RTP's Fourth Branch Podcast

What waters are considered “waters of the United States” or WOTUS under the Clean Water Act (CWA)? This question is critical because it determines which waters are regulated under the statute. The EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have struggled to develop a definition that can pass legal muster, in large part because they have tried to regulate waters that go beyond their statutory authority. For many years, the courts didn’t provide clarity either. But in 2023, the US Supreme Court in Sackett v. EPA specified what waters are regulated, including to what extent wetlands are covered. Currently, a new proposed WOTUS rule is being reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. What should the rule include and what is required for the rule to be consistent with Sackett? The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Daren Bakst discusses this important issue with Charles Yates, an attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation who was on the litigation team that represented Chantel and Michael Sacket before the US Supreme Court.

Over the past 30 years, the United States has experienced rapid technological change. Yet in recent years, innovation appears to have plateaued. The iPhone of four years ago is nearly identical to today’s model, and the internet has changed little over the same period. Little tech companies play a significant role in generating new ideas and technological development. In this episode, experts discuss the financial gains and risks of incentivising little tech innovation and offer policy recommendations that encourage investment in the "littlest tech" firms to drive future breakthroughs.Join the Federalist Society’s Regulatory Transparency Project and host Prof. Kevin Frazier for an in-depth discussion of the “Little Tech Agenda” with special guest Dave Karpf, Associate Professor at the George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs.

What priorities should shape U.S. innovation policy at the national level? Historically, the federal government has adopted a "light touch" approach, with legislation often focused on reducing barriers so that smaller entrepreneurs can prioritize innovation over regulatory compliance. Big tech companies often hold a competitive advantage including resources, capital, and political influence that small-scale entrepreneurs lack. How can policymakers design legislation that ensures fair competition between Big Tech and little tech? Do acquisitions of little tech companies by Big tech promote innovation or constrain the development of emerging ideas? How can policymakers foster innovation for smaller scale initiatives through legislation, competition regulation, and support for emerging firms? Join the Federalist Society’s Regulatory Transparency Project and host Prof. Kevin Frazier for an in-depth discussion of the “Little Tech Agenda” with special guest Jennifer Huddleston, Senior Fellow in Technology Policy at the Cato Institute.

Smaller, advanced technology entrepreneurs are increasingly shaping the U.S. innovation landscape through what some have called the “Little Tech Agenda.” But what exactly is this agenda, and how might it influence policy debates moving forward?America has long celebrated small-scale innovators, yet questions remain about how regulatory frameworks can support entrepreneurship without stifling growth. Some policymakers argue that new parameters are needed to govern emerging technologies, while others caution that overregulation could hinder the nation’s competitive edge in the global power struggle. If “Little Tech” is critical to America’s future, how far should the United States go to defend and promote its development?Join the Federalist Society’s Regulatory Transparency Project and host Prof. Kevin Frazier for an in-depth discussion of the “Little Tech Agenda” with special guest Collin McCune, Head of Government Affairs at Andreessen Horowitz.

America’s new AI Action Plan — announced by the White House in July and framed by three pillars of accelerating innovation, building national AI infrastructure, and projecting U.S. leadership abroad — promises more than 90 separate federal actions, from fast-tracking approvals for medical-AI tools to revising international export controls on advanced chips. Supporters hail its light-touch approach, swift development of domestic and foreign deployment of AI, and explicit warnings against “ideological bias” in AI systems. In contrast, some critics say the plan removes guardrails, favors big tech, and is overshadowed by other actions disinvesting in research. How will the Plan impact AI in America? Join us for a candid discussion that will unpack the Plan’s major levers and ask whether the “innovation-first” framing clarifies or obscures deeper constitutional and economic questions. Featuring: Neil Chilson, Head of AI Policy, Abundance Institute Mario Loyola, Senior Research Fellow, Environmental Policy and Regulation, Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment, The Heritage Foundation Asad Ramzanali, Director of Artificial Intelligence & Technology Policy, Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator, Vanderbilt University (Moderator) Kevin Frazier, AI Innovation and Law Fellow, University of Texas School of Law

On January 17, the Biden-Harris Administration added 15 new drugs, including Ozempic, to the list of drugs covered by the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Now there are a total of 25 drugs that are covered by the IRA’s requirement that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) pays only a “fair price” for selected drugs covered by Medicare Part D. The new prices are set to take effect on January 1, 2027. What implications does this have for patients and for drug research and development? Join the discussion on the 'fair price' mandate and its impact on pharmaceutical innovation. Featuring: Lisa Ouellette, Deane F. Johnson Professor of Law at Stanford Law School Dan Troy, Managing Director at the Berkeley Research Group Brad Watts, Senior Vice President at the Global Innovation Policy Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce [Moderator] Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law at Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

On March 20, President Trump signed E.O. 14242, Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities, which directs the Secretary of Education to take steps to “facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.” The subject of intense controversy, EO 14242 raises important questions about executive power, the role of Congress, and the future of federal education programs. Join us for a discussion about the legal implications of dismantling the Department of Education and the potential consequences for education policy. Featuring: Jonathan Butcher, Will Skillman Senior Research Fellow in Education Policy at the Heritage Foundation Michael J. Petrilli, President of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute David Randall, Director of Research at the National Association of Scholars Kent Talbert, Investigative Counsel, U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce; former General Counsel to the U.S. Department of Education Moderator: Robert S. Eitel, President and Co-Founder of the Defense for Freedom Institute; former Senior Counselor to the Secretary of Education from 2017-2020

On April 23, President Trump signed E.O. 14281, Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy, declaring that “disparate-impact liability is wholly inconsistent with the Constitution and threatens the commitment to merit and equality of opportunity that forms the foundation of the American Dream.” In this episode, experts explore the origins, evolution, and controversy surrounding disparate impact law—from Section VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to landmark Supreme Court decisions like Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) and Wards Cove Packing Co., Inc. v. Atonio (1989), to the legislative response in the Civil Rights Act of 1991. What is disparate impact liability? How has it shaped outcomes in employment, housing, and equal access to opportunity? Is it a justifiable basis for legal liability without evidence of disparate treatment? Join us for a conversation on one of the most debated legal doctrines in American civil rights history and its role in shaping the future of equality and meritocracy.Featuring:Dan Morenoff, Executive Director, American Civil Rights Project and Adjunct Fellow, Manhattan InstituteGail Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law[Moderator] Linda Chavez, Chairman, Center for Equal OpportunityAdditional Reading:Morenoff, Dan. "Disparate-Impact Liability: Unfounded, Unconstitutional, & Not Long For This World." Fedsoc.org. June 6, 2025. https://fedsoc.org/fedsoc-review/disparate-impact-liability-unfounded-unconstitutional-not-long-for-this-world

Short-term rentals—popularized by Airbnb and Vrbo—have been given modern platforms for the customary alternative to hotels: in-home stays. Yet their rapid growth has prompted a wave of local and state regulations at odds with the practice, driven by lobbying from the hotel industry, concerns about housing affordability, neighborhood character, and other regulatory assertions. While some critics, including city officials and interest groups, support increased oversight, others—including advocates of limited government and individual rights—contend that these services represent an exercise of property rights, expand consumer choice, and note that there is limited evidence of significant impact on the housing market.This panel will explore the constitutional, statutory, historical, and policy implications of short-term rental regulation. Are local governments properly protecting community interests, or are they infringing on fundamental property rights? What legal frameworks govern this space—and what should they be?Join us for a lively discussion featuring the Hon. Paul Clement, Tony Francois, and Ron Klain, moderated by Prof. Donald Kochan, that will examine the intersection of private property, regulatory authority, and economic liberty.

In a little over 100 days, the Department of Government Efficiency, or "DOGE," has fundamentally remade the federal bureaucracy by slimming the workforce and ending federal contracts. So far, its major focus has not been on regulatory issues, but recent executive orders suggest that DOGE may soon set its sights on cutting back excess regulation. When it does, it should consider successful regulatory reform efforts that have been underway in the states for several years. This panel will focus on two of the most successful state regulatory reform initiatives, in Virginia and Indiana, and explore how similar reforms might be enacted federally.

Amidst the flurry of new Executive Orders that launched the second Trump Administration, many questions have arisen concerning regulatory action and executive power. Our panelists will focus on the regulatory analysis guidance of Circular A-4, the role of benefit-cost analysis in regulatory and deregulatory actions, and the 10-for-1 Executive Order. Join us on Wednesday, April 23rd, at 11:30am EST for a discussion of regulatory analysis and administrative law featuring Hon. Susan Dudley and Professor Donald Kenkel, and moderated by Hon. Paul Ray.

In this Tech Roundup Episode of RTP's Fourth Branch podcast, Kevin Frazier and Aram Gavoor sit down to discuss the recent, fast-moving developments in AI policy in the second Trump administration, as well as the importance of innovation and procurement.