Nearly a decade ago a new wave of regulatory reform began to percolate across the United States. There had been previous attempts to cut red tape, my favorite example being the Clinton-era Paperwork Reduction Act, which, somewhat ironically, required more paperwork to reduce regulations. But the Trump I administration arrived with an explicit, aggressive mandate to reduce regulatory burden, and that momentum quickly trickled down to state governments.

Over the past ten years, regulatory reform at the state level has followed a familiar pattern.

Newly inaugurated governors would issue executive orders aimed at “cutting red tape.” These orders were often nearly identical, promising to reduce regulatory restrictions or cut the total number of regulations by a certain date.

Whether those goals were actually achieved depended almost entirely on how organized the state government was. States like Tennessee, Montana, and Iowa were remarkably disciplined, tracking progress centrally, meeting regularly with agencies, and holding them accountable. In Governor Bill Lee’s State of the State address in 2024, he cited a meaningful reduction of 40% in the state’s regulatory code as evidence of this sustained effort.

Other states, North Dakota or Georgia, for example,saw their reform efforts fizzle out quickly. There was no clear ownership, no consistent tracking, and no follow-through. Without structure, regulatory reform became more slogan than strategy.

After a year or two, many states attempted to memorialize these initiatives through legislation, with the goal of making reform “stick.” On paper, these laws added teeth: agencies answer to the legislature for their budgets, after all. In practice, however, the results were underwhelming.

If the executive branch struggles with coordination, the legislative branch is even less equipped to consistently track regulatory “spend” across dozens of agencies. Having worked with many state agencies over the years, I’ve been struck by how often staff weren’t even aware these regulatory review laws existed. Too often, these statutes amount to little more than well-intentioned fluff.

During this same decade, Esper has operated inside these reform efforts, helping agencies thoughtfully review, modernize, and manage their regulatory environments. We’ve seen what works and what doesn’t firsthand, including in states like Montana and Texas.

A few observations stand out.

First, regulatory reform has been largely academic, not people-centered. Much of the movement was catalyzed by think tanks like the Mercatus Center, which focused on counting regulatory restrictions or the number of words in regulatory codes.

These are blunt but useful instruments for understanding scale and complexity. But they stop short of answering the questions that actually matter to residents and businesses: Which regulations create the most friction? Which ones are routinely misunderstood? Where does compliance break down in the real world?

Second, regulatory reform is slow. Reviews take years, often stretching beyond a single administration. Momentum is easily lost, and progress resets with each change in leadership.

Third, regulatory reform is not transparent. For the public, regulations remain difficult to find, hard to interpret, and nearly impossible to understand in terms of real-world impact. The reform process itself largely happens behind closed doors, far removed from the people most affected by the rules.

What’s missing is the human and economic dimension of regulation, the lived experience of individuals, entrepreneurs, and public servants navigating these systems every day.

With the advancements in AI over recent years, there’s no reason regulatory reform has to remain this slow, opaque, or imprecise.

Regulatory reform needs a makeover, and it needs to be far more visible to the public.

Here’s our vision for “third wave” regulatory reform:

First, make the public-facing side of regulations radically more transparent and easier to navigate. While executive branch agencies create regulations, they are typically published on Secretary of State’s websites in unsearchable, dense PDFs. (See example of North Dakota’s unsearchable regulation website here)

Secretaries of States have largely been absent from the regulatory reform dialogue, despite the fact that they are the official “keeper” of the regulations. Regulations MUST be easier to understand. Yes, reading level and word count contribute to this, but more importantly…what is the user experience for navigating a regulatory code? With AI, there’s no excuse for a poor search experience on a government website.

Esper recently launched our Smart Search product, providing an agentic, user-friendly search experience to find what you’re looking for in regulations. This product will be debuted live on state websites later in the Spring.

Second, use enforcement and user-based data to connect the dots. Which regulations are violated most often? By whom and why? And what would it take to fix the underlying issue rather than simply punish the outcome? Governments are sitting on massive amounts of data (call center questions, regulatory enforcement actions) that can help narrow down which regulations are truly the most confusing and burdensome.

Third, collect continuous public comments on regulations. Today, most states offer a limited window of time for the public to provide comments on proposed regulations (usually 30-60 days). But most people run into problems with regulations AFTER they’ve gone into effect. Ongoing collecting of public comments allows for real-time, structured feedback on what’s working and what isn’t in the regulatory code.

Done right, regulatory reform doesn’t just reduce word counts, it improves trust, economic participation, and outcomes. The next era of reform should be measured not just by how much we cut, but by how well regulation actually works for the people it’s meant to serve.