agencies used Chevron deference to push regulatory boundaries, asserting authority in areas that Congress never explicitly delegated. This regulatory sprawl led to a vast administrative state capable of shaping nearly every aspect of American life, from energy and environmental policies to healthcare, education, and beyond.
Under Chevron, American businesses—especially small ones—found themselves at the mercy of bureaucrats who wielded regulatory power with little accountability. It was a “regulate first, justify later” environment where agencies enjoyed broad latitude to impose costly, burdensome rules that Congress never intended. Courts routinely upheld these interpretations under the guise of Chevron deference, leaving businesses and citizens with limited recourse against agency overreach.
The Loper decision brought a hard stop to this trend. By overturning Chevron, the Supreme Court has curtailed the ability of agencies to interpret laws as they please, restoring judicial oversight over regulatory interpretation. Now, if a law is unclear, it is the courts—not agencies—that will determine its meaning, reasserting the judiciary’s role in interpreting statutes and limiting the administrative state’s reach.
Loper Puts Essential Limits on Government Power—Including Trump’s
The timing of Loper could not be more relevant. The left’s current narrative is that a Trump presidency will somehow be a “guardrail-free” government where executive power runs unchecked. But Loper’s dismantling of Chevron is itself a significant check on federal power, constraining not only the agencies’ authority but also that of the executive branch.
Let’s be clear: Loper limits the Trump administration’s ability to use federal agencies to expand regulatory power without congressional approval. Even if President Trump’s administration were inclined to enact sweeping regulatory changes through agencies, the new judicial framework mandates that those changes be rooted in clear congressional authorization. Ambiguity is no longer a regulatory loophole that agencies can exploit; instead, it’s an opportunity for judicial review.
In this new regulatory landscape, every administration—Republican or Democrat—will be held to a higher standard of transparency and accountability. For those who genuinely fear government overreach, Loper is a significant win, ensuring that no administration can unilaterally interpret laws in ways that extend beyond congressional intent. This is the very definition of a guardrail, one that will protect the American people from unchecked regulatory power regardless of which party controls the White House.
Senator Warren’s Stop Corporate Capture Act: A Misguided Attempt to Restore Chevron
Yet, even with these guardrails in place, the left is scrambling to undo the progress made by Loper. Senator Elizabeth Warren, one of the most vocal proponents of expansive federal power, has introduced the Stop Corporate Capture Act. This bill seeks to reinstate agency deference similar to Chevron, effectively sidestepping the Supreme Court’s decision and restoring regulatory agencies’ power to interpret laws as they see fit.
The hypocrisy here is staggering. For months, the left has sounded the alarm about the supposed dangers of an “unbound” Trump administration. Yet now, Warren is attempting to hand that very administration—along with any future administration—an unchecked regulatory arsenal by effectively reversing Loper. If Warren’s legislation were to pass, it could open the door for Trump’s agencies to interpret and implement regulations in ways that further conservative policies, potentially in areas where Congress has been silent.
In seeking to restore Chevron-like deference, the left is ignoring a fundamental truth about regulatory power: it cuts both ways. An expansive administrative state will not exclusively serve one ideological agenda. Should Warren’s Stop Corporate Capture Act succeed, it could be used by a conservative administration just as easily as a progressive one. Imagine, for instance, a Trump-era Environmental Protection Agency interpreting its authority to promote energy independence by reducing emissions regulations on fossil fuels. Or picture a Department of Health and Human Services that, under Warren’s restored deference, interprets ambiguous language in the Affordable Care Act to promote more market-based healthcare reforms.
For anyone genuinely concerned with limiting the power of the executive, Loper is a necessary constraint. The Court has placed the power to interpret laws back in the hands of the judiciary, ensuring that any regulatory expansion has to pass constitutional muster rather than bureaucratic fiat.
A Future Built on Accountability and Balance
With Loper, the Supreme Court has restored a critical layer of accountability, returning to a system of government where Congress legislates, agencies enforce, and courts interpret. This balance of power is not a threat to responsible governance; it is the essence of it. By ensuring that agencies cannot unilaterally interpret ambiguous statutes, the Court has prevented the very abuses the left claims to fear.
For the left to suggest that Trump’s new term lacks guardrails is disingenuous. Loper provides a judicial check on regulatory power that will prevent any administration from bypassing the will of Congress. The fearmongering rhetoric about a “guardrail-free” Trump presidency is a distraction from the real issue: the left’s desire to restore unchecked agency power under a regulatory framework that could serve any administration’s purposes.
As the Trump administration begins its second term, Loper will be a cornerstone of limited government, making it clear that federal agencies cannot expand their power at will. This decision reaffirms the principle that government should be accountable to the people and bound by the laws enacted by their elected representatives. For conservatives, progressives, and independents alike, this is a victory worth celebrating. And for those still worried about guardrails, remember: Loper is the ultimate safeguard against executive overreach, protecting our democracy from unchecked regulatory power—no matter who sits in the Oval Office.
