Latest
Senate votes to block Trump administration’s tariffs on Canada (S.J. Res. 37)
On April 2, the Senate passed a joint resolution that would effectively block some of the Trump administration’s tariffs on Canada. The resolution would end the state of national emergency declared by President Trump on February 1, 2025 in order to justify imposing 25% tariffs – “duties,” another term for taxes on imported goods – on goods imported from Canada. The House of Representatives still must vote on and pass the resolution in order for it to take effect. However, the continuing resolution that extended federal government funding through September 2025 also contained language preventing the House from debating the president’s declaration of a national economic emergency.
Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the President can declare a of state of emergency due to an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to the national security interests of the U.S. Under the state of emergency, the President is given broader authority to take actions to address that threat, such as imposing economic sanctions, without the explicit authorization of Congress. However, Congress still retains the authority to check the President’s actions under the IEEPA, and may terminate the national emergency by passing a joint resolution.
President Trump declared that the movement of undocumented immigrants and illegal drugs, including fentanyl, across the U.S.’s borders with Canada and Mexico justified declaring a national emergency under IEEPA. However, as we have documented previously, the way the Trump administration is wielding tariffs as economic cudgels have little to do with accomplishing national security and public safety goals, and are not likely to provide a meaningful boost to U.S. domestic manufacturing, as the administration claims.
Sens. Kaine (D-VA), Warner (D-VA), and Klobuchar (D-VA) cosponsored the resolution (S.J. Res. 37) to terminate the state of national emergency . It passed the Senate 51-48 with some measure of bipartisan support as 4 Republican Senators – Sens. Collins (R-ME), McConnell (R-KY), Murkowski (R-AK), and Paul (R-KY) – supported the resolution, and now moves to the House for consideration.
Speaker Mike Johnson, who controls what bills will come to the floor in the House, has manipulated the Congressional calendar in unprecedented ways to avoid having to vote on overturning these tariffs. In the short-term government spending bill passed last month to avert a government shutdown, House Republicans quietly inserted a technical change that would prevent any resolution on overturning tariffs from receiving a vote in 2025. In order to ensure a timely opportunity for Congressional oversight of the President’s actions, the IEEPA requires a process to fast-track any such resolutions to overturn a presidential emergency declaration, requiring action within a certain number of calendar days. But the House Republicans’ procedural change simply declares that “each day in the remainder of [the current] Congress shall not constitute a calendar day” for the purposes of the IEEPA. This maneuver will effectively allow many Republican members of Congress to either avoid having to take a likely unpopular vote in support of President Trump’s tariffs, or to take a vote against them and risk drawing the criticism of the Trump administration.
President Trump levels historically high tariffs on virtually all U.S. imports
Timeline:
April 2, 2025: Trump issued an executive order declaring a national economic emergency and levying tariffs on goods imports from virtually all U.S. trading partners, at a minimum of 10% but significantly higher for major trading partners.
April 5, 2025: Tariffs take effect.
On April 2, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order titled, “Regulating Imports with a Reciprocal Tariff to Rectify Trade Practices that Contribute to Large and Persistent Annual United States Goods Trade Deficits.” The order declares a national economic emergency over large and sustained U.S. trade deficits—the difference between how much the United States sells in exports to the rest of the world and how much it buys in imports. Invoking a variety of emergency legal authorities, the order invokes significant taxes on goods that Americans purchase from abroad, also called tariffs.
While the word “reciprocal” might imply these tariffs are meant to match in some way trade barriers to U.S. exports, the actual calculation of each country-specific tariff has no relation at all to genuine trade barriers. For each country, the “reciprocal tariff rate” is calculated as one-half multiplied by the bilateral trade deficit the United States runs with the country divided by the value of U.S. imports from that country. There is no information at all about legal or regulatory barriers or tariffs on U.S. exports that is reflected in this formula – it is functionally arbitrary in setting the reciprocal tariff levels.
Impact:
In 2024 the average effective tariff rate on goods entering the United States was less than 3%. The “reciprocal” tariffs will raise it to just under 19%. Tariffs will now cover functionally all goods imports into the United States – over $3 trillion. This level of tariffs will raise taxes on U.S. households by roughly $450 billion and will see a sharp reduction in both imports and exports.
Tariffs can be a useful tool in industrial policy for well-defined strategic goals, but broad-based tariffs that significantly raise the average effective tariff rate in the United States are unwise. Without a strategic plan, and applied broadly across all sectors, these tariffs will not provide a meaningful boost to U.S. manufacturing.
DHS revokes protections for 532,000 in CHNV parole program
On March 25, 2025, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, citing Executive Order 14165, “Securing Our Borders,” published a notice in the Federal Register terminating the parole process for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, better known as the CHNV program, and terminating parole status for any CHNV participants whose parole had not expired by April 24, 2025. According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), 531,690 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans arrived lawfully and were granted parole under the CHNV program.1
The Biden administration used its discretionary parole authority under U.S. law to create five new programs to admit individuals from abroad. One of those was the CHNV program, which had a limit on approvals of 30,000 per month. To be eligible, participants need to have a U.S.-based financial sponsor, and if approved, were received parole status for two years and eligible to be issued a work permit. On October 4, 2023, the Biden administration had announced that there would not be a process for participants to renew their parole status, and that they would need to transition to another lawful status in order to remain in the United States.
Impact: Termination of CHNV will effectively also end the validity of work permits for any parolees whose status is terminated—leaving hundreds of thousands of workers without the basic workplace protections that having a work permit provides—and former CHNV participants will become deportable if they have not already departed the United States.
ORR shortens refugee assistance from 12 to 4 months
On March 21, 2025, the Administration for Children and Families in the Department of Health and Human Services posted in the Federal Register an announcement from the director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) that ORR is shortening of the Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA) and Refugee Medical Assistance (RMA) eligibility period from 12 months to four months of assistance. The shorter eligibility period will apply to participants who become eligible for ORR benefits 45 days after publication of the notice.
The eligibility period has changed over the years, most recently from eight months to 12 months in 2022. ORR says the change to four months is based on the level of appropriations they expect to receive from Congress and the number of refugees who were admitted to the United States in recent years. However, the Trump administration completely shut down the refugee program on January 20, 2025, thus no refugees are currently being admitted.
Impact: Refugees already receive modest only a very low level of benefits to help them adjust to life in the United States, and this reduction in benefits will make that more difficult for many refugees who are new arrivals and adjusting to a new country and in many cases, a new language. If fewer refugees can qualify for assistance, they and their families will struggle to put food on the table, access medical care, and find housing, which will in turn put further strain on the communities where they live and work.
Trump administration closes three DHS offices focused on civil rights and oversight
On March 21, 2025, Bloomberg Law reported that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was dismantling its Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL), as well as cutting staff at the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, and in the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman. With these moves, in practice, all three offices will cease to function.
CRCL is an internal office at DHS that investigates complaints from the public alleging violations of civil rights and civil liberties in DHS activities, including with respect to in immigration enforcement and discrimination, and which scrutinizes the administration’s immigration policies. More than 100 employees at CRCL are losing their jobs.
The Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman helps members of the public resolve problems with immigration benefits, and the Immigration Detention Ombudsman conducts oversight on conditions at immigration detention centers. A spokesperson for DHS issued a statement saying that the decisions were made to “streamline oversight to remove roadblocks to enforcement,” and that “[t]hese offices have obstructed immigration enforcement by adding bureaucratic hurdles and undermining DHS’s mission.”
Impact: All three offices have received complaints from the public and have investigated the immigration policies of both Democratic and Republican administrations over the years, including the first Trump administration. Without them, there will be no internal watchdog offices left at DHS to assess the legality and effectiveness of, and problems with, the implementation of Trump administration policies on immigration enforcement.
HHS guts worker safety agency NIOSH
On April 1, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the layoffs of 10,000 employees as part of the Trump administration’s reduction in force. The recent layoffs, combined with an additional 10,000 voluntary resignations, leaves the department with a 25% reduction in staff since President Trump took office. The layoffs and voluntary resignations impact all divisions within the department, including the Food and Drug Administration, National Health Institute, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), which studies worker health and safety, was significantly impacted by the layoffs. NIOSH is expected to see more than 800 employees–two thirds of the workforce–laid off in the coming weeks, according to CBS News. NIOSH activities include a wide range of workplace safety activities, from certifying the quality of personal protective equipment like face masks worn by firefighters, construction, and health care workers, to conducting safety and injury prevention research and health screenings for mine workers, to conducting research to help prevent hazardous chemical exposures in the workplace.
Impact: The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health studies workplace health and safety and provides recommendations to prevent workplace injuries, illnesses and fatalities. Gutting NIOSH will make it harder for the institute to conduct and produce valuable research and guidance that foster safe and healthy workplaces.
Nominating Anthony D’Esposito as DOL Inspector General
President Trump nominated Anthony D’Esposito as the Department of Labor’s Inspector General. If confirmed, D’Esposito will serve as an independent watchdog ensuring that taxpayer dollars are not being misused or mismanaged at the Department of Labor. In January 2025, President Trump illegal fired 17 inspectors general to make way for his own appointments. Most recently, D’Esposito served as Representative of New York’s 4th Congressional District from 2023 to 2025 and was investigated for violating House ethics rules. Prior to serving in Congress, D’Esposito was a New York City detective.
Nominating Jonathan Berry as Solicitor of Labor
President Trump nominated Jonathan Berry as the Solicitor of Labor at the Department of Labor (DOL). If confirmed, Berry will be the chief legal officer at DOL and have the independent authority to initiate lawsuits to enforce more than 180 federal labor laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act and Occupational Safety and Health Act. Berry is currently a managing partner at Boyden Gray & Associates PLLC. Previously, Berry served as the Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy at the Department of Labor during the first Trump administration. Berry also authored Project 2025’s section on the Department of Labor and other labor related agencies, which calls for weakening the federal minimum wage, limiting overtime eligibility, and undermining workers’ right to a union by forcing secret ballot elections.
Nominating Andrew Rogers as Wage and Hour Administrator
President Trump nominated Andrew Rogers to head Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD). If confirmed, Rogers will oversee the enforcement of labor protections such as the federal minimum wage, overtime pay, employment standards for immigrant workers, and prevailing wage requirements for federal contracts. Rogers is currently the Acting General Counsel at the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC). Prior to his time at the EEOC, Rogers served in the WHD under the first Trump administration. Before joining the WHD, Rogers worked as a labor and employment attorney at Littler Mendelson PC, a management-side law firm.
Firing NLRB Board Member Gwynne Wilcox
Timeline
March 28, 2025 – The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that President Trump has the power to remove executive officials in Wilcox v. Trump.
March 6, 2025 – a federal judge reinstated Member Wilcox to the NLRB. The Trump administration filed an appeal on the decision
February 5, 2025 – Ms. Wilcox sued the Trump administration over her dismissal
January 29, 2025 – this post originally published
January 27, 2025 – President Trump illegally removed NLRB Board Chair Gwynne Wilcox from office
President Trump has illegally removed NLRB Board Chair Gwynne Wilcox from office. In 2023, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the President does have the authority to remove the NLRB’s General Counsel, but not any of the Members of the Board, who act as an independent federal agency and are intended to be shielded from presidential interference after they are nominated and confirmed by the Senate. Ms. Wilcox described her removal as “illegal and unprecedented” and indicated that she intends to pursue legal action against the Trump administration to challenge her removal.
Removing Ms. Wilcox from office has also reduced the Board to only 2 members overall, Democratic appointee David Prouty and Republican Chair Marvin Kaplan. With only 2 members, the NLRB does not have a quorum, meaning they cannot make decisions or hear cases on unfair labor practices or union representation. This means President Trump has essentially made the Board non-operational. Elon Musk, billionaire and head of the Trump administration organization Department of Government Efficiency, has challenged the NLRB’s constitutionality in court in his private capacity as a CEO, rather than be held accountable for allegedly illegally firing SpaceX employees who tried to raise workplace concerns.
During her tenure at the NLRB, Ms. Wilcox played a crucial role in improving efficiency and effectiveness in processing cases. She has also championed measures at the Board to improve language access and public outreach by the agency. Ms. Wilcox was the first Black woman to serve on the NLRB and the first Black Chair. Through a series of decisions during the Biden administration, the NLRB made significant progress in rolling back the anti-worker agenda advanced by the Trump administration and expanded worker protections in key areas.
Firing MSPB Member Cathy Harris
Timeline
March 28, 2025 – The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that President Trump has the power to remove executive officials in Harris v. Bessent.
February 18 – A federal judge ordered the Trump administration to reinstate MSPB Member Harris.
February 10, 2025 – President Trump fires MSPB Member Cathy Harris.
On February 10, President Trump illegally fired Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) Member Cathy Harris. Member Harris was appointed by President Biden and confirmed by the Senate to serve a term that was not set to expire until March 2028. MSPB members can removed by the president, but “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” As of February 11, Member Harris has sued the Trump administration over her dismissal.
Impact: The MSPB is an independent agency that protects the federal merits systems and the rights of employees in those systems. Since day one, President Trump has undertaken dozens of actions that harm the federal workforce, including changes to merit-based systems. The illegally removal of Member Harris makes way for President Trump to appointment of an individual that aligns politically with his interests.
Executive Order on “Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs”
On March 27, President Trump issued an executive order that excludes agencies with “national security missions” from the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. The action removes collective bargaining rights for workers at more than 30 federal agencies that involve the issues of national defense, border security, foreign relations, energy security, pandemic preparedness, cybersecurity, economic defense, and public safety. Notably, the executive order does not impact law enforcement.
Under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, federal unions can bargain over a limited set of conditions of employment. The Trump administration cites having to negotiate with unions over matters of performance and changes in working conditions as threats to national security and justification to removing collective bargaining rights of federal workers. However, collective bargaining provides pathways to resolve conflicts, improve retention, and boost workplace morale.
The executive order is a direct response to the federal unions that are challenging the Trump administration’s actions. Under President Trump’s second term, his administration has issued numerous attacks on the federal workforce, many of which courts have found to be illegal. The American Federation of Government Employees, which represents federal workers, is preparing to take legal action against the Trump administration over the executive order.
Impact: The executive order strips more than a million federal workers of their collective bargaining rights. These workers no longer have the right to organize with their coworkers and improve their working conditions so they can efficiently provide services the public relies on.
President Trump levies significant auto tariffs
Timeline:
March 26: President Trump issued a proclamation, “Adjusting Imports of Automobiles and Automobile Parts into the United States,” declaring a national emergency under Section 232 of the Trade Act of 1962 and levying a 25% tariff on all foreign autos and auto parts and on the non-U.S. content in autos and parts made in Canada and Mexico.
Between April 3rd, 2025, 12:01am and May 3rd, 2025: 25% auto and auto parts tariffs would go into effect, in addition to other pre-existing tariffs.
Within 90 days of the proclamation: The Secretary of Commerce and Customs and Border Control will establish a process to identify U.S. and non-U.S. content in auto parts; tariffs on parts will not be levied until this process is in place.
On March 26, 2025, President Trump issued a proclamation, “Adjusting Imports of Automobiles and Automobile Parts into the United States,” declaring a national emergency under Section 232 of the Trade Act of 1962 and levying a 25% tariff on all foreign autos and auto parts and on the non-U.S. content in autos and parts made in Canada and Mexico. These tariffs will be levied on top of existing auto tariffs, such as the 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles imposed by President Biden in 2024. The proclamation acknowledges that the first Trump administration failed to negotiate any trade deals that addressed problems of trade competitiveness in the auto industry or yielded positive outcomes (Paragraphs 3 and 6).
In 2024, U.S. International Trade Commission data show the United States imported more than 4.1 million cars and pick-up trucks from Canada and Mexico, worth $118 billion, and more than $100 billion in auto parts. Though the U.S. content of Canadian and Mexican imports would be excluded from these tariffs, the move promises significant disruptions to the U.S. motor vehicle industry. But the proclamation makes no mention of this and offers no provisions to protect U.S. workers in the supply chain who may face furloughs and layoffs as a result. Further, if Mexico and Canada retaliate reciprocally, it will put $32 billion in U.S. vehicle exports and $68 billion in parts exports in jeopardy.
The tariffs will cover all foreign-made passenger vehicles and light-duty pick-up trucks, engines and engine parts, transmissions and powertrain parts, and electrical components. A list of covered parts is to be published in the Federal Register; auto and auto parts producers and industry associations may petition the Commerce Secretary to include additional parts on the list subject to this 25% tariff.
Vehicles and parts produced in accordance with “rules of origin” specified by the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) will only be subject to tariffs on the value of non-U.S. content. USMCA rules—negotiated by President Trump and signed in 2020—specify that a conforming vehicle must include 75% regional value content in core parts, 65-70% regional content in other parts, 70% of the steel and aluminum content must be North American in origin, and 40-45% of the content must be produced by workers earning at least $16 an hour. The president’s proclamation, in effect, blows-up these rules and the supply chains built around them. However, rules for calculating non-USMCA content, the so-called “rolling-up” methodology, leaves a gaping backdoor for foreign content to penetrate North American supply-chains and qualify for duty-free access to the U.S. market, even where it is illegally subsidized, without offering the same market access to U.S. content in foreign markets.
Under the USMCA, companies essentially self-certified their compliance with rules of origin, but the president’s proclamation will require companies to apply proactively for ex ante certification of compliance by the Secretary of Commerce to receive exclusions from the tariffs on U.S. content and establishes penalties for companies found fudging their calculations of domestic and foreign content.
The proclamation finds that the COVID-19 pandemic revealed critical chokepoints in the automotive supply chain, leading to production disruptions and higher retail prices for vehicles. The primary supply-chain disruption came from limited access to semiconductors (aka “chips”), which comprise roughly 40% of the cost of a new vehicle. However, the president has called existing policies to address chip shortages—the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act—“horrible” and vowed to reverse that legislation.
Impact:
25% tariffs on non-U.S. automobiles and automobile parts promise severe disruption to the nearly 5 million vehicles and $320 billion of trade in North American motor vehicle production chains, with no provisions for the workers likely to face dislocation or the consumers likely to face higher prices who will bear the costs of transition.
Firing FTC Commissioners
Timeline
March 27, 2025 – Commissioners Bedoya and Slaughter filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over their dismissal.
March 18, 2025 – President Trump unlawfully fires FTC Commissioners Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter.
Description: On March 18, President Trump unlawfully fired two members of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, before their terms would have expired. The FTC is an independent federal agency, meaning that while Commissioners are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, the actions of the Commission are intended to be shielded from presidential interference. With the removal of Commissioners Bedoya and Slaughter, the FTC only has two sitting Commissioners, which may deny the agency the quorum it needs to perform all of its duties.
The FTC’s mission is to prevent corporations and other entities from engaging in unfair competition and unfair business practices that harm the public. The FTC enforces laws and regulations prohibiting illegal monopolistic practices, where companies may try to become too large and dominate too much of the market, including by reviewing mergers and acquisitions. The FTC also focuses on antitrust activities, in which businesses may engage in illegal anticompetitive actions, like price fixing. The FTC also has stepped in to protect consumers from corporate practices like deceptive fines and fees, scams and elder fraud, data privacy violations, deceptive advertising, and more.
While the FTC does not have a mission directly related to workers’ rights or labor standards, the FTC has also taken actions on issues directly affecting workers’ rights and pay. During the Biden administration, the FTC passed a rule that would have banned noncompete clauses as conditions of employment, which prevent workers from going to work for competing employers or starting their own business ventures in the same fields. While the rule was invalidated by a federal judge, the FTC was in the process of appealing that decision. On March 12, the Trump administration paused the FTC’s defense of the ban in court, possibly signaling their intent to step away from defending the rule.
Rescind EO 14119 Scaling and Expanding the Use of Registered Apprenticeships in Industries and the Federal Government and Promoting Labor-Management Forums
On March 14, President Trump overturned an executive order, originally signed by President Biden, that created a federal interagency working group focused on expanding registered apprenticeships in federal employment or on federally-funded projects.
Registered apprenticeships are on-the-job, “earn while you learn” training programs that are vetted and approved by the U.S. Department of Labor or by a state government’s apprenticeship agency. This vetting ensures that registered apprenticeship programs are closely aligned with industry hiring needs and follow an approved, comprehensive training curriculum to guarantee high-quality outcomes both for employers seeking skilled labor and workers seeking stable careers in high-demand occupations. Registered apprenticeships are an important way to train people for the workforce without requiring workers to take on debt or financial risk. Many registered apprenticeships (including the vast majority of registered apprenticeship programs in the construction industry) are jointly funded and administered by employers and labor unions, and thus do not rely on any public funding. In recent years, interest has grown in expanding the model of registered apprenticeship in other sectors seeking to recruit and hire workers with specialized skills, such as health care and public employment.
Unlike registered apprenticeships, other types of workforce training or education are not required to meet particular standards for quality, cost, or outcome. For example, training programs required by some employers may not include pay for time spent in training, or may even require workers to pay significant fees for training with no guarantee that skills acquired will lead to long-term employment and no option for reimbursement if a promised job falls through. Unlike registered apprenticeships, other forms of job-related training do not result in an industry-recognized, portable credential that sets workers up for lifelong career opportunities and guarantees future employers the ability to hire trained workers who possess a clearly defined, job-ready skillset.
The multi-agency working group established under EO 14119 was directed to consult with business, educational institutions, and labor unions about ways to improve or expand access to registered apprenticeships. The working group was charged with supporting expansion of registered apprenticeships by either adding registered apprenticeship criteria to agency grants or contracts or expanding registered apprenticeship career opportunities within federal agency employment.
The EO also re-established labor-management forums in federal agencies, reversing a 2017 EO which had disbanded these longstanding structures designed to improve communication and coordination between federal employee unions and management, and overall ensure smooth, efficient operations for government services. Disbanding these labor-management forums is part of the administration’s ongoing attacks on federal employees and the voice of unions in the federal government.
Impact
Revoking this EO will mean the federal government will no longer prioritize expansion of registered apprenticeships, which will limit opportunities to expand registered apprenticeship career pathways in federal employment and slow the expansion of private-sector registered apprenticeships that are of high value to both employers seeking skilled workers and workers seeking stable careers in high-demand industries. In February, the Trump administration’s Labor Secretary, Lori Chavez-DeRemer, told Senators that she would focus on registered apprenticeships if she were confirmed to lead the Department of Labor. Secretary Chavez-DeRemer’s commitment will be harder to carry out without the support of either the White House or the interagency partnerships like the one President Trump is now ending.
Nominating Crystal Carey as NLRB General Counsel
On March 25, President Trump nominated Crystal Carey to serve as the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Carey is currently a partner at the law firm Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, which she joined in 2018. Prior to joining Morgan Lewis, Carey was an NLRB attorney for eight years.
Morgan Lewis is one of the largest management-side law firms that currently represents corporations known for violating workers’ rights, including Amazon, SpaceX, Apple, and Tesla. Morgan Lewis is also pursuing the legal challenge that the NLRB is unconstitutional, despite several former NLRB members being employed at the firm.
By nominating Carey as the NLRB general counsel, President Trump has reaffirmed that the NLRB will rule on the side of employers over workers.
Designating Andrea Lucas as Acting Chair of EEOC
Timeline
March 25, 2025 – President Trump nominates Andrea Lucas for another term at the EEOC. If confirmed by the Senate, Lucas will serve until July 2030.
January 20, 2025 – President Trump designates Andrea Lucas as Acting Chair of the EEOC.
President Trump designated Andrea Lucas as Acting Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Lucas was nominated and confirmed as a Commissioner of the EEOC under the first Trump administration.
The EEOC is an independent agency that enforces federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination and harassment. During her time as Commissioner, Lucas has been critical of corporations enacting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs at the workplace. Commissioner Lucas voted against the final rule of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which requires employers to provide accommodations for pregnant workers and workers who choose to or not have an abortion. Commissioner Luch also voted against the EEOC’s workplace harassment guidance, which includes protections for LBGTQ+ workers.
Targeting elimination of Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
On March 14, President Trump announced a presidential action directing the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FCMS), and other targeted federal agencies to eliminate “non-statutory components” and to “reduce the performance of their statutory functions and associated personnel to the minimum presence and function required by law.”
The FMCS is a federal agency that provides mediation, training, and facilitation to resolve labor-management disputes – disagreements between unions and employers. The agency was established in 1947 in part to strengthen the federal role in solving difficult labor disputes. Strikes, or work stoppages, are the most important and final form of leverage that workers have over their bosses to demand better working conditions. When strikes stretch on for long enough because the parties are not making progress at the bargaining table, they can cause real economic hardship for the striking workers and also cause broader disruption to the economy, particularly when they affect health care, infrastructure, public services, or public safety.
Impact
According to the agency, the FMCS had a 2024 budget that represents less than 0.0014% of the federal budget. Even eliminating the agency’s work and its staff entirely would not “save” the federal government money. It is not clear that President Trump actually has any legal authority to cut staff or limit the activities of the agency, as its programs are currently authorized and funded by Congress. If the Trump administration acts outside of its authority to slash the agency’s work, unions and employers will no longer have a neutral, third party in the government available to help navigate disagreements in bargaining.
Executive Order on closing the Department of Education
On March 20, President Trump signed an executive order to begin shutting down several functions of the Department of Education (DOE) and send many functions of the DOE to the states. The order also mandated that any program that receives funds from the Department of Education must end any focus on diversity, equity or inclusion, as a condition of receiving the federal funds. This Executive Order comes after the White House directed the DOE to lay off 1,300 employees (a directive that is currently in litigation).
While closing the Department of Education, and reappropriating major funding programs like those under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), would require an act by Congress, this EO furthers a longstanding right-wing agenda to eliminate free, publicly-funded education for children and sows confusion for districts regarding whether they will be able to count on key revenue sources, like funding for Title 1, IDEA and the Child Nutrition Act in the coming years .
90% of all US students attend public K-12 schools, and the Department of Education provides funding for those schools, narrowing gaps between needed resources and state and local revenue. These resources help balance the scales of school funding, as high-poverty districts often get less funding from local sources. The Trump administration claims that this executive order is not about reducing funding for schools, but about “returning [Department of Education] authority to the states.” But most of the money distributed by the Department of Education already goes directly to the states and local school systems. The federal funding that does goes to public schools reduces inequities in district funding: 51% goes to the third of districts with the greatest need (as measured by district poverty), while only 18% goes to the third of districts with the lowest neighborhood poverty. It is important that the Department of Education continue to administer these funds, rather than leaving it all to the states, to ensure fairness for the districts that need federal money the most.
To be clear, the DOE has no authority to set curriculum. EO’s restriction on providing federal funds to any program that continues goals of improving racial equity, gender equity, or accessibility is an attempt by the Trump administration to actually bring state and local education more under federal control, by attempting to dictate what is acceptable to discuss in teacher curriculums, training programs, or school policies. The Trump administration’s prior Executive Order, “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling” is an illegal overreach by the federal government to control curriculum in public K-12 schools and it is unclear whether the Trump administration has legal authority to make this demand over curriculum decisions – the Department of Education has no authority over what schools do or don’t teach. Moreover, the EO furthers the Trump administration’s attacks on public education in favor of privatization and voucher schemes. Privatization is not a serious option to improve schools: studies have shown that students that took vouchers to private schools often performed worse on standardized tests (see evaluations of the evidence here, and here). Private schools have none of the accountability or transparency requirements to students, parents or the public that public schools do. In Milwaukee, WI , nearly 40 percent of voucher schools failed or closed between 1991 and 2015. Students need dependable education. A strong research base indicates that public schools would benefit from higher levels of resources, with dollars translating directly into higher test scores and better post-school outcomes for students.
Impact
It is not clear that President Trump actually has any legal authority to cut staff or limit the activities of the agency, as the Department of Education’s programs are currently authorized and funded by Congress. Moving a program, like IDEA, out of the Department of Education to a different department, like Health and Human Services, would require congressional approval. Further, at present, the DOE does not control the curriculum, states and localities do. If President Trump acts outside of his authority to slash the agencies’ work, funds may get returned to states for states to distribute to districts as they see fit. This effectively will pull the guard rails off this funding, which is extremely effective at redistributing funds based on district need, to a situation where states have to compete for funds, or where some states could even potentially use public money to support private schools. This would create a patchwork where public schools in some states will risk falling even further behind.
Project 2025 reference: p. 319
Targeting economic development agencies for elimination
On March 14, President Trump announced a presidential action directing the Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI) Fund, Minority Business Development Association (MBDA), and other targeted federal agencies to eliminate “non-statutory components” and to “reduce the performance of their statutory functions and associated personnel to the minimum presence and function required by law.” While this action is consistent with Trump’s anti-racial-equity rhetoric and with DOGE’s illegal attempts to shrink the federal government, it is not clear what it actually means or what it will change. Just hours before this action, Trump signed a budget bill that would maintain 2024 funding levels through 2025. Further, the primary mission and functions of each of these programs are clearly consistent with the statutes that created them.
The CDFI Fund was created by the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994. Housed within the U.S. Treasury, the CDFI Fund provides financial assistance to financial institutions that “have a primary mission of promoting community development”. This financial assistance comes in the form of grants and other investments, tax credits and bond guarantees that more than 1,400 CDFIs across the country use to finance affordable housing, small minority-owned businesses, green energy, disaster recovery and other projects in rural areas, Tribal lands and disinvested urban communities.
The Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) was established by President Nixon in 1969 as the Office of Minority Business Enterprise. The agency is housed within the Department of Commerce and became a permanent federal agency in 2021 with the passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The creation of the agency was intended to help overcome the social, economic, and legal discrimination faced by members of minority racial and ethnic groups that prevented them from fully participating in the market. Since 1981, MBDA has operated a network of business centers and technical assistance programs that help minority business enterprises (MBEs) with technical assistance for gaining greater access to capital and contracting opportunities and developing strategies for expanding into new markets.
Impact:
The combined budgets of the CDFI Fund and MBDA are under $500 million dollars. While just a miniscule portion of the federal budget, and far from the level of investment needed to actually infuse underserved communities with adequate capital resources, the services they provide are critical lifelines to the individuals and communities they serve. It is not clear that President Trump actually has any legal authority to cut staff or limit the activities of the agencies, as their programs are currently authorized and funded by Congress. If President Trump acts outside of his authority to slash the agencies’ work, credit unions, small community financing organizations, and small businesses in communities around the country will risk losing key sources of public investments and support.
Appointing Elisabeth Messenger as head of union oversight agency OLMS
On February 24, President Trump appointed Elisabeth Messenger to serve as the head of the Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) at the U.S. Department of Labor. Messenger is the former CEO of “Americans for Fair Treatment,” an organization opposed to public sector unions, and has spoken publicly against union membership and union dues. The position of OLMS head is not subject to Senate confirmation, so Ms. Messenger is now serving in the rule.
OLMS is a small sub-agency of the Department of Labor, with just over 200 employees enforcing the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). The LMRDA regulations include “persuader” reporting, which requires employers to report their use of union-busting labor management consultants; reporting from unions on their finances; ensuring fair union elections; certifying compliance with labor standards as a condition of federal transit funding, and more. However, since its inception, OLMS has overwhelmingly prioritized enforcing the LMRDA’s requirements on unions to report their activities, while failing to apply the same level of scrutiny to employers. Project 2025, the right-wing policy playbook strongly informing the Trump administration’s policy agenda and personnel, recommended beefing up OLMS’s scrutiny of union activities, rather than of employers. An openly anti-union head of OLMS is a step in that direction.
EPI has estimated that employers spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year on union-busting legal and consulting services – and this is likely a conservative estimate, since there are many activities that employers are not required to report to OLMS and there’s limited transparent data on this field. “Persuader” activities – both legal and illegal union-busting – are a significant reason why workers who want to form unions face so many barriers to organizing a union in their workplace.
Rescind EO 14026 Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors
On March 14, President Trump rescinded Executive Order 14026, which increased the minimum wage for federal contractors to $15 per hour. The original executive order was signed by President Biden on April 27, 2021, and the updated minimum wage level has been in effect since January 20, 2022. The rule also directed the U.S. Secretary of Labor to make updates to the minimum wage for federal contractors going forward, in order to keep pace with inflation. The current minimum wage for federal contractors, as of January 1, 2025, is $17.75.
In order to raise the federal minimum wage for all workers, Congress would need to pass a law, but the Department of Labor has the authority to set a higher standard specifically for federal contractors. Federal contractors are private companies or nonprofits that make products or provide services for the government. Federal contractors include workers in a wide range of industries and at many different levels of pay, ranging from the janitors who clean government buildings to the information technology workers who run government systems to the food service workers on military bases. In 2021, EPI estimated that there would be roughly 1.9 million federal contract jobs in 2022, including construction workers. Of those, about 390,000 would have their wages raised by the directive in EO 14026, or about one-fifth of the full federal contract workforce. EPI’s also estimated that these workers would see an estimated total pay increase of $1.2 billion.
A higher minimum wage for federal contractors helps ensure that taxpayer dollars incentivize good jobs, rather than low-wage jobs where contractors compete with each other in a race to the bottom. A higher federal contractor wage standard is good for employers and the federal government overall. In particular, minimum wage increases lead to reductions in turnover and worker separations. High worker turnover can be incredibly expensive for firms that employ people at low wages. Reducing worker turnover could improve the efficiency of the government contracting system. The quality of federal contract work could also improve with a higher minimum wage. A 2021 study by Krista Ruffini found direct evidence that minimum wage increases at nursing homes improved worker performance and production efficiency, and that inspection violations, preventable health conditions, and resident mortality all fell in response to minimum wage increases.
Impact: Overturning the current law established by this EO will take away pay increases from about 390,000 low-wage federal contract workers who earned the right to at least $15/hour under this regulation. If the Trump administration fully overturns this rule, federal contractors would revert to the minimum wage level last set for them by the Obama administration a decade ago in 2014, of $13.30 an hour. Alternatively, If the Trump administration were to rewrite the rule to do away with the higher minimum wage for federal contractors entirely, federal contractors in states that don’t have a higher minimum wage would face the current federal minimum wage of just $7.25 per hour.
Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua
On March 15, 2025, President Trump issued and Executive Order (EO) titled, “Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua,” which invokes a 1798 law that was enacted as part of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, designed to allow the President to detain or remove foreign nationals from enemy nations during wartime. It’s the same law that was used during World War II, to justify the internment of Japanese, German, and Italian nationals in the United States. The EO finds that Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang that the Trump administration designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization on February 20, 2025, is “perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States” and “undertaking hostile actions and conducting irregular warfare against the territory of the United States.” The EO also states that all of Tren de Aragua’s members are subject to “immediate apprehension, detention, and removal” and cannot reside in the United States.
There were deportations carried out under this authority over the weekend of March 15-16, where alleged members of Tren de Aragua were removed to El Salvador. This action was challenged in federal court in Washington DC. The judge in the case issued a temporary restraining order blocking the transfers and ordering that any detainees be immediately returned to the United States. There are multiple reports that the administration may have violated the judge’s order by continuing to fly people subject to the order to El Salvador after the court had ruled that they must not be taken there or be returned. The Trump administration has denied that their actions violated the judge’s order.
Rubio issues broad declaration on foreign affairs exception of the Administrative Procedure Act
On March 14, 2025, the Federal Register published a determination by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, which declares that “all efforts, conducted by any agency of the federal government, to control the status, entry, and exit of people, and the transfer of goods, services, data, technology, and other items across the borders of the United States, constitute a foreign affairs function of the United States under the Administrative Procedure Act.”
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is a law that governs the process for how federal agencies propose, issue, and rescind regulations. The APA requires that agencies provide public notice about regulations, and provides a method for the public to give the government input about draft regulations or other regulatory changes, and generally a period of 30 to 60 days to do so. Agencies are then required to consider those comments and respond to the public’s concerns in the final version of a regulation or action. When agencies take actions that do not adhere to APA requirements, individuals and organizations can sue to stop the action or regulation in question, based on procedural violations of the APA. However if a regulation impacts ” a military or foreign affairs function of the United States,” it qualifies for an exemption from the notice-and-comment requirements of the APA.
The APA has been used by advocacy groups to sue in federal courts to stop regulations issued by both Republican and Democratic presidents. One of the major impacts of Rubio’s declaration—which applies a broad, blanket declaration of the APA foreign affairs exception to all agencies that take nearly any type of cross-border action—would be to prevent the government from taking input on regulations having to do with immigration and trade issues (among many others), and would close off one of the main avenues for challenging the legality of federal regulations.
Rescind EO 14126 “Good Jobs” Executive Order
On March 14, President Trump rescinded the Biden-era Investing in America and Investing in American Workers Executive Order (sometimes referred to as the “Good Jobs” Executive Order). The Good Jobs EO was issued on September 6, 2024 to promote strong labor standards on projects receiving federal funds through the signature Biden-era economic investments, including ARPA, IIJA, CHIPS, and IRA.
The Good Jobs EO stated that government agencies disbursing these key federal grants should prioritize applicants who commit to strong labor standards that create high-quality jobs. The EO described a comprehensive set of labor standards to be considered, divided into six categories:
- Protect worker’s right to organize by promoting the use of Project Labor Agreements (PLAs), Community Benefits Agreements (CBAs) and union neutrality agreements.
- Create high-wage jobs through prevailing wage standards and equitable compensation practices such as pay transparency.
- Create economic security by prioritizing projects that provide benefits to workers like paid leave and health insurance.
- Support workforce development through registered apprenticeships, labor-management partnerships and other training organizations.
- Encouraging equitable workforce development plans including policies like local and targeted hiring.
- Support workplace safety by encouraging reporting structures that improve compliance with workplace health and safety laws.
The Good Jobs EO specified that agencies should incentivize these labor standards to the greatest extent possible under statute, including by creating application evaluation criteria related to these standards. The agencies were also called on to issue best practices on labor standards, collect data on project job quality, and negotiate with applicants to promote strong labor standards on projects.
Impact:
The Good Jobs EO aimed to improve job quality for the millions of jobs projected to be created by recent federal investments. Some critical federal labor standards, such as prevailing wage requirements apprenticeship tax credit incentives in the IRA are currently law and cannot be revoked through executive order alone. However, the Trump administration’s decision to revoke this executive order means that more federal funding could go to exploitative employers, and that employers receiving federal funding will likely create jobs with lower wages, worse benefits, and that are less likely to be unionized than if the Biden EO had remained in place.
Project 2025 Reference: p. 604
EO Designating English as the Official Language of the United States
On March 1, 2025, President Trump issued and signed Executive Order (EO) 14224, purporting to officially designate English as the official language of the United States. The EO states that English has been “used” as the national language since it has appeared in founding documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It also asserts that “A nationally designated language is at the core of a unified and cohesive society, and the United States is strengthened by a citizenry that can freely exchange ideas in one shared language.”
The EO however, does not require that federal agencies make changes to existing government services, and allows the heads of agencies to make their own decisions about how to best provide services to the public. Agencies are also not required to stop the production of documents, products, or services that are prepared or offered in languages other than English. Finally, the order also revokes Executive Order 13166, issued in 2000, which aimed to improve access to services for individuals with limited English proficiency.
Congress passes Continuing Resolution (H.R. 1968) to fund federal government, cut domestic federal spending
Timeline:
Update: March 15 – President Trump signed the continuing resolution into law.
March 14 – The Senate passed the continuing resolution.
March 11 – The U.S. House of Representatives passed a continuing resolution to temporarily fund the federal government and cut domestic federal spending
___________________________________________________________________
A continuing resolution, also known as a “CR” or a “stop gap” measure, allows for the federal government to continue normal operations when the formal appropriations process – through which government spending is allocated by Congress – has not been completed. The continuing resolution needed to pass and be signed into law by March 14, 2025 in order to fund continuing government operations.
H.R. 1968 will allow for federal operations to continue for another 6 months, until September. Typically, a “clean” continuing resolution would just hold current government spending levels steady, providing for more time for the full appropriations process to continue. However, H.R. 1968 would also:
- Make changes to current spending levels, with an increase in defense spending of $6 billion, and $13 billion in cuts to domestic spending.
- Give the Trump administration significantly more leeway to spend federal dollars without Congressional approval.
- Would prevent any member of Congress from attempting to terminate President Trump’s recent declaration of national emergencies over immigration and the U.S. border, which he has used to impose large, broad-based tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China.
OPM directs federal agencies to fire recently hired (probationary) employees
Timeline:
March 13 –
- U.S. District Judge William Alsup ordered the departments of Defense, Treasury, Energy, Agriculture and Veterans Affairs to “immediately” reinstate all probationary employees fired around February 13-14 to their jobs, and ruled that OPM does not have the legal authority to exercise broad hiring and firing powers. This ruling was issued in a lawsuit brought against the federal government by a coalition of unions representing hundreds of thousands of federal employees.
- U.S. District Judge James Bredar issued a temporary restraining order against further mass firings of probationary workers, and ordered others who had been fired from 18 different federal agencies to be reinstated. This ruling was issued in a lawsuit brought against the federal government by 19 states and the District of Columbia. The Trump administration has filed an appeal.
March 5 – The Merit Systems Protections Board ordered the Trump administration to temporarily reinstate 6,000 wrongfully fired probationary employees to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
February 14 – OPM issued another memo to federal agencies directing them to “separate” – or fire – certain probationary employees by the end of the day on February 17.
February 11 – President Trump issued an executive order directing agencies to shrink the size of the federal government by reducing the federal workforce.
____________________________________________________________________
On January 20, the White House instructed all federal agencies to provide lists of probationary workers to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), with a specific reference to the fact that those employees can generally be fired with limited rights to appeal. Probationary employees are typically recent hires to the federal government who have served for fewer than 1-2 years, or those who have recently been promoted to new positions. These workers typically do not yet have the same full protections from being fired without cause as tenured civil service employees. However, they have some rights to appeal their removal, including if they were targeted based on partisan political affiliations or as retaliation for whistleblowing on wrongdoing.
Department of Labor appeals decision to block overtime rule
On February 28, the U.S. Department of Labor appealed a federal court decision that blocked the Biden DOL’s rule to expand overtime pay protections from going into effect.
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, most workers are entitled to overtime pay when they work more than 40 hours in a week, meaning that for any hours over 40, they are paid at 1.5 times their regular pay rate for the extra hours they work. The protection is intended to make employers think twice about overworking their employees, and to ensure that if employees work long hours, that they get extra pay for it. However, for salaried workers, their right to overtime pay is based on their pay and the nature of their work (or “duties”). Under the Biden administration, DOL issued a new regulation on overtime pay for these salaried workers, which would have expanded the right to overtime pay for 4.3 million workers, giving the right to overtime pay protections to most workers making under roughly $58,656 per year.
An alliance of business and employer interest group sued the Department of Labor over the rule and successfully blocked it in November 2024. While it remains to be seen what the ultimate fate of the overtime rule will be, the Trump DOL’s decision to appeal the ruling is an encouraging sign that the agency may still be willing to defend DOL’s authority to set the salary threshold that determines overtime pay eligibility.
Impact: If the Department of Labor chooses to defend the overtime rule by appealing the federal court decisions that have blocked it, and the rule goes into full effect, workers would receive an increase of $1.5 billion in pay. If DOL drops the defense of the rule, the threshold for eligibility will remain at the same inadequate level where it was set in the first Trump administration, leaving millions of workers stuck working excessive hours at low pay.
Department of Education reduces workforce by half
Update: A group of 21 state attorneys general have sued the Trump administration over the mass firing of Department of Education staff.
Timeline
March 13, 2025 – Nearly two dozen state attorneys general have sued the Trump administration over the mass firings at the Department of Education.
March 11, 2025 – The Department of Education announced the layoffs of 1,300 employees.
On March 11, the Department of Education announced the layoffs of around 1,300 employees, nearly halving the agency’s workforce. This is in addition to the approximately 600 employees who took voluntary resignation or early retirement in the weeks prior. The layoffs and early departures impact all divisions within the agency, including the National Center for Education Statistics, which is the primary federal entity that collects and reports data on education in the United States.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon described the layoffs as part of the Trump administration’s effort to reduce the federal workforce and a first step in eliminating the department. The Trump administration is reportedly preparing an executive order to “abolish” the Department of Education, which would need Congressional approval.
Impact: The Department of Education helps public schools reach their education goals and fills in crucial funding gaps in local education. Nearly 90% of K-12 students attend public schools. By cutting the Department of Education’s workforce in half, the Trump administration has made it harder for the agency to fulfill its mission.
Nominating Keith Sonderling as Deputy Secretary of Labor
Update: Keith Sonderling was confirmed by the Senate to this position on March 12, 2025.
President Trump has nominated Keith Sonderling to serve as the U.S. Deputy Secretary of Labor. Most recently, he served for 5 years as a commissioner on the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC), and he previously served as Acting Administrator of the Wage & Hour Division in the Department of Labor during the first Trump administration. As an EEOC Commissioner, he dissented from adopting new guidance that expanded the agency’s view of illegal workplace harassment and discrimination to include discrimination based on gender identity. He also voted against the EEOC’s final rule on the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which acknowledged abortion as related to pregnancy and childbirth and thus as a medical condition for which workers are entitled to certain accommodations by employers. If confirmed by the Senate, his primary responsibilities as Deputy Secretary would include overseeing operations for the agency and its thousands of federal employees across nearly all states and U.S. territories.
Trump administration preparing regulation to implement a registry requirement for immigrants
Update March 13, 2024 – An interim final rule (IFR) has been posted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, requiring immigrants to register with the U.S. government. The IFR includes a request for comments that are due on April 11, 2025. The IFR requires that persons who are now subject to the requirement use a newly created registration form to meet the requirements of the rule.
Timeline
March 13, 2024 – Interim final rule posted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
February 25, 2025 – The Wall Street Journal reported that it had reviewed a Trump administration draft plan to create an immigrant registration.
January 20, 2025 – President Trump issued the Executive Order “Protecting the American People Against Invasion”
Description As part of his day one series of Executive Orders (EO), President Trump issued an EO entitled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion,” which includes a provision requiring immigrants who lack an immigration status to register with the U.S. government. The EO specifies that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of State (DOS), and Department of Justice (DOJ) must announce and publicize information about the legal obligation of noncitizens who are not already registered in some way with the federal government (for example through various immigration benefit applications) to comply with the registration requirements at 8 U.S.C. §1301 through §1306, a 1952 law (based on the Alien Registration Act of 1940) which sets out the registration requirements. The EO also states that failure to comply with the registration law will be “treated as a civil and criminal enforcement priority.”
No registration process or system currently exists that would allow any immigrants to comply with a new registry requirement. (The 1940 law required all immigrants to register annually at post offices but was later abandoned by the 1960s.) However, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services now has a page that is live on their website which provides information about which sorts of documents and immigration benefit applications can establish that someone is considered to have complied with the registry requirement, as well as lists the categories of persons who are not yet considered to be registered and must come forward to apply for registration. Anyone who is 14 or older will be required to register, and parents will need to register their children who are younger than 14.
The Wall Street Journal reported on February 25, 2025, that it had reviewed a draft regulation showing that the Trump administration plans to create a registration form giving immigrants 30 days to complete it after the registry is established, and punishing those who fail to register with fines of up to $5,000 and up to six months in prison.
Executive Order on “Restoring Public Service Loan Forgiveness”
On March 7, President Trump issued an executive order that could revise which organizations are eligible under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program. Established in 2007, the PSLF program encourages individuals to pursue careers in public service by providing student loan forgiveness for those who work in government and/or qualified nonprofit organizations. Since the creation of the PSLF program, more than 1 million borrowers have received student loan forgiveness, largely due to fixes made under the Biden administration.
The executive order directs the Secretary of Education, in coordination with the Secretary of Treasury, to ensure the definition of “public service” excludes organizations who “advance illegal immigration, terrorism, discrimination, and violent protests.”
Impact: More than 2 million individuals currently qualify for the PSLF program, according to the Department of Education. The executive order could potentially narrow which organizations qualify for the program.
DHS terminates TSA collective bargaining agreement
On March 7, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced plans to terminate its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with workers at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The action removes the collective bargaining rights of more than 45,000 transportation security officers who are represented by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE). DHS cited the Trump administration’s “vision of maximizing government productivity and efficiency” as justification for ending the agreement. However, collective bargaining agreements are enforceable by law. Violations of the terms and conditions of existing agreements are enforceable, and AFGE has indicated they are reviewing their legal options.
The Transportation Security Administration was created in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks and is charged with protecting U.S. transportation systems. TSA’s workers are considered federal employees, but were originally excluded from federal regulations that grant workers collective bargaining rights. In 2011, TSA allowed for transportation security officers to elect a union and collectively bargain over a limited set of issues. The Biden administration significantly expanded the scope of bargaining for these workers. In May 2024, TSA and AFGE reached a seven-year collective bargaining agreement, which included enhanced shift trading options, increased uniform allowances, and the addition of weather and safety leave.
DHS termination of the TSA collective bargaining agreement is just another example of the Trump administration’s attacks on the federal workforce and dismantling of union protections for federal workers.
Impact: Since the expansion of transportation security officer’s collective bargaining rights under the Biden administration, TSA has seen attrition drop nearly in half. The termination of the CBA will likely reverse the progress of retaining qualified transportation security officers, which could put U.S. transportation systems’ safety at risk.
House passes budget resolution (H. Con. Res. 14) )
On February 25, the House voted to advance H. Con. Res. 14, a budget resolution blueprint that sets spending and revenue targets or the federal budget. Budget resolutions do not actually set funding levels and do not have the force of law. However, they are an important first step toward the process through which Congress can begin to appropriate federal funds. By passing this resolution, the House will be able to continue the process of passing a budget reconciliation bill. A reconciliation bill can only focus on budget-related measures, but it’s a powerful tool because it only needs a simple majority of votes to pass the Senate, bypassing the 60-vote threshold needed to advance most other legislation.
The budget resolution, H. Con. Res. 14, includes budget guidelines for Fiscal Year 2025 through Fiscal Year 2034 by providing instructions for spending and cuts to Congressional committees with jurisdiction over particular federal spending and programs. The budget resolution instructs committees to identify cuts to federal spending in several areas of domestic spending. Notably, the House budget would allow for up to $880 billion in cuts to Medicaid, the publicly-funded health insurance program for low-income Americans. While President Trump and some Republicans have claimed that there will not be direct cuts to Medicaid coverage or services based on this budget resolution, it would be impossible to cut the amount of spending as directed in the resolution without severely slashing Medicaid. Analysis from EPI determined that this budget resolution would reduce incomes for the bottom 40 percent of U.S. households by income. Meanwhile, the budget resolution also would allow the House to pursue the extension of the tax cuts passed in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. If those tax cuts are deficit-financed rather than financed through harmful spending cuts, that would risk putting an additional drag on our economic growth going forward.
The House voted 217-215 to advance the bill, with all but one Republican voting in support and all Democrats opposed. The Senate also continues to advance their own competing version of a federal budget plan, having passed their resolution on February 21.
Impact:
- If tax cuts for the rich are financed by large cuts in federal spending, this would greatly damage current incomes and future opportunities for the most vulnerable families in the U.S. The bottom 20% of households would lose 7.4% of income due to the Medicaid cuts that would be enabled by this budget resolution, and would gain only 0.6% of income from an extension of the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act, while the top 1% of households would stand to gain 3.9% more in income due to extension of the TCJA.
- If Congress votes to finance these tax cut extensions through adding to the deficit (rather than paying for them through draconian spending cuts), cuts this large would also, all else equal, drag sharply on economy-wide spending, reducing it by roughly $600 billion, or around 2% of overall GDP.
Presidential Memorandum on Defending American Companies and Innovators From Overseas Extortion and Unfair Fines and Penalties
On February 21, President Trump issued a memorandum entitled “Defending American Companies and Innovators From Overseas Extortion and Unfair Fines and Penalties.” The memorandum directs the Secretaries of the Treasury and Commerce Departments, the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing to study imposing tariffs against trading partners in retaliation for implementing local taxes on digital services (technology companies doing business in those countries), or for implementing laws that require privacy protections for consumers of digital services in those countries.
Tax experts see digital services taxes as a second-best approach to achieving equitable taxation and avoiding tax avoidance by multinational corporations, in the absence of a multilateral tax agreement to ensure minimum corporate taxation. But President Trump has also withdrawn the United States from the OECD Global Tax Deal, in effect killing multilateral efforts to ensure large corporations pay their fair share of taxes instead of hiding income in offshore tax havens. U.S. “Big Tech” companies are the biggest beneficiaries of such a move, as they pay far below the U.S. and proposed global minimum corporate tax rates.
Impact: This memorandum threatens retaliatory tariffs against countries trying to hold Big Tech companies accountable to pay their fair share of corporate taxes.
Presidential Memorandum on America First Investment Policy
On February 21, 2025, President Trump issued the America First Investment Policy memorandum, tightening national security regulation and oversight of inbound foreign direct investments and outbound U.S. direct and portfolio (financial) investments. Though the policy is largely targeted at investment relations with China (including Hong Kong and Macau), it also specifically identifies other “foreign adversary” nations for additional scrutiny: Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela.
The memorandum instructs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States—CFIUS, an interagency executive branch body screening foreign investments in the United States for national security concerns—to restrict persons affiliated with the People’s Republic of China from investing in technology, critical infrastructure, healthcare, agriculture, energy, raw materials, and other strategic sectors. Currently, CFIUS authority covers only mergers and acquisitions of U.S. entities, but the memorandum calls for working with Congress to expand CFIUS’s mandate to cover “greenfield” investments—starting a new business operation from scratch—as well. Previously, CFIUS has not covered greenfield investments because such investments do not pose obvious risks of cooptation and acquisition of sensitive U.S. technologies. The memorandum directs CFIUS to restrict purchases of farmland and other real estate near sensitive facilities, such as U.S. military bases.
The memorandum builds on a series of Biden administration policies to restrict U.S. investments and the participation of U.S. “talent” in Chinese military-affiliated firms and firms researching, developing, or producing sensitive defense and surveillance technologies in conjunction with China’s military-industrial complex and military-civil fusion strategy. In particular, investments from U.S. pension funds, university endowments, and other limited-partner investors will be scrutinized.
While vowing to preserve “an open investment environment,” this memoranda and its implementation is certain to deter even benign, mutually beneficial investments from China that could otherwise provide a foundation for shared interests and a basis for more cooperative relations. The memoranda also encourages financial investment in U.S. firms where the foreign party does not acquire controlling-, voting-, or corporate governance-interests and will mandates the Securities and Exchange Commission to review auditing standards for firms listed on U.S. exchanges, under the 2020 Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act. For non-adversarial investments in the United States, the memorandum mandates a “fast-track” investment review process and promises that investments exceeding $1 billion will receive expedited environmental impact reviews.
Finally, the President instructs the Treasury Secretary to review a 1984 tax treaty with China, which allows multinational corporations to deduct taxes paid to China from their U.S. tax liability.
Impact: This memorandum expands on Biden-era restrictions on Chinese and other “foreign adversaries’” investments with national security sensitivities, but may also deter non-adversarial investments with mutual benefits.
Project 2025 references: p. 703-705
Executive Order on “Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Cost Efficiency Initiative”
On February 26, President Trump signed an executive order regarding the transparency and accountability of federal spending, giving agency heads the following directives:
- Federal contracts payments: The executive order establishes a new record keeping system of approved federal contract and grant payments. Federal employees now must provide written justification for each federal contract or grant payment to be approved, which will be publish publicly to the maximum extent permitted by law. The executive order also directs agency heads, in consultation with DOGE, to review current federal contracts and determine if they need to be modified or terminated. Agency heads are also directed to review current federal contract process guidance and, in consultation with DOGE, issue new guidance for signing on new contracts or modify existing contracts to “promote government efficiency”.
- Travel justifications: The executive order directs agency heads, with assistance from DOGE, to create a system that houses approval records for federally funded travel for conferences and other non-essential purposes. Once this system is established, federal employees must submit justification for federally funded travel within said system. These justifications will then be publicly available unless prohibited by law or the agency head exempts the disclosure.
- Credit card freezes: The executive order directs that all credit cards held by agency employees shall be treated as frozen 30 days from the date the order is published. Exceptions include credit cards held by federal employees utilized for disaster relief or natural disaster response benefits, operations or other critical services as determined by agency heads. Agency heads can create further exceptions with the consultation of DOGE.
- Real property reviews: The executive order directs agency heads to submit updates to the Federal Real Property Profile Management System to reflect the accurate inventory of agency properties within 7 days. Within 30 days, agency heads are directed to identify termination rights of leases for government-owned properties and, with the consultation of DOGE, determine if they should exercise those rights. Within 60 days, the Administrator of General Services shall submit a plan to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on properties that agencies have determined are no longer needed.
The executive order does not apply to the military, law enforcement and immigration officers, or classified information systems employees. Agency heads may also grant exemptions, but these exemptions must be in consultation with DOGE and the Director of OMB.
Impact: The executive order directly inserts the Department of Government Efficiency in the approval and disbursement of federal contract, grant, and loans payments. The order also sets in motion plans to reduce the number of federal properties, despite the Trump administration ordering federal employees to return to in-person work.
OPM sends “What did you do last week?” email
Update: On February 28, federal workers received a second email instructing them to send a list of five things they accomplished that week and every week going forward.
On February 22, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) sent an email to all federal workers asking them to send a list of 5 things they accomplished the week prior by Monday, February 24 at 11:59PM ET. The email was sent at the direction of Elon Musk, who also posted on his social media platform “X” that failure to reply to the email was considered resignation. This “no reply” language was not included in the email sent to federal workers. (Further, the threat of firing workers who do not reply to the email goes against recent OPM guidance that says responses to such government-wide emails were “voluntary.”)
The email, which was sent on a Saturday afternoon, created confusion among the federal workforce as several agency heads told their staff not to reply to the OPM email. This includes many government agencies that deal with confidential and classified matters, such as the Departments of State, Defense, Homeland Security, and the Federal Bureau of Investigations. While the email was directed to those who work in the executive branch, it was reported that the email was received by staff in the judiciary and legislative branches as well.
Impact: Many federal workers have civil service protections, which prevents them from being fired without cause. By calling on federal workers to justify their work, the OPM email continues the Trump administration and Elon Musk’s villainization of the federal workforce.
Senate passes budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 7)
On February 21, the Senate voted to advance S. Con. Res. 7, a budget resolution blueprint that sets spending and revenue targets for the federal budget. Budget resolutions do not actually set funding levels and do not have the force of law. However, they are an important first step toward the process through which Congress can begin to appropriate federal funds. By passing this resolution, the Senate will be able to begin the process of passing a budget reconciliation bill. A reconciliation bill can only focus on budget-related measures, but it’s a powerful tool because it only needs a simple majority of votes to pass the Senate, bypassing the 60-vote threshold needed to advance most other legislation.
The budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 7 includes budget guidelines for Fiscal Year 2025 through Fiscal Year 2034 by providing instructions for spending and cuts to Congressional committees with jurisdiction over particular federal spending and programs. Notably, it would allow for up to $175 billion of new funding for border security and immigration enforcement, which is critical to reach the scale of mass immigration crackdowns central to the Trump administration’s policy agenda. It also directs Congressional committees to find at least $4 billion in spending cuts, including from the committees that oversee Medicaid, the government-provided health insurance for low-income Americans.
The Senate voted 52-48 to advance the resolution, with all but one Republican voting in support, and all Democrats, Independent Senators Sanders (VT) and King (ME), and Republican Senator Paul (KY) voting against the resolution. The House of Representatives will vote on their own budget proposal next; if they are unable to pass one, S. Con. Res. 7 will likely advance as the alternative measure.
Executive Order on “Commencing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy”
On February 19, President Trump issued an executive order that directs the reduction of government offices that the president “has determined unnecessary.” This includes the offices of the Presidio Trust, Inter-American Foundation, United States African Development Foundation, and the United States Institute of Peace. The executive order directs heads of the government offices to eliminate non-statutory functions and associated personnel to the extent consistent with applicable law. Within 14 days, the heads of these government offices are to submit a report to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget that they have compiled with the order.
The executive order also directs the termination of several Federal Advisory Councils (FAC) within 14 days of the order, including:
- The Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
- The Academic Research Council and the Credit Union Advisory Council at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
- The Community Bank Advisory Council at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
- The Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Long COVID at the Health and Human Services (HHS)
- The Health Equity Advisory Committee at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
The executive order also directs the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy to identify additional government offices and FACs that are deemed unnecessary within 30 days.
Executive Order on “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders”
On February 19, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) titled “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders,” which directs the heads of federal departments and agencies to take a number of actions to ensure that taxpayer dollars do not go to persons who lack an immigration status, as well as a fact sheet with additional details about the EO. These include (1) identifying federally funded programs that permit undocumented immigrants to obtain any cash or no-cash benefit, (2) send funds to any jurisdiction where sanctuary policies are in place, and (3) enhance eligibility verification systems so they exclude undocumented immigrants. Within 30 days, the Office of Management and Budget and DOGE must identify all other sources of Federal funding for undocumented immigrants and recommend other actions to carry out the aims of the EO.
Impact: While the EO purports to stop federal benefits and payments going to undocumented immigrants, the EO’s text itself acknowledges that under federal law, undocumented immigrants are already ineligible for most federal programs. In addition to being duplicative of existing federal law, the EO is also redundant with other EOs that have mentioned cutting federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. The broad language of the EO could however lead to additional eligibility requirements, processes, or restrictions on certain types of public assistance, which could potentially impact persons who are in fact eligible for such assistance.
DHS shortens the Biden-era TPS extension and redesignation for Haiti
On February 24, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the decision of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to partially vacate the actions taken by the former DHS Secretary during the Biden Administration, Alejandro Mayorkas, with respect to Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haiti. Noem partially vacated Mayorkas’s June 4, 2024 decision to extend Haiti’s designation for TPS, which extended the designation for the statutory maximum of 18 months, until February 3, 2026. DHS’s partial vacatur reduces the designation period from 18 months to 12 months. As a result, the Haiti TPS extension and new designation will expire on August 3, 2025, instead of February 3, 2026, and the first-time registration will remain in effect until August 3, 2025, instead of February 3, 2026.
Impact: TPS is a form of administrative immigration relief that is determined and implemented by the executive branch, although the authority for TPS is authorized by statute. Those who qualify for TPS are issued a registration document and are protected from deportation while a TPS designation is in place for their country of origin, and they are eligible to apply for an Employment Authorization Document (i.e. a work permit), allowing them to be employed lawfully and (in practice) have workplace rights, for the period during which the TPS designation remains active. The Congressional Research Service estimated that there were over 260,790 Haitian nationals with TPS as of the end of September 2024. Under the DHS decision of February 24, all 260,790, plus any who have been approved since then or will be approved, would be at risk of losing their protections from deportation and work authorization when the TPS designation period for Haiti ends.
Executive Order on “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative”
On February 19, President Trump issued an executive order directing agency heads, in coordination with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to review all regulations that fall under the agency’s jurisdiction and create a list of regulations that are:
- unconstitutional or constitutionally difficult;
- unlawful delegations of power;
- unclear on statutory authority;
- imposing significant costs to private businesses that are not outweighed by public benefits;
- harmful to the national interests (such as impending technological innovation, infrastructure development, inflation reduction, and economic development);
- imposing undue burden to small and private businesses.
Within 60 days, agency heads will provide lists of regulations that fall under the defined categories and consult with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) on a Unified Regulatory Agenda to rescind or modify the identified regulations.
The executive order also directs agency heads to de-prioritize enforcing regulations beyond their “best read” of a statute or that exceed constitutional powers of the federal government.
This executive order does not apply to agencies with actions related to “military, national security, homeland security, foreign affairs, or immigration-related function to the United States.” The OMB Director has the authority to apply further exemptions.
This executive order continues the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda, which includes rescinding OMB’s Circular A-4 updates, requiring federal agencies to identify 10 potential regulations for recission or elimination for every new proposed regulation, and directing independent agencies to submit their regulations to OIRA.
NLRB Acting GC rescinds Biden-era memos
On February 14, the NLRB Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen issued a memo rescinding a series of memos issued by General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo. The rescinded memos provided guidance on issues pertaining to student athletes, “make whole” remedies, electronic monitoring, and noncompete agreement, among other topics.
While GC memos are nonbinding by law, they provide guidance to regional officials on the policy priorities of the NLRB’s General Counsel.
Executive Order on Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies
On February 18, President Trump signed an Executive Order that aims to bring independent federal regulatory agencies under the supervision of the President. The EO says that independent agencies working on regulations would also be required to submit any new regulations to an office of the White House, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, for review. The EO also attempts to assert broad authority of the White House Office of Management and Budget over the budget and activities of independent agencies.
Presidents can typically nominate leadership for independent agencies when there are vacancies. However, once confirmed by the Senate, those individuals typically serve for terms that are not tied to a particular presidential administration. Unlike agencies within the President’s cabinet, the operations of these agencies are generally intended to be insulated from the White House and from the influence of a particular administration’s political agenda. These agencies have functions that would be particularly susceptible to conflicts of interest or political interference – such as regulating banks and the financial services sector, monitoring elections, or mediating disputes of which the federal government is a party. Many of them also function as multi-member commissions that vote on decisions or adjudicate cases, with Republican- and Democratic-appointed members serving alongside each other, a further measure to ensure spreading out the distribution of power and ensuring fair application of the law without overly ideological agendas.
This EO continues the Trump administration’s attempt to assert a level of presidential authority beyond any existing legal precedent. President Trump has also illegally fired leaders serving terms at several independent agencies – including the NLRB, the EEOC, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Federal Labor Relations Authority – and has moved to shutter or otherwise hinder the actions of other independent agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Presidential Memorandum on Reciprocal Trade and Tariffs
In a February 13, 2025 memorandum, President Trump ordered his cabinet and economic policy advisors to further study the impacts of foreign trade, tax, and regulatory policies on U.S. trade deficits. This memorandum adds to the list of reports ordered by the president’s January 20 “America First Trade Policy” memorandum, but takes no action to impose tariffs on U.S. trade partners.
The U.S. trade deficit is a genuine economic problem, but there is no serious economic evidence suggesting that non-reciprocal tariff treatment is a driver of this deficit. Further, the memorandum makes no mention of two very key asymmetries in the global trading system that likely have far more effect in driving trade flows than non-reciprocal tariffs: the lack of worker rights enforcement and environmental protections that encourage offshoring and put U.S. industry at unfair competitive advantage and suppress U.S. wages.
The heavy volume of trade-focused executive orders have not produced substantive changes to U.S. trade policy, but they do come with a cost – the economic uncertainty created by the tariff threats that preceded this memorandum. The uncertainty over future trade costs contributes to expectations of inflation; inflation expectations, in turn, can lead to realized actual future inflation. The lack of certainty in policy and economic expectations deter manufacturing businesses from making capital investments in plant and research and development requiring many years to realize returns of investment. Furthermore, repeated threats and uncertainty undermine the credibility of U.S. policymakers not only in commercial dealings, but in all foreign relations, and erode the goodwill and soft power that the United States enjoys with foreign partners.
Impact: The reciprocal tariff memorandum orders more government studies instead of offering a strategy to make trade work for U.S. workers by fixing a failed, corporate-led trading system.
Nominating Daniel Aronowitz as head of Employee Benefits Security Administration
President Trump has nominated Daniel Aronowitz to serve as Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA). EBSA works with other agencies to enforce laws protecting workers in employee benefit plans, such as employer-provided health insurance or retirement savings benefits. Aronowitz is president of a company that insures employers against liability for violating their fiduciary duty as sponsors of employee benefit plans, for example by failing to protect 401(k) plan participants from high fees. In a 2024 blog post, Aronowitz complained about “frivolous” litigation filed on behalf of benefit plan participants, saying that enforcing employee protections should be the job of government regulators, not trial lawyers. However, the Trump Administration has embarked on a campaign to dismantle much of the federal workforce, including regulators. If confirmed, Aronowitz would be responsible for enforcing EBSA’s 2024 retirement security rule, which would have protected 401(k) participants from receiving bad investment advice from financial professionals with conflicts of interest. However, this rule was attacked in the courts by the financial services industry, and the Department of Labor (DOL) has already petitioned for a pause in defending the rule in court.
DHS memo requests Treasury Secretary to deputize law enforcement and IRS criminal investigators to assist with deportations
On February 7, 2025, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem issued a memo directed at Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, asking him to deputize some law-enforcement workers, including IRS criminal investigators, to assist in immigration enforcement and the Trump administration’s deportation effort. Although the memo is not publicly available, it was reviewed and reported on by a number of news outlets. According to the NY Times, the memo notes that the work the deputized officers would undertake “could include auditing employers believed to have hired unauthorized migrants and investigating human trafficking.” Also according to the NY Times, “the I.R.S. has more than 2,100 trained law enforcement officers who help investigate violations of tax law and other financial crimes,” and who would make up the pool of agents who could be called on to assist DHS.
Nominating David Keeling as head of OSHA
President Trump nominated David Keeling to head the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). If confirmed, Keeling will oversee OSHA, which ensures workers in the United States have safe and healthy working conditions on the job. Previously, Keeling held senior positions overseeing health and safety at UPS and Amazon.
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies
On February 6, 2025, President Trump issued a presidential memorandum directing the heads of executive departments and agencies to review all funding that they provide to non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The memo tells the agency heads to “align future funding decisions with the interests of the United States and with the goals and priorities of my Administration.” The memo is the latest in a number of Executive Orders and agency memos that seek to cancel current funding and stop future funding from being granted to NGOs. Other executive orders and memos have directed the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to review NGO funding and prohibit granting of funds to NGOs that seek to assist immigrants, and even to terminate contracts and try to recoup the funds.
Trump administration closes the CFPB
Update: On February 14, a federal judge ordered a pause on actions related to funding and personnel at the CFPB.
On February 10, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Acting Director Russell Vought announced to CFPB staff and contractors that the independent agency’s office was closed and that they should not “perform any work tasks.” Prior to announcing the office closure, Vought halted funding for the CFPB, describing the agency’s funds as “excessive in the current fiscal environment.” The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by tech billionaire Elon Musk, has since accessed the CFPB’s internal computer systems and deleted the independent agency’s social media accounts. The National Treasury Employees Union, which represents staff at the CFPB, has sued Acting Director Vought for shuttering the agency and giving DOGE access to its systems.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is an independent agency tasked with enforcing federal consumer financial laws and protecting consumers in the financial marketplace. The CFPB was established under the Dodd-Frank Act and receives its funding through the Federal Reserve, where it is housed, rather than through the congressional appropriations process. Since its inception in the wake of the Great Recession, the CFPB has been a target for Republicans and the financial industry. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that the funding of the CFPB was constitutional.
Impact: Since its creation, the CFPB has returned more than $21 billion back to the pockets of working people and has issued rules that protect workers from predatory financial institutions. By shuttering the CFPB, the Trump-Vance administration eliminated the only independent agency that ensures consumers are protected in the financial marketplace.
Firing FLRA Chair Susan Tsui Grundmann
Update: On March 12, A federal judge ruled that President Trump’s firing of Chair Grundmann was unlawful.
On February 11, President Trump illegally fired Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) Chairwoman Susan Tsui Grundmann. Chair Grundmann was appointed by President Biden and confirmed by the Senate to serve a term that was not set to expire until July 2025. FLRA members can removed by the president, but “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office” and must receive a hearing first.
Impact: The FLRA is an independent agency that oversees labor relations between the federal agencies and its employees. Since day one, President Trump has undertaken dozens of actions that harm the federal workforce. The illegally removal of Chair Grundmann makes way for President Trump to appointment of an individual that aligns politically with his interests, diminishing the independence of the agency.
EO on Implementing the DOGE Workforce Optimization Initiative
Update: On February 26, the Office of Personnel Management issued a guidance memo on this executive order.
President Trump issued an executive order titled “Implementing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Workforce Optimization Initiative,” which gives the following directives:
- Reductions in the federal workforce: Agency heads are directed to develop plans that institute large-scale reductions in the federal workforce. The executive order directs agency heads to prioritize the reduction of positions that functions are “not mandated by statute or other law.” The executive order specifically calls out agency diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives as an example.
- Hiring Ratios: The executive order directs that these reduction plans should require agencies to hire no more than one employee for every four employees that depart. These hiring ratios do not apply to positions related to public safety, immigration, or law enforcement. The executive order reaffirms the indefinite hiring freeze for the Internal Revenue Service.
- Hiring Approval: Agency heads will need to consult a DOGE team lead before hiring for a position. The executive order states that an agency cannot hire for a position that DOGE team views as unnecessary, unless the Agency head overrules DOGE.
The executive order does not apply to military personnel and agency heads may exempt positions that they deem “necessary to meet national security, homeland security, or public safety responsibilities.”
Impact: This executive order impacts the more than 2 million civilian federal workers that provide essential government services, such as administering Social Security payments, conducting health and safety inspections, and producing quality economic data. A large-scale reduction in the workforce could create a disruption in such services, due to a loss in capacity and subject matter experts.
Linda McMahon nominated as U.S. Secretary of Education
Update: Secretary McMahon was confirmed by the Senate on March 3, 2025.
President Trump has nominated Linda McMahon to serve as U.S. Secretary of Education and oversee the Department of Education. McMahon, whose career has been dominated by her leadership roles in World Wrestling Entertainment, recently chaired a pro-Trump Super PAC, America First Action, and currently serves as Chair of the Board for America First Policy Initiative, a pro-Trump right-wing think tank. She has one year of experience in education policy, serving Connecticut’s State Board of Education in 2009. McMahon’s nomination comes while President Trump is considering an executive order to eliminate the Department of Education, a department that helps schools reach their education goals and fills in crucial funding gaps in local education. She also supports vouchers programs, which redirects taxpayer dollars away from children and public schools towards the wealthy in the form of tax cuts.
Trump proclamation resets steel and aluminum tariffs
President Trump issued a presidential proclamation on February 10, 2025 that reinforces and expands on existing tariffs on steel and aluminum imports.
Tariffs on steel (25%) and aluminum (10%) imports have been in place since March 2018 under national security provisions of U.S. trade law, although subsequent proclamations by both Presidents Trump and Biden amended these tariffs to allow countries with which the United States holds security relations to negotiate alternative arrangements and to allow U.S. importers to petition for exclusions from the tariffs. For many partners, this meant transforming the tariffs into tariff rate quotas—allowing steel and aluminum imports to enter the U.S. market duty free or at preceding tariff rates up to a specific quantity, after which the 25% and 10% tariff rates would apply. President Biden also tightened requirements on steel imports not “melted and poured” in North America to prevent circumvention of these trade enforcement measures.
The February 10th proclamation raises the tariff rate on aluminum to 25% from 10%, resets the national exemptions and accommodations and terminates exclusions for U.S. importers going forward such that a 25% tariff binds universally on imports of these metals beginning March 12, 2025.
Steel and aluminum manufacturing are critical to the U.S. industrial base for both economic and national security reasons. Both industries have been plagued by chronic global overcapacity and unfair trading practices that have pushed U.S. producers to the brink of financial inviability, most notably from heavily-subsidized and state-backed producers in China, India, Turkey, Iran, South Korea, Vietnam, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, and imports have been surging once again. The 2018 tariffs have been effective in preserving and expanding U.S. steel and aluminum manufacturing in the face of challenges to the global market, with little perceptible impact on inflation. These strategic and narrow tariffs should be distinguished from proposed blanket universal tariffs.
Impact: Expanding coverage of existing steel and aluminum tariffs preserves a tool that has helped shore-up critical domestic metals manufacturing with likely minimal impacts on overall consumer price inflation.
DOJ files lawsuit against sanctuary policies in Illinois, Cook County, and the city of Chicago
On February 6, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) under its new Attorney General (AG) Pam Bondi, filed its first lawsuit targeting so-called sanctuary jurisdictions in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois, against the state of Illinois, Cook County, and the city of Chicago. DOJ’s lawsuit seeks to invalidate state and local laws, including the Way Forward Act and the TRUST Act, Chicago’s Welcoming City Act, and Cook County Ordinance 11-O-73, with DOJ arguing that those laws are preempted by federal immigration law and discriminate against the federal government, because they impede the federal government’s ability to carry out its immigration enforcement activities.
In general, sanctuary policies aim to limit cooperation between state and local law enforcement officials and federal immigration enforcement. However, they do not seek to prohibit, restrict, or impede federal immigration enforcement officials from carrying out their duties, and in fact, they may freely arrest and attempt to remove persons who lack an immigration status in those jurisdictions. What sanctuary laws and ordinances do is clarify that the federal government may not compel state or local jurisdictions to use their resources to assist federal officials in their efforts to enforce immigration laws.
During the first Trump administration, Attorney General (AG) Jeff Sessions sued the state of California over similar policies that are part of the state’s main sanctuary law, Senate Bill 54 (2017), also known as the California Values Act. AG Sessions’ lawsuit against California argued—similarly to AG Bondi’s lawsuit—that the Values Act is preempted by federal law, and that it “interferes with federal immigration authorities’ ability to carry out their responsibilities under federal law.” In 2019, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the California Values Act did not impede enforcement of federal immigration law. The Trump administration then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the court declined to take up the case, leaving the California Values Act intact.
Presidential Memorandum on America First Trade Policy
President Trump issued a presidential memorandum on January 20, 2025 entitled “America First Trade Policy.” This memorandum instructs 9 members of his cabinet to undertake things the federal government already routinely does.
The AFTP memorandum:
- Instructs cabinet members to carry out investigations of the root causes of persistent U.S. trade deficits and unfair trade practices undertaken by other countries, reviews of existing U.S. trade agreements, and reviews of currency exchange rates (which affect the relative competitiveness of U.S.-produced goods). These are all good things to do—and the federal government already routinely does them. For example, each year the U.S. Trade Representative office releases a National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers and the U.S. Treasury reports to Congress on Macroeconomic and Foreign Exchange Policies of Major Trading Partners of the United States. In fact, the AFTP memo often cites the specific statutes requiring executive branch departments to undertake such reviews and investigations, and to make executive and Congressional policy recommendations. Most of these reports are already due to the president by April 1, 2025.
- Calls for study of the feasibility of creating an “External Revenue Service” to collect tariff revenues. The United States already has the responsibility of collecting tariffs housed in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency. However, the memo may signal the administration’s desire to replace progressive income taxation with tariff revenues—regressive taxes on imported goods and services. This would not only result in a dramatically less fair and less efficient tax system, but also the extraordinary level of blanket tariff rates that would be needed to replace income tax revenues would most certainly translate into higher prices for U.S. consumers and businesses and lost export opportunities.
- Orders an investigation of imports under the de minimis rule—which allows duty-free importation of goods valued less than $800. A separate order by Trump to impose a 10% tariff on all Chinese goods starting February 4, 2025, also eliminated their de minimis exemption.
- Calls for extending work begun in the Biden administration to tighten rules for U.S. overseas investment in technologies that raise national security concerns.
The memo does not include:
- Any references to promoting worker rights or clean air, water, or other environmental standards in trade. The failure to adequately protect worker and environmental concerns in existing U.S. trade policy creates unfair advantages for foreign producers and incentives for U.S. multinational corporations to site their manufacturing operations offshore.
- Any directives on trade policy to Secretary of Agriculture, who oversees more than $174 billion in farm and food exports. The US Department of Agriculture also doled out tens of billions of dollars in emergency payments under the first Trump administration when foreign trading partners imposed retaliatory tariffs, shutting U.S. farmers and fishers out of key international markets.
The memorandum also includes a brief and largely inaccurate summary of the first Trump administration’s approach to trade policy. During President Trump’s first term, the U.S. trade deficit widened to more than -$900 billion in 2020 from -$735 billion in 2016, a 23% increase. Trump also renegotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (USMCA). Under Trump’s new rules the trade deficit with Mexico and Canada has increased by $101 billion, or 79%, since he signed USMCA in January 2020. Though tariffs he imposed on steel and aluminum products did help revitalize jobs and investment in critical manufacturing industries, Trump’s Phase 1 trade deal with China failed to address structural imbalances in the bilateral relationship and merely diverted U.S. imports of Chinese goods to 3rd country intermediaries. Finally and crucially, when the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted global supply chains and revealed the unacceptably diminished capacity and fragility to disruption of the U.S. industrial base, the Trump administration was forced to scramble to procure personal protective equipment (PPE), respirators, and critical medicines in 2020.
DOJ memo on “Sanctuary Jurisdiction Directives” cuts funding for state and local jurisdictions and NGOs
On February 5, 2025, the Attorney General at the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a memo directing the department to stop federal grants administered by DOL from being accessed by to sanctuary jurisdictions that do not comply with federal immigration laws, specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a). The memo is in furtherance of the January 20, 2025 Executive Order, “Protecting American People Against Invasion.” The statutory section 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a), prohibits state and local jurisdictions from prohibiting or restricting the federal government from obtaining information about the citizenship or immigration status of individuals. The memo requires a 30-day review of the grants that could be subject to this requirement, and a 60-day review of funding agreements with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that “support illegal aliens.” During the 60-day review period, funding distribution will be paused, and receipt of future funding will be conditioned on NGOs certifying their compliance with federal laws. The memo also states DOJ will pursue legal actions against jurisdictions that “facilitate violations of federal immigration laws or impeded lawful federal immigration operations.”
Impact: In the short term at least, this move puts funding for DOJ grants in jeopardy for many cities and states, and possibly NGOs, but new litigation is likely. Federal courts are divided on whether the federal government can withhold grants and funding in order to encourage local jurisdictions to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. The issue was litigated in multiple venues during the first Trump administration with respect to DOJ grants but was never ultimately resolved by the Supreme Court, because the Biden administration ended the practice.
DOJ memo “General Policy Regarding Charging, Plea Negotiations, and Sentencing” includes provisions on immigration enforcement priorities
On February 5, 2025, the Attorney General at the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a memo that broadly outlines the department’s general policy on how DOJ will pursue charges, do plea negotiations, how it will recommend sentences, and its investigative and charging priorities. While broad, the memo includes language about immigration enforcement priorities. In the “Investigative and Charging Priorities” section, the memo orders that DOJ “shall use all available criminal statutes to combat the flood of illegal immigration that took place over the last four years, and to continue to support the Department of Homeland Security’s immigration and removal initiatives,” and further states that “U.S. Attorney’s Offices and the other Department components shall pursue charges relating to criminal immigration-related violations when such violations are presented by federal, state, or local law enforcement or the Intelligence Community.”
While the memo directs DOJ to pursue all charges on immigration, a handful of statutory sections are specified for DOJ to pursue:
- Registration and fingerprinting for migrants, and penalties (8 U.S.C. §§ 1304, 1306)
- Harboring; unlawful employment; document fraud; improper entry and reentry; and others (8 U.S.C. §§ 1324-1328)
- Communication between state and local jurisdictions and immigration enforcement (targeting sanctuary jurisdictions) (8 U.S.C. §1373)
- General provision on being unlawfully in the United States (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5))
Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) shuts down USAID and State Dept. seeks to absorb parts of the agency and eliminate the rest
Update: On February 10, a federal judge paused parts of the Trump administration’s efforts to shut down USAID, including putting thousands of staff on administration leave and recalling those who work abroad.
On February 14, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to lift a funding freeze on USAID payments by February 26 at 11:59PM. On February 26, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts paused the deadline for payments, effectively continuing the funding freeze.
On March 5, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration must release billions of frozen USAID payments to contractors, but did not give a deadline for when the payments need to be released.
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by billionaire Elon Musk and a team of his followers, entered the offices of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), shuttering much of the agency and its functions. They’ve sent home a majority of the Washington D.C.-based staff on administrative leave, ordered that staff located abroad travel back to the United States, and altogether roughly 10,000 staffers from around the globe are to be placed on leave. There are serious questions about the legality of this maneuver, given that the agency was created by Congress.
Musk has recently said that President Trump has agreed to shut down USAID, and called the agency a “criminal organization” and that it was “time for it to die,” and that he “spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper.” On February 3, Secretary of State Marco Rubio unveiled plans to restructure and potentially abolish USAID, and noted that “In consultation with Congress, USAID may move, reorganize, and integrate certain missions, bureaus, and offices into the Department of State, and the remainder of the Agency may be abolished consistent with applicable law.”
Impact: USAID is a federal agency that was started during President Kennedy’s administration, to manage the U.S.’s foreign assistance and manage numerous projects abroad that seek to “end extreme poverty, and promote resilient democratic societies…by partnering with individuals and citizens around the world.” USAID distributes the vast majority of the foreign aid that Congress authorizes, and all of the agency’s disbursements were paused as part of the January 20, 2025 Executive Order, “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid.” The agency funds projects in a number of areas such as agriculture, human rights, health initiatives, and others. Some of the programs and funding support workers around the world through initiatives to improve labor standards, increase access to justice for workers, and promote gender equality and migrant worker rights, for example.
Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) illegally accesses federal government systems
Update: On March 20, a federal judge temporarily blocked DOGE personnel from accessing sensitive systems at the Social Security Administration that hold personally identifiable information on millions of Americans.
Timeline
February 24 – A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order on the Department of Education and the Office of Personnel Management from sharing data with DOGE.
February 17 – The White House confirmed reports that Michelle King, the acting head of the Social Security Administration, a 30-year veteran of the agency, had been replaced by a lower-level staffer who boasted on social media that he had circumvented agency protocols to share information with DOGE staffers. King’s departure followed her pledge to follow established procedures when granting access to SSA systems. Musk later justified DOGE’s access to sensitive SSA data, including Social Security numbers, medical records, and bank account numbers, claiming that DOGE had found evidence of fraud in the form of 150-year-old beneficiaries. However, it appears that DOGE staff had misinterpreted a code appearing in records with missing data. At this stage, DOGE staff lacking proper vetting may have gained access to sensitive data, software systems, or agency infrastructure at other agencies targeted by Musk, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Department of Education, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Labor, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
February 8 – federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking DOGE’s access to U.S. Treasury Department systems. On February 21, a judge extended the order until the conclusion of the lawsuit.
February 5 – The Economic Policy Institute joined the AFL-CIO and affiliate unions in an emergency lawsuit to block DOGE access to the U.S. Department of Labor. On February 7, a federal judge denied the request and granted DOGE access to DOL systems.
January 31 – Reports emerge from the Treasury Department that DOGE personnel are attempting to unlawfully gain access to the payment systems that control the flow of money into and out of the federal government.
Upon taking office, President Trump established a new office within the U.S. Digital Service, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The office is led by billionaire Elon Musk, reportedly currently serving in the role as a “special government employee.” There have been conflicting reports about the status of his security clearance or the status of any ethics guardrails ensuring that, in his government role, he would not be able to access confidential or otherwise sensitive information that may have impacts on the extensive government contracts held by companies run by Musk. Despite this, it was reported that the DOGE office gained access to the federal payment system through the U.S. Treasury Department, a complex system that distributes trillions of dollars a year in federal funds and contains the sensitive personal data – including Social Security numbers – of millions of Americans.
Rescind EO 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad
President Trump signed an executive order (EO) rescinding EO 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, originally signed by President Biden on January 27, 2021. Among other provisions, this EO originally established the Justice40 Initiative, which established a goal that at least 40 percent of federal investments in addressing the climate crisis or on environmental improvements flow toward disadvantaged communities. The initiative identified several areas across the federal government, including pollution reduction and cleanup, clean energy, and clean water infrastructure, and instructed relevant agencies to develop guidance and recommendations for how to identify and prioritize the communities that are burdened the most by environmental risks or degradation. Halting the Justice40 initiative risks the significant progress made by the federal government to prioritize using the lever of public investment to improve environmental, public health, and economic conditions for disadvantaged communities, particularly among rural, low-income, Black, Hispanic, or Native Americans.
Trump fires 17 Inspectors General
On January 24, 2025, President Trump fired Inspectors General (IGs) from 17 different federal agencies, including the Department of Labor. The role of Inspectors General is prevent mismanagement, corruption, fraud and waste of tax payers money in federal agencies. The move is significant, because President Trump failed to give Congress the 30-day notice and rationale for dismissal that is legally required for the removal of IGs.
Impact: More than a dozen federal agencies no longer have an independent watch dog ensuring that tax payer dollars are not being misused or mismanaged.
EO Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation
Description: President Trump issued an executive order on January 31, 2025, entitled “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation.” The order:
- Requires every federal agency issuing a regulation to identify 10 potential regulations for recission, or to be eliminated and overturned.
- Tells all agencies that for Fiscal Year 2025 (which ends on September 30, 2025), the total incremental cost of all new regulations, including any repealed regulations, must be no greater than zero—unless otherwise required by law or consistent with written advice of the director of the Office of Management and Budget.
- Rescinds the Biden administration’s update to the document known as OMB Circular A-4, which provides guidance to all executive branch agencies about how to assess the desirability of proposed regulations, particularly with respect to how costs and benefits are measured.
- The executive order also incorrectly categorizes many forms of federal government materials and communications as “regulations,” including memoranda, guidance documents, and interagency agreements.
Impact:
Federal regulations, or rules, are written by agencies in order to actually carry out the specifics of laws that are passed by Congress. Regulations establish basic labor, consumer, environmental, and other protections, from workplace safety standards to clean water to the construction of roads and bridges. The language in the order is based on the mistaken premise that regulations hamper economic growth or harm the economy. On the contrary, the benefits of regulations consistently exceed their costs over time. Academic studies have also shown that regulations have a modestly positive or neutral effect on employment.
On the order’s directive to keep the costs of all new regulations at zero, aside from being effectively impossible to accomplish when issuing any regulation at all, as nearly every regulatory change represents some level of cost to come into compliance, all costs are not created equal. Compliance with rules is part of the overall cost of conducting business in a way that doesn’t cause harm to workers and the environment. Rules that, for example, establish safety requirements for employers to prevent workplace injuries provide great benefits to workers who would otherwise bear the costs of injury, through emergency room visits, medical bills, and absence from work.
The order’s recission of the updates to OMB Circular A-4 will have a tangible negative impact While very technical, this update was a much-need change, and meant that regulations could have become much more beneficial to low- and moderate-income households.
Most likely, this executive order is intended to significantly hamper agencies from creating and finalizing much-needed new regulations. However, in practice, as written, it is unlikely to result in any concrete policy action beyond the optics of a deregulatory agenda.
DHS terminates Temporary Protected Status designation for Venezuela from October 3, 2023
The Trump administration, through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), will issue a federal notice on February 5, 2025, that revokes Temporary Protected Status for a subset of more than 300,000 Venezuelan nationals who are in the United States, and who have TPS protections through April 2025. (Another subset of Venezuelan nationals have TPS protections through September 2025, based on a separate designation of TPS for Venezuela from 2021, but will not be impacted by the current notice.) The notice will take effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Impact: Those who qualify for TPS are issued a registration document and are protected from deportation while a TPS designation is in place for their country of origin, and they are eligible to apply for an Employment Authorization Document (also known as a work permit), allowing them to be employed lawfully and have worker protections and basic workplace rights, for the period during which the TPS designation remains active. The persons impacted by this notice will no longer have temporary protection from deportation or valid work permits after their TPS status is terminated.
DOT memo on funding prioritizes local governments that cooperate with immigration enforcement
On January 31, 2025, the secretary of the Department of Transportation (DOT) issued an order that lists priorities for where DOT funding (i.e. “grants, loans, contracts, and DOT-supported or -assisted State contracts”) will be distributed. That list includes, among other things, prioritizing projects for jurisdictions that “require local compliance or cooperation with Federal immigration enforcement and with other goals and objectives specified by the President of the United States or the Secretary.”
This move puts funding for transportation projects in jeopardy for many cities and states. Federal courts are divided on whether the federal government can withhold grants and funding in order to encourage local jurisdictions to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. The issue was litigated in multiple venues during the first Trump administration but was never ultimately resolved by the Supreme Court, because the Biden administration ended the practice.
Trump administration imposes large, broad-based tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico
Update: On February 3, President Trump announced an agreement to pause the effective date of the new tariffs on both Mexico and Canada for one month pending further negotiations.
On February 7, President Trump paused his earlier suspension of the de minimis exemption on imports from China. His February 5 decision to end the de minimis exemption would have applied import taxes to goods with a value of less than $800 entering the US from China.
On March 4, the Trump administration implemented tariffs of 25% on goods imported from Mexico and Canada, with the exception of energy imports from Canada being subject to 10% tariffs. The administration also raised the previously announced tariff on goods imported from China to 20% from 10%.
On March 5, the Trump administration delayed tariffs on the auto industry until April.
On March 6, the Trump administration delayed tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada until early April.
On February 1 the Trump administration announced tariffs of 25% on goods from Mexico and Canada – with a carveout for energy imports from Canada. They also announced a 10% tariff on goods from China. These amounts are over and on top of any existing tariffs.
Tariffs can be a useful policy tool when used strategically – we at EPI have provided a defense of tariffs (including some passed in the first Trump administration) as part of strategic plans to protect economically important sectors in the past. But without a strategic plan, and applied broadly across all sectors, these tariffs will not provide a meaningful boost to U.S. manufacturing.
And these announced tariffs are extremely broad-based – in what follows all statistics on trade and tariffs are based on 2023 full-year data from the United States International Trade Commission (USITC). According to this USITC data, imports from China, Canada, and Mexico combined account for over 40% of all imports into the United States – this means that the tariffs will have a substantial negative effect on the U.S. economy. If, for example, import flows from these countries did not change in response to these tariffs, these tariffs would raise taxes faced by U.S. importers by roughly $230 billion. The consensus of empirical research into tariffs indicates that the vast majority of these costs would be passed onto U.S. households. In reality, imports from these countries will likely fall sharply in response to these tariffs, but this decrease in supply for the goods they are providing would significantly push up prices even for domestically-produced goods that compete with imports. In short, U.S. households will feel noticeably higher costs as a result of these actions even if imports fall.
The strategy behind these tariffs is far from obvious. For example, the volume of imports is far less important to the wellbeing of a country’s manufacturing sector than the size of the trade deficit (the amount by which imports exceed exports). In 2023, for example, the U.S. trade deficit with China was one third larger than the trade deficit with Canada and Mexico combined. Given this, it seems odd that an aggressive raising of tariffs sees China as the country facing the smallest increase. For another, the reasons given for the tariffs and the implicit conditions demanded to remove them have essentially nothing to do with the health of U.S. manufacturing or U.S. jobs. Instead, it is a mishmash of demands relating to immigration and flows of fentanyl. This intermingling of issues is a new and unwelcome distraction for debates over trade policy.
Extremely broad-based and indiscriminate tariffs have occasionally been defended on the grounds that they are undoing some of the damage done by trade policy in recent decades to U.S. workers. It is commonly thought that the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) began an era where the interests of U.S. workers were shunted aside in issues of international trade. This is undoubtedly true in many ways.
But this week’s action pushes tariffs far above pre-NAFTA levels. For example, immediately before NAFTA the average effective tariff on goods imported from Mexico was between 2-3% – it will now stand at 25%. In short, the damage done by NAFTA to U.S. workers had far less to do with tariff levels than all of its other provisions, and raising tariff levels on nearly 40% of all U.S. imports will do little to undo this damage (in part due to the sharp retaliation this action will incur – retaliation that has already begun).
Further, it is worth remembering that NAFTA was re-negotiated under the first Trump administration, becoming the US-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) agreement. The actions of this week highlight that even the Trump administration sees its USMCA renegotiation as a failed and insufficient action. This week’s actions, implicitly constituting a second attempt by the Trump administration to re-orient American trade policy, are no more likely than the USMCA to provide any benefit to U.S. manufacturing and its workers.
Firing NLRB Acting General Counsel Jessica Rutter
President Trump fired Jessica Rutter, Acting General Counsel at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Rutter had previously served as Deputy General Counsel and Associate General Counsel in the Office of the General Counsel since 2021. Rutter was selected as an honors attorney at the agency in August 2013. This move continues President Trump’s actions to paralyze independent agencies.
President Trump issues memo limiting collective bargaining agreements reached with federal workers
President Trump issued a memo seeking to limit the approval of collective bargaining agreements reached with the federal workforce. The order instructs department and agency officials not to approve collective bargaining agreements executed in the 30-days prior to the inauguration of a new president. Further, the order limits the ability of agencies to reach collective bargaining agreements with their workers in that timeframe.
It is worth noting that collective bargaining agreements are enforceable by law. Violations of the terms and conditions of existing agreements are enforceable, and federal unions have announced the intention to defend the contracts in the courts.
Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Register Notice rescinding extension of the 2023 designation of Temporary Protected Status for Venezuela
On January 28, 2025, the Secretary of the Department Homeland Security (DHS), Kristi Noem, submitted a Notice to the Federal Register vacating the January 17, 2025, notice from the Biden Administration that extended a Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for Venezuela for an additional 18 months. DHS will now revert to the TPS redesignation and extension guidance that was announced in October 2023. As of September 30, 2024, there were over 500,000 Venezuelan nationals protected by TPS. Once TPS expires, Venezuelans who qualified will lose their ability to work in the United States and beat risk of being detained and subject to removal.
TPS is a form of administrative immigration relief that is determined and implemented by the executive branch, although the authority for TPS is authorized by statute in the Immigration and Nationality Act. TPS is most often used for cases of ongoing armed conflict or environmental disaster, or other extraordinary and temporary conditions, as specified by law. Those who qualify for TPS are issued a registration document and are protected from deportation while a TPS designation is in place for their country of origin, and they are eligible to apply for an Employment Authorization Document, allowing them to be employed lawfully and have workplace rights, for the period during which the TPS designation remains active.
President Trump originally established protections from deportation for Venezuelans on January 19, 2021, the day before his presidential administration ended, in the form of Deferred Enforced Departure, a similar form of humanitarian protection to TPS. Later under the Biden administration, broader protections for Venezuelans were issued in the form of TPS. The January 17 designation extended until October 2026. If Sec. Noem’s vacatur is not challenged or overturned by a court, one group of Venezuelan TPS holders will see their protections expire this April and another in September of this year. Sec. Noem has until February 2 to decide if DHS will take any action with respect to the Venezuelan TPS holders whose protections expire in April. She has until July 12 to decide about the group whose protections expire in September. If Sec. Noems takes no action, the TPS protections automatically extend for another six months, but then expire.
State Department suspends funding to organizations that assist recently arrived refugees
According to multiple news sources, on January 24, 2025, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) suspended funding to organizations that provide recently arrived refugees with assistance on housing, job placement, and other needs during their first three months in the United States, as part of a broader pause on foreign aid by the Trump administration. The letter was sent by DOS’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, to the handful of agencies that contract with the federal government to help refugees integrate into society and the labor market after arrival. The letter noted that grant funding is “immediately suspended” pending a 90-day review of foreign assistance, after which decisions will be made about the longer-term future of the funding. According to Reuters, the refugee agencies “must immediately ‘stop all work’ and ‘not incur any new costs’ under the grant[s]. The letter said the agency ‘must cancel as many outstanding obligations as possible.’” Reuters also estimated that the funding pause “stands to affect at least 26,494 refugees and recipients of Special Immigrant Visas
EO Ending Illegal Discrimination And Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity
Update: On February 3, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education sued the Trump administration for several executive orders regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). On February 21, a federal judge blocked the executive orders from going into effect as the lawsuit continues.
On January 21, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) titled Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity. The EO states that employers across industries, including the Federal government, and other institutions such as colleges and universities have “adopted and actively use dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI)” The president’s EO rescind a number of previous Executive Orders that established core anti-discrimination protections and advanced efforts to improve equity in the federal workforce.
Most notably, the EO rescinded EO 11246, which was issued in 1965 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, and for the first time directly charged the Department of Labor with enforcing anti-discrimination and equal employment opportunity requirements in federal contracting. Prior to President Trump’s Executive Order, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) played a crucial role in protecting workers civil rights. Under the most recently amended version of EO 11246, federal contractors could not discriminate against an “ employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin”. Furthermore, federal contractors were required to take affirmative action to ensure that individuals were treated during employment without regard to the protected classes listed above, including as it related to: “…upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training.” It has been under the authority of EO 11246 that the OFCCP has been able to initiate investigations and bring enforcement against federal contractors, directly protecting more than 10.3 million workers through its worksite investigations over the last ten years and securing financial relief for more than 250,000 workers over the same period.
By rescinding EO 11246, the efforts of the OFCCP have come to a halt. On January 24, 2025 the Acting Secretary of Labor issued an order for all DOL employees to “cease and desist all investigative and enforcement activity under the rescinded Executive Order 11246 and the regulations promulgated under it.”
The EO also directs agencies to develop plans to discourage private sector institutions, including employers, higher educational institutions, nonprofit and philanthropic associations, and other private groups from voluntarily taking on their own efforts to improve hiring or other equitable outcomes along lines of race, gender, disability, or other characteristics.
Jamieson Greer nominated as US Trade Representative
Update: U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer was confirmed by the Senate on February 26, 2025.
President Trump nominated Jamieson Greer to serve as the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). In the first Trump administration, as USTR Chief of Staff, Greer worked closely with then-USTR Ambassador Robert Lighthizer, particularly with respect to tariffs and trade relations with China, and has represented corporations as a trade lawyer in private practice. If confirmed as USTR, Greer would be the United States’ top trade ambassador responsible for representing the U.S. in trade negotiation, monitoring U.S. trade agreements, and coordinating trade policy across the federal government.
Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA)
Republicans in Congress reintroduced the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA). The bill, S. 292 (House bill number pending), would provide $10 billion in annual tax credits to fund private and religious K-12 schools.
The bill would do this by establishing a new tax credit for individuals and corporations who make charitable contributions to organizations that give scholarships – or vouchers – for students to attend private schools. Currently, vouchers overwhelmingly support wealthy parents who are already sending their children to private school. ECCA will, in effect, redirect federal funding away from other, crucial government services, towards wealthy individuals and families.
Most legislation to support school vouchers does not have wide popularity and would be unlikely to pass through the normal legislative process. However, because the structure of the ECCA essentially creates a new tax break, and thus has federal tax and revenue implications, it may be able to pass as part of the budget reconciliation process, which requires a simpler 50-vote majority to pass the Senate.
Vouchers were rejected by voters in three states – Colorado, Kentucky and Nebraska (notably the home state of Rep. Adrian Smith, lead cosponsor of the House version of ECCA) – at the ballot in November 2024, in part because they do not promote educational achievement, nor are they viable options for low-income students or rural students. Instead, private schools end up raising tuition, and public schools suffer from the lack of available funding for their remaining students.
EO Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing
Update: On February 3, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education sued the Trump administration for several executive orders regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). On February 21, a federal judge blocked the executive orders from going into effect as the lawsuit continues.
President Trump issued two Executive Orders, titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing” and along with a list of “Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions.” Following these actions, the Acting Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued initial implementing guidance to agencies for these EOs.
The OPM guidance directs agencies to place all employees of DEIA offices – offices and agency sub-units focusing exclusively on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility initiatives and programs – on administrative leave by 5 pm on January 22, while the agency takes steps to end all DEIA offices and programs. Agencies have also been directed to send an agency-wide notice to all employees informing them of the closure of these offices and asking them if they know of “any efforts to disguise these programs by using coded or imprecise language.” The OPM memo further instructs agencies to remove all DEIA-related materials from their websites, cancel any DEIA-related trainings and cancel DEIA-related contracts. Agencies are also directed to submit to OPM a list of all employees in DEIA offices. By January 31st, Agencies must submit to OPM a “written plan for executing a reduction-in-force action regarding the employees who work in a DEIA office.” Rolling back or prohibiting inclusion efforts will undermine the federal government’s ability to attract and retain a responsive, representative federal workforce.
The EO also directs agencies to report information to OMB on any federal grantees who engage in activities related to DEI, DEIA, or “environmental justice” – a catch-all set of terms repeated throughout the EO. This risks the possibility that federal grant recipients could come under undue political scrutiny and threat if they name improving racial and gender equity or reducing disparate impacts of environmental harms among their program goals.
EO Expanding Educational Freedom and Opportunity for Families
President Trump issued an executive order (EO) redirecting discretionary grant program spending from the Department of Education away from public schools and towards private and faith-based schools, by ordering the Department to identify ways to funnel federal funds away from public K-12 education, including to give preferential treatment to voucher programs in the agency’s discretionary grant authority. It also orders the Department of Health and Human Services to issue guidance on how states receiving block grants for families and children can use those funds to support private and faith-based institutions. Finally, it directs the Defense Secretary and the Interior Department Secretary to come up with plans to use federal money to send children who are educated under the jurisdiction of those agencies – children of military families attending schools on military bases, and children attending Bureau of Indian Education-funded schools on reservations – to private and other non-public schools. This reduces the ability to fully fund public schools and provide students with a quality education.
Following the EO’s directives would require executive branch agencies to illegally redirect dollars from programs where both funding levels and disbursement rules are assigned by Congress. Legality aside, this EO effectively redirects taxpayer money away from students attending public schools towards relatively well-off families who send their kids to private schools. Around 90 percent of students attend public schools — and this is particularly true in the in low-income communities where private schools may be financially out of reach, and rural communities where private schools may not exist. These school districts rely on federal funds to provide high quality education.
“Unleashing American Energy Executive Order” & Rescinding EO 14037 Strengthening American Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) titled, Unleashing American Energy. This executive order undoes support for electric vehicle manufacturing jobs and other investments in clean car and truck technologies. President Trump’s stated intentions to reverse the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and related policies would strand $145 billion in new investments and cost more than 35,000 job-years (a measure that calculates one person’s work over one year) in truck assembly and parts manufacturing work. This will put U.S. producers at a competitive disadvantage, disincentivize research and development of new vehicle technologies, and encourage offshoring manufacturing of both internal combustion engine and low- and no-emission vehicles and parts. In addition, pausing the tax credits and investments listed above will make it more expensive for U.S. consumers and businesses to purchase and maintain electric vehicles. Fully revoking the provisions of the IRA would require further action.
Among other measures, the “Unleashing American Energy” EO directs all agencies to immediately “pause the disbursement of funds appropriated through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (Public Law 117-169) or the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public Law 117-58)…until the Director of OMB and Assistant to the President for Economic Policy have determined that such disbursements are consistent with any review recommendations they have chosen to adopt.” This includes:
- Used Clean Vehicle Credits (IRA Section 25E) providing consumers up to $4,000 for the purchase of qualifying used clean vehicles
- Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling Property Credits (IRA Section 30C) for businesses and homeowners installing vehicle charging infrastructure
- New Clean Vehicle Credits (IRA Section 30D) providing up to $7,500 for consumers for purchase of qualifying clean vehicles
- Commercial Clean Vehicle Credits (IRA Section 45W) providing up to $40,000 for businesses purchasing qualifying clean vehicles
- Advanced Manufacturing Production Credits (IRA Section 45X) supporting U.S. investment and manufacturing of advanced storage batteries and components.
- Qualifying Advanced Energy Project Credits (IRA Section 48C) providing $10 billion for investments in advanced energy projects that meet prevailing wage and registered apprenticeship standards, which supported more than 240 projects in 35 states
- Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loans supporting investment, technological development, and manufacturing of light-duty and heavy-duty motor vehicles, trains, maritime vessels, and aircraft
The EO also rescinds a previously standing order 14037 titled, Strengthening American Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks that established a goal for 50% of new car and truck sales to be clean vehicles by 2030.
Offering deferred resignation to federal employees
Update: On February 6, a federal judge temporarily blocked the effective deadline of the deferred resignation offer in response to a lawsuit filed by labor unions representing federal employees. On February 13, a federal ruled that the “deferred resignation” policy could move forward.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) sent a message to all federal employees offering them the opportunity to retain all pay and benefits through September 30, 2025, if they resign from their positions by February 6, 2025. Often inaccurately referred to as a “buyout,” this is technically an offer of “deferred resignation,” and accepting it may make federal employees ineligible to accept unemployment insurance or require them to forfeit other benefits and protections. The legal grounding for this offer, or for the use of any federal funds to fulfill the terms offered, remains uncertain.
Further, given that the likely goal is to shrink the federal workforce, any federal employees who take this offer will likely not be replaced with new full-time hires, which would lead to further degrading agency functions and operations.
There are about 2.3 million civilian federal employees, not including Postal Service workers or members of the military. However, as a share of total government spending or as a share of the population, federal employment has already been shrinking significantly for decades. Compensation for the federal civilian workforce represents only about 5-6 percent of total government spending.
Executive Order on “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government”
President Trump issued a broad executive order attempting to identify and unwind all instances of federal government recognition of either nonbinary expressions of gender or of transgender identity.
Among other provisions, this order rescinded the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission’s (EEOC’s) 2024 “Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace,” which expanded the EEOC’s view of illegal gender-based workplace sexual harassment to include harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The order also impacts the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) practices for documenting the gender of federal employees.
Department of Labor delays defense of independent contractor rule
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the Department of Labor’s request to delay oral arguments in a case challenging DOL’s 2024 final rule on independent contractor classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). DOL has not yet dropped defense of the rule, merely delayed oral arguments while awaiting the transition of leadership at the agency. But it will be important to monitor whether they intend to continue defending the rule against litigation going forward.
The Department of Labor’s final rule would have made it harder for employers to misclassify their workers as independent contractors. Workers misclassified as independent contractors lose out on critical protections, benefits, and labor rights including minimum wage, overtime pay, unemployment insurance, the right to form a union, and anti-discrimination protections in most states. Additionally, these workers bear the full financial costs of Social Security and Medicare contributions. EPI recently updated an analysis of the pay and benefits of workers in 11 commonly misclassified jobs. A typical construction worker, as an independent contractor, would lose as much as $19,526 per year in income and job benefits compared with what they would have earned as an employee. A typical truck driver, as an independent contractor, would lose as much as $21,532 per year, and a misclassified home health aide would lose up to $10,214 per year.
Rescinded: Temporary Pause of Agency Grant, Loan, and Other Financial Assistance
Update: In response to a federal judge’s order temporarily blocking this, action, OMB rescinded this order on January 29, 2025.
The White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) issued a memo blocking the disbursement of all federal grants and loans as of the following day. A federal judge has temporarily blocked this action until February 3, 2025.
This sweeping order was originally interpreted to have impact on more than 2,600 federal programs ranging from funding for apprenticeship and job training programs to scientific research grants to the Head Start program’s early childhood education services for low-income families. OMB issued follow-up guidance after the announcement that attempted to clarify and narrow the scope indicated in the initial announcement, and named several programs—including Medicaid and Head Start—that were not intended to be affected by this freeze. However, the initial announcement caused widespread confusion and has already had some adverse impacts on program operations.
The memo directs federal agencies to respond to a lengthy questionnaire that essentially screens each individual funding stream for alignment with the Trump administration’s extreme political ideology – including whether it has any tangential connection to issues related to the undocumented immigrant population, addressing racial or gender equity, climate crisis mitigation and other environmental protections, or abortion.
The memo also directs all federal agencies to identify a senior political appointee who can take on responsibility for oversight of the program.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro and Sen. Patty Murray have raised that this action by the Trump administration may constitute impoundment – essentially, an illegal overreach of the President’s authority to cancel or otherwise block spending government dollars that have already been allocated and approved by Congress.
The very near-term economic impacts of a federal grant freeze are still unknown but will likely be severe. In the long-run, the economic consequences of a federal funding freeze of this magnitude would be guaranteed to cause a steep recession. The federal government gives $1 trillion in grants to state and local governments alone, for everything from physical infrastructure, public safety, and health and social services. Removing this money from the economy would represent a huge economic shock. A long-term freeze on spending would also fatally compromise the valuable work done only by the federal government and heavily relied upon the by the private sector, such as medical research trials and much-needed economic data collection.
Firing NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo
President Trump has fired Jennifer Abruzzo, General Counsel at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Abruzzo has been a fierce advocate for workers, working to administer and enforce the National Labor Relations Act. Abruzzo instituted a number of important reforms aimed at reinvigorating workers’ rights to a union a collective bargaining. Her strong enforcement of workers’ rights put her squarely in the crosshairs of the pro-corporate lobby. Elon Musk, billionaire and head of the Trump administration organization Department of Government Efficiency, has challenged the NLRB’s constitutionality in court in his private capacity as a CEO, rather than be held accountable for allegedly illegally firing SpaceX employees who tried to raise workplace concerns.
This move was widely expected – while in past presidential transitions, General Counsels have typically been permitted to serve out their terms before a new presidential appointment, President Biden also fired former NLRB General Counsel and Trump appointee Peter Robb from this role upon taking office. In 2023, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the President does have the authority to remove the NLRB’s General Counsel, but not any of the Members of the Board, who act as an independent federal agency and are intended to be shielded from presidential interference after they are nominated and confirmed by the Senate.
Firing EEOC General Commissioners Burroughs & Samuels
President Trump has illegally fired Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Commissioners Charlotte Burrows and Jocelyn Samuels. Both were appointed by President Biden and confirmed by the Senate to serve terms that do not expire until 2028, and 2026, respectively.
The EEOC is an independent agency that enforces federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination and harassment. EEOC Commissioners are intended to be insulated from presidential interference once nominated and confirmed by the Senate.
Firing EEOC General Counsel Karla Gilbride
President Trump has fired Karla Gilbride, General Counsel of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In her role as General Counsel, Ms. Gilbride was responsible for bringing civil legal charges against employers who discriminated against or harassed employees on the basis of gender, race, or other protected characteristics.
Unlike EEOC Commissioners, the EEOC General Counsel is not intended to be protected from removal by the President upon a change of administration.
Department of Homeland Security’s “Guidance Regarding How to Exercise Enforcement Discretion”
Two of the Trump administration’s day one executive orders (EOs), “Securing our Borders” and “Protecting the American People Against Invasion,” mention the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) parole authority, which permits DHS to grant persons with temporary protection from deportation and a work permit, on a case-by-case basis, either for urgent humanitarian reasons or because their presence is a significant public benefit to the United States. The EOs direct immigration enforcement agencies to review the use of parole and ensure that it is exercised consistent with the law and ordering that they end “categorical” parole programs like the Parole Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans.
On January 21, 2025, the Acting Secretary for DHS submitted a notice to the Federal Register on expedited removal, a fast-track deportation process. The Acting Secretary issued a related guidance memo on January 23, 2025, titled “Guidance Regarding How to Exercise Enforcement Discretion.” This memo directs immigration enforcement officers to (1) consider expedited removal for persons who meet the requirement for it but who may be in regular deportation proceedings and (2) reviewing the parole status of beneficiaries in parole programs that have been terminated and consider whether they should be placed into expedited removal proceedings or the regular deportation process.
Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Register Notice on “Designating Aliens for Expedited Removal”
On January 21, 2025, the Acting Secretary for DHS submitted a Notice to the Federal Register on expedited removal, a fast-track deportation process, and the Notice was published on January 24, 2025, in the Federal Register. The Notice took effect immediately upon publication and rescinds the Biden-era Notice on expedited removal, from March 21, 2022(Rescission of the Notice of July 23, 2019, Designation for Expedited Removal), which itself rescinded a Trump-era Notice on expedited removal. The 2022 Notice limited the application of expedited removal procedures. The new January 24 Notice purports to allow the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) restore the scope of expedited removal to the fullest extent authorized by Congress. Expedited removal under the second Trump administration will apply to:
(1) Aliens who did not arrive by sea, who are encountered anywhere in the United States more than 100 air miles from a U.S. international land border, and who have been continuously present in the United States for less than two years; and
(2) aliens who did not arrive by sea, who are encountered within 100 air miles from a U.S. international land border, and who have been continuously present in the United States for at least 14 days but for less than two years.
Rechartering the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
President Trump issued an executive order that recharted the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). The executive order designates the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto as co-chairs of the Council. The executive order directs the Council to provide recommendations to the President on matters involving science, technology, education, and innovation policy that relates to “the American economy, the American worker, national and homeland security, and other topics.”
EO Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence
On January 23rd, the President issued an Executive Order (EO) titled Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence. The stated purpose of the EO is to “develop AI systems that are free from ideological bias or engineered social agendas.”
The EO broadly directs the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology along with other senior White House officials and relevant agency heads to:
1) Develop a plan within 180 days to achieve the newly stated policy of the US on AI, as set forth in the EO: “enhance America’s global AI dominance in order to promote human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security”
2) Review all actions taken by agencies under President Biden’s AI EO issued in 2023, and rescind any of these actions that are inconsistent with President Trump’s EO.
3) Revise two OMB Memoranda to agency heads (M-24-10 and M-24-18) which addressed government acquisition and use of AI technologies.
In 2023, President Biden issued an EO on AI, creating a whole of government approach to the safe, secure and trustworthy development and use of AI. This included prioritizing workers, stating that “all workers need a seat at the table, including through collective bargaining, to ensure that they benefit” from AI technologies. The EO went on to state that “AI should not be deployed in ways that undermine [workers’] rights, worsen job quality, encourage undue worker surveillance, lessen market competition, introduce new health and safety risks, or cause harmful labor-force disruptions.” President Trump revoked this Executive Order and in the EO discussed here has directed agencies to review and then revise or rescind any actions taken under President Biden’s AI EO that are inconsistent with his Administration’s policies on AI. The EO also directs agencies to provide all available exemptions if rescission of actions are not able to be made immediately.
In 2024, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued two memorandums (M-24-10 and M-24-18) to all agencies regarding the acquisition and use of AI technologies. Specifically, M-24-10 established new agency requirements regarding AI governance structures and minimum practices when using AI technologies that impact the safety and rights of the public and federal employees. Such practices included “identify[ing] and assess[ing] AI’s impact on equity and fairness, and mitigat[ing] algorithmic discrimination” among many other requirements. The Memorandum also encouraged agencies to adopt the Department of Labor principles and best practices relating to the use of AI.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s interim guidance on “Civil Immigration Enforcement Actions at or Near Courthouses”
In conjunction with the January 20th rescission of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) memo and policy from the Biden administration that protected certain areas—such as churches, schools, and hospitals—from immigration enforcement, the Trump Administration has also rescinded a Biden-era policy that limited the arrests ICE agents could make in or near courthouses. A new interim guidance memo has been issued, outlining ICE’s internal policies on how and when to make arrests at courthouses.
It outlines examples of noncitizens who can be targeted for enforcement actions, and ICE’s policies on “collateral” arrests, meaning family members and people accompanying the main person targeted. Under the new interim guidance, collateral arrests will be done on a case-by-case basis, considering the totality of the circumstances. The guidance also notes that ICE officers and agents should “generally avoid” enforcement actions in or near courthouses that are wholly dedicated to non-criminal proceedings (with the examples given of family court and small claims court. In such cases, ICE officers and agents must get supervisor approval if such actions are “operationally necessary.”
Rescission of Biden-era EOs on Racial Equity and Racial Justice for AANHPI, Black, Hispanic and Native Americans
On January 20, 2025, President Trump rescinded multiple Biden administration executive orders expressing the federal government’s commitment to racial equity and racial justice. Collectively, the EOs listed below acknowledged the contributions Black, Hispanic, AANHPI and Native Americans have made to this country and proposed ways the government can address systemic barriers to equity, opportunity and justice for these communities. Policy goals included expanding language access to government benefits and services, responding to the rise in racial hate crimes, support for improved data disaggregation, and fulfilling the federal government’s commitment to further Tribal sovereignty. These EOs also sought to strengthen the government’s partnership with and support of HBCUs, HSIs and TCUs as invaluable service providers, employers and repositories of cultural history.
Trump’s action rescinds any national acknowledgement of the value of this nation’s racial diversity and commitment to address systemic inequities.
Rescinded EOs include:
Executive Order 13985 of January 20, 2021 (Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government)
Executive Order 14031 of May 28, 2021 (Advancing Equity, Justice, and Opportunity for Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders)
Executive Order 14045 of September 13, 2021 (White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity for Hispanics)
Executive Order 14049 of October 11, 2021 (White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity for Native Americans and Strengthening Tribal Colleges and Universities)
Executive Order 14089 of December 13, 2022 (Establishing the President’s Advisory Council on African Diaspora Engagement in the United States)
Executive Order 14091 of February 16, 2023 (Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government)
Executive Order 14124 of July 17, 2024 (White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity Through Hispanic-Serving Institutions)
Rescind EO 14089, Establishing the President’s Advisory Council on African Diaspora Engagement in the United States
President Trump issued an executive order rescinding Executive Order (EO) 14089, Establishing the President’s Advisory Council on African Diaspora Engagement in the United States, signed by President Biden on December 13th, 2022. EO 14089 acknowledged that the African Diaspora in the United States—both African immigrants and the descendants of enslaved Africans—have been a source of strength for the country as well as foundational to shaping United States-Africa relations. The order established an Advisory Council on African Diaspora Engagement in the United States to better foster and encourage efforts to advance equity and opportunity for the African Diaspora in the United States, and to strengthen ties between African communities, the global African diaspora, and the United States.
Rescind EO 14021, Guaranteeing an Educational Environment Free From Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, Including Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity
President Trump issued an executive order rescinding Executive Order (EO) 14021, Guaranteeing an Educational Environment Free From Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, Including Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, signed by President Biden in March 2021. EO 14021 explicitly stated that all students should be guaranteed an educational environment free from discrimination on the basis of sex, including discrimination in the form of sexual harassment, sexual violence, and on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. EO 14021 included actions for the Secretary of Education on enforcement against discrimination and sexual harassment against LGBTQ+ students.
The rescissions of EO 14021 appears in two executive orders: Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions, and Section 7(b) of Defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truth to the federal government.
Rescind EO 14020, Establishment of the White House Gender Policy Council
President Trump issued an executive order rescinding Executive Order (EO) 14020, Establishment of the White House Gender Policy Council, signed by President Biden in March 2021. In addition to establishing the Council within the Executive Office of the President, the Council was tasked with drafting policies and proposals to comprehensively address gender-based discrimination, violence, health inequities, along with human rights, and workplace diversity. EO 14020 also acknowledged that gender equity and equality is foundational to the Nation’s economic well-being, health, and security, and acknowledged intersectionality (specifically outlining race, religion, LGBTQ+ identity, disability, geography, and poverty) as a framework to base policy for advancing gender equity.
The rescissions of EO 14020 appears in two executive orders: Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions, and Section 7(b) of Defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truth to the federal government.
Rescind EO 14075, Advancing Equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Individuals
President Trump issued an executive order rescinding Executive Order (EO) 14075, Advancing Equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Individuals, signed by President Biden on June 15, 2022. EO 14075 acknowledged that LGBTQI+ individuals and families face systemic discrimination and barriers to full participation in American life, including direct political and legislative targeting and attacks at the State level, and established that the Federal Government must defend the rights and safety of LGBTQI+ people. To that end, EO 14075 directed the heads of various federal agencies (Health and Human Services, Education, Housing and Urban Development) to review their policies and use their authority within the boundaries of applicable law to support LGBTQI+ individuals and families across several domains. These included: expanding access to comprehensive healthcare; preventing and addressing homelessness and housing instability; protecting students and educators in educational institutions; explicitly combating so-called conversion therapy both in the US and around the world; and ensuring that LGBTQI+ children did not face discrimination in the child welfare or juvenile justice systems.
Rescind EO 14019, Promoting Access to Voting
President Trump issued an executive order rescinding Executive Order (EO) 14019, Promoting Access to Voting, signed by President Biden on March 7, 2021. EO 14019 acknowledged the misalignment between America’s commitment to securing the right to vote for all American citizens and the reality that Black voters and other voters of color still face significant barriers in access to their full voting rights. To rectify that misalignment, EO 14019 established the Federal Government’s responsibility to work to enable all eligible Americans’ participation in democracy and directed the heads of government agencies to consider and evaluate ways to promote voter registration and voter participation. This included commitments to expand access to voting to those with disabilities, those from various language groups, and those in active military service or in federal custody.
Rescind EO 14055 Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers under service contracts
President Trump issued an executive order rescinding Executive Order (EO) 14055, Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts, signed by President Biden in November 2021. EO 14055 promoted retention of skilled workers in the federal workforce by requiring contractors and subcontractors covered by federal service contracts to offer service employees covered under predecessor contracts the right of first refusal of employment in successor contracts. EO 14055 also required new contractors to recognize existing unions, and bargain with them to change any terms and conditions of employment.
By rescinding EO 14066, federal contractors are not required to offer service employees the right of refusal or recognize existing unions in successor contracts. Further, federal contractors can now use the threat of losing a federal contract as a tactic to discourage workers’ organizing efforts.
President Trump signs the Laken Riley Act
Update: President Trump signed the Laken Riley Act into law on January 29, 2025.
On January 22, 2025, the House of Representatives voted on and passed S. 5, which was the final step for passing H.R. 29, known as the Laken Riley Act. The Act now goes to President Trump’s desk who is likely to sign it. The Act allows immigration enforcement officers to place immigrants into indefinite detention, without access to bail, if they are accused (they do not need to be convicted) of certain lower-level crimes like burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting, as well as assault of a law enforcement officer or any crime that results in death or serious bodily injury to another person. As numerous advocates have pointed out, these provisions will eviscerate due process for immigrants. The Act also grants individual states the ability to sue the federal government over immigration enforcement decisions and to force the federal government to take a specific action.
This provision will allow states to weaponize the law against immigrants, and to interfere in the federal government’s authority and ability to create and implement immigration policies.
Department of Homeland Security statement on ending programs using parole authority from the Biden administration
Acting Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Benjamine Huffman issued a directive stating that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will begin to phase out any programs that were created using DHS’s parole authority. DHS states that this action will “end[ ] the broad abuse of humanitarian parole and return[ ] the program to a case-by-case basis. ICE and CBP will phase out any parole programs that are not in accordance with the law.”
This is one of DHS’s first steps in implementing the directive issued in the “Securing Our Borders” Executive Order, which orders the ending of the parole program set up by the Biden administration that allowed migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (known as the CHNV program) to come to the United States to pursue their immigration cases if they were sponsored by someone in the United States, as well as other parole programs, including the end of the CBP One phone app, which allowed persons to make initial appointments and file their claims for humanitarian protection with immigration officials.
Department of Homeland Security statement on rescission of Biden administration guidelines for immigration enforcement actions in or near sensitive areas
Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Benjamine Huffman issued a directive that rescinds the Biden Administration’s guidelines for enforcement actions in or near sensitive locations, such as schools, churches, health care facilities, social services providers, and shelters. The prior guidance from 2021 directed Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection to generally avoid enforcement actions at these sensitive locations, and seek prior approval from headquarters if such an action is being considered, unless there are exigent circumstances.
Protecting The United States From Foreign Terrorists And Other National Security And Public Safety Threats
The Executive Order EO, “Protecting The United States From Foreign Terrorists And Other National Security And Public Safety Threats,” requires that federal agencies update and review the vetting process for applicants for all visas to the United States, to ensure that applicants “are vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible.” This includes determining the types of documentation that are needed for vetting and determining if applicants are security or public safety threats.
Within 60 days of the date of the EO, the Department of State, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence must submit a report to the President, identifying countries for which vetting and screening information is deficient, warranting “a partial or full suspension on the admission of nationals from those countries” (possibly justifying a future travel ban or bans). The report will identify how many nationals from those countries have entered the United States since January 20, 2021, and any other relevant information about them, and if that information justifies excluding or deporting those persons, DHS must take steps to do so.
The EO also directs agencies to evaluate and adjust rules, policies, and guidance related to grounds of inadmissibility for migrants; review safeguards for vetting of refugees and stateless persons; evaluate visa programs so they are not used by foreign enemies and hostile actors to harm the security and interests of the United States; recommend actions on future actions necessary to exclude non-citizens who seek to undermine the constitutional rights and freedoms of the American people or who call for “the overthrow or replacement of the culture on which our constitutional Republic stands;” review resource needs for enforcing rules related to the revocation of naturalization; and evaluate the adequacy of programs designed to ensure the proper assimilation of lawful immigrants into the United States, and make recommendations to promote “a unified American identity.”
Russel Vought nominated as OMB Director
Update: OMB Director Russel Vought was confirmed by the Senate on February 6, 2025.
President Trump has nominated Russell Vought to serve as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Recently, he was a lead architect of the right-wing policy agenda known as Project 2025, and has particularly focused on a sweeping overhaul of the federal civilian workforce and on remaking the administrative state as a tool to advance the Trump administration’s political ideology. He also served as OMB Director in the first Trump administration. Vought has also affirmed in his January 2025 Senate confirmation hearing that he supports President Trump’s use of impoundment, or refusing to spend federal funds in the way that Congress has instructed agencies to do, an action the Supreme Court has deemed unconstitutional (as Congress holds the “power of the purse” over the executive branch of government).
Lori Chavez-DeRemer nominated as Secretary of Labor
Update: Secretary Chavez-DeRemer was confirmed by the Senate on March 10, 2025.
President Trump has nominated former U.S. Representative Lori Chavez-DeRemer to be the U.S. Secretary of Labor. She represented Oregon’s 5th Congressional district in the 118th Congress. She was one of only three House Republicans to co-sponsor the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act and one of only eight Republicans to co-sponsor the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act. If confirmed by the Senate to lead the U.S. Department of Labor, she would be responsible for carrying out the Trump administration’s agenda with respect to regulating and enforcing wage and hour, workplace safety, and employee benefits program protections, as well as the Department’s jurisdiction over massive federal training and workforce development programs, labor standards for federal contractors, and more.
Designating Marvin Kaplan as NLRB Chair
President Trump designated Marvin Kaplan as Chair of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Kaplan was first nominated and confirmed as a Member of the Board during the first Trump administration.
The NLRB is an independent agency tasked with administering the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which guarantees most private-sector employees the right to form unions and collectively bargain. Under President Trump’s first term the NLRB advanced an anti-worker agenda. This included the NLRB delivering on all the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s top priorities, which narrowed protections for workers covered under the NLRA.
EO Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions within the federal workforce
President Trump issued an executive order indicating he will overturn regulations to clear the way for the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which manages civil service (non-elected, non-military) employees of the federal government, to reinstate an employee classification known as Schedule F. The first Trump administration created the Schedule F designation in order to make it easier to fire federal workers in jobs that are normally apolitical, and therefore have civil service protections in their job. The Biden administration established protections to limit the use of this designation. By reinstituting Schedule F, President Trump would be able to fire federal workers he deems disloyal, shifting the work of government away from the public interest and toward the president’s interests. Under Schedule F, significant numbers of federal employees – who live and work across every U.S. state and territory – could be vulnerable to political attack, retaliatory termination, or termination without cause in order to fast-track hiring civil servants with certain political or ideological preferences.
Rescind EO 13999 Directing OSHA to Consider Whether Any Emergency Temporary Emergency Standards for Covid-19 were necessary
President Trump revoked Executive Order 13999, issued by President Biden on January 12, 2021. Issued during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, this EO directed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) at the U.S. Department of Labor to consider emergency temporary workplace safety standards were needed to establish special precautions to protect workers from the spread of COVID-19. However, OSHA had already effectively ended their work directed by Biden EO 13999, and terminated their rulemaking on COVID-19 exposure for workers in healthcare settings on January 15, 2025. OSHA stated their preference to move forward with a more “broadly protective” standard on protecting workers from infectious diseases in healthcare settings.
Executive order on “Reforming the Federal Hiring Process and Restoring Merit to Government Service”
President Trump issued an executive order that directs the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, in consultation with other agencies, to establish “federal hiring plans” that prevents the federal government from making hiring decisions based on race, sex, gender, or religion. Rather, the executive order directs the federal government to prioritize hiring decisions based on merit and skill.
Executive order on “Hiring Freeze”
President Trump issued an executive order that freezes hiring of the federal civilian employees. The executive order directs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in consultation with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the United States DOGE Service (USDS), to submit a plan to reduce the size of the federal workforce within 90 days. Further, the executive order puts an indefinite hiring freeze on the Internal Revenue Service or until the Secretary of Treasury, in consultation with OMB, OPM and USDA, deems it of national interest to lift the freeze.
Executive Order on Return to In-Person Work
President Trump issued an executive order that directs federal agency and department heads to take all necessary steps, as soon as practicable, to terminate remote work agreements and require employees to return to full-time in-person work. The EO states that it is to be carried out consistent with applicable law.
Rescind EO 14094 Modernizing Regulatory Review
President Trump revoked Executive Order 14094, “Modernizing Regulatory Review.” This rule, issued by President Biden in 2023, began the process by which the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and its sub-agency Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) made several positive changes to the process government agencies should follow when developing regulations. The Biden administration’s OIRA established new systems designed to facilitate more democratic, representative public participation in the development of new regulations. They also issued a substantial update to the document known as OMB Circular A-4, which provides guidance to all executive branch agencies about how to assess the desirability of proposed regulations, particularly with respect to how costs and benefits are measured. While very technical, this update was a much-need change, and meant that regulations could have become much more beneficial to low- and moderate-income households.
Rescind EO 14069 Advancing Economy, Efficiency, and Effectiveness in federal contracting by promoting pay equity and transparency
President Trump issued an executive order rescinding Executive Order (EO) 14069, Advancing Economy, Efficiency, and Effectiveness in Federal Contracting by Promoting Pay Equity and Transparency, signed by President Biden in March 2022. EO 14069 was issued to address the use of compensation history in federal hiring and pay-setting processes. EO 14069 led to the Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Council to propose a rule that prohibited compensation history from dictating pay on federal projects and required posting of pay in job postings connected with government contracts. The FAR Council withdrew the rule in January 2025.
Rescind EO 14035 DEI and accessibility in federal workforce
President Trump revoked Executive Order 14035, issued by President Biden on January 22, 2021. This executive order directed federal agencies to participate in a government-wide strategic plan to promote diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (or DEIA) in hiring and other employment practices for the federal civilian (non-military) workforce, and established transparency and reporting requirements on federal workforce demographics.
Trump rescinds executive order preventing discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation
President Trump issued an executive order rescinding Executive Order (EO) 13988, Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation, signed by President Biden in January 2021. EO 13988 directed federal agencies to enforce federal laws that prohibit sex discrimination to also prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
Rescission of EOs on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity for Black, Hispanic, AANHPI, and Native Americans
President Trump rescinded the Biden administration’s Executive Order 14050 which identified systemic barriers that impede Black Americans’ opportunity to fully participate in American educational, economic and civic life on a level playing field. Its policy goals were directed toward ensuring equitable access to proven pathways to educational and economic mobility, covering high quality early childhood programs through postsecondary education and career pathways like registered apprenticeships and other work-based learning initiatives. EO 14050 specified how federal agencies would be responsible for collaboratively advancing equity and sought to improve data collection to support implementation of evidence-based strategies and to assess, evaluate and monitor progress toward meeting policy goals.
History has shown that a long-term commitment to intentional and targeted interventions is required to resolve long-standing systemic inequities in a sustained way. Recission of EO 14050 after less than four years is a step in the wrong direction and all but guarantees there will be no measurable progress toward advancing educational equity, excellence and economic opportunity for Black Americans over at least the next four years.
Establishing and Implementing the President’s Department of Government Efficiency
President Trump issued an executive order establishing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The order focuses the DOGE agenda on modernizing federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity. The order renames the United States Digital Service as the United States DOGE Service (USDS). Further the order directs agencies to establish a DOGE team of at least four employees, which may include “Special Government Employees” hired within thirty days of this order. These teams will work to implement the President’s DOGE agenda. The order has already been challenged in a lawsuit.
Kristi Noem nominated as Secretary of Homeland Security
Update: Secretary Noem was confirmed by the Senate on January 25, 2025.
President Trump has nominated South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem to serve as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In this role, if confirmed, she would have responsibility for a wide-ranging portfolio ranging from natural disaster response, prevention of terrorist attacks, customs, anti-trafficking, and immigration and border enforcement. DHS also has primary authority over a number of temporary work visa programs, and shares some jurisdiction over them with the Departments of State and Labor.
While Noem has limited experience working on many of the issues in DHS’s purview, in her Senate confirmation hearing, she committed to carrying out the Trump administration’s plans to accelerate deportations and radically reshape the U.S. system for seeking and obtaining asylum, as well as reexamining the use of humanitarian immigration protections and work permits.
Marco Rubio nominated as Secretary of State
Update: Secretary Rubio was confirmed by the Senate on January 20, 2025.
President Trump has nominated Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) to serve as Secretary of State.
Secretary Rubio was confirmed to this role by the Senate on January 21, 2025. Among his many responsibilities to direct and execute the Trump administration’s foreign policy agenda, he will also be responsible for an important overlap with domestic policy, as the State Department has jurisdiction over immigrant and non-immigrant visas for any noncitizens seeking to enter the U.S.
As a Senator, Secretary Rubio had previously been a leader in support of bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform. In recent years, however, he has supported an enforcement-centered approach to immigration policy, including increased border security, and been critical of fixing or expanding immigration pathways.
Presidential Memorandum on Career Senior Executive Service (SES) officials
This memorandum states that Career Senior Executive Service (SES) officials are to serve at the pleasure of the President. The memorandum makes it easier to fire SES officials, requiring agencies to adopt performance plans for SES officials and directs heads of departments and agencies to hold SES officials accountable for these performance plans. It also directs heads of departments and agencies who become aware of an SES official “whose performance or continued occupancy of the position is inconsistent with either the principles reaffirmed in this Order or other duties to the Nation” to immediately take actions up to and including removal of that official. The memorandum also directs agencies to terminate existing performance review boards and re-constitute with members willing to enforce SES official performance evaluations and the memorandum overall.
SES officials, who are at the highest level of career civil service, oversee significant work. This memorandum politicizes SES officials, most of whom are career civil servants.
Rescind EO 14070 Continuing to strengthen American’s access to affordable healthcare
On January 20, 2025, President Trump rescinded the Biden administration’s Executive Order 14070 – Continuing to Strengthen American’s Access to Affordable Healthcare.
This order directed executive branch agencies and departments to review existing regulations, orders, guidance, and other policies to ensure that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Medicaid were strengthened and that high-quality healthcare was affordable and accessible for all. Among other agency actions undertaken in response to the EO, several special enrollment periods (SEPs) for the ACA marketplace exchanges were initiated – giving households additional chances to secure subsidized coverage under the ACA.
Coverage in the ACA marketplace exchanges hit their highest points in history in 2023 and national non-insurance rates hit its lowest rate. This is progress that should have been built on, not rescinded.
Rescind EO 14087 Lowering Prescription Drug Prices for Americans
On January 20, 2025, President Trump rescinded the Biden administration’s Executive Order 14087: Lower Prescription Drug Prices for Americans.
In 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) gave Medicare the right – for the first time in its history – to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies over prices the federal government paid for drugs in Medicare Part D (the part of Medicare that provides insurance coverage for prescription drugs). This provision of the IRA was a huge step forward to lowering costs and easing stress on family budgets for working Americans, and it also helped lower government spending and reduce deficits.
EO 14087 directed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to consider additional actions that could reduce prescription drug costs. In response to the EO, the HHS put forward several models of improved affordability and access to prescription drugs that policymakers could implement. It included proposals to institute a $2 co-payment for generic prescription drugs across Medicare Part D, and to help state governments in their own negotiations with drug companies over prices in Medicaid.
If the recommendations of the EO were advanced by the Trump administration rather than rescinded, further progress in reducing working families’ cost-of-living could have been made.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Global Tax Deal (Global Tax Deal)
President Trump issued a presidential memorandum to the Treasury Department on January 20, 2025 unilaterally pulling the United States out of an internationally negotiated deal that would have set a global minimum tax on large corporations.
The deal, negotiated under the Biden administration, was extremely modest in its ask of corporations (essentially a minimum tax of 15% – well under the current statutory rate in the United States). But it was a start to allowing nations to collect an appropriate revenue share from powerful corporations.
This type of international cooperation is necessary to crack down on tax havens – countries that impose minimal taxes on corporations and invite them to use financial engineering and dubious accounting practices to shift profits to these tax havens. Because these accounting profits of large corporations are extremely mobile across borders, ensuring that corporations pay their fair share of taxation both in the United States and in other countries, international cooperation to end tax havens was necessary.
Undercutting this deal directly benefits these corporations and will harm typical Americans, either through spending cuts or a shift of the tax burden onto their shoulders.
Trump rescinds executive orders protecting the federal workforce
President Trump issued an executive order rescinding Executive Order (EO) 14003, signed by President Biden on January 22, 2021. The order stated that the Federal Government should serve as a model employer and that rebuilding the career Federal workforce and encouraging union organizing and collective bargaining are policies of the United States.
EO 14003 directed agency heads and their subordinates to negotiate over the subjects outlined in 5 U.S.C. 7106 (b) (1), including the number and types of employees assigned to particular work as well as the method, means, and technology needed to perform the tasks.
In addition, EO 14003 directed the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to provide a report to the President with recommendations to promote a $15/hour minimum wage for Federal employees. [President Biden instituted a $15/hour minimum wage for Federal employees and contractors that was codified as a final rule in November 2021].
EO 14003 also revoked Executive Order 13957 which was created by the first Trump administration to make it easier to fire federal workers in jobs that are normally apolitical and therefore have civil service protections.
Lastly, the EO 14003 revoked a series of EOs and Presidential Memorandum that President Trump issued during his first term that limited the rights of federal workers to collectively bargain and made it easier to fire federal workers by removing due process and collective bargaining agreement protections.
Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis
President Trump announced a presidential directive on January 20, 2025 promising to deliver “emergency price relief for American families” – however, the policy actions called for in the directive are vague and non-specific. Further, they seem to rest on a mistaken premise –the preamble to the directive refers to “crushing regulatory burden and radical policies designed to weaken American production” of fuel (among other goods).
As a factual matter, in 2023 the United States produced more oil than any country in the history of the world. This faulty premise might be why the directive struggles to find genuine actions that could reduce the cost of living – it calls for no concrete policy changes and its instructions to executive agencies are vague and non-specific.
Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions Program
The Executive Order (EO) titled “Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions Program,” suspends all refugee admissions into the United States indefinitely, subject to review every 90 days.
At the end of every 90-day period, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in consultation with the Department of State, will submit a report to the president on whether the refugee program should be reinstated. The EO also states that State and local jurisdictions should be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and directs DHS to consult with the Attorney General and come up with a proposal to facilitate the involvement of State and local jurisdictions in making such determinations.
Protecting the American people from invasion
The “Protecting the American People from Invasion” Executive Order (EO) is a wide-ranging directive that touches on a number of immigration initiatives, programs, and enforcement actions. One of the most consequential elements may be the revocation of the Biden-era immigration enforcement priorities. The new enforcement priorities will be less targeted on national security and public threats, and require any person who lack an immigration status to “register” with the U.S. government, and those who fail to do so, will become priorities for immigration enforcement (regardless of whether they have a criminal record or not).
The EO also limits the use of parole authority and temporary protected status, which allows persons who qualify to obtain protection from deportation and a work permit, allowing them to have full and equal rights in the workplace, and prohibits work permits from being issued to persons without an immigration status. It also directs the Office of Management and Budget to ensure that all agencies identify and stop any person who lacks an immigration status from getting any public benefits (even though nearly all are already prohibited from receiving them). It also directs the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to review all federal funds provided to non-governmental organizations that may provide services to persons without immigration status, and to terminate those contracts and try to recoup the funds.
The EO directs DHS and DOJ to withhold federal funds from state and local jurisdictions that have policies directing local law enforcement to not cooperate with DHS—commonly referred to as sanctuary jurisdictions—as a way to punish those jurisdictions and compel them to assist federal immigration enforcement. (Immigration enforcement, however, is the responsibility of the federal government and federal courts have upheld the legality of sanctuary jurisdictions, and sanctuary policies do not prevent local law enforcement from doing their jobs.)
The EO also tells DHS to expand the program known as 287(g), that empowers local law enforcement to carry out the same functions as an immigration officer. Another notable element of the EO is that it directs DHS to take action to expand the available detention facilities for immigrants and states that migrants should be detained pending their removal. This would require a massive expansion of the government’s detention capacity.
Protecting the meaning and value of American citizenship
The Executive Order (EO) titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” imposes a radical interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, so that it no longer extends birthright citizenship to all persons born in the United States.
There are two main theories or principles that most nations apply when determining who can become a citizen, which are known by their Latin terms. There is “jus sanguinis,” which is the principle that a person may acquire citizenship based on the citizenship of their parents, and “jus soli,” which means that one acquires citizenship based on where they were born.
The longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment has been that citizenship is guaranteed at birth to almost all individuals born in the United States or in U.S. jurisdictions, based on jus soli. But some individuals born outside of the United States to U.S. citizen parents are born U.S. citizens based on jus sanguinis (for example, the children of diplomats). Congress, through the Immigration and Nationality Act, has outlined the rules for the cases of citizenship acquired through jus sanguinis.
This EO states that this long-held belief of the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of jus soli birthright citizenship is wrong and sets out a new standard for the persons who will qualify for it. It states that a person does not acquire citizenship if (1) their mother was unlawfully present in the United States and their father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when a person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary—for example they were visiting the United States as a tourist, student, or temporary worker—and if the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of the person’s birth.
The EO prohibits the departments and agencies of the U.S. government from issuing documents recognizing United States citizenship to persons born under those circumstances, and prohibits them from accepting documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship. The new standard for birthright citizenship will apply to all persons born within the United States 30 days after the issuance of the EO. The ultimate impact of this EO will be to create a new underclass of people who are left stateless and without rights.
Declaring a national emergency at the Southern border of the United States
President Trump issued a presidential proclamation establishing a national emergency at the southern border, citing authority under sections 201 and 301 of the National Emergencies Act, and making Ready Reserve and National Guard troops available to the Secretary of Defense, and invoking authority that permits the Department of Defense to undertake military construction projects that support the Armed Forces during a declared war or national emergency.
The proclamation purports to permit the Department of Defense (DOD) to order as many Ready Reserve and National Guard troops are necessary to help the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “obtain[ ] complete operational control of the southern border of the United States” and for DHS and DOD to begin to “to construct additional physical barriers along the southern border.” The proclamation also tells the Secretary of Transportation and the Federal Communications Commission to consider waiving regulations or policies that restrict DHS’s ability to take measures to counter drones within five miles of the southern border. Reporting requirements are also included: withing 30 days, DOD must report on the actions taken to fulfill the requirement so the proclamation, and within 90 days, DOD and DHS must submit a joint report about the conditions at the southern border, and offer any recommendations on further action, including whether to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807.
Securing our borders
The “Securing Our Borders” Executive Order (EO) includes a number of directives that impact border management and access to asylum and other forms of immigration protections. It directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to get “complete operational control of the borders of the United States,” and to achieve this, directs it to build more physical barriers, deploy sufficient personnel, and to pursue criminal charges against persons who violate immigration laws and those who assist them. It also directs DHS to expand its use of immigrant detention, and not release migrants while they await their hearings before immigration courts and adjudicators.
The EO directs DHS to resume the “Migrant Protection Protocols” policy, which is commonly known as the “Remain in Mexico” program. Remain in Mexico required asylum seekers to await their U.S. immigration court hearings in (often dangerous) border areas, also making it difficult for asylum-seekers to access attorneys and legal aid. The Biden administration had halted the Remain in Mexico policy given its severe humanitarian and due process deficiencies, which were criticized by many, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
The EO also ends the program set up by the Biden administration that allowed migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (known as the CHNV program) to come to the United States to pursue their immigration cases if they were sponsored by someone in the United States, also allowing them to be employed with a work permit that granted them workplace rights. It also ended the CBP One phone app, which provided a process for persons abroad to make an appointment with U.S. immigration authorities, allowing for a more orderly process for individuals to request asylum at ports of entry along the U.S. southern border.
Guaranteeing the States protection against invasion
The presidential proclamation, “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion” declares that an invasion is occurring at the U.S. southern border, and orders the suspension of asylum processing at the southern border until the president had determined that the invasion has ceased.
The proclamation gives immigration authorities the power to “repel, repatriate, or remove” persons who are seeking safety under U.S. asylum laws, and requires migrants to first provide medical information and criminal and background history information, in order to be eligible to apply and enter the United States.
Rescission of Biden-era executive orders on immigration
President Trump issued an executive order (EO) titled “Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions,” which rescinded a number of EOs on a variety of topics, and which included a handful of EOs on immigration that were issued by President Biden. These include:
- Executive Order 13993 of January 20, 2021 (Revision of Civil Immigration Enforcement Policies and Priorities)
- Executive Order 14010 of February 2, 2021 (Creating a Comprehensive Regional Framework To Address the Causes of Migration, To Manage Migration Throughout North and Central America, and To Provide Safe and Orderly Processing of Asylum Seekers at the United States Border)
- Executive Order 14011 of February 2, 2021 (Establishment of Interagency Task Force on the Reunification of Families)
- Executive Order 14012 of February 2, 2021 (Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans)
- Executive Order 14013 of February 4, 2021 (Rebuilding and Enhancing Programs To Resettle Refugees and Planning for the Impact of Climate Change on Migration)
The rescission of EO 13993 is significant to the entire system of immigration enforcement. Its issuance by President Biden directed his administration to set priorities for immigration enforcement, which were eventually codified in a DHS memorandum, “Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law,” which was issued on September 30, 2021. It directed DHS to use prosecutorial discretion when enforcing immigration laws and to focus enforcement on threats to national security, public safety, and border security—and importantly for workers—acknowledged that immigration status can be used by unscrupulous employers to retaliate against workers seeking to assert their rights (as well as by landlords against tenants). The memo sets out that “[a] noncitizen’s exercise of workplace or tenant rights, or service as a witness in a labor or housing dispute, should be considered a mitigating factor in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.”.
EO 13993 itself rescinded EO 13768 of January 25, 2017, issued by the first Trump administration, which set out its immigration enforcement priorities. Biden’s EO 13993 was challenged in court and its directives were enjoined, with the case eventually ending up before the Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled in July 2023 that President Biden had the authority to set priorities for how his administration conducts immigration enforcement. (See this EPI blog post on the impact of the decision.)
How We Federal Policy Watch
The Federal Policy Watch team of attorneys, economists, and analysts exists to serve the needs of busy people concerned about the fate of workers in America under the second Trump administration.
We track the actions of this administration, Congress, courts, and unelected, unofficial “advisers,” so you don’t have to.
To help you get the most out of this service, we want to explain our approach because it’s a bit different from our other publications.
→ Brief. Federal Policy Watch posts are shorter than other EPI content, so you can stay informed and keep moving.
→ On the record. Federal Policy Watch posts actions that can be substantiated. Each post has links to the original action, official comment, or documented news source. This administration thrives on sowing mistrust and misinformation. We counter that by covering it with urgency and accuracy, ensuring the information you get is supported by facts.
→ Up-to-date. When the situation changes on an alert that we’ve sent out, we update it in place. We add a timeline at the top of the post, so you can see the ticktock of Trump administration actions, the result or roadblocks along the way, and our coverage of it.
→ Accessible . Federal Policy Watch is available 24-7 at epi.org/policywatch, AND we come to you (near) daily in your inbox.
If you find Federal Policy Watch helpful, subscribe for updates, share it with other pro-worker folks who love democracy, and support us with a donation.
OSHA’s silica rule upheld by D.C. Court of Appeals
Description: On December 22, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) Obama-era rule protecting workers from exposure to silica dust. In its decision, the court wrote that, “Exposure to silica is one of the oldest known occupational hazards. And the health effects of exposure to silica—most commonly silicosis, a progressive and irreversible lung disease caused by the inflammatory effects of silica—are not a thing of the past. Currently, silicosis is the most prevalent chronic occupational disease in the world.”
Industry groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, challenged many aspects of the rule, including the medical evidence OSHA relied on in promulgating the rule to the feasibility of OSHA’s requirements for preventing workers from silica exposure. The court rejected all of those challenges and upheld the rule’s protections for workers.
Earlier in 2017, while this case was pending, OSHA announced after significant delays that it would begin enforcing most provisions of the silica rule’s standard for construction on September 23, 2017, and will begin enforcing most provisions of the standard for general industry and maritime on June 23, 2018. Now that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the rule, there should be no future barriers to OSHA’s ability to enforce this important worker protection regulation.
Fair Economy Impact: OSHA issued this rule to reduce workers’ exposure to cancer-causing respirable crystalline silica. Studies have linked exposure to silica to lung cancer, silicosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and kidney disease. About 2.3 million workers are exposed to respirable crystalline silica in their workplaces, including 2 million construction workers who drill, cut, crush, or grind silica-containing materials such as concrete and stone. Responsible employers have been protecting workers from harmful exposure to silica for years, using widely-available equipment that controls silica dust with a simple water spray to wet the dust down, or a vacuum system to contain the dust. OSHA estimates that the rule will save over 600 lives and prevent more than 900 new cases of silicosis each year, once its effects are fully realized. It is past time for the Trump administration to start taking workers’ sides by enforcing this rule to protect working people’s lives and livelihoods.
NLRB overturns joint-employer standard
Description: On December 14, 2017, the the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) made it more difficult for millions of workers to join together and form a union, by overturning its joint-employer standard established in 2015’s Browning-Ferris Industries case. When two or more businesses co-determine or share control over a worker’s pay, schedule, or job duties, then both of those businesses may be considered joint-employers. The Trump NLRB yesterday weakened the joint-employer standard, making it harder for workers to organize, form unions, and negotiate for higher wages and better working conditions.
Fair Economy Impact: It is hard in today’s economy to bargain for higher wages or better working conditions, especially if your direct employer doesn’t really make those decisions. Under President Obama, the NLRB tried to make it easier for employees by holding each employer responsible when they co-determine what a worker’s wages, hours, and working conditions will be. In yesterday’s decision, the Trump NLRB decided to make it harder than ever for workers caught in alternative employment relationships such as sub-contracting and staffing agencies to bring both businesses who control their daily working conditions to the bargaining table. Moreover, the NLRB’s decision to weaken the joint-employer standard is bad law resulting from a bad process. Ordinarily, before overturning major precedent, the Board invites the public to comment by filing amicus briefs. However, this time, they did not, and instead announced this reversal with no warning or notice and allowed the public had no opportunity to weigh in.
The majority of American workers would vote for union representation if they could. However, the intensity with which employers have opposed organizing efforts, and the continuing tilt of the legal and policy playing field against workers seeking to bargain collectively, has led to a decline in union membership. Yesterday’s decision makes it clear the Trump board will work to further rig the system against working people.
NLRB moves to reexamine union election rule
Description: On December 12, 2017, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) took the first step towards rolling back a 2014 rule that simplified the union election process by which working people can join together to bargain for better wages and working conditions. The NLRB announced the issuance of a Request for Information (RFI), asking for public input on the 2014 election rule. The election rule, which has been upheld by a federal court of appeals, includes a series of reforms which eliminate unnecessary delay in the election process and modernize agency procedures. The NLRB currently has a full five-member Board, with 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats.
Fair Economy Impact: The NLRB protects the rights of most private-sector employees to join together, with or without a union, to improve their wages and working conditions. Employees covered by the National Labor Relations Act are guaranteed the right to form, join, decertify, or assist a labor organization, and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to refrain from such activities. The NLRB’s decision to reexamine the rule demonstrates that the Trump board majority has little interest in maintaining an efficient election process for this nation’s workers. Ironically, the NLRB will accept electronic responses to the RFI for the election rule that, if rolled back, will affect the ability of workers to file electronic election petitions.
The majority of American workers would vote for union representation if they could. However, the intensity with which employers have opposed organizing efforts and the continuing tilt of the legal and policy playing field against workers seeking to bargain collectively, has led to a decline in union membership. Today’s announcement makes it clear the Trump board will work to further rig the system against working people.
DOL proposal to change tip pooling rules, allowing employers to take tips
Description: On December 5, 2017, the Trump administration took its first major step towards allowing employers to legally take tips earned by their employees. The current restrictions on “tip pooling,” instituted by DOL in 2011, allow restaurants to pool the tips servers receive but stipulate that the employer may only share pooled tips with other workers who customarily receive tips, such as bussers and bartenders. Employers are prohibited from retaining any of the pooled tips themselves. But the Trump Department of Labor proposed rescinding those restrictions.
At first glance, the proposed rule seems benevolent: restaurants would be able to pool the tips servers receive and share them with untipped employees such as cooks and dishwashers. But, crucially, the new rule would mean that employers are not required to distribute pooled tips to other workers: as long as tipped workers earn the minimum wage, the employer can legally pocket their tips. And basic economic logic dictates that it is highly unlikely that back-of-the-house workers will get more pay. There is currently no limit to what these workers can be paid, so employers are already paying their non-tipped workers what they need to pay to attract workers willing to work in those jobs. Thus, if employers do share some tips with them, it will likely be offset by a reduction in their base pay, leaving their take-home pay unaffected.
Fair Economy Impact: EPI estimates that under Trump’s proposed rule employers will likely pocket $5.8 billion per year of the hard-earned tips of their tipped workers each year — around $1,000 a year per tipped worker. And because women are both more likely to be tipped workers and to earn lower wages, this rule would disproportionately harm them. We estimate that of the $5.8 billion, nearly 80 percent—$4.6 billion—would be taken from women who are working in tipped jobs.
The broad economic effects of this rule are as follows: (1) tipped workers will lose $5.8 billion a year in tips, (2) the take-home pay of back-of-the-house workers will remain largely unchanged, and (3) employers will get a $5.8 billion a year windfall.
Department of Labor announces another delay of the fiduciary rule
Description: The Trump administration’s Department of Labor is actively working to weaken or rescind the “fiduciary” rule (the rule). The latest step in these efforts is an 18 month delay of key provisions of the rule. This delay is on top of earlier delays already put in place this year.
Fair Economy Impact: The rule simply requires financial advisers to provide what most clients probably already think they are receiving: advice about their retirement plans untainted by conflicts of interest. It would prohibit common practices such as steering clients into investments that provide lower rates of return for the client but higher commissions for the adviser. The financial industry strongly opposes this rule because it wants to preserve a system that allows financial advisers to give their clients advice that is in the adviser’s interest rather than the client’s. Conflicted advice leads to lower investment returns, causing real losses—an estimated $17 billion a year—for the clients who are victimized. We estimate that retirement savers who will get or have gotten bad advice during the various delays imposed by the Trump administration will lose a total of $18.5 billion over the next 30 years. Further, the rule is being delayed with the clear intent of never fully implementing it. Instead, the Trump administration is buying time until they can permanently dismantle key elements of the rule. People who have worked hard to save for retirement need and deserve the fiduciary rule to be fully implemented and enforced.
Actions:
- Hearing: Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions May 18, 2017
- Entire rule delayed from April 10, 2017 to June 9, 2017. Key enforcement provisions further delayed until January 1st, 2017, and then even further delayed until July 1st, 2019.
OSHA Delays Electronic Injury Record Reporting Rule
Description: On November 22, 2017, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) announced another delay in its Obama-era rule to Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses, which, when fully implemented, will require covered employers to electronically report injury and illness data that will be made publicly available. The announcement sets December 15, 2017, as the date for compliance — nearly one year later than the original date of January 1, 2017. More importantly, in the same announcement, OSHA declared that intends to “reconsider, revise, or remove portions of that rule in 2018.”
Fair Economy Impact: Pursuant to the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. Congress created OSHA as the federal government agency to ensure safe working conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance.
OSHA’s electronic record keeping rule does not create any new reporting requirements for employers — it simply requires employers that are currently required to keep OSHA injury and illness records to electronically submit their records to OSHA. Improving data collection and dissemination of injury and illness incidents in America’s workplaces will allow OSHA, employers, employees, employee representatives, other government agencies, and researchers to identify patterns and remove workplace hazards, and prevent worker injuries and illnesses.
In 2015 alone, nearly 5,000 workers died on the job. If in 2018, OSHA rescinds or weakens this rule, it will mean that patterns of unsafe working conditions may be harder to detect, making workplaces even more dangerous for working people.
Senate confirms David Zatezalo to the Mine Safety and Health Administration
Description: On November 15, 2017, the U.S. Senate confirmed, on a party-line vote, President Trump’s nominee David Zatezalo as the Department of Labor’s Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety. In this position, Zatezalo, who was previously a coal industry executive, will now head up the Mine Safety and Health Administration.
Fair Economy Impact: The U.S. Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is charged with preventing deaths, illnesses, and injuries from mining operations and with promoting safe and healthy workplaces for U.S. miners. Zatezalo is the former chief executive of Rhino Resources, a coal mining company that has been repeatedly cited for safety violations by MSHA. Worker fatalities in mines are on the rise in 2017, so it is more important than ever for MSHA to enforce safety rules to ensure miners lives are not lost on the job. But Trump’s appointment of Zatezalo is another example of Trump putting a fox in charge of the hen house – it remains to be seen whether Zatezalo will side with companies that want to cut corners with their workers’ safety and well-being, or with the very mine workers whose lives depend on him.
Senate confirms Peter Robb as General Counsel to the National Labor Relations Board
Description: On November 8, 2017, the U.S. Senate confirmed, on a party-line vote, President Trump’s nominee Peter B. Robb to be General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board for a term of four years. The NLRB currently has a full five-member Board, with 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats.
Fair Economy Impact: The NLRB protects the rights of most private-sector employees to join together, with or without a union, to improve their wages and working conditions. Employees covered by the National Labor Relations Act are guaranteed the right to form, join, decertify, or assist a labor organization, and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to refrain from such activities. The General Counsel is independent from the Board and is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of unfair labor practice cases and for the general supervision of the NLRB field offices in the processing of cases. The General Counsel has the authority to issue charges against employers and unions for labor law violations, and selects the cases that the board will ultimately rule on. Robb has spent much of his career as a management-side labor and employment lawyer.
U.S. House votes on joint employer standard and H.R. 3441, “Save Local Business Act”
Description: On November 7, 2017, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 242 – 181 to pass H.R. 3411, the so-called “Save Local Business Act,” which would roll back the joint employer standard under both the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Fair Economy Impact: The Save Local Business Act would do nothing to protect small businesses. Instead, the bill would ensure that small businesses are left with sole responsibility for business practices often mandated by large corporations like franchisors. It would establish a joint employer standard that lets big corporations avoid liability for labor and employment violations and leaves small businesses on the hook.
At its most basic, the joint employer standard simply requires that when multiple employers co-determine or share control over a workers’ terms of employment (such as pay, schedules, and job duties), each of those employers is responsible for compliance with worker protection laws. Given the realities of the modern workplace, in which employees often find themselves subject to more than one employer, workers deserve a joint employment standard—under both the FLSA and the NLRA—that guarantees these basic rights and protections.
A weak joint employer standard robs workers of their rights, making it impossible for them to effectively collectively bargain or litigate workplace disputes—and it leaves small businesses holding the bag when the large corporations that control their business practices and set their employees’ schedules violate labor law and refuse to come to the bargaining table. If Congress actually supported small businesses and the workers they employ, they would support a strong joint employer standard.
Actions:
- September 13, 2017, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce held a hearing on H.R. 3441
- November 7, 2017, the House voted 242 – 181 to pass H.R. 3411.
DOL to appeal Texas court’s overtime rule decision
Description: On August 31, 2017, Judge Amos Mazzant, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, held that the Obama-era Overtime Rule’s salary level exceeded the Department of Labor’s authority, and concluded that the Overtime Rule is invalid. On October 30, 2017, the Department of Justice, on behalf of the Department of Labor, filed a notice to appeal Judge Mazzant’s decision to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Fair Economy Impact: One reason Americans’ paychecks have not been keeping pace with their productivity is the erosion of labor standards. Case in point: the overtime threshold had been allowed to erode so dramatically that front-line managers who earn $23,660 a year – which is below the poverty level for a family of four – could be asked to work overtime hours without any additional pay. In 2016, the Department of Labor updated the overtime rule that requires employers to pay workers time-and-a-half if they work more than 40 hours per week. The updated overtime rule, which went into effect on December 1, 2016, raises the threshold below which salaried workers are automatically eligible for overtime pay to $47,476, up from $23,660. The 2016 overtime rule will directly benefit 12.5 million working people.
While it is a step in the right direction for the DOL to appeal, the DOL should not be taking action to undo the rule or lower the salary threshold. But when the DOL announced its appeal, it also signaled that it would be weakening the rule by adjusting the salary threshold. If the DOL lowers the salary threshold below the 2016 salary level, then the Trump administration will be again siding with corporate interests over workers.
Senate confirms William Emanuel to the National Labor Relations Board
Description: On September 25, 2017, the U.S. Senate confirmed, on a party-line vote, President Trump’s nominee William J. Emanuel to be a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for a 5-year term. The NLRB now has a full five-member Board, with 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats.
Fair Economy Impact: The NLRB protects the rights of most private-sector employees to join together, with or without a union, to improve their wages and working conditions. Employees covered by the National Labor Relations Act are guaranteed the right to form, join, decertify, or assist a labor organization, and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to refrain from such activities. The NLRB is an independent agency whose members will decide cases involving when and how workers can form a union, or what types of concerted activities employees can engage in to try and improve their working lives will be protected by the law. Mr. Emanuel was an attorney at the Littler Mendelson law firm who had regularly represented large employers.
DOL begins enforcing silica rule
Description: After delaying enforcement for months, the Department of Labor announced that it would begin enforcing in the construction industry a final rule on Occupational Exposure to Crystalline Silica. This Obama administration rule lowered workers’ permissible exposure limit to deadly crystalline silica dust. The rule is comprised of two permissible exposure standards, one for Construction and one for General Industry and Maritime. The rule became effective June 23, 2016, and enforcement was to originally scheduled to begin on June 23, 2017, but was delayed by the Trump administration. OSHA announced that it will begin enforcing most provisions of the standard for construction on September 23, 2017, and will begin enforcing most provisions of the standard for general industry and maritime on June 23, 2018.
Fair Economy Impact: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued this rule to reduce workers’ exposure to cancer-causing respirable crystalline silica. Studies have linked exposure to silica to lung cancer, silicosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and kidney disease. About 2.3 million workers are exposed to respirable crystalline silica in their workplaces, including 2 million construction workers who drill, cut, crush, or grind silica-containing materials such as concrete and stone. Responsible employers have been protecting workers from harmful exposure to silica for years, using widely-available equipment that controls silica dust with a simple water spray to wet the dust down, or a vacuum system to contain the dust. OSHA estimates that the rule will save over 600 lives and prevent more than 900 new cases of silicosis each year, once its effects are fully realized. It is past time for the Trump administration to start taking workers’ sides by enforcing this rule to protect working people’s lives and livelihoods.
Trump nominates Wage and Hour Division administrator and Mine Safety and Health Administration head
Description: On September 2nd, President Trump announced his nominees to two key positions at the Department of Labor (DOL). Trump nominated Cheryl Stanton to serve as his Wage and Hour Division (WHD) administrator, a position responsible for enforcing our nation’s basic wage protections. Since 2013, Stanton has headed the South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce, an agency that does not handle wage enforcement. Much of her career has in fact been dedicated to representing employers, not workers, in wage and hour cases. Trump also nominated former coal mining executive David Zatezalo to head the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). Zatezalo formerly served as chief executive of Rhino Resources, a coal company that had numerous clashes with MSHA officials during the Obama administration. Following the Upper Big Branch mine disaster on April 5, 2010, MSHA stepped up its enforcement efforts, and identified a number of health and safety violations at Zatezalo’s company.
Fair Economy Impact: WHD and MSHA are key enforcement agencies within the DOL. WHD is tasked with enforcing Federal minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping and child labor requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as several other important wage requirements. In an economy where billions of dollars are stolen from workers each year in the form of wage theft, enforcement of these requirements needs to be strengthened, not diminished. Similarly, MSHA carries out the provisions of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, and mine worker deaths have decreased dramatically since then. However, to date in 2017, twelve miners have died on the job, and 25 died in 2016. By nominating two individuals who have a history of working against the very agencies they will lead, President Trump has shown that he does not intend to strenuously enforce important protections for working people.
Trump judicial nominee would discriminate against LGBT workers
Description: On September 07, 2017, Trump nominated Jeffrey Mateer to serve as a federal district judge in the Eastern District of Texas.
Fair Economy Impact: Jeffrey Mateer has admitted to discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation in two separate speeches from 2015, and has criticized employer-mandated diversity training programs. He also argued that the reasoning in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which ruled that closely held for-profit corporations could deny contraceptive coverage to employees based on a religion objection, should be extended to allow employers to legally discriminate against customers and employees based on sexual orientation. Audio and excerpts from these two speeches are available here. With Mateer’s nomination, Trump’s administration is sending a clear signal that it does not value LGBT workers’ rights.
Trump administration stays EE0-1 Pay Data Rule
Description: The Trump administration announced a “review and immediate stay” of the EEO-1 pay data collection rule, which was an Obama-era rule issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The rule would have required large companies (with 100 or more employees) to confidentially report to the EEOC information about what they pay their employees by job category, sex, race, and ethnicity.
Fair Economy Impact: By staying the equal pay data rule, the Trump administration is making it harder for employers and federal agencies to identify pay disparities and root out employment discrimination. Further, this decision runs counter to what the research shows—inequities have gotten worse, not better. Even among workers with the same level of education and work experience, black-white wage gaps are larger today than nearly 40 years ago and gender pay disparities have remained essentially unchanged for at least 15 years. In both cases, discrimination has been shown to be a major factor in the persistence of those gaps.
When this rule was first announced, former EEOC Chair Jenny R. Yang stated, “Collecting pay data is a significant step forward in addressing discriminatory pay practices. This information will assist employers in evaluating their pay practices to prevent pay discrimination and strengthen enforcement of our federal anti-discrimination laws.” By staying this rule, the Trump administration has shown that it does not value equal pay for equal work.
Senate confirms Marvin Kaplan to the National Labor Relations Board
Description: On August 2, 2017, the U.S. Senate confirmed, on a party line vote, President Trump’s nominee Marvin Kaplan to be a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for a 5-year term. The NLRB now has four members, and is awaiting a confirmation vote for a fifth member, another Trump nominee, William Emanuel.
Fair Economy Impact: The NLRB protects the rights of most private-sector employees to join together, with or without a union, to improve their wages and working conditions. Employees covered by the National Labor Relations Act are guaranteed the right to form, join, decertify, or assist a labor organization, and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to refrain from such activities. The NLRB is an independent agency whose members will decide cases involving when and how workers can form a union, or what types of concerted activities employees can engage in to try and improve their working lives will be protected by the law.
Senate considers Trump nominees to DOL and the NLRB
Description: On July 13, 2017, the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) held a joint confirmation hearing, choosing to consolidate their consideration of Trump’s nominees to the NLRB, William Emanuel and Marvin Kaplan, and his pick for Deputy Secretary of Labor, Patrick Pizzella, into a single hearing.
Fair Economy Impact: The NLRB is an independent agency whose members do not report directly to the president. Instead, board members serve as neutral arbiters of our nation’s labor law. DOL, meanwhile, is a cabinet-level agency whose leaders report directly to the president. In spite of the fundamental different in the agencies’ structure and role, Senate Republicans decided to examine Trump’s nominees in a single hearing, seated on a single panel. The move shortchanged workers who depend on these agencies and the officials who lead them to enforce their rights and protect their freedoms.
House Education and Workforce Committee hearing on joint employer standard
Description: On July 12, 2017, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce held a hearing on Redefining Joint Employer Standards: Barriers to Job Creation and Entrepreneurship.
Fair Economy Impact: The hearing provided Republican members an opportunity to attack the concept of joint employer liability under the nation’s basic labor and employment laws. At its most basic, the joint employer standard simply requires that when multiple employers co-determine or share control over a workers’ terms of employment (such as pay, schedules, and job duties), each of those employers is responsible for compliance with worker protection laws. The hearing focused nearly exclusively on employers and the complexities they might encounter when opening (or considering opening) franchises or considering new business models. However, the joint employer standard is really about ensuring that workers are able to exercise their rights—like the right to a minimum wage or the freedom to choose to join a union. Given the realities of the modern workplace, in which employees often find themselves subject to more than one employer, workers deserve a joint employment standard—under both the FLSA and the NLRA—that guarantees these basic rights and protections.
Department of Labor proposes changes to beryllium rule
Description: The Department of Labor proposed to rescind critical aspects of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) final rule on exposure to beryllium in the workplace. On January 9, 2017, OSHA published its final rule on Occupational Exposure to Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds, which was promulgated to protect employees exposed to beryllium from significant risks of chronic beryllium disease and lung cancer. In the final rule, OSHA issued three separate standards for general industry, for shipyards, and for construction. Under the Trump administration, OSHA is now proposing rescinding aspects of the rule that were intended to protect workers in the construction and shipyards sectors. The DOL announced that OSHA will not enforce the January 9, 2017 shipyard and construction standards without further notice while this new rulemaking is underway
The proposed rollback of this rule follows the DOL’s announced a delay in the effective date of the Occupational Exposure to Beryllium rule from March 21, 2017, to May 20, 2017.
Fair Economy Impact: About 62,000 workers are exposed to beryllium in their workplaces, including approximately 11,500 construction and shipyard workers. The Trump administration’s proposal would rescind important protections in the new rule, which was issued after decades of effort and study, and overwhelming evidence that OSHA’s 35 year old beryllium standard did not protect workers from severe lung disease and lung cancer. Under Trump’s proposal, employers would no longer have to measure beryllium levels or provide medical testing to workers at risk of fatal lung disease. This proposal is another example of Trump’s decision to abandon workers’ rights to come home safe and healthy at the end of the day, and in favor of corporate profits.
Actions:
- Proposal announced on June 27, 2017
Occupational Safety and Health Administration has halted an Obama-era rule requiring employers to submit workplace injury and illness data for posting online
Description: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) further delayed a rule that requires employers to electronically submit injury and illness data that they already record. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, many employers with more than 10 employees are required to keep a record of serious work-related injuries and illnesses. (Certain low-risk industries are exempted.) Minor injuries requiring first aid only do not need to be recorded. OSHA’s electronic submission rule, which was supposed to take effect Jan. 1, 2017, requires certain employers to electronically submit the injury and illness data that they are already required to record. Some of the data will also be posted to the OSHA website, as “OSHA believes that public disclosure will encourage employers to improve workplace safety and provide valuable information to workers, job seekers, customers, researchers and the general public.” The rule also prohibits employers from retaliating against workers for reporting injuries or illnesses.
OSHA first delayed the rule until July 1, and now proposes to further delay the rule until Dec. 1, 2017.
Fair Economy Impact: The Trump Administration’s action in delaying this OSHA rule is a further example of its hostility toward transparency and lack of concern for worker safety. OSHA’s delay follows a petition filed earlier this year by the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Chicken Council and several others industry associations, requesting that the Department of Labor delay the rule and re-open rulemaking. According to former OSHA Assistant Secretary David Michaels, “This action demonstrates that the Trump Administration continues to put corporate interests over worker safety, and shows they have no commitment to following the rule of law.” This delay follows the DOL’s delay of the Silica Rule and re-opening of the Beryllium Rule. Despite his campaign promises to help workers, Trump is not building a pro-worker administration, and workers will pay the price for rolling back these basic safety protections.
Actions:
- Further delay announced on June 27, 2017
- Rule delayed until December 1, 2017
Department of Labor announcement: Rescission of Persuader Rule
Description: When workers seek to organize and bargain collectively, employers often hire union avoidance consultants – also known as “persuaders” – to orchestrate and roll out anti-union campaigns. Union avoidance consultants may engage with workers directly to deliver their anti-union presentations, such as in face-to-face meetings. Or they may attempt to influence workers indirectly by operating behind the scenes, by creating anti-union flyers, speeches, and videos for management to use to communicate with employees.
In 1959, Congress enacted the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), which requires employers and union avoidance consultants to publicly disclose to the Department of Labor (DOL) how much money employers paid for anti-union services. But for nearly 50 years, employers have been exploiting a loophole in the law that allows them to avoid reporting indirect anti-union work that union avoidance consultants do behind the scenes. On March 24, 2016, the DOL attempted to close that loophole with its persuader rule, which would have required employers and hired consultants to report their indirect anti-union activities. The rule has not yet been implemented because employer groups tied it up in litigation in federal court in November 2016.
The DOL has now published a notice of proposed rulemaking to repeal the Obama-era rule.
Fair Economy Impact: The persuader rule closed a massive reporting loophole that has allowed employers to keep indirect persuader activity secret. Disclosure of the large amounts of money employers pay to anti-union consultants – sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars – would allow workers to know whether the messages they hear are coming directly from their employer, or from a paid, third-party consultant. Seeing how much money employers are paying out to these consultants would provide important perspective on employers’ frequent argument that the company cannot afford to pay union wages, and would give workers the information they need to make informed choices as they pursue their right to organize. The persuader rule would have helped level the playing field for workers who want to join together to negotiate with their employer for better working conditions.
Actions:
- DOL published Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to rescind the persuader rule on June 12, 2017
Department of Labor announcement of a delay of the fiduciary rule
Description: The U.S. Department of Labor has implemented a 60-day extension of the applicability dates of the fiduciary rule from April 10 to June 9, 2017. The announcement follows a presidential memorandum issued on February 3, 2017, which directed the department to examine the fiduciary rule to determine whether it may adversely affect the ability of Americans to gain access to retirement information and financial advice.
Fair Economy Impact: The rule simply requires financial advisers to provide what most clients probably already think they are receiving: advice about their retirement plans untainted by conflicts of interest. It would prohibit common practices such as steering investments to companies that pay the adviser a commission. The financial industry strongly opposes this rule because it wants to preserve a system that allows financial advisers to give their clients advice that is in the adviser’s interest rather than the client’s. Conflicted advice leads to lower investment returns, causing real losses—an estimated $17 billion a year—for the clients who are victimized. The delay of the rule, ostensibly to further investigate its impacts, is a thinly veiled attempt to kill it. As part of the rulemaking process that the Department of Labor undertook to finalize the fiduciary rule, the department prepared a 382-page cost-benefit analysis examining in detail the expected economic impact of the rule. This was the culmination of a roughly six-year process that incorporated the feedback from four days of hearings, more than 100 stakeholder meetings, and thousands of public comments. Delaying the rule to revisit questions that have already been so thoroughly investigated is irresponsible and unjustifiable. Delaying the rule will cost retirement savers $3.7 billion over the next 30 years.
Actions:
- Hearing: Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions May 18, 2017
- Rule implementation delayed until June 9, 2017.
- Delay issued April 7, 2017.
Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017: H.R.1004 / S. 951
Description: The act requires agencies to produce a publicly available list of each pending regulation, and similar list of public communications the agency makes about each regulation, and to make reports to Congress. Under the act, any public communication issued by an executive agency that refers to a pending agency regulatory action may not directly advocate (for or against) the pending action, appeal to the public to, or solicit a third party to undertake advocacy in support of or against the pending agency regulatory action. The act also prohibits public communication by an executive agency regarding a pending regulatory action to be directly or indirectly for publicity or propaganda.
Fair Economy Impact: This legislation imposes restrictions on agency communications. Fear of violating the act will likely lead agencies to limit communications on regulatory proposals, depriving the public of information on proposed rules and preventing agencies from the benefit of public engagement.
Actions:
- S. 951 reported out from Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs May 17, 2017
- Received in the Senate March 2, 2017
- H.R. 1004 Passed by the House (246-176) March 2, 2017
Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act: H.R. 26 / S. 21
Description: In order for a major rule to take effect, the agency proposing the major rule must submit its report on the rule to Congress, and Congress must enact a joint resolution of approval within 70 session days or legislative days. A major rule may take effect for 90 days without such approval if the president determines it is necessary because of an imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency, for the enforcement of criminal laws, for national security, or to implement an international trade agreement.
Fair Economy Impact: This legislation shifts regulatory power from agency officials with subject-matter expertise to members of Congress, enabling regulated entities to lobby against proposals that would benefit the public but impose burdens on the entities. Requiring congressional approval of a major rule is counter to rulemaking processes established by the Administrative Procedures Act and will lead to a politicized process.
Actions:
- S. 21 reported out by Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affair May 17, 2017
- Received in the Senate January 6, 2017
- H.R. 26 passed by the House (237-187) January 5, 2017
Congressional Review Act Resolution to block rule Providing for State Savings Initiatives for Private Employees: H.J. Res 66
Description: The resolution would block the Obama-era rule that assists states that create Individual Retirement Account (IRA) programs for private-sector workers. Some states are moving forward with initiatives that would require employers that do not offer a workplace retirement plan to automatically enroll workers in payroll deduction IRAs administered by the state. The Obama-era rule clarifies that such plans, if funded entirely through voluntary employee contributions, are not covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the federal law governing private-sector employer-sponsored retirement plans.
Fair Economy Impact: An estimated 55 million private-sector wage and salary workers ages 18-64 do not have access to a retirement savings plan through their employers. State and local payroll deduction savings initiatives encourage employees to contribute to tax-favored IRAs through automatic payroll deduction. These savings initiatives provide important assistance to workers in saving for retirement because few workers contribute to a retirement plan outside of work. By clarifying the legal status of these plans, the Obama-era rule allayed concerns that employers, states, municipalities or the plans themselves could take on unwanted liabilities or duties under ERISA. The Government Accountability Office warned that such legal uncertainties could delay or deter states’ efforts to expand coverage.
Actions:
- President Trump signed into law on May 17, 2017
- Senate Passed (50-49) on May 3, 2017
- On March 13, 2017, The White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy indicating that the president would sign the resolution.
- House Passed (231-193) on February 15, 2017
Confirmation of Robert Lighthizer for United States Trade Representative
Robert Lighthizer confirmed by the Senate (82-14) as United States Trade Representative.
Actions:
- Confirmed May 11, 2017
“Working Families Flexibility Act of 2017”: H.R. 1180 / S. 801
Description: The legislation would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to allow private-sector employers to “compensate” hourly workers with compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay.
Fair Economy Impact: The legislation does not create employee rights, rather it creates a new employer right – the right to delay paying any wages for overtime work for as long as 13 months. The legislation forces workers to compromise their paychecks for the possibility – but not the guarantee – that they will get time off from work when they need it. At no risk to the employee, the FLSA already allows an employer to grant time off to employees who work overtime. H.R. 1180 adds nothing but delay and risk to the employees’ right to receive extra compensation when they work more than 40 hours in a week.
Actions:
- Passed the House (229-197) on party line vote, May 2, 2017
- On May 2, 2017, The White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy indicating the President would sign the legislation
- Hearing April 5, 2017, in House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections
- Introduced in Senate April 3, 2017
- Introduced in House February 16, 2017
Confirmation of Alexander Acosta for Secretary of Labor
Alexander Acosta confirmed by the Senate (60-38) as Secretary of Labor.
Actions:
- Confirmed April, 27, 2017
- Approved by Senate HELP Committee (12-11) March 30, 2017
- Hearing on March 22, 2017
President Trump signs “Buy American, Hire American” Executive Order
Description: On April 18, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order calling for a review of government procurement commitments in the World Trade Organization and other trade deals.
Fair Economy Impact: It is important to evaluate American trade policy rules to ensure that they maximize benefits for American workers; however, this executive order fails to outline any remedy for discovered imbalances with foreign countries in government procurement opportunities. The executive order also instructs agencies to look into new rules that could be proposed or existing rules that could be updated to improve the immigration system and root out fraud and abuse. One section of the executive order focuses on the H-1B program, directing agencies to “suggest reforms to help ensure that H-1B visas are awarded to the most-skilled or highest-paid petition beneficiaries.” This is the first clear signal that Trump may propose a regulation to end the process of issuing H-1B visas via random lottery. The nation’s immigration system is in need of reform. However, this executive order offers no concrete reforms.
Congressional Review Act Resolution to block rule Providing for Local Savings Initiatives for Private Employees: H.J. Res. 67
Description: The resolution would block the Obama-era rule that assists municipalities that create Individual Retirement Account (IRA) programs for private-sector workers. Some municipalities are moving forward with initiatives that would require employers that do not offer a workplace retirement plan to automatically enroll workers in payroll deduction IRAs administered by the state or municipality. The Obama-era rule clarifies that such plans, if funded entirely through voluntary employee contributions, are not covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the federal law governing private-sector employer-sponsored retirement plans.
Fair Economy Impact: An estimated 55 million private-sector wage and salary workers ages 18-64 do not have access to a retirement savings plan through their employers. State and local payroll deduction savings initiatives encourage employees to contribute to tax-favored IRAs through automatic payroll deduction. These savings initiatives provide important assistance to workers in saving for retirement because few workers contribute to a retirement plan outside of work. By clarifying the legal status of these plans, the Obama-era rules allayed concerns that employers, states, municipalities or the plans themselves could take on unwanted liabilities or duties under ERISA. The Government Accountability Office warned that such legal uncertainties could delay or deter local efforts to expand coverage.
Actions:
- President signed into law April 13, 2017
- Senate Passed 50-49 on March 30, 2017
- On March 13, 2017, The White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy indicating that the president would sign the resolution.
- House Passed 234-191 on February 15, 2017
Presidential Memorandum on the Hiring Freeze
Description: The memorandum imposes a freeze on hiring of federal civilian employees. No vacant positions existing at noon on January 22, 2017, may be filled and no new positions may be created. Military personnel are exempted from the hiring freeze. The Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the Office of Personnel Management, must, within 90 days, recommend a long-term plan to reduce the federal workforce through attrition.
Fair Economy Impact: Federal employees serve the public every day by implementing the federal policies and programs that help America run. This arbitrary hiring freeze hinders the federal government’s ability to serve the American people.
Actions:
- Hiring freeze was lifted pursuant to guidance from OMB Memo, April 12, 2017
- Issued January 23, 2017
Department of Labor announcement of delay of the Crystalline Silica Standard for the construction industry
Description: The Department of Labor announced a 3-month delay in the enforcement of the final rule on Occupational Exposure to Crystalline Silica in the construction industry, which established a new permissible exposure limit for construction workers. The rule is comprised of two permissible exposure standards, one for Construction and one for General Industry and Maritime. The rule became effective June 23, 2016, and enforcement was to begin on June 23, 2017. The Department stated that its decision to delay enforcement was based on the desire to conduct additional outreach to the regulated community and to provide additional time to train compliance officers.
Fair Economy Impact: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued this rule to reduce workers’ exposure to cancer-causing respirable crystalline silica. Studies have linked exposure to silica to lung cancer, silicosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and kidney disease. About 2.3 million workers are exposed to respirable crystalline silica in their workplaces, including 2 million construction workers who drill, cut, crush, or grind silica-containing materials such as concrete and stone. Responsible employers have been protecting workers from harmful exposure to silica for years, using widely-available equipment that controls silica dust with a simple water spray to wet the dust down, or a vacuum system to contain the dust. OSHA estimates that the rule will save over 600 lives and prevent more than 900 new cases of silicosis each year, once its effects are fully realized. The final rule already had a built-in, one-year grace period to give employers time to adjust their practices. Further delaying enforcement of this rule needlessly puts workers’ lives at risk, and is unfair to responsible employers who do not cut corners with health and safety.
Actions:
- Announced on April 6, 2017
- Enforcement delayed until September 23, 2017
Neil Gorsuch Confirmed to the Supreme Court
Description: The Senate confirmed President Trump’s nominee Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court
Fair Economy Impact: On April 7, 2017, the Senate confirmed Trump’s choice, Neil Gorsuch, to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court. This confirmation will significantly affect this nation’s workers. Over the next few terms, the Supreme Court is likely to decide several cases that will dramatically impact workers’ rights, and will issue decisions that could undermine the foundational legal principles workers rely on to have a voice in their workplaces. Significant cases involving collective bargaining, forced arbitration, and employment discrimination are all either already on the docket for the next term or likely to be on the docket in the coming years. And Gorsuch has a record of ruling in favor of employers in workers’ rights cases.37
To highlight one example: Gorsuch was questioned extensively at his confirmation hearing about his dissent in the TransAm Trucking, Inc. v. Administrative Review Board case.38 The majority of a three-judge Tenth Circuit panel upheld an Administrative Review Board ruling in favor of a truck driver who refused to follow his supervisor’s orders to either drag his trailer—which had frozen brakes—or remain with the stranded trailer (in subzero temperatures with no heat) until a repair person arrived. Because he was experiencing symptoms of hypothermia, the driver unhitched the trailer from the truck and drove to a gas station. He was fired for violating company policy by abandoning his trailer while under dispatch. However, under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act, a truck driver may not be fired for refusing to operate a vehicle when he reasonably fears for his or others’ safety. An administrative law judge, the Administrative Review Board, and the Tenth Circuit majority held that the driver had been unlawfully fired. Only Gorsuch dissented.
Gorsuch’s dissent in this case suggests a hostility to fundamental worker protections. In his dissent, he describes health and safety goals as “ephemeral and generic” and views a worker having to wait in subzero temperatures with no access to heat while experiencing symptoms of hypothermia as merely “unpleasant.” This language indicates that Judge Gorsuch does not understand workers’ lives or the laws that protect them. His dissent should raise serious concerns for working men and women about his treatment of protections in other labor and employment laws.
Actions:
- President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch on January 31, 2017
- Senate Confirmed on April 7, 2017
U.S. Department of Labor announces plans to protect American workers from H-1B program discrimination
Description: The H-1B program provides temporary, nonimmigrant U.S. work visas for college-educated workers and fashion models from abroad. The Department of Labor announced it will use its existing authority to initiate investigations of H-1B program violators, in coordination with the departments of Homeland Security and Justice; consider changes to the Labor Condition Application for future application cycles; and continue to engage stakeholders on how the program might be improved to provide greater protections for U.S. workers, under existing authorities or through legislative changes.
Fair Economy Impact: While it is important to attract skilled, talented workers to the United States, the reality is that the biggest beneficiaries of the H-1B program are outsourcing companies that have hijacked the system—using between one-third to one-half of the visas—to replace thousands of U.S. workers with much-lower-paid H-1B workers while also sending tech jobs abroad. In addition, these outsourcing companies rarely provide H-1B employees with a path to permanent residence and citizenship. Reforms to the H-1B visa program that would help achieve a fair economy would include making the program fairer for U.S. workers, who should have the first opportunity to apply for jobs in the United States, and fairer to H-1B workers, who deserve fair pay for their work according to U.S. wage standards and who should not have to fear retaliation and exploitation by employers.
Actions:
- Issued April 4, 2017.
DOL announcement of enhanced oversight of H-1B guestworker program
Description: On April 4, 2017, the Trump Department of Labor (DOL) announced a recommitment to using its existing enforcement authority on the H-1B visa program—a guestworker program for workers in professional occupations.
Fair Economy Impact: American employers have for too long used temporary guestworker visa programs to carve out an ever-larger zone in labor markets where workers are powerless to assert their rights. DOL announced it will initiate investigations of employers, engage stakeholders on the program, look into abuses of the program by H-1B-dependent employers (those with large shares of their workforces composed of H-1B workers), and also consider changes to the Labor Condition Application to improve transparency in the H-1B process.
Immigration policy should aim to provide fair pay and benefits to American workers and immigrants, not simply to provide employers with cheap labor from workers who are virtually indentured to them. DOL’s announcement did not provide specific information about its plan or about how DOL will conduct this enforcement given the massive cuts to the Labor Department included in President Trump’s proposed fiscal year 2018 budget. So while it is encouraging that the Trump DOL has signaled that it will examine the H-1B program, it remains to be seen whether this announcement will lead to enhanced enforcement that would benefit U.S. workers. Furthermore, the Trump administration’s criminalizing and scapegoating of immigrants has created a political climate in which meaningful immigration reforms are much more difficult to achieve.
Congressional Review Act resolution to block the Department of Labor’s rule titled, “Clarification of Employer’s Continuing Obligation to Make and Maintain an Accurate Record of Each Recordable Injury and Illness”: H.J. Res. 83 / S.J. Res. 27
Description: The resolution blocked an Obama-era rule that involves an employer’s duty to keep accurate logs of workplace injuries and illnesses. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, many employers are legally required to keep records of workplace injuries and illnesses, and to maintain those records for 5 years. The Obama-era rule clarified that an employer could be issued a citation and fined for failure to properly record a workplace injury/illness any time during that 5-year period. The resolution nullified this rule.
Background: Since the early 1970s, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has required many employers to keep careful records of workplace injuries and illnesses, and to maintain those records for 5 years. If an employer’s injury/illness logs are inaccurate – for example, if a worker is injured on the job and the employer fails to log it – OSHA can issue a citation and fine. For the past 40 years, OSHA had been issuing those citations any time within the 5-year period that the illness/injury record is required to be kept.
In 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that if a worker got injured, OSHA only had six months to check an employer’s log and issue a citation if the injury was not recorded. That meant that even though employers must maintain injury/illness records for five years, if OSHA inspectors do not catch the employer’s record omission within the first six months after the injury, the employer will get off the hook. Since OSHA inspections generally take longer than 6 months, the court’s ruling made it a lot harder for OSHA to punish companies for bad record keeping. One of the judges on the court, though, wrote that OSHA could issue a new rule clarifying employers’ recordkeeping duties.
In response, OSHA promulgated the rule to allow OSHA to resume what it had been doing for the last 40 years: citing an employer for failure to log an injury/illness anytime within the entire 5-year period that the record of injury must be kept. This rule created no new record keeping requirements for employers, it just allowed OSHA more time to do its work.
Fair Economy Impact: When Congress passed, and President Trump signed, the resolution to block this rule, they gave employers a get-out-of-jail free card when employers fail to maintain – or falsify – their injury/illness logs. These records are not just paperwork: If an employee is injured on the job (say cut or burned, or worse, suffers an amputation or fatality) then it is the employer’s duty to record that injury and investigate what happened. Failure to keep injury records means that employers, OSHA, and workers cannot learn from past mistakes, and makes it harder to prevent the same tragedies from happening to others in the future.
Actions:
- President Trump signed into law April 3, 2017
- Senate Passed (50-48) on March 22, 2017
- House Passed (231-191) on March 1, 2017
- On February 28, The White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy indicating that the president would sign the resolution.
Congressional Review Act resolution to block rule establishing appropriate occupations for drug testing: H.J. Res. 42/S.J. Res. 23
Description: The resolution blocks the Obama-era rule establishing rules for drug testing applicants for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits. The rule is the result of a 2012 bipartisan compromise that provided for an extension of certain UI benefits, a payroll tax cut, and Medicare provisions. As part of the deal, states were permitted to drug test UI applicants who had been discharged from their last job for drug use or whose only suitable work opportunity is in a field that regularly drug tests workers. The rule directed the secretary of labor to determine which occupations regularly drug test. The Department of Labor issued a rule defining such “occupations” as those that are required, or may be required in the future, by state or federal law, to be drug tested.
Fair Economy Impact: This rule would have clarified circumstances under which individuals filing for unemployment benefits may be subjected to drug testing. Mandatory drug testing for UI applicants is arguably unconstitutional and unnecessarily stigmatizes jobless workers. Conditioning receipt of UI benefits on this type of requirement fundamentally challenges our nation’s UI system, creating the perception that workers do not earn unemployment insurance. However, workers earn the right to unemployment insurance benefits through prior participation in the workforce. Workers only access their earned benefit when they lose their job and are working to find a new one. This rule would have benefited workers who have lost their jobs. The repeal of this rule will benefit opponents of unemployment benefits, and employers seeking reduced payroll taxes (payroll taxes help finance unemployment benefits).
Actions:
- President Trump signed into law on March 31, 2017
- Senate passed (51–48) on March 14, 2017
- House passed (236–189) on February 15, 2017
- On February 7, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy indicating that the president would sign the resolution.
President Trump signs Executive Orders on U.S. trade policies
Description: On March 31, 2017, President Trump signed two executive orders focused on evaluating trade policy:
- Presidential Executive Order Regarding the Omnibus Report on Significant Trade Deficits and;
- Presidential Executive Order on Establishing Enhanced Collection and Enforcement of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties and Violations of Trade and Customs Laws.
Fair Economy Impact: Any reexamination of U.S. trade policies and their effects on workers is welcome and long overdue. But the impact of these executive orders on U.S. workers remains unclear. The first order directs the secretary of commerce and the White House National Trade Council to identify practices that contribute to the U.S. trade deficit with different countries. The second order calls for stepping up collection of anti-dumping and countervailing duties, focusing on small fines for past unfair trade practices.
The first executive order does little beyond delay much-needed reform. The causes of trade imbalances are well known. Chief among these is the inflated value of the U.S. dollar. If the president were truly interested in adopting trade policies that would benefit U.S. workers and our economy, he would address currency valuation now instead of requesting additional evaluation of the issue.
The second executive order is similarly off the mark about protecting American workers. While enforcement of fair trade practices is critical to safeguarding U.S. workers and our economy, a focus on past unfair trade practices does nothing to ensure that trade policies are complied with in the future. And while recovering fines for past unfair trade practices will have some economic benefit, that benefit will be small compared with the U.S. goods trade deficit. Consider that the estimated total uncollected fines between 2001 and 2016 of $2.8 billion are the equivalent of a 0.1 percent tariff. It is unlikely that focusing on past unfair trade practices and uncollected fines will have any meaningful benefit for our nation’s workers and our economy moving forward.
Department of Labor announcement of a proposed delay of the rule for Examination of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines
Description: The U.S. Department of Labor announced a delay in the effective date of the Final Rule for Examination of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines from May 23, 2017, to July 24, 2017. The final rule, if implemented, would improve miners’ safety and health by requiring mine operators to: (1) conduct working place examinations to identify hazards before work begins in an area, (2) notify affected miners of hazardous conditions that are not corrected immediately; and (3) record the locations examined, the adverse conditions found, and the date of the corrective action. The department stated that the delay will allow the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to further review and consider the rule, as required by a Jan. 20, 2017, White House memorandum, “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review.”
Fair Economy Impact: This announcement delays critical workplace examinations exposing more miners to unsafe work conditions. From January 2010 through mid-December 2015, there have been 122 miners killed in 110 accidents at metal and nonmetal mines.
Actions:
- Announced on March 27, 2017
- Delayed until July 24, 2017
- Further delayed until October 2, 2017
Congressional Review Act resolution to block Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule: H.J. Res. 37/S.J. Res. 12
Description: The resolution blocks the Obama-era rule that requires federal contractors to disclose workplace violations—specifically violations of federal labor laws and executive orders that address wage and hour, safety and health, collective bargaining, family medical leave, and civil rights protections. The rule directs that such violations be considered when awarding federal contracts. In addition, the rule mandates that contractors provide each worker with written notice of basic information including wages, hours worked, overtime hours, and whether the worker is an independent contractor. Finally, the rule prohibits contractors from requiring workers to sign pre-dispute arbitration agreements for discrimination, harassment, or sexual assault claims.
Fair Economy Impact: Currently, there is no effective system to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not awarded to contractors who violate basic labor and employment laws. As a result, the federal government awards billions of dollars in contracts to companies that break the law. This rule would have helped ensure that federal contracts (and taxpayer dollars) are not awarded to companies with track records of labor and employment law violations. Workers, taxpayers, and law-abiding contractors would have benefited from this rule. Contractors with records of cutting corners by violating labor and employment laws will benefit from the congressional resolution blocking this rule.
Actions:
- President Trump signed into law on March 27, 2017.
- Senate passed (49–48) on March 6, 2017.
- House passed (236–187) on February 2, 2017.
- On February 1, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy indicating that the president would sign the resolution.
Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2017: H.R. 986 Rep. Rokita (R-IN) / S. 63 Sen. Moran (R-KS)
Description: The legislation amends the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to provide that any enterprise or institution owned and operated by an Indian tribe and located on the tribe’s land is not considered an employer under the NLRA.
Fair Economy Impact: The legislation would deprive thousands of workers of protections they receive under the National Labor Relations Act. Workers employed by for-profit tribal enterprises would lose the right to collectively bargain for better wages and working conditions as well as the right to engage in protected concerted activity with their coworkers. Many other federal employment statutes apply to for-profit tribal enterprises, including the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
Actions:
- Hearing: U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Education and the Workforce – HELP Subcommittee March 29, 2017
- Introduced in House February 9, 2017
- Introduced in Senate January 9, 2017
Department of Labor announcement of delay of beryllium rule
Description: The Department of Labor announced a delay in the effective date of the Occupational Exposure to Beryllium rule from March 21, 2017, to May 20, 2017. The department stated that the delay will allow the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to further review and consider the rule, as required by a Jan. 20, 2017, White House memorandum, “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review.”
Fair Economy Impact: It remains to be seen what the impact will be of this delay, or if the administration attempts to further delay this health and safety rule. OSHA had issued this final rule to prevent chronic beryllium disease and lung cancer in American workers by limiting their exposure to beryllium and beryllium compounds. The rule contains standards for general industry, construction, and shipyards. About 62,000 workers are exposed to beryllium in their workplaces, including approximately 11,500 construction and shipyard workers. This is an important rule to protect workers.
Actions:
- Announced on March 22, 2017
- Delayed until May 20, 2017
Fair and Open Competition Act (FOCA Act): H.R. 1552 Rep. Ross (R-FL) / S. 622 Sen. Flake (R-AZ)
Description: The bill would prohibit the federal government from requiring project labor agreements on federally funded construction projects. A project labor agreement (PLA) is a pre-hire collective bargaining agreement with one or more labor organizations that establishes the terms and conditions of employment for a specific construction project.
Fair Economy Impact: Prohibiting the use of project labor agreements when awarding federal construction contracts would most likely lead to lower wages for the employees who work on federal construction projects. Because unions’ collective bargaining power has been eroded over the years, construction wages are lower today than they were in 1970, despite 40 years of economic growth and a higher national income. Prohibiting workers having a seat at the table to negotiate a project labor agreement would put less money in construction workers’ pockets.
Actions:
- Introduced in House March 15, 2017
- Introduced in Senate March 14, 2017
President Trump’s 2018 Budget Blueprint
Description: President Trump proposed drastic cuts to worker protection agencies in his fiscal 2018 budget blueprint.
Fair Economy Impact: The Trump administration’s budget blueprint for fiscal year 2018 proposes a 20 percent cut ($2.5 billion) to funding for DOL—the department tasked with enforcing the majority of this nation’s worker protection laws and administering our job training and workforce development programs. The budget outline fails to specify how that cut will be allocated across DOL’s worker protection agencies, but the magnitude of the cuts makes it clear that the Trump administration does not value DOL’s enforcement programs. Programs likely to suffer are the Wage and Hour Division (which enforces minimum wage protections and protects workers from wage theft), OSHA (which enforces worker safety protections including inspecting worksites for hazardous working conditions), and the Employee Benefits and Security Administration (which safeguards workers’ retirement savings). While it is unlikely that this proposal will be reflected in actual funding levels, it reveals Trump’s priorities when it comes to our nation’s workers.
Actions:
- President Trump released proposed budget on March 15, 2017
Executive Order on a Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch: EO 13781
Description: The executive order instructs the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to propose a plan to reorganize governmental functions and eliminate unnecessary agencies, components of agencies, and agency programs. Within 180 days of the date of the order, the head of each agency must submit to OMB a proposed plan to reorganize the agency, if appropriate, in order to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the agency. Reorganization plans must focus on the costs of agency programs, and whether some or all of the functions of an agency, a component, or a program are appropriate for the federal government or would be better left to state or local governments or to the private sector.
Fair Economy Impact: The order is a direct attack on the administrative agencies that are charged with protecting everything from the air we breathe, to the water we drink, to the food we eat, in addition to safeguarding our homes, our workplaces, our health, and our economy. Take the Department of Labor, for example, which administers a variety of federal labor laws including those that guarantee workers’ rights to safe and healthful working conditions, a minimum hourly wage and overtime pay, freedom from employment discrimination, unemployment insurance, and other income support. Allowing the Trump administration’s political appointees to target agencies and agency programs for elimination based on costs—not benefits—gives them free rein to put profits ahead of people.
Actions:
- Issued March 13, 2017
National Right-to-Work Act: H.R. 785 Rep. King (R-IA) / S. 545 Sen. Paul (R-KY)
Description: The bill would allow employees who work in a unionized workplace, but decline to become union members, to refuse to pay a fair share fee to the union that represents all employees in the workplace, union members and nonmembers alike. The term “right-to-work” does not mean everyone is guaranteed a job, but instead means employees can work at a unionized workplace without paying any contribution to the union that negotiates for their benefits. Currently, the National Labor Relations Act permits each state to choose whether it wants to allow these so-called “right to work” arrangements, and many states have passed “right-to-work” laws prohibiting fair share payments in the state. This bill seeks to prohibit fair share payments nationwide.
Fair Economy Impact: This bill would undermine unions’ bargaining strength by making it harder for workers’ organizations to sustain themselves financially. For example, since unions are required by law to represent both members and non-members, unions must spend their resources to represent non-members when they file grievances against the employer. This creates a free-rider problem for unions, who must expend resources to assist workers who do not pay their fair share in union dues. It is also unfair to union members who do pay their fair share in dues. This legislation would further weaken unions and the workers they represent while continuing to strengthen corporate profits for shareholders and CEOs. Because unions are able to negotiate higher pay, wages are 3.1 percent lower in so-called “right-to-work” states, for union and nonunion workers alike, even after accounting for differences in cost of living, demographics, and labor market characteristics.
Actions:
- Introduced in Senate March 7, 2017
- Introduced in House February 1, 2017
OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act: H.R.1009 Rep. Mitchell (R-MI)
Description: The act codifies and revises the centralized regulatory review process, currently required under executive order, for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget to. Under the act, OIRA must chair the Regulatory Working Group that assists agencies with regulatory issues, publish a unified agenda of each agency’s regulations that are under development or review, and review each agency’s significant regulatory actions. With these requirements, OIRA’s review is expanded to include the significant regulatory actions of independent regulatory agencies. Excluded from OIRA’s review are the Government Accountability Office, the Federal Election Commission, the governments of the District of Columbia and of the territories and possessions of the United States, and government-owned contractor-operated facilities.
Fair Economy Impact: The legislation imposes numerous, burdensome requirements on agencies engaged in rulemaking. Furthermore, it undermines independent agencies, some of which are responsible for holding Wall Street accountable (the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for example), by requiring that those agencies report to the Office of the President when issuing a regulation. This requirement politicizes agencies that are congressionally mandated to act independent of the administration.
Actions:
- Received in the Senate March 2, 2017
- Passed by the House (241-184) March 1, 2017
Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act (SCRUB Act): H.R. 998 Rep. Smith (R-MO)
Description: The SCRUB Act would establish a “Retrospective Regulatory Review Commission,” consisting of political appointees, to identify regulations to eliminate or modify to “lower the cost to the economy.” When targeting regulations for elimination, the commission would consider only the costs associated with the rule, as opposed to conducting a true cost-benefit analysis. For example, the bill directs the commission to consider if there is a less costly alternative to the rule—without requiring that they also consider the benefits of potential alternatives.
Fair Economy Impact: This legislation focuses on the costs associated with a regulation as opposed to balancing costs with the benefits to the public—including worker health and safety, consumer protection, and environmental protection.
Actions:
- Received in the Senate March 2, 2017
- Passed by the House (240-185) March 1, 2017
Executive Order on Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda: EO 13777
Description: The order mandates that the head of each agency (other than those agencies given waivers) designate an agency official as its Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO) to oversee the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies. The RRO is charged with ensuring that agencies effectively carry out regulatory reforms. The order also requires that each agency establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force. These task forces are required to identify existing regulations for replacement or repeal, with a focus on the costs of regulations and job impacts.
Fair Economy Impact: The order requires the identification of regulations for repeal based largely on the cost of the regulation, rather than whether the regulation provides a public benefit. The economic impact of a regulation depends not just on the costs of the rule, but also the benefits to workers, safety, health, the environment, and other public goods. Focusing on lowering the costs to business places corporate interests ahead of workers’ interests in a safe workplace and the public’s interest in a healthy environment.
Actions:
- Issued February 24, 2017
Hearing: Federal Wage and Hour Policies in the Twenty-First Century Economy
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Education and the Workforce – Workforce Protections Subcommittee, “Federal Wage and Hour Policies in the Twenty-First Century Economy”
Actions:
- Hearing on February 16, 2017
Hearing: Restoring Balance and Fairness to the National Labor Relations Board
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Education and the Workforce – HELP Subcommittee, “Restoring Balance and Fairness Needed to the National Labor Relations Board”
Actions:
- Hearing on February 14, 2017
Rewarding Achievement and Incentivizing Successful Employees (RAISE) Act: H.R. 987 Rep. Rokita (R-IN) / S. 155 Sen. Rubio (R-FL)
Description: The legislation amends the National Labor Relations Act to permit employers who are a party to a collective bargaining agreement to provide additional pay to individual employees covered by the collective bargaining agreement without negotiating with the union.
Fair Economy Impact: The legislation attacks collective bargaining and unions. Collective bargaining agreements establish the terms and conditions of employment for bargaining unit employees. Permitting employers to reach separate agreements with individual workers outside of the collective bargaining process defeats collective bargaining. Workers covered by collective bargaining agreements are more likely to earn higher wages, receive paid leave, and have employer-provided health care.
Actions:
- Introduced in House February 9, 2017
- Introduced in Senate January 17, 2017
Presidential Memorandum on Fiduciary Duty Rule
Description: The memorandum directs the secretary of labor to examine the fiduciary rule and “prepare an updated economic and legal analysis concerning the likely impact of the Fiduciary Duty Rule.” According to the memorandum, if the labor secretary determines that the rule is likely to harm investors, will result in “dislocations or disruptions within the retirement services industry,” or “cause an increase in litigation,” then the labor secretary should begin the administrative process to rescind or revise the rule.
Fair Economy Impact: The rule simply requires financial advisers to provide what most clients probably already think they are receiving: advice about their retirement plans untainted by conflicts of interest. It would prohibit common practices such as steering investments to companies that pay the adviser a commission. Opponents of the fiduciary rule want to preserve a system that allows financial advisers to give their clients advice that is in the adviser’s interest rather than the client’s. Conflicted advice leads to lower investment returns, causing real losses for the clients who are victimized.
Actions:
- Issued February 3, 2017
Executive Order on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs: EO 13771
Description: The order mandates that for every new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination. For fiscal 2017, heads of all agencies are directed that the total incremental cost of all new regulations, including the cost savings associated with eliminating the two prior regulations, must be no greater than zero—unless otherwise required by law or consistent with written advice of the director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Fair Economy Impact: President Trump’s “2-for-1” executive order requires federal agencies to assess whether a regulation is worthwhile based solely on costs – regardless of the benefits of the regulation. The executive order mentions costs 18 times, but never once mentions benefits. This emphasis on costs threatens regulations that protect workers, consumers, and the environment. Compliance with rules is part of the overall cost of conducting business in a way that doesn’t cause harm to workers and the environment. Rules that, for example, prevent workplace injuries provide great benefits to workers who would otherwise bear the costs of injury, through emergency room visits, medical bills, and absence from work.
Actions:
- Issued January 30, 2017
Davis-Bacon Repeal Act: H.R. 743 Rep. King (R-IA) / S. 244 Sen. Lee (R-UT)
Description: The legislation repeals the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires that workers engaged in federally funded construction projects be paid no less than the local prevailing wage as determined by the Secretary of Labor.
Fair Economy Impact: Davis-Bacon prevailing wage protections ensure that the federal government, as a major buyer in the construction sector, does not drive down local construction-worker wages.
Actions:
- Introduced in House January 30, 2017
- Introduced in Senate January 30, 2017
Presidential Memorandum Streamlining Permitting and Reducing Regulatory Burdens for Domestic Manufacturing
Description: The memorandum directs the Secretary of Commerce to solicit comments from the public (for period not to exceed 60 days) concerning federal actions to streamline permitting and reduce regulatory burdens for domestic manufacturers. The memorandum also directs the Secretary of Commerce to develop a permit-streamlining action plan and send it to the president within 60 days of outreach process.
Fair Economy Impact: While the impact on the economy remains to be seen from this memorandum, any plan presented regarding regulations on domestic manufacturing must ensure basic safeguards for workers in order to achieve a more fair economy.
Actions:
- Issued January 24, 2017
Presidential Memorandum Regarding Withdrawal of the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Agreement
Description: The memorandum immediately withdraws the United States as a signatory to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and directs permanent withdrawal from TPP negotiations. The memorandum instructs the U.S. Trade Representative to pursue, wherever possible, bilateral trade negotiations.
Fair Economy Impact: It is critical to a fair economy that trade agreements include meaningful and enforceable worker protections. Further, it is critical for trade agreements to stop intentionally eroding protections for American workers’ wages and jobs while simultaneously providing explicit protections for corporate profits. Going forward, there is no reason to think, however, that a renewed focus on bilateral agreements will be better for American workers if those new agreements do not contain protections for workers.
Actions:
- Issued January 23, 2017
Presidential Memorandum on Regulatory Freeze Pending Review
Description: The memorandum instructs agency heads to send no regulation to the Federal Register until a department or agency head appointed or designated by the president reviews and approves the regulation, and to withdraw pending regulations not yet published. The memorandum temporarily postpones, for 60 days from the date of memo, rules published that have not taken effect.
Fair Economy Impact: The memorandum is similar to memos issued by previous administrations when first entering office.
Actions:
- Issued January 20, 2017
Trump nominated Andrew Puzder for Secretary of Labor
Description: On January 20, 2017—his very first day in office, Trump officially nominated his choice for secretary of labor: Andrew Puzder, CEO of a company with a record of labor law violations.
Fair Economy Impact: Trump failed U.S. workers with his nomination of Andrew Puzder. Puzder, then-CEO of CKE Restaurants (the parent company of Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s), has opposed raising the minimum wage and the overtime threshold, criticized paid sick time proposals and health and safety regulations, and headed a company with a record of violating laws and regulations that protect workers’ wages, safety, and rights. While his nomination was ultimately withdrawn, Trump’s original selection made a powerful statement—the president was prepared to support a labor nominee who is hostile to policies that would benefit our nation’s workers. Instead of nominating someone who respects and follows the law and who would be committed to enforcing our labor and employment laws, Trump sent a clear message with his first nomination: the Trump administration does not value America’s workers.
Miners Protection Act of 2017: S. 175 Sen. Manchin (D-WV)/ H.R. 179 Rep. McKinley (R-WV)
Description: This bill amends the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to transfer certain funds to the Multiemployer Health Benefit Plan and the 1974 United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) Pension Plan to provide health and pension benefits to retired coal miners and their families.
Fair Economy Impact: The United Mine Workers of America health care and pension fund faces insolvency because of a string of coal-industry bankruptcies. This looming insolvency would leave thousands of retired miners without the retirement and health care benefits they earned. Pension and health care obligations should be honored as part of a fair economy.
Actions:
- Introduced in Senate January 17, 2017
- Introduced in House January 3, 2017
Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017: H.R. 5 Rep. Goodlatte (R-VA)
Description: The Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017 includes significant changes to the rulemaking procedures that apply to all federal agencies. These include requirements to analyze “any substantial alternatives” to a rule identified by “interested persons,” hold public hearings on “high impact rules” at the request of any individual, and choose the lowest-cost alternatives that meet statutory objectives. It also ends the precedent of judicial deference to agencies on statutory and regulatory interpretations.
Fair Economy Impact: This legislation provides potentially regulated entities and their allies with unprecedented power to interfere with and delay the regulatory process. The bill requires agencies to consider costs associated with rulemaking as opposed to balancing costs with public benefits.
Actions:
- Received in the Senate January 12, 2017
- Passed by the House (238-183) January 11, 2017
Featured
The origin of Federal Policy Watch
EPI’s 2017 Perkins Project on Worker Rights and Wages tracked the first year of the first Trump administration. Learn more
Glossary of terms
Presidential memorandum: Directive by the president used to govern the actions of government officials and agencies; does not need to be published unless the president determines that the memo has “general applicability and legal effect.”
Executive order: Directive by the president used to govern or direct actions of government officials or agencies; must be published in the Federal Register.
Statement of administration policy: Formal means through which the president comments on legislation pending before Congress; indicates intent to support or veto a measure.
Congressional Review Act (CRA): Oversight tool which provides for a special set of procedures for considering a joint resolution disapproving an agency final rule. It requires only a majority vote in the Senate. Enactment of a CRA joint resolution of disapproval blocks the rule from taking effect and, when a rule has already taken effect, it prohibits the rule from continuing to be in effect.
Joint resolution: Legislative measure which, with one exception (constitutional amendment), requires approval of both chambers of Congress and is submitted to the president for signature into law.