Well if you were on Trump's side (generally), you might argue that it is OK to lose all these cases because it is in the fiscal interest of the country to do away with every regulation you can, and you shouldn't not try because you'd lose in court.
On the other hand, even if you agree with that, how do you justify the immediate harm caused without appropriately reviewing the impacts of such deregulation as is the basis for your massive losses? Or the costs incurred to taxpayers in fighting these battles? How is that fiscally responsible?
I'm not so sure about that. I remember writing about this in maybe mid-2017 somewhere that the Trump administration's main problems with repealing regulations were the following:
1) In order to overturn a regulation you need to demonstrate, using scientific evidence, that the US is better off without the regulation.
2) In many cases it was literally impossible to do this using science, because the regulations were in fact good ideas.
3) Even in cases where they had a plausible argument, the Trump EPA and others acted so incompetently and lazily that they didn't bother to compile what's actually necessary to overturn them, ensuring they lost in court.
All they did was 'repeal' the regulations and declare them to be repealed, only to have the courts reinstate them. It's malevolence tempered by incompetence.