Necessary background:

The federal advisory committee system was formed in the 1970s to provide structure and greater transparency around the government’s job of seeking expert advice. There are around 1,000 advisory committees reporting to more than 50 government agencies, and there are firm guidelines around ensuring public access to all proceedings, administered through the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

Advisory committees provide expertise on nearly every issue imaginable—such as counseling the Department of Homeland Security on chemicals and data privacy or advising the Transportation Department on drones and motorcycle safety.

Ok, here’s the question:

Just recently, President Trump signed an executive order directing each agency to ‘terminate at least one-third of its current’ advisory committees by the end of September.

In January 2017, the president signed an Executive Order requiring agencies to slash two regulations for every new regulation put into place.

Allowing that many, or perhaps all, of the advisory committees are wastefully large, do you think it’s a good idea to order a ⅓ reduction across the board? Will it be better in the long run, than having a formal review of all the committees to identify waste, and form a considered plan?

Similarly, do you really think so many federal regulations are so completely pointless and/or detrimental? And allowing for that, is it really a good idea to have such an un-nuanced goal? Would it not be better to have regulations reviewed, corrected, updated, etc.?