May 2025 Visa Bulletin Shows Slight Advancement for EB-3 India and Retrogression for EB-5 India
The Visa Bulletin for May 2025 shows slight forward movement in the final action dates for EB-3 India, and retrogression for EB-5 India. The bulletin remains consistent in the EB-1 and EB-2 categories for all countries.
Quick Hits
The May 2025 final action dates in the EB-3 categories are unchanged for all countries except India, which has moved ahead by two weeks.
The May 2025 final action dates in the EB-5 categories are unchanged for all countries except India, which has retrogressed by six months.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has confirmed it will accept adjustment of status applications based on the final action dates chart in May 2025.
Source: U.S. Department of State, May 2025 Visa Bulletin
The final action dates chart shows only slight movement since the final action dates chart in the April 2025 Visa Bulletin of the following categories and countries:
EB-3 India has advanced two weeks from April 1, 2013, to April 15, 2013.
EB-5 India retrogressed six months from November 1, 2019, to May 1, 2019.
Next Steps
Starting May 1, 2025, individuals with a priority date earlier than the listed final action date can file a Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.
Webinar Recording: The European Commissions Proposals to Simplify CBAM and Reduce Administrative Burden on Importers [Video]
We recently hosted a webinar in collaboration with Carboneer, where Thomas Delille and Valerio Giovannini were joined by Simon Göß of Carboneer to discuss the European Commission’s latest proposals to simplify the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and reduce the administrative burden on importers. Watch the recording below.
The session provided an in-depth analysis of the proposed regulatory amendments, examining their impact on compliance obligations for EU importers and the practical implications for third-country exporters. The panel also presented a case study exploring revised methodologies for estimating CBAM certificate costs, including updated data sources, forecasting demand, and pricing implications for 2026–2027. This discussion offers valuable insight for anyone involved in cross-border trade under the evolving CBAM framework.
CFPB Suggests Shift In Supervision and Enforcement Priorities
On April 16, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) seemingly provided its employees with a memorandum outlining its ongoing supervisory and enforcement priorities (Memo).1 Although the Memo has not been made publicly available, its contents are consistent with what many in the consumer finance industry assumed would be adopted by the agency’s new leadership.
Importantly, the Memo assists entities subject to CFPB supervision and examination by detailing the areas of interest to CFPB leadership and making clear that there is no intention among such leadership to “pursue supervision under novel legal theories,” instead relying upon the agency’s statutory authority to supervise affected entities. While not fully transparent, it appears likely that this reference to “novel legal theories” is intended to convey to CFPB employees (and the market more broadly) that the agency will not use its statutory authority to designate “larger participants” for supervisory purposes as permitted under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. What is wholly unclear, however, is whether industries that have already been designated as “larger participants” by the agency, such as certain consumer reporting agencies, remain subject to ongoing supervision at this time. It also appears unlikely the agency will take on sweeping initiatives to expand its reach, such as how, in recent years, it sought to designate certain consumer leasing products as “credit” despite case law to the contrary.
Five Key Takeaways and Considerations from the CFPB Supervisory and Enforcement Memo
1. Supervisory exams
According to the Memo, such exams will decrease by 50 percent and will focus on “conciliation, correction and remediation of harms subject to consumers’ complaints.” While the Memo does not go into detail as to whether such “complaint drivers” will come from internal complaint tracking or the CFPB database2 that accepts complaints, we believe the focus will be on complaints posted by consumers to the agency database (and possibly, although less likely, to larger public databases like the Better Business Bureau complaint database).
Consumer financial providers should quickly review all of their associated complaints in the CFPB complaint database to ensure that such complaints have been appropriately addressed, with root causes determined and necessary responses performed.
It is also notable that, where consumer harm is found and penalties are assessed, the Memo makes clear that it will send any funds the CFPB obtains “directly to consumers, rather than imposing penalties on companies in order to simply fill the [agency’s] penalty fund.”
2. Insured depository institutions
The Memo suggests that the CFPB will “shift [its focus] back to depository institutions.” Importantly, the Dodd-Frank Act3 provides that the CFPB has supervisory authority over insured depository institutions with more than $10B in assets in connection with such institutions’ compliance with consumer financial protection laws.
Affected banks would be wise to use this time before the appointment of a permanent director of the CFPB (who will likely staff offices consistent with this and the other priorities in the Memo) to ensure that compliance mechanisms related to the provision of consumer financial products and services are appropriate, compliant and reflective of issues identified in recent consumer complaints.
3. Specific product foci
The Memo provides that residential mortgages are a strong priority, especially where there are “identifiable victims” who have suffered “measurable consumer damages” (emphasis in original). Residential mortgages have always been a significant priority regardless of presidential administration, and most residential mortgage loan originators likely have adequate compliance programs. However, a significant unknown is how the CFPB will treat newer consumer financial products offered in the residential mortgage space, like shared appreciation mortgages and home equity investment products. In addition, the Memo notes that violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (as it relates to data furnishing violations) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (as it relates to consumer contracts and debts) will also be priorities.
4. Specific constituent foci
The Memo notes that service members and their families, as well as veterans, are included within its priorities. This requirement reflects an understanding of the Dodd-Frank Act’s specific provisions requiring such work and is consistent with the agency’s actions since its inception.4
5. Federalism/coordinated actions with states
The Memo clarifies that the CFPB will “deprioritize” participation in multistate exams except where statutorily required. Further, the Memo provides that the agency will “deprioritize supervision” where states have “ample regulatory and supervisory authority,” unless statutorily required. Importantly, under the Dodd-Frank Act, state attorneys general may “bring a civil action in the name of such State in any district court of the United States in that State or in State court that is located in that State and that has jurisdiction over the defendant, to enforce provisions of this title [the Consumer Financial Protection Act] or regulations issued under this title, and to secure remedies under provisions of this title or remedies otherwise provided under other law.”5 Given the statement in the Memo, it is highly likely that certain consumer financial protection laws not specifically identified therein, such as the Truth in Lending Act and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, will be of minimal interest to agency officials (unless, of course, interest is driven into these areas based upon consumer complaint volume, as described above).
What’s Next
Like many aspects of compliance that are in a state of flux with the change in presidential administrations, it is also not clear that a permanent CFPB director will share and support the same supervisory and enforcement goals. Once a permanent director is in place (which is anticipated to occur sometime before mid-June based upon recent reports from Senate Banking Committee leadership6), it is likely that the priorities listed above will require revisiting.
1 Note that the materials relied upon by Katten for purposes of this advisory do not appear publicly on the CFPB’s website. However, the materials reviewed appear on CFPB letterhead and, as described herein, are consistent with public positions agency leadership has taken with respect to the nature of future agency activities in light of the recent presidential election.
2 The CFPB complaint database is available at: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/consumer-complaints/ (last reviewed April 17, 2025).
3 H.R.4173 – 111th Congress (2009-2010).
4 The Dodd-Frank Act (Section 1013(e)) specifically provides that the “Director shall establish an Office of Service Member Affairs, which shall be responsible for developing and implementing initiatives for service members and their families.”
5 12 U.S.C. § 5552(a)(1).
6 See https://www.americanbanker.com/news/senate-eyes-may-for-cfpb-nomination-vote-scott-says which describes Sen. Scott’s prediction regarding the timing of the confirmation of Jonathan McKernan as CFPB Director.
OMB Issues Revised Policies on AI Use and Procurement by Federal Agencies
On April 3, 2025, the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) issued two revised policies on federal agencies’ use and procurement of artificial intelligence (“AI”), M-25-21 (“Accelerating Federal Use of AI through Innovation, Governance, and Public Trust”) and M-25-22 (“Driving Efficient Acquisition of Artificial Intelligence in Government”). These memos are designed to support the implementation of Executive Order 14179 (“Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence”), which was signed on January 23, 2025, and largely focuses on removing existing policies on AI technologies to facilitate rapid, responsible adoption across the federal government and improve public services.
The revised memos essentially replace the OMB memos published during the Biden Administration, including M-24-10 (“Advancing Governance, Innovation, and Risk Management for Agency Use of Artificial Intelligence”), which was issued on March 28, 2024. Key differences in the revised memos include:
a “forward-leaning and pro-innovation” approach to AI that encourages accelerated adoption and acquisition of AI by reducing bureaucratic burdens and maximizing U.S. competitiveness;
empowerment of agency leadership to implement AI governance efforts, risk management and interagency coordination;
transparency measures for the public that demonstrate AI risk mitigation, use, value and efficiency;
allowance of waivers for “high-impact” AI use cases and transparency requirements when justified; and
a strong preference for American-made AI tools and services, as well as for developing and retaining American AI talent.
OMB Memorandum M-25-21: Accelerating Federal Use of AI through Innovation, Governance, and Public Trust
OMB Memo M-25-21 outlines a new framework for the acceleration of federal agencies’ adoption and use of innovative AI technologies by focusing on three key priorities: innovation, governance and public trust. The memo seeks to lessen potential bureaucratic burdens and restrictions that the Administration contends have hindered timely uptake of AI across federal agencies, with the goal of ensuring that the American public receives the maximum benefit from AI adoption.
Scope
The memo applies to “new and existing AI that is developed, used, or acquired by or on behalf of covered agencies” and to “system functionality that implements or is reliant on AI, rather than to the entirety of an information system that incorporates AI.” The memo does not cover AI being used as a component of a National Security System.
Key Provisions
Removing bureaucratic barriers: Agencies are called to streamline AI adoption by reducing unnecessary requirements, increasing transparency, and maximizing existing resources and investments. CFO Act agencies must, within 180 days, publish agency-wide strategies for removing barriers to AI use.
Mandating Chief AI Officers: Agencies must, within 60 days, designate Chief AI Officers (“CAIOs”) to lead AI governance implementation, risk management and strategic AI adoption efforts. The CAIO will serve as the senior advisor on AI to the head of the agency and support interagency coordination on AI (e.g., AI-related councils, standard-setting bodies, international bodies). To further support agencies’ efforts, OMB will convene an interagency council to coordinate federal AI development and use.
Establishing agency AI Governance Boards: Within 90 days, CFO Act agencies must convene their own governance boards to coordinate cross-functional oversight and include representation from key stakeholders across federal agencies, including IT, cybersecurity, data, and budget.
Enabling workforce readiness: The memo encourages agencies to leverage AI training programs and resources to upskill federal agencies on AI technology. Agencies also are encouraged to set clear expectations for their workforce on appropriate AI use and designated channels for delegating accountability for AI risk.
Implementing oversight over high-impact AI: Agencies must implement risk management practices for “high-impact” AI use cases. AI is considered “high-impact” if “its output serves as a principal basis for decisions or actions that have a legal, material, binding, or significant effect on rights or safety.” For these high-impact use cases, agencies must:
conduct pre-deployment testing to identify both potential risks and benefits of the AI use case;
complete AI Impact Assessments before and throughout deployment that evaluate the intended purpose and expected benefit, performance of the model, and ongoing impacts of its use;
ensure adequate human oversight by providing AI training and implementing appropriate safeguards for human intervention;
offer remedies or appeals for individuals affected by AI-enabled decisions; and
cease or pause use of high-impact AI that does not comply with the minimum requirements set forth in the memo.
Mandating transparency measures to the public: Agencies must at least annually inventory and publicly publish their AI use cases. Agencies also must publicly report risk determinations and waivers from minimum practices for high-impact AI alongside a justification.
OMB Memorandum M-25-22: Driving Efficient Acquisition of Artificial Intelligence in Government
OMB Memo M-25-22 complements Memo M-25-21 by instructing federal agencies how to acquire AI responsibly. The memo focuses on three overarching themes: fostering a competitive American marketplace for AI to ensure high-quality, cost-effective solutions for the public; safeguarding taxpayer dollars by tracking AI performance and managing risks; and promoting effective AI acquisition through cross-functional engagement.
Scope
The memo applies to “AI systems or services that are acquired by or on behalf of covered agencies,” and exempts AI acquired for use as a component of a National Security System, among other exemptions.
Key Provisions
Investing in the American AI marketplace: The memo encourages agencies to maximize investments by purchasing U.S.-developed AI solutions where possible. Agencies also are encouraged to develop and retain AI talent with relevant technical expertise who can contribute to ongoing efforts to scale and govern AI.
Protecting American privacy and IP rights: Agencies must ensure that any acquired AI system complies with existing privacy and IP legal requirements. Agencies also must have appropriate processes in place that cover the use of government data. For example, procurement contracts should include terms that prevent vendors from processing such data for the purpose of training, fine-tuning or developing an AI system without explicit consent from the agency.
Ensuring competitive, cost-effective procurement: Procurement contracts should protect against vendor lock-in through requirements, including vendor knowledge transfers, data and model portability, and transparency. Agencies also may incentivize competition by leveraging performance-based contracting to ensure satisfactory model performance.
Assessing AI risks across the lifecycle: Agencies must ensure that contracts include the ability to regularly monitor and evaluate the performance, risks, and effectiveness of an AI system or service. Agencies also are encouraged to require vendors to perform regular assessments and mitigate new risks or correct changes to AI model performance. Contracts also must comply with the minimum risk management practices for high-impact AI use cases (outlined in OBM Memo M-25-21).
Contributing to a shared repository of best practices: Within 200 days, GSA, in coordination with OMB, will develop an online repository of tools and resources to enable responsible AI procurement. Agencies should contribute to this repository where possible to foster knowledge-sharing and interagency cooperation.
Requiring unanticipated disclosures of vendor AI use: Agencies should consider including solicitation provisions in their contracts that require disclosure of unanticipated vendor use of AI.
Congress Overturns IRS Reporting Rules for DeFi Platforms
President Trump has signed into law a bill that repeals Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations that required decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms to be treated as brokers for purposes of reporting customer transactions. The former regulations, finalized in December 2024 under the Biden administration, expanded the definition of “digital asset brokers,” to include certain participants that operate within the DeFi industry. Digital asset brokers are subject to tax reporting obligations similar to traditional financial intermediaries. Specifically, these brokers are required to issue IRS Form 1099-DA to both the IRS and their customers, detailing gross proceeds from digital asset transactions, as well as the name and address of each customer. Had the regulations remained in effect, DeFi brokers would have been subject to information reporting requirements for digital asset sales on or after Jan. 1, 2027.
The bill invoked the Congressional Review Act (CRA), a legislative tool allowing Congress to overturn recently enacted federal regulations, particularly those implemented late in an administration’s tenure.
Advocates of the repeal argued that the former regulations were overly burdensome and misaligned with the decentralized nature of DeFi platforms. They contended that forcing DeFi protocols, which often lack a centralized entity, to comply with broker reporting standards is technically infeasible. Critics of the regulations believed it would stifle innovation and push crypto enterprises offshore, undermining U.S. competitiveness in the digital asset sector. The repeal effort was led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rep. Mike Carey (R-OH).
Opponents of the repeal warned that removing these reporting requirements may create loopholes for tax evasion and illicit financial activities, including money laundering. The Congressional Budget Office, relying on estimates provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation, projected a $4.5 billion increase in the federal deficit through 2035 from passage of the resolution. Critics argued that repealing the rule may allow more cryptocurrency transactions to evade scrutiny, potentially exacerbating financial crimes.
The repeal highlights the growing political influence of the cryptocurrency industry and a broader shift in Washington’s regulatory stance toward digital assets. As the larger debate unfolds, lawmakers and industry leaders will need to navigate the challenges of fostering innovation while maintaining financial security and compliance in the evolving digital economy.
Powering The Future: The UK’s Nuclear Revolution
Introduction
Nuclear power has long been one of the cornerstones of the UK’s energy mix, providing a reliable source of low-carbon electricity. As the UK embarks on its Clean Energy Superpower mission, aiming for a clean electricity system by 2030 under the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan (CPAP) and achieving Net Zero by 2050, nuclear power, alongside renewable sources, will spearhead the transition to a sustainable energy future. Recent policy changes, regulatory adjustments, and legislative initiatives have fostered a favourable environment for both traditional and advanced nuclear technologies as the UK pursues decarbonisation. This article will explore these developments, beginning with the UK’s ambition and vision, and examining governmental support for nuclear projects. Additionally, we will offer insights into fusion and other innovative technologies, illustrating how the UK’s energy landscape is prepared to embrace the nuclear revolution.
This evolution reflects the government’s commitment to sustaining a diverse, home-grown, and resilient energy portfolio, capable of withstanding geopolitical shocks while fostering technological innovation and economic growth.
What is the UK’s ambition and vision for nuclear?
Currently, the UK has 5.9 GW of nuclear installed capacity; however, 4.7 GW are expected to come offline by 2030. In both the British Energy Security Strategy (2022) and the Powering Up Britain strategy (2023), the UK government committed to delivering up to 24 GW of nuclear by 2050 to cover a quarter of the country’s projected demand, placing the technology on equal footing with renewable energy sources. This long-term target was reconfirmed in the Civil Nuclear Roadmap to 2050 (‘Roadmap’) published in 2024, which elucidates the pathway to delivering a mix of large-scale nuclear power plants, innovative technologies such as small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced modular reactors (ADRs), and fusion. The Roadmap details plans for the biggest expansion of nuclear energy in 70 years, including the construction of a major new nuclear power plant. This evolution reflects the government’s commitment to sustaining a diverse, home-grown, and resilient energy portfolio, capable of withstanding geopolitical shocks while fostering technological innovation and economic growth. The Roadmap’s ambition is reiterated in the latest report on the pathways to achieve Net Zero by 2050, the Future Energy Scenarios (‘FES’) 2024 produced by the new independent energy system operator and planner, the National Energy System Operator (NESO). Finally, CPAP, which is based on FES, concludes that in a renewables-based system, nuclear is essential to deliver a ‘backbone’ of vital firm low-carbon power.
How does the UK support nuclear technologies?
From traditional large-scale nuclear power plants to ground-breaking technologies, the UK has taken important policy, regulatory, financial, and legislative measures to support nuclear. These include a strategic approach to designing the energy system, improved permitting procedures, and funding mechanisms.
Strategic planning
The UK has adopted an integrated and whole-system approach in planning, managing, and operating the energy system, led by NESO. In a geographically constrained area with competing interests such as farming, biodiversity, and aerospace, project developers require more certainty regarding the optimal locations, quantities, and types of energy projects needed to achieve Net Zero. This information will be provided by the Strategic Spatial Energy Plan (SSEP), expected in 2026. The SSEP aims to accelerate and optimise Great Britain’s energy transition, outlining a pathway from 2030 to 2050. The first SSEP focuses on electricity generation and storage, including technologies like large-scale nuclear and SMRs, but excluding ADRs. These will be considered in future iterations of the SSEP.
Along with the nuclear-specific NPS, the infrastructure permitting system in the UK is undergoing a major reform through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2025.
Faster, streamlined, effective, and cost-efficient permitting
The UK government has recently announced important changes in consenting nuclear technologies, easing the permitting procedure. First, they plan to replace the National Policy Statement (NPS) for Nuclear Energy Generation (EN-6), the statutory document that sets out the government’s policy to permit applications for nuclear nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs – projects that exceed a specific power capacity threshold), with a new NPS called EN-7. The new regime will apply to all nuclear – heat and electricity – developments that exceed 50 MW. The NPS removes two restrictions:
A geographical restriction of building nuclear plants in a set list of eight sites. Nuclear sites will be built anywhere in England and Wales on a criteria-based approach, including high standards of safety, security, and environmental protection.
A time-limit restriction to deploy new projects in the eight sites by 2025, providing developers with more certainty and flexibility to build new plants.
EN-7 also extends the scope of technologies covered and supports cutting-edge technologies, such as SMRs and AMRs, alongside gigawatt-scale plants. Additionally, a Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce will accelerate regulatory reforms and project delivery, including investment incentives. The consultation on EN-7 proposals has recently concluded, with the final version expected to be laid before Parliament in autumn 2025.
Along with the nuclear-specific NPS, the infrastructure permitting system in the UK is undergoing a major reform through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2025. The purpose of the Bill is to accelerate consenting for NSIPs, including through alternative routes of permitting on a case-by-case basis, streamlined and shorter consultation requirements, and a stricter judicial review system to limit meritless challenges against decisions that approve major infrastructure. These changes, when finalised, possibly in late 2025, are expected to apply to nuclear projects.
Furthermore, in March 2024, the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), the Environment Agency (EA), and Natural Resources Wales (NRW) developed voluntary guidance for early regulatory engagement for those deploying nuclear projects in Great Britain. This guidance is intended for project developers, technology vendors, and permit holders.
Funding and derisking investment in nuclear
Nuclear projects are expensive to build. The recent examples of billions of budget overruns for the two new large-scale power plants, Sizewell C and Hinkley Point C (each having a capacity of approximately 3.2 GW), underscore the critical need for diverse and robust funding options to ensure the viability of these projects. We examine below some of the options including a new finance model and support from public bodies.
…, the main issue with CfD is that project developers bear the entire construction risk, whereas under the RAB model, this risk is shared with consumers.
A new finance model: the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act 2022 (NEFA 2022)NEFA 2022 introduces the use of the regulated asset base (RAB) model to finance new nuclear projects. This model is commonly used for major infrastructure projects such as airports, water, and energy networks because it helps to de-risk private investment. Under the nuclear RAB model, an eligible nuclear company will receive a guaranteed return on investment throughout the lifetime of the nuclear asset, which is reflected in the licence conditions. The RAB model is now preferred for large scale projects and possibly for SMRs, over other financing options, such as the bespoke Contract for Difference (CfD) deal used for financing Hinkley Point C in 2016. The CfD is a subsidy scheme that covers the entire construction costs of the project through a fixed price for electricity output once the plant becomes operational. However, the main issue with CfD is that project developers bear the entire construction risk, whereas under the RAB model, this risk is shared with consumers. Sizewell C has sought support through the RAB model, with the final version of the RAB licence conditions expected to be issued by Ofgem soon.
The role of Great British Nuclear, Great British Energy, and National Wealth FundWith the Energy Act 2023, the UK government has established a new publicly owned company, Great British Nuclear (GBN). GBN is the expert vehicle responsible for driving the delivery of new nuclear projects through each stage of project development, co-funding selected technologies, and ensuring the right financing and site arrangements to meet the 24 GW nuclear target by 2050. GBN’s first priority is to run a competitive process to select the best SMR technologies. This selection process has reached its final stage, with the decision expected this Spring.
The new UK government has created two more new bodies to support investment and provide funding for clean energy projects: Great British Energy (GBE) and National Wealth Fund (NWF). With a capital of £7.3 billion, GBE’s purpose is to develop, invest in, build, and operate clean, home-grown energy projects. GBE aims to accelerate Great Britain’s pathway to energy independence and security by working closely with industry, local authorities, communities, and other public sector organisations. According to GBE’s founding statement, the UK government will explore how GBE and GBN can best work together on delivering the nuclear programme. GBE will be officially established once the Great British Energy Bill becomes an Act.
The National Wealth Fund (NWF), previously known as the UK Infrastructure Bank, has been allocated £27.8 billion to stimulate investment in clean energy projects, including nuclear, and to support the implementation of the new industrial strategy. GBN, GBE, and NWF play crucial roles in nuclear investment, financing, and de-risking. However, the future of nuclear development will also be influenced by the upcoming Industrial Strategy and the Spending Review.
Invest in 2025 and Spending ReviewIn October, the UK government launched a consultation on the green paper ‘Invest 2035: the UK’s modern industrial strategy’. This strategy aims to remove barriers to growth and foster a pro-business environment in eight key sectors, including clean energy industries. Although nuclear projects are typically included under the ‘clean energy’ category, some stakeholders have requested through their responses a specific mention of nuclear technology to avoid any ambiguity. The final industrial strategy will be announced in June, alongside the second phase of the Spending Review.The Spending Review is the government’s process for setting departmental budgets for future years. The first phase of the review, announced in the Autumn Budget 2024, confirmed departmental budgets for 2024-25 and set budgets for 2025-26. The crucial second phase, also known as ‘the envelope,’ will establish spending plans for the next three years over a five-year period to achieve the government’s objectives, including the growth and Clean Energy Superpower missions. As emphasised by various stakeholders, the Spending Review will play a pivotal role in supporting nuclear projects.
The UK is leading the way in fusion energy development and innovation.
Fusion, the ‘holy grail’ of nuclear
The UK is leading the way in fusion energy development and innovation. Starting with the UK’s fusion strategy in 2021, updated in 2023, the UK became one of the first countries to enact specific fusion legislation through the Energy Act 2023. This new legislation separates the regulations governing fusion energy from those that apply to traditional nuclear technologies by amending the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 to exclude fusion energy projects. As a result, fusion projects will not require licences from or be regulated by ONR, streamlining the path to commercial fusion energy deployment.
In May 2024, the UK government published a proposal for a new fusion-specific National Policy Statement (NPS), EN-8, to support an open-sited and technology-inclusive approach to siting new fusion energy facilities. Similar to EN-7, the fusion-specific NPS will use strategic criteria when identifying and assessing new sites for fusion facilities. The proposal also recommends designating all fusion plants as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). The government has not yet published its final decision on EN-8.
In parallel, the UK government continues to advance fusion-specific projects and funding arrangements. Some of these initiatives include:
The pioneering Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production (STEP) programme, supported by £410 million funding from the UK government, aims to commercialise the technology and develop the first viable fusion power plant by 2040.
The landmark UK and US joint project, LEAPS, in partnership with Tokamak Energy.
A new joint private and UK government fusion investment fund, ‘Starmaker One,’ to assist fusion businesses and start-ups in commercialising the technology. The government has invested £20 million in the fund, which has the potential to raise between £100 million and £150 million overall investment.
…, the UK wants to lead innovation and commercialise the use of alternative nuclear technologies, particularly as these technologies can be cheaper than traditional nuclear…
AMRs, SMRs and the AI twist
AMRs, also known as Generation IV reactors, have the potential to support a variety of applications beyond electricity generation. These include hydrogen production, industrial and domestic heating, and nuclear waste management solutions. To support these technologies, the UK government awarded £196 million last year to build a commercial facility for the production of high-assay low enriched uranium (HALEU), a fuel necessary for powering AMRs.
SMRs also show promising applications. The technology is expected to contribute significantly to the UK’s ambition to become a global leader in the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector. The AI Opportunities Action Plan (‘AI Plan’) aims to establish ‘AI Growth Zones’ (AIGZs) to facilitate and expedite the deployment of advanced AI data centres. The first AIGZ could be located in Culham, adjacent to the UK Atomic Energy Authority. An AI Energy Council has been launched to identify clean and sustainable energy solutions to meet the considerable power requirements of these AI data centres. SMRs are among the technologies anticipated to fulfil the energy needs of these centres.
Similar to fusion, the UK wants to lead innovation and commercialise the use of alternative nuclear technologies, particularly as these technologies can be cheaper than traditional nuclear due to their size, modularity, and replicability. In a consultation launched in 2024, the UK government explores alternative routes to market for these technologies beyond GBN, HALEU, and the Advanced Nuclear Fund (ANF) that offer support to both SMRs and AMRs. For example, the RAB model might be more suitable for financing cutting-edge nuclear technologies than CfDs. The alternative routes to market proposals, when finalized and taken forward, will be a game changer for the deployment of SMRs and AMRs.
Conclusion
The UK’s nuclear policy is a dynamic and evolving framework that continuously reflects its commitment to a secure, low-carbon, and innovative energy future. This policy also leverages nuclear technology to support other critical sectors such as AI. By promoting a diverse range of nuclear technologies—from large-scale power plants to cutting-edge fusion research—the UK aims to meet its ambitious climate goals, drive innovation, and stimulate substantial economic growth. The opportunities presented by the UK’s nuclear revolution are vast, with new supportive planning frameworks making it easier to capitalise on them.
The New Alien Registration Requirement: Considerations for Foreign Nationals
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS)’s Alien Registration Requirement, effective April 11, 2025, requires most noncitizens aged 14 and older who remain in the United States for over 30 days, to register and complete biometrics. Parents or guardians are responsible for registering minors under 14, and individuals turning 14 must re-register within 30 days of their birthday. The registration can be completed by filing Form G-325R through an individual USCIS online account. This registration does not grant any immigrant or nonimmigrant status. Once an individual has registered and completes fingerprinting, DHS will issue the proof of registration, which anyone over the age of 18 will be required to carry and keep in their personal possession at all times.
However, many individuals are already considered registered and not required to register, including:
lawful permanent residents;
individuals paroled into the United States under INA 212(d)(5) for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefits, even if the period of parole has expired;
individuals admitted to the United States as nonimmigrants who were issued Form I-94 or I-94W (paper or electronic), even if the period of admission has expired;
all individuals present in the United States who were issued immigrant or nonimmigrant visas in their passports at the U.S. consular posts abroad before their last date of arrival;
individuals placed into removal proceedings;
individuals issued an employment authorization document;
individuals who have applied for lawful permanent residence using Forms I-485, I-687, I-691, I-698, I-700, and provided fingerprints (unless waived), even if the applications were denied; and
individuals issued border crossing cards.
For additional information about the Alien Registration Requirement, please refer to the Q&A section below. According to USCIS:
Q: What is “alien registration”?
A: Alien registration is a federal legal requirement under Section 262 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). It requires most noncitizens who remain in the United States for more than 30 days to register with DHS, provide biometric information (like fingerprints), and carry evidence of registration at all times if age 18 or older.
Q: Why is this being enforced now?
A: On Jan. 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, directing DHS to ensure that noncitizens comply with the registration requirement and to treat failure to register as a civil and criminal enforcement priority. As of April 11, 2025, DHS began enforcing this process and introduced the online registration process.
Q: Who must register?
A: Anyone who falls into “not registered” category, if:
you are aged 14 or older and have not registered and fingerprinted when applying for a visa to enter the United States and remain in the United States for 30 days or longer;
you entered the United States without inspection or parole;
you were not fingerprinted during your visa application or entry;
you are the parent or guardian of a child under 14 who has not been registered; or
you are a child who just turned 14 and were previously registered by a parent
Q: Who is considered “Not Registered”?
A:
Individuals present in the United States without inspection and admission OR inspection and parole and who have not otherwise registered.
Canadian visitors who entered the United States at land ports of entry and were not issued evidence of registration.
Individuals who were not fingerprinted during a visa application or entry.
Individuals who submitted applications for deferred action or TPS who were not issued evidence of registration.
Q: Who is exempt from registration?
A: You are exempt if you are:
a holder of an A or G visa (diplomatic or international representatives); or
a nonimmigrant who DHS waived from fingerprinting (e.g., diplomats, certain short-term visitors under reciprocal arrangements).
Q: How do I know if I’ve already registered?
A: Anyone who has been issued one of the documents designated as evidence of registration is considered “already registered,” including:
lawful permanent residents;
you filed a qualifying form such as:
Form I-485 (adjustment of status),
you were fingerprinted (biometrics) by USCIS; or
you were issued any of the following:
I-94/I-94W
Green card (I-551)
Employment authorization document (I-766)
Notice to appear (I-862) or other DHS-issued removal notices
Border crossing card (I-185/I-186)
Q: What does not count as registration?
A: The following documents are not considered evidence of registration:
a state driver’s license or ID;
an application for TPS, DACA, or asylum without an approved registration form or DHS fingerprinting; and
entering via land border as a Canadian or Mexican national without receiving DHS documentation.
Q: How do I register if I haven’t already?
A: To register properly, follow these steps:
Create a USCIS online account at https://my.uscis.gov, if not already created. If you are registering a minor child, create an account on their behalf.
Complete Form G-325R (Biographic Information – Registration) online through your USCIS account.
Biometrics Appointment: After submitting the form, you will receive a biometrics appointment notice.
Attend your biometrics appointment at an USCIS Application Support Center.
Download Proof of Registration: Once processed, download your proof of alien registration PDF from your USCIS account.
Note: If you are 18 or older, you must carry this registration at all times.
Q: Is there a fee to register?
A: Currently, there is no fee. The registration is free, including the biometric appointment. DHS is considering a $30 biometric services fee in the future.
Q. What happens if I don’t register?
A: Failure to comply with the register requirement or carry proof of registration may result in:
a misdemeanor charge;
fines up to $5,000;
imprisonment for up to 30 days; and
deportation proceedings under INA § 237 unless an individual can prove that a failure was reasonable, excusable, or was not willful.
Note: False statements during registration may also lead to criminal prosecution and deportation.
Q: What happens if I change my address?
A: You must report a change if address to USCIS within 10 days of moving. This can be completed through your USCIS account by completing Form AR-11 online.
Q: After registering, what else do I need to do?
A: You must:
carry your registration document at all times if you are 18 or older;
file AR-11 with USCIS within 10 days of any address change; and
re-register if you were registered as a child and just turned 14.
Q: Can I use the registration document for work or immigration benefits?
A: No. Alien registration is not an immigration status, does not create an immigration status, establish employment authorization, or provide any other rights, public benefits, or protection from removal.
OMB Solicits Public Comment on Eliminating Regulations: A Bold New Frontier for OSHA May Await
Every safety professional has an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulation he or she cannot stand, believes is a waste of time, energy, and/or money, or considers outdated and antiquated.
Even the average person on the street probably thinks there is some silly OSHA regulation that should be done away with. Now the aggrieved (even only the mildly annoyed) safety professional and individual has a chance to have that regulation eliminated, but only if they act soon.
Quick Hits
OMB is seeking the public’s input on deregulation, including public comment on and recommendations for potentially outdated or burdensome OSHA regulations, with a submission deadline of May 12, 2025.
Safety professionals and the public now have the opportunity to suggest the elimination or revision of specific OSHA regulations.
Potential targets for deregulation pursuant to OMB’s request for information include OSHA’s “walkaround rule,” electronic recordkeeping regulations, and the proposed heat injury and illness prevention program.
On April 11, 2025, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published a notice, titled, “Request for Information: Deregulation,” soliciting the public’s comments and deregulatory recommendations with respect to rescinding or replacing agency regulations, including OSHA rules. This request for information (RFI) is in keeping with the Trump administration’s regulatory freeze issued at the outset of the president’s term of office.
On its face, the request for information (RFI) states that “OMB solicits ideas for deregulation from across the country. Commenters should identify rules to be rescinded and provide detailed reasons for their rescission. OMB invites comments about any and all regulations currently in effect.” The RFI continues and states the following:
OMB seeks proposals to rescind or replace regulations that stifle American businesses and American ingenuity. We seek comment from the public on regulations that are unnecessary, unlawful, unduly burdensome, or unsound. Comments should address the background of the rule and the reasons for the proposed rescission, with particular attention to regulations that are inconsistent with statutory text or the Constitution, where costs exceed benefits, where the regulation is outdated or unnecessary, or where regulation is burdening American businesses in unforeseen ways.
Without any parameters or limitations on RFI submissions, it is possible that someone might recommend that all OSHA regulations be eliminated, that the construction standards (29 C.F.R. 1926) be eliminated, or that the recordkeeping requirements be eliminated. It is unlikely that any of these would take place, as the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act requires the agency to issue regulations and collect data concerning workplace injuries and illnesses.
Section 2 of the OSH Act states:
(b) The Congress declares it to be its purpose and policy, through the exercise of its powers to regulate commerce among the several States and with foreign nations and to provide for the general welfare, to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources —
…
(3) by authorizing the Secretary of Labor to set mandatory occupational safety and health standards applicable to businesses affecting interstate commerce, and by creating an Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission for carrying out adjudicatory functions under the Act[.]
Section 24 of the OSH Act states:
(a) In order to further the purposes of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall develop and maintain an effective program of collection, compilation, and analysis of occupational safety and health statistics. Such program may cover all employments whether or not subject to any other provisions of this Act but shall not cover employments excluded by section 4 of the Act. The Secretary shall compile accurate statistics on work injuries and illnesses which shall include all disabling, serious, or significant injuries and illnesses, whether or not involving loss of time from work, other than minor injuries requiring only first aid treatment and which do not involve medical treatment, loss of consciousness, restriction of work or motion, or transfer to another job.
Consequently, OSHA is effectively obligated by the OSH Act to issue occupational safety and health standards to “assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation [a] safe and healthful” workplace and to collect data concerning workplace safety and health matters. Seeking to eliminate all OSHA standards or recordkeeping rules would require revising the OSH Act.
Which OSHA regulations are probable targets of these efforts? The so-called “walkaround rule” related to who can accompany an OSHA compliance officer during an inspection seems a very likely candidate. Similarly, the electronic recordkeeping regulations may be subject to deletion or elimination. To the extent that OSHA is seeking to implement a heat injury and illness prevention program, it, too, could fall prey to this RFI.
There is no limit on the agency, regulation, or topic that may be submitted pursuant to the RFI. Undoubtedly, there will be an enormous number of suggestions related to OSHA and other agencies—from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, to the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs, to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (a federal agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services)—to name but a few. Many suggestions will likely be dismissed out of hand, but there will also likely be well-reasoned, thoughtful submissions that do receive at least some attention. The deadline for submissions in response to the RFI is May 12, 2025, and submissions may be made through the website Regulations.gov.
Ninth Circuit Upholds DFPI’s Commercial Financing Disclosure Rules
On September 30, 2018, California enacted SB 1235, codified at California Financial Codes sections 22800–22805. See California Will Soon Require Novel Disclosure Requirements Providers Of Commercial Financings. SB 1235 requires that an offer of commercial financing for $500,000 or less be accompanied by disclosures of: (1) the amount of funds provided, (2) the total dollar cost of financing, (3) the term or estimated term, (4) the method, frequency, and amount of payments, (5) a description of prepayment policies, and (6) the total cost of financing expressed as an annualized rate. Cal. Fin. Code §§ 22802(b) & 22803(a). Four years after SB 1235 was enacted, the Office of Administrative Law approved regulations implementing the disclosure requirements, 10 CCR § 900 et seq. See OAL Approves DFPI Commercial Financing Disclosure Rules – But Who Got Stuck With The Check? A few months later, , the Small Business Finance Association filed a Complaint a challenging the validity of those regulations as unconstitutional compelled commercial speech. Small Bus. Finance Ass’n v. Hewlett, 2023 WL 8711078 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2024).
Last December, U.S. District Court Judge R. Gary Klausner granted the Department of Financial Protection & Innovation’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the regulations do not violate the First Amendment under the Supreme Court’s test for compelled commercial speech established in Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 417 U.S. 626 (1985). In an unpublished decision last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Klausner’s ruling. Small Bus. Finance Ass’n. v. Mohseni, 2025 WL 1111493 (9th Cir. Apr. 15, 2025).
The UK’s Failure To Prevent Fraud Act
Effective September 1, 2025, the UK’s Failure to Prevent Fraud offense will go into effect as part of the UK’s Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (the ECCTA). The law significantly expands corporate liability for fraud committed by employees and other associated persons of relevant corporates and will require compliance refinement for any business within scope of the offense operating in connection with the UK. The UK government (its Home Office) published guidance in 2024 (the “Guidance”) to help companies navigate this corporate criminal fraud offense as well as take appropriate action to help prevent fraud.
As companies continue to grapple with recent developments regarding enforcement of the FCPA, international efforts to curb bribery and corruption have not waned. Foreign governments continue to prioritize anti-corruption enforcement such as the European Commission’s proposed directive from May 2023 to combat corruption, the ECCTA and Failure to Prevent Fraud Offense, as well as the recently announced International Anti-Corruption Prosecutorial Task Force with the UK, France, and Switzerland. These cross-border initiatives demonstrate how a temporary pause in U.S. enforcement of the FCPA should not result in companies moving away from maintaining robust and effective compliance programs.
The Failure to Prevent Fraud Offense
You can see more detail on the new offense in this article from our UK colleagues (Failure to prevent fraud: get ready for September | Womble Bond Dickinson). In summary, a “large organization” can be held criminally liable where an employee, agent, subsidiary, or other “associated person” commits a fraud offense intending to benefit the organization or its clients, and the organization failed to have reasonable fraud prevention procedures in place. An employee, an agent or a subsidiary is considered an “associated person” as are business partners and small organizations that provide services for or on behalf of large organizations. Regarding the underlying fraud offense itself, this includes a range of existing offenses under fraud, theft and corporate laws, which the UK’s Home Office notes as including “dishonest sales practices, the hiding of important information from consumers or investors, or dishonest practices in financial markets.”
A “large organization” for purposes of the fraud offense is defined as meeting two of the following three thresholds: (1) more than 250 employees; (2) more than £36 million (approx. USD $47.6 million) turnover; (3) more than £18 million (approx. USD $23.8 million) in total assets – and includes groups where the resources across the group meet the threshold. Further, the fraud offense has extraterritorial reach, meaning that non-UK companies may be liable for the fraud if there is a UK nexus. This could play out in several scenarios. For example, the fraud took place in the UK, the gain or loss occurred in the UK, or, alternatively, if a UK-based employee commits fraud, the employing organization could be prosecuted, regardless of where the organization is based.
What Companies Can Do Now
The Failure to Prevent Fraud offense is an important consideration in corporate compliance, extending beyond UK-based companies to non-UK companies with operations or connections in the UK. The only available defense to the failure to prevent fraud offense is for the company to demonstrate that it “had reasonable fraud prevention measures in place at the time that the fraud was committed” Or, more riskily that it was not reasonable under the circumstances to expect the organization to have any prevention procedures in place. To that end, the Guidance outlines six core principles that should underpin any effective fraud prevention framework: (1) top-level commitment; (2) risk assessment; (3) proportionate and risk-based procedures; (4) due diligence; (5) communication and training; and (6) ongoing monitoring and review. Specifically, the Guidance makes clear that even “strict compliance” with its terms will not be a “safe harbor” and that failure to conduct a risk assessment will “rarely be considered reasonable.” These principles mirror the now well-established principles in the UK that apply to the UK offences of failure to prevent bribery under the UK Bribery Act 2010, and failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion under the UK Criminal Finances Act 2017.
Companies should consider the following proactive steps:
Determining whether they fall within the scope of the ECCTA’s fraud offense.
Identifying individuals who qualify as “associated persons.”
Conducting and documenting a comprehensive fraud risk assessment to determine whether the company’s internal controls adequately address potential fraudulent activity involving the company.
Ensuring due diligence procedures, as related to, for instance, external commercial partner engagements and other transactions, address the risk of fraud in those higher risk activities.
Reviewing and updating existing policies and procedures to address the risks of fraud.
Communicating the company’s requirements around preventing fraud and providing targeted training to employees and other associated persons, including subsidiaries and business partners, to make clear the company’s expectations around managing the risk of fraud.
Establishing fraud related monitoring and audit protocols, including in relation to third party engagements, for ongoing oversight and periodic review.
Ensuring these policies and procedures are aligned with other financial crime prevention policies and procedures and relevant regulatory expectations.
The months ahead are a critical window to align internal policies and procedures not only with the UK’s elevated enforcement expectations as evidenced by the ECCTA and the Failure to Prevent Fraud offense, but also as bribery and corruption remain a mainstay priority for other foreign regulators. Companies should continue to prioritize the design, implementation, and assessment of their compliance internal controls. Companies with a well-designed and effective compliance program will be better equipped to adapt as regulatory landscapes shift and emerging risks develop, enabling companies to more efficiently respond to new enforcement trends.
The Changing Food Regulatory Landscape
You have probably heard the term “ultra-processed food.” What does that mean? Unprocessed food probably requires little explanation. For example, a whole raw apple that has not been cut, cooked or otherwise prepared would be unprocessed. From there, a range of processing might be done – the apple could be cut in slices and packaged for snacking – that would be some degree of processing. It could be mixed with sugar and lemon juice and cooked down to make apple butter. That would be more processing. It could also be mixed with numerous other ingredients, including artificial colors, sweeteners, hydrogenated oils, starches, enriched flours, and preservatives to make shelf-stable snack cakes. That would be an ultra-processed food. Ultra-processed foods provide convenience and help reduce the cost of foods by providing longer shelf life. Many of the current staples of American life are ultra-processed foods – think about chips, crackers, frozen meals, soft drinks, many breakfast cereals, processed meats (like hot dogs), candies, ice cream, and some common fast foods.
Certain ingredients used in ultra-processed foods have been associated with health problems such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, mental / behavioral conditions, and obesity. The FDA has authorized the use of ingredients found in ultra-processed foods available in the United States. However, certain countries, including those within the European Union, have prohibited the inclusion of these ingredients in their food supplies.
On January 15, 2025, the FDA banned Red Dye number 3 from food after research linked the dye to higher rates of thyroid cancer in animals, but not humans. While the FDA has not banned many ingredients prohibited in other countries, states have been taking independent action. California leads the nation in regulating food ingredients. In 2023, California passed legislation banning Red Dye number 3, propylparaben (a preservative to prevent the growth of mold and bacteria), potassium bromate (used to make bread rise better and to improve the texture), and brominated vegetable oil (used to stabilize citrus flavorings in drinks).
Other states have also begun to take action. Below is a chart outlining recent and pending state legislation aimed at food regulation.
State
Legislation
Status
Arizona
Banned from public schools food containing:Potassium bromatePropylparabenTitanium dioxideBrominated vegetable oilYellow dye 5Yellow dye 6Blue dye 1Blue dye 2Green dye 3Red dye 3Red dye 40
Passed by the Senate
Arkansas
Prohibited from foods:Potassium bromate Propylparaben
Referred to Senate Public Health Welfare And Labor
If passed, effective 1/1/2028
Connecticut
Prohibits from foods:Red dye number two Red dye number four Green dye number one Green dye number two Violet dye number one Butter yellow dye Orange dye number one Orange dye number two Red dye number forty Yellow dye number fiveYellow dye number six Blue dye number one Blue dye number two Carmoisine Erythrosine
Pending before the Joint General Law Committee
California
Banned from foods:Brominated vegetable oil Potassium bromatePropylparabenRed dye 3
Enacted on 10/7/23, effective on 1/1/2027
Delaware
Prohibits from food:Red dye number 3Red dye number 40
Pending before the Senate Health & Social Services Committee
If passed, effective 1/15/2027
Florida
Prohibits from food:Brominated vegetable oilPotassium bromatePropylparabenRed dye 3Blue dye 1Yellow dye 5BenzidineButylated hydroxyanisoleButylated hydroxytoluene.
Pending in the Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government
Effective 1/1/2028 if passed
Hawaii
Prohibits from foods in public schools:Blue dye number 1 Blue dye number 2 Green dye number 3 Red dye number 40 Yellow dye number 5 Yellow dye number 6
Pending before the Senate Education Committee
Effective 7/1/2025 if passed
Illinois
Prohibits from food:Brominated vegetable oil Potassium bromate Propylparaben Red dye number 3
Pending before the Senate
If passed, effective 1/1/2027
Indiana
Prohibits in food:Blue dye number 1Blue dye number 2 Green dye number 3 Brominated vegetable oil Propylparaben Potassium bromate Red dye number 3Red dye number 40Yellow dye number 5 Yellow dye number 6
Referred to Public Health Committee
If passed, effective 7/1/2025
Iowa
Prohibits in foods in public schools:Red dye number 40Yellow dye number 7Margarine
Referred to Education Committee
Kentucky
Prohibits in foods in public schools:Brominated vegetable oil Potassium bromatePropylparabenTitanium dioxideRed dye number 3 Red dye number 40Yellow dye number 5 Yellow dye number 6 Blue dye number 1 Blue dye number 2 Green dye number 3
Referred to Primary and Secondary Education Committee
Louisiana
Prohibits from food in public schools:Blue dye number 1Blue dye number 2 Green dye number 3Red dye number 3 Red dye number 40 Yellow dye number 5 Yellow dye number 6 AzodicarbonamideButylated hydroxyanisole (BHA)Butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT)Potassium bromate PropylparabenTitanium dioxide
Requires warnings on foods containing:Acesulfame potassium.Acetylated esters of mono- and diglycerides (acetic acid ester)Activated charcoalAnisoleAtrazineAzodicarbonamide (ADA)Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA)Butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT)Bleached flour.Blue dye number 1Blue dye number 2Bromated flourCalcium bromateCanthaxanthinCarrageenanCertified food colors FDACitrus red dye 2 DiacetylDiacetyl tartaric and fatty acid esters of mono- and diglycerides (DATEM)Dimethylamylamine (DMAA).Dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate (DSS)FicinGreen dye number 3Interesterified palm oilInteresterified soybean oilLactylated fatty acid esters of glycerol and propylene glycolLyeMelatoninMorpholineOlestraPartially hydrogenated oil (PHO)Potassium aluminum sulfatePotassium bromatePotassium iodatePotassium sorbatePropylene oxidePropylparabenRed dye number 3Red dye number 4Red dye number 40Sodium aluminum sulfateSodium lauryl sulfateSodium stearyl fumarateStearyl tartrateSynthetic or artificial vanillinSynthetic trans fatty acidThiodipropionic acidTitanium dioxideToluene.Yellow dye 5 Yellow dye number 6
Restaurants using must disclose to customers the use of the following seed oils:Canola or rapeseed oilCorn oilCottonseed oilFlaxseed oilGrapeseed oilRice bran oilSafflower oilSoybean oilSunflower oil
Pending before the Senate Health & Welfare Committee
If passed, effective for the 2026-2027 school year
If passed, effective 1/1/2027
If passed, effective 1/1/2027
Maryland
Prohibits in foods:Brominated vegetable oil (BVO)Potassium bromate Propylparaben
If passed, effective 10/1/2028
Massachusetts
Prohibits in schools and school events food and beverages containing:Blue dye number 1Blue dye number 2Green dye number 3Red dye number 3Red dye number 40Yellow dye number 5Yellow dye number 6
Referred to Public Health CommitteeIf passed, effective 12/31/2028
Missouri
Requires warning labels for foods containing:AcrylamideArsenicBisphenol A (BPA)Blue dye number 1CadmiumDi(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP)LeadMercuryRed dye number 40Yellow dye number 5Yellow dye number 6
Prohibits in foods in public schools:Potassium bromate PropylparabenTitanium dioxide Brominated vegetable oil Yellow dye number 5 Yellow dye number 6Blue dye number 1 Blue dye number 2Green dye number 3Red dye number 3Red dye number 40
Pending before the House
If passed, effective 2026-2027 school year
New Jersey
Prohibits foods with:Brominated vegetable oil Potassium bromate Propylparaben Red dye number 3
If passed, effective the first day of the 13th month following enactment
New York
Banned from foods:Red dye number 3Potassium bromate Propylparaben
Banned from foods sold in public schools:Red dye number 3Red dye number 40Blue dye number 1Blue dye number 2Green dye number 3Yellow dye number 5Yellow dye number 6
Pending before the NY Senate
Effective 1 year after passage (with an up to 3 year exception based upon a product’s best by date)
North Carolina
Prohibiting from foods:Brominated vegetable oil Potassium bromate Propylparaben Red dye number 40 Yellow dye number 5 Yellow dye number 6 Blue dye number 1Blue dye number 2Green dye number 3
If passed, effective 1/1/2027
Oklahoma
Banned from foods and drugsBlue dye number 1Blue dye number 2Green dye number 3Red dye number 3Red dye number 40Yellow dye number 5Yellow dye number 6.
If the FDA revokes is authorization of use, the following would also be banned:Aspartame; Azodicarbonamide (ADA) Brominated vegetable oil Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA)Butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) Ethylene dichlorideMethylene chloride Potassium bromate; Propyl gallate; Propylparaben;Sodium benzoate; Sodium nitrate;
If signed by the governor, ban in foods effective on 1/15/2027 and in drugs on 1/18/2028
Warnings would also be required for the enumerated ingredients.
Oregon
Prohibits from foods in schools:Red dye number 3Potassium bromatePropylparaben
Also limits fats, sugars, calories and caffeine in some snacks and drinks available for students
If passed, effective 7/1/2017
Rhode Island
Prohibits from foods in schools:Blue dye number 1 Blue dye number 2Green dye number 3Red dye number 40Yellow dye number 5Yellow dye number 6
If passed, effective 1/1/2027
Texas
Prohibits in foods in schools:Blue dye number 1Blue dye number 2 Green dye number 3Red dye number 40Yellow dye number 5Yellow dye number 6 And any additive that is substantially similar to any of the above
Also prohibits in foods in schools:Red dye number 3 Red dye number 40 Yellow dye number 5 Yellow dye number 6 Blue dye number 1 Blue dye number 2 Green dye number 3 caramel
Prohibits from food in schools and foods available through supplemental nutrition programs:Red dye number 3 Red dye number 40 Yellow dye number 5 Yellow dye number 6 Blue dye number 1 Blue dye number 2 Green dye number 3 Citrus red dye number 2 Orange B dye
Prohibits in foods:aspartameartificial flavoringpropylparabenazodicarbonamide (ADAbutylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) Butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT)color additivedimethylpolysiloxane (PDMS)monosodium glutamate (MSG)Tert-butylhydroquinone (TBHQ)Partially hydrogenated oilsSodium benzoateSodium nitrateSodium nitritemethylparaben
Prohibits is foods available under SNAP programs:brominated vegetable oil (BVO)potassium bromate propylparabenazodicarbonamideButylated hydroxyanisole (BHA)Red dye number 3Titanium dioxide.
Prohibits from foods in schools:brominated vegetable oil (BVOpotassium bromatepropylparabenazodicarbonamidebutylated hydroxyanisole (BHAtitanium dioxidered dye 3 blue 1 blue 2 green 3 red 40 yellow 5 yellow 6
Effective immediately upon passage if it receives a 2/3 vote. If passed with less than a 2/3 vote, effective 9/1/2025
Effective immediately upon passage if it receives a 2/3 vote. If passed with less than a 2/3 vote, effective 9/1/2025
If passed, effective 9/1/2025
Effective immediately upon passage if it receives a 2/3 vote. If passed with less than a 2/3 vote, effective 9/1/2025
Effective immediately upon passage if it receives a 2/3 vote. If passed with less than a 2/3 vote, effective 9/1/2025
Utah
Prohibits from foods in public schools:Potassium bromate;Propylparaben;Blue dye number 1Blue dye number 2Green dye number 3Red dye number 3Red dye number 40Yellow dye number 5 Yellow dye number 6
If passed, effective 5/7/2025
Vermont
Prohibits in foods:brominated vegetable oil potassium bromate propylparaben red dye no. 3
If passed, effective 1/1/2027
Virginia
Prohibited in food available in public and secondary schoolsBlue dye number 1Blue dye number 2 Green dye number 3Red dye number 3 Red dye number 40 Yellow dye number 5 Yellow dye number 6
Signed by the governor on 3/27/2025 with an effective date of 7/1/2027
West Virginia
Banned from foods:butylated hydroxyanisole propylparabenBlue dye number 1Blue dye number 37 Green dye number 3Red dye number 3Red dye number 40 Yellow dye number 5Yellow dye number 6
Approved by the governor on 3/24/2025:Effective 1/1/2028.Dyes prohibited in school foods effective 8/1/2025
Stay tuned for more regulatory changes. With nationwide distribution common among food manufacturers, an ingredient ban in one state can effectively function as a nationwide ban. Plus, with the new administration in Washington, D.C., it is anticipated that the FDA will impose additional regulations on food ingredients. Bottom line, regulations at the state and federal levels may lead manufacturers to reformulate or discontinue some foods.
A New Playbook: What the CFTC’s Operating Divisions Will Consider When Making Enforcement Referrals
The three operating divisions of the CFTC (Division of Market Oversight, Market Participants Division, and the Division of Clearing and Risk, together the Operating Divisions) issued an advisory on April 17, explaining the materiality criteria they will use when determining whether to make a formal referral to the agency’s Division of Enforcement (DOE) for self-reported violations, supervision violations, or other non-compliance issues (the Referral Advisory).
The Referral Advisory comes off the heels of DOE’s February 25 advisory (the DOE advisory) regarding self-reporting, cooperation and remediation by a CFTC registered entity or registrant when recommending an investigation or enforcement action to the Commission, including the factors DOE will consider when evaluating whether to reduce the proposed civil monetary penalties in enforcement actions. Under the DOE Advisory, a registered entity or registrant may receive CMP credit for self-reporting a potential violation to the appropriate CFTC Operating Division. Under older DOE staff guidance (which has since been vacated), DOE would not provide such credit when a registered entity or registrant self-reported a potential violation to the appropriate Operating Division.
Read Katten’s summary of the DOE Advisory.
The Referral Advisory notes that the Operating Divisions may refer potential violations that are material to DOE, such as those that involve:
Harm to clients, counterparties or customers, or members or participants;
Harm to market integrity; or
Significant financial losses.
In circumstances where a material violation involves fraud, manipulation or abuse, the Referral Advisory recommends making a referral directly to DOE rather than to the Operating Divisions.
The Operating Divisions will address supervision or noncompliance issues that are not material. In other words, the Operating Divisions will no longer make referrals of these nonmaterial noncompliance issues. This guidance is consistent with the Acting Chairman Caroline Pham’s push to have the Commission treat technical, noncompliance violations in the same way that exam deficiencies are addressed. While a commissioner, she commented that “enforcement actions for one-off, non-material operational or technical issues is shooting fish in a barrel.” Acting Chairman Pham also suggested that, instead, the agency should “take an approach to operational and technical issues that is consistent with the requirements and intent of CFTC rules 3.3 and 23.602.”
In determining the materiality of a supervision or noncompliance issue, the Referral Advisory provides that the appropriate Operating Division will apply a reasonableness standard to the following criteria:
Especially egregious or prolonged systematic deficiencies or material weakness of the supervisory system or controls, or program;
Knowing and willful misconduct by management, such as conduct evidencing an intent to conceal a potential violation, or supervision or noncompliance issue; or
Lack of substantial progress towards completion of a remediation plan for an unreasonably lengthy period of time, such as several years, particularly after a sustained and continuous process with the appropriate Operating Division regarding the lack of substantial progress.
The Referral Advisory makes clear, however, that the failure to meet a deadline for corrective action or remediation plan on its own will not be sufficient for a referral to DOE.