Earlier this week, the Trump administration unveiled its new report for artificial intelligence (AI). Titled “Winning the AI Race: America’s AI Action Plan,” the document provides a comprehensive roadmap aimed at the promotion and development of the American AI industry. The plan puts forward a largely light-touch approach that aims to bolster the AI industry and recognizes the role the technology will play in shaping the future of the country. The release of this agenda follows President Trump’s January Executive Order on Removing Barriers to American Leadership in AI, which called for removing “certain existing AI policies and directives that act as barriers to American AI innovation.” The new White House AI plan is a welcome and refreshing break from the previous administration’s heavy-handed approach to AI. It rejects alarmism and risk-aversion and ensures that the AI sector continues to grow and benefit taxpayers and consumers. The agenda laudably relies on deregulation, fostering a
light-touch approach that encourages innovation and experimentation. Establishing regulatory sandboxes, launching a Request for Information regarding needless rules, and restraining reckless Federal Trade Commission actions will propel continued growth and innovation. Despite its laudable direction, the Taxpayers Protection Alliance calls for caution regarding the plan’s focus on the federal government “investing” (aka spending) taxpayer money in AI. Usually, federal ”investments” turn out to be wasteful and crowd out private innovation. Other critical technologies such as the internet blossomed without the need for heavy subsidization by the government. The digital domain has thrived because of a friendly regulatory environment that has allowed the private sector to flourish. This is the right approach for AI. Overall, we are encouraged by this plan and the administration’s commitment to a light-touch and pro-innovation approach to AI. If the federal government sticks to this plan without
burdening taxpayers with runaway wasteful spending, the American AI industry will prosper and deliver for taxpayers and consumers.

Postal Reform, Not Another Rate Hike

There is a new Postmaster General, David Steiner. He certainly has his work cut out for him. America’s mail carrier has lost more than $3 billion so far in fiscal 2025, $9.5 billion in fiscal 2024, and more than $100 billion over the past 15 years. Unfortunately, Steiner has already started off on the wrong foot by hiking first-class mail, or letter, prices from 73 cents to 78 cents. Steiner should ditch these senseless rate hikes and instead focus on cutting costs to get postal deficits under control. It’s time for a new approach from the new postmaster general. The Postal Service has cycled through plenty of postmasters general. Some have largely stood for the status quo, while others, such as Louis DeJoy, have had bolder reform agendas. But one thing that unites almost all of these postal CEOs is nonsensical price hikes.

In the past five years, America’s mail carrier has raised prices seven times, from 55 cents to 78 cents. And for all the financial pain foisted on customers, there’s little evidence that these first-class rate hikes raise revenue instead of simply driving business away. According to a 2024 analysis by the nonprofit group Keep US Posted, the agency’s models used to determine how much to hike prices fail to take consumer preferences and demand into account. As the study notes, the USPS has “instituted biannual rate increases that are allowed to exceed the historical [consumer price index] cap. Under the current process, the USPS proposes new rate increases before the impact of prior increases can be fully realized.” The group estimates that agency miscalculations of consumers’ price sensitivity cost the USPS roughly $2 billion per year in volume losses. In other words, the USPS can actually increase revenue by halting price hikes on first-class mail.

There are plenty of ways the USPS can turn around its fiscal fortunes. The USPS delivers mail Monday through Saturday, along with Sundays for some packages. However, some have argued for switching to a five-day delivery system to decrease costs and improve worker morale. Agency leadership suggested this idea, with some wiggle room for weekend package deliveries, in its “Five-Year Business Plan” in 2013 and concluded that it would save $1.9 billion per year. That’s $2.6 billion after adjusting for inflation, which is about one-third of the average USPS annual loss over the past couple of years. In 2015, the inspector general surveyed consumers on whether six days of delivery was worth it at various stamp price points. The watchdog found that a large majority of consumers favored five-day delivery at any price point over 50 cents. Now that the price of a first-class stamp is 78 cents and rapidly rising, it’s reasonable to think consumers prefer five days of delivery over six. While this idea
would likely need lawmakers’ sign-off, it’s worth considering.

Steiner has just started one of the world’s most difficult jobs. If he succeeds in turning around America’s mail carrier, hundreds of millions of taxpayers and consumers will be immensely grateful. It’s time for the USPS to start delivering again.

Strict Recycling Regs Belong in the Trash

Taxpayers and consumers are tired of spending time and money on a recycling system that traditionally has failed to do what it’s supposed to. As longtime science writer and journalist John Tierney noted in 2023, “Recycling is an industry that uses increasingly expensive labor to produce materials that are worth less and less.” The good news is that more sophisticated recycling systems are replacing older and less efficient programs. When using their favorite products made of various plastics, Americans no longer need to choose between economy and ecology. On July 16th, Ross Eisenberg (president of America’s Plastic Makers) testified before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on the Environment about this recycling renaissance. The hearing tackled several items related to domestic plastic manufacturing infrastructure. Eisenberg emphasized the importance of updating regulations to reflect the increased ease and efficiency of recycling. As TPA has pointed out in previous blog posts and
op-eds, allegedly “wasteful” and “dirty” industries such as plastics manufacturing were frequent targets of the Biden administration. Through measures such as “national strategies” (read: bans) and “risk mitigation plans,” the former president emphasized needless administrative procedures (often of dubious constitutionality). All this came at the cost of regulatory flexibility as well as job and wage growth.

These costly plans failed to take into account increasingly-popular technologies such as pyrolysis. This is a process by which plastics are heated in a controlled environment and turned into new products such as fuels. According to a 2025 analysis published in Energy Conversion and Management, “Pyrolysis can convert 60–80 percent of plastic waste into liquid fuels, with yields of up to 85 percent in fast pyrolysis processes conducted at temperatures between 450 °C and 600 °C. The process also reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent, mitigating 3.5 tons of CO2-equivalent per ton of plastic waste processed. Economically, pyrolysis oil can be sold for $600–$900 per ton, while syngas, with a market value of $200–$300 per ton, can generate up to 800 kWh of electricity per ton of waste. Given these significant benefits, recycling advocates have pushed for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate certain pyrolysis processes as manufacturing instead of incineration or waste
management. These latter categories trigger not only stringent federal regulations, but also onerous state laws. Unshackling plastics recycling and pyrolysis from outdated statutes would lead to lower costs for customers and a cleaner planet. Unfortunately, the EPA recently closed the door on this idea. In recent rulemaking, the agency stated it will “not be taking additional action [in current rulemaking] related to pyrolysis/combustion units.” That’s bad news for millions of consumers, the roughly 700,000 workers employed by plastics manufacturers, and the planet. The EPA should reverse course and address pyrolysis in future rulemaking. It’s time for a new regulatory approach that harnesses advanced recycling technologies to make everyone better off.


BLOGS:

Monday: The Save Local Business Act is Key to Continued Growth ([link removed])

Tuesday: Strict Recycling Regs Belong in the Trash ([link removed]) and In the Energy Industry, Republicans are Forgetting the Importance of Free Markets ([link removed])

Wednesday: New White House AI Roadmap is a Win for Innovation and Accountability ([link removed])

Thursday: The Reversal of the CFPB’s Section 1033 Is a Win for Consumer Privacy ([link removed])

Friday: Why America Needs Tort Reform ([link removed])

MEDIA:

July 17, 2025: The Baltimore Sun (Baltimore, Md.) ran TPA’s op-ed, “Congress must deliver real Medicaid reform.”

July 17, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) interviewed me for their story on AI regulation.

July 18, 2025: The Las Vegas Review Journal (Las Vegas, Nevada) ran TPA’s op-ed, “Taxpayers deserve more Medicaid cuts in the OBBBA.”

July 18, 2025: KOA-850AM (Denver, Co.) interviewed Juan Londoño for their news segment on AI regulation.

July 18, 2025: News Channel 8 (Washington, D.C.) interviewed me for their news segment on the replacement of Prince George’s County school superintendent.

July 18, 2025: WJLA 7News (Washington, D.C.) mentioned me in their news segment on the replacement of Prince George’s County school superintendent.

July 19, 2025: Grada3.com mentioned TPA in their story, “Government Moves to Kill IRS Free File Programs — Here’s Who Loses Out.”

July 19, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) mentioned TPA in their story about Baltimore youth fund’s use of taxpayer dollars.

July 21, 2025: The Baltimore Sun (Baltimore, Md.) mentioned TPA in their story, “Public broadcasters react to Trump's defunding.”

July 21, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) interviewed me for their news segment on new revenue generated from new speed cameras.

July 21, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) mentioned TPA in their story, “City of Baltimore announces two new speed cameras on Jones Falls Expressway.”

July 21, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) mentioned TPA in their story, “Watchdog group warns Baltimore County IG selection process risks independence.”

July 21, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) mentioned TPA in their story, “Governor Wes Moore's decision on federal tax credits for private school tuition unclear.”

July 23, 2025: The Las Vegas Review Journal (Las Vegas, Nevada) ran TPA’s op-ed, “Taxpayers deserve more Medicaid cuts in the OBBBA.”

July 23, 2025:The Jacksonville Journal (Jacksonville, Il.) ran TPA’s op-ed, “How lawyers cash in on big lawsuits”

July 23, 2025: The Huron Daily Tribune (Bad Axe, Mich.) ran TPA’s op-ed, “How lawyers cash in on big lawsuits”

July 23, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) mentioned TPA in their story, “Baltimore's $3.9m website fiasco: unfinished project leaves taxpayers outraged”

July 23, 2025: The Well News ran TPA's op-ed, "Released FDA Files Show Flawed Drug Approval Process."

July 24, 2025: I appeared on 55 WKRC (Cincinnati, Ohio) to talk about the United States Postal Service.

July 24, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) interviewed me for their story on congressional salaries.

July 24, 2025: WBOB-AM (Jacksonville, Fl.) interviewed me for their news segment on AI regulation.

July 24, 2025: The Herald (New Britain, Ct.) ran TPA’s op-ed, “Playbook reveals how lawyers cash in on big lawsuits.”

Have a great weekend!

David Williams
President
Taxpayers Protection Alliance
1101 14^th Street, NW
Suite 500
Washington, D.C.
Office: (202) 930-1716
Mobile: (202) 258-6527
www.protectingtaxpayers.org

============================================================
** ([link removed])
** Like Us On Facebook ([link removed])
** ([link removed])
** Follow Us On Twitter ([link removed])
Our mailing address is:
1101 14th Street NW
Suite 1120
Washington, DC xxxxxx

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can ** update your preferences ([link removed])
or ** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])