The Trump administration has reopened debate on how government regulators value human life in the context of energy and environmental policy. The administration announced it will no longer estimate the economic benefits of avoided mortality, effectively assigning a zero-dollar value to lives saved by regulation.
This change could have significant effects on future regulations and economic estimates, as many policies are based on the benefits of preserving life. Traditionally, economists use a metric called the “value of a statistical life” (VSL) to weigh regulatory costs against the benefits of reducing mortality risk.
The VSL is not intended to measure the direct economic loss from an individual’s death. Instead, it reflects how much people are willing to pay to reduce their own risk of dying. As explained by the Department of Transportation: “[W]hen an individual is willing to pay $1,000 to reduce the annual risk of death by one in 10,000, she is said to have a VSL of $10 million.” In 2024, this figure was set at $13.7 million per statistical life.
By multiplying this number by projected lives saved or lost due to a policy, regulators can estimate its economic impact. For example, if a regulation prevents 1,000 deaths, its benefit would be valued at $13.7 billion before considering industry costs.
Eliminating consideration of VSL makes it more difficult for new regulations that save lives to be justified as economically beneficial. Some experts argue that while there are valid criticisms about precision in previous estimates—such as those made by agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency—the solution should not be abandoning quantification altogether. One former Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs administrator stated: “On one hand, the administration does make some valid points that E.P.A. statements have implied a false precision in the past. On the other hand, the way to rectify that is not to stop quantifying the health effects altogether.”
Critics also point out flaws in how VSL has been applied or misapplied in public discourse and policy analysis. For instance, media coverage sometimes exaggerates potential impacts using VSL-based projections without proper context or fails to account for natural self-preservation behaviors among individuals.
Despite its imperfections and ongoing debate over calculation methods—including issues related to differences in willingness-to-pay across age groups or income levels—the VSL remains central for regulators seeking guidance on when life-saving interventions are warranted.
Legal challenges may arise if courts find that ignoring any value for human life undermines regulatory decisions’ legitimacy or creates uncertainty for industries subject to changing requirements.
The broader discussion highlights ongoing tensions between philosophical views about equal dignity for all lives and practical considerations around balancing safety with regulatory burdens.
