Protectionism is, and always has been, an unnecessary and vicious form of economic self-immolation — regardless of partisan agendas or populist pandering. 

And that’s true on the state level as well as the national level. 

Given the gloomy economic projections for Nevada — affected to a great extent by the economic policy uncertainty created by the Trump administration’s trade war — this shouldn’t be an abstract concept for Nevadans to grasp. Already, visitation to Las Vegas from certain foreign nations is down, and if tariffs have their anticipated inflationary impact on goods, there’s a non-zero chance further dips in economic activity are on the horizon.

However, as President Donald Trump carries on with his protectionist policies, Nevada is carrying on with its own — not by placing tariffs on foreign goods, but by blocking certain qualified workers from getting jobs in our state. 

In April, lawmakers let a bill die that would have made it easier for out-of-state nurses to move here and start working in Nevada hospitals without massive bureaucratic headaches. SB34 would have allowed Nevada to join 41 other states in an agreement allowing licensed nurses to work in any of the participating states without having to obtain new, often costly and time-consuming, licenses in each jurisdiction. 

Considering that Nevada requires thousands of new nurses to alleviate our persistent shortage of qualified health care staff, a bill that simplifies the process for qualified individuals to move here should have been an easy policy to embrace. 

And yet, the bill never even got a hearing. 

The reason for the bill’s untimely demise? Well, no specific cause of death was provided by Sen. Julie Pazina (D-Las Vegas), who chairs the Senate committee where the bill was referred. However, anyone who has paid attention to the matter throughout the last few legislative sessions can take a fairly educated guess that it was because of the pressure put on lawmakers by union groups — labor organizations that arguably have a vested business interest in opposing a bunch of non-union nurses from other states filling all those vacancies.  

Of course, the unions argue their reasons are far more admirable. As reported by The Nevada Independent, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has long been one of the main opponents to the reform, having argued in 2023 that there’s no proof licensure compacts actually alleviate shortages within any of the participating states.  

Many health care industry experts tend to disagree. With Nevada’s shortage of nurses being described as “critical,” reforms that give qualified individuals a less cumbersome and less costly path to work in the state seems like a good first step toward recruiting quality workers from elsewhere. And nurses seem to largely agree, according to recent studies that show strong support for such reform within the profession. 

Making the union’s opposition even more infuriating is the fact that other reciprocity compacts already exist and have already been tried in Nevada without any credible harm to patients or providers. Emergency medical services, psychologists and even physicians all currently enjoy the flexibility of easily working in Nevada thanks to interstate compacts — and that’s to say nothing of the fact that licensing requirements were temporarily waived for nurses from other states during the worst days of the pandemic. 

So, what reason exists to deny nurses geographical flexibility as we struggle with massive shortages now? 

Well, politics being politics, the interests of certain special interests are often more important than the answers to such questions — and considering SB34 wasn’t even passed out of committee, it’s easy to conclude that Democratic leadership simply wasn’t interested in openly asking such questions.

The end result is a form of protectionism for union interests by way of continued regulation and licensure burdens on nurses. 

Of course, it’s not as if unions are the only ones guilty of such tactics in our state. Protectionist regulatory structures are depressingly difficult to reform here. In fact, the Institute for Justice has long ranked Nevada as the most burdensome state in the nation for occupational licensing. 

Many of those burdens are positively head scratching if one accepts the premise that they’ve been put in place purely for “public safety.” A manicurist in the Silver State, for example, must undergo four times as many hours of training and pay nearly $100 more for their license than an emergency medical technician — a disproportionate cost in time and money considering how much more damage a poorly trained EMT could cause than someone providing basic nail care services. 

Such exorbitant training requirements are a pretty good deal for the cosmetology schools that charge tuition, but not terribly great for would-be manicurists or consumers who just want to get their nails done at an affordable price. 

Of course, that’s how protectionism works — whether it’s on the federal level or the state level. Burdening entire industries with regulatory or statutory obstacles is the entire point of such policies. In the same way tariffs and trade barriers are implemented as a way to insulate domestic manufacturers from foreign competitors, overburdensome occupational licensing schemes are designed to protect incumbent special interests from losing relevance. 

In the case of SB34’s quiet death, that apparently means protecting the interests of the SEIU over those of overworked nurses, understaffed hospitals or anyone in Nevada unfortunate enough to find themselves in an emergency room. 

Michael Schaus is a communications and branding expert based in Las Vegas, Nevada, and founder of Schaus Creative LLC — an agency dedicated to helping organizations, businesses and activists tell their story and motivate change. He has more than a decade of experience in public affairs commentary, having worked as a news director, columnist, political humorist, and most recently as the director of communications for a public policy think tank. Follow him on Twitter @schausmichael or on Substack @creativediscourse.