EEOC Enforcement Activities Take Shape Under Second Trump Administration
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has been a regular topic of the flurry of executive orders issued by President Trump since his inauguration. Even before his return to the Oval Office, there was speculation about how the EEOC’s enforcement activities and priorities might change during a second Trump administration, as well as how the composition of the EEOC’s leadership would likely transform. In the weeks following the inauguration, the EEOC’s goals began to take shape, with its leadership seeing significant rearrangement. Manufacturers should stay current on these modifications as they signal substantial changes in the agency’s policies and anticipated future enforcement priorities and initiatives.
On January 24, 2025, President Trump dismissed two of the EEOC’s Democratic Commissioners and appointed Andrea Lucas as Acting Chair, leaving one Democratic Commissioner and one vacancy. The EEOC’s current leadership composition means it lacks a quorum and cannot issue regulations or guidance, or rescind or replace regulations or guidance issued by the previous administration. Importantly, these changes do not affect the EEOC’s ability to engage in enforcement activities.
Prior to President Trump’s second term, it was anticipated that the EEOC was preparing to scale back protections for LGBTQ+ workers. This shift came to fruition beginning in February, when the EEOC moved to voluntarily dismiss six lawsuits that it had filed during the Biden administration on behalf of aggrieved plaintiffs, alleging discrimination based on transgender status in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In withdrawing from its representation, the EEOC noted in filings that continued litigation is untenable “in light of recent [a]dministration policy changes.” The EEOC’s voluntary dismissal of the lawsuits represents a major departure from its prior interpretation of the protections afforded under Title VII and its guidance issued during the Biden administration, in which the EEOC took the position that the intentional misuse of an employee’s preferred pronouns constituted discrimination and harassment.
Although the EEOC has chosen to step back from its representation of the plaintiffs in these lawsuits, the same federal law that authorizes the EEOC to sue on their behalf also provides the plaintiffs with a right to intervene in and pursue the litigation on their own behalf.
In light of these developments, manufacturers should remain aware of the following when making decisions related to the recruitment, hiring, and termination, as well as other terms and conditions of employment:
Although the EEOC may change its enforcement priorities, an executive order cannot override federal laws and constitutional rights. This includes the federal law authorizing individuals to intervene in litigation brought by the EEOC and pursue litigation on their own behalf as well as the Supreme Court’s holding in Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity constitutes “sex discrimination” in violation of Title VII.
The federal government’s labor and employment law enforcement activities and policies are separate from those of state and local governments, which may continue or even increase their efforts in reaction to changes at the federal level.
It is possible that the EEOC’s enforcement activities will continue to change, so it is crucial for manufacturers to stay current on executive orders, guidance, and enforcement initiatives at the federal level.
Manufacturers should consult competent employment counsel for assistance with regard to the EEOC’s enforcement initiatives, guidance, and other communications.
New Trump EO Aims to Eliminate Department of Education
On March 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order (EO), “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities,” directing the secretary of education “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education ….”
The EO’s stated primary goal is to return the “authority” over education to the states. The EO does not provide a plan for “closure.” It reiterates that the use of Department of Education funds for any program or activity aimed at promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion or “promoting gender ideology” will be terminated.
The White House also issued a fact sheet providing more insight into the administration’s motivation and goals with respect to K-12 education. The fact sheet emphasizes the administration’s advocacy for school choice programs, also known as vouchers, that allow families to use public funds to send their children to faith-based and other private schools.
Notably, the Department and many of its functions were created by statute and cannot be eliminated without an act of Congress. Termination of half the Department’s staff in recent weeks has raised questions about its capacity to continue mandated functions.
It is not immediately clear what additional steps the administration intends to take or how that will impact individual educational institutions.
The Year Ahead 2025: California PAGA Amendments + Other Legislative Highlights
The Golden State had lost some of its luster among California employers due to its Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), with some calling it “one of the least just and fair laws that employers are dealing with today in California.” Yet two recent PAGA amendments may help restore the state’s business shine in 2025 and beyond.
Takeaways
PAGA amendments have some positive aspects for employers.
2025 will hopefully bring more clarity on how the trial courts will handle the revisions to PAGA.
California employers should review policies, be aware of requirements for posting if undertaking a voluntary audit and be cautious with mandatory meetings given recent legislative changes.
PAGA Amendments
Senate Bill 92
Effective immediately except for certain cure provisions that took effect 11.01.24.
Applies to civil actions filed on or after 06.19.24.
Expands the right to cure Labor Code violations for businesses with fewer than one hundred employees and offers businesses with more than one hundred employees the ability to seek an early resolution of Labor Code claims pending in court.
Assembly Bill 2288
Effective immediately.
Applies to civil actions brought on or after 06.19.24.
Focuses on revisions to penalties, including penalty caps for good faith compliance; reduced penalties for wage statement violations, derivative violations, cured violations and isolated violations; relief for employers with weekly pay periods; limited aggravated penalties; increased employee share of penalties; and injunctive relief.
Revised Definition of “Aggrieved Employee”
Plaintiffs must have personally suffered each of the violations and suffered the violations during the period prescribed by the statute of limitations.
The revised definition provides exceptions for individuals represented by a nonprofit legal aid organization that has acted as PAGA counsel for at least five years prior to 01.01.25.
PAGA in Practice
Trial court judges are still figuring out how new amendments work.
The results have varied.
Plaintiff’s bar not slowing down: 3,827 PAGA notices filed after the amendments took effect.
Other California Legislative Highlights
AB 2499
Amends the provisions for time off related to jury duty, court appearances and victim-related activities.
SB 399
Enacts the California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act to curtail employers’ ability to require employees to attend employer-sponsored meetings that convey the employer’s opinions on religious or political matters.
SB 1137
Clarifies that the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Unruh Civil Rights Act and the provisions of the Education Code prohibit discrimination not just on the basis of individual protected traits, but also on the basis of the intersectionality of two or more protected traits.
AB 3234
Requires employers to make certain disclosures if they voluntarily audit their operations for the involvement of child labor.
California Legislature Introduces Several Employment Law Bills for 2025
California lawmakers introduced numerous bills early in the 2025 legislative session that could affect California employment law in significant ways. Although it is too soon to predict which bills, if any, will advance, the proposed bills could substantially affect California employers.
Quick Hits
California legislators have proposed bills in the 2025 legislative session that address pay transparency, automated decision systems, workplace surveillance, paid family leave, and employee training.
The legislative session in California will end on September 12, 2025.
The governor will have until October 12, 2025, to sign or veto bills passed by the state legislature.
California legislators have introduced the following employment law-related bills this session:
SB 642 would require pay scales provided in job ads to be no more than 10 percent above or below the mean pay rate within the salary or hourly wage range. The bill revises language to make clear that employers cannot pay an employee less than they pay employees of “another” sex, rather than “the opposite” sex, for substantially similar work.
AB 1018 would regulate the development and deployment of automated decision systems to make employment-related decisions, including hiring, promotion, performance evaluation, discipline, termination, and setting pay and benefits. The bill applies to machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, and artificial intelligence. It would require that employers allow workers to opt out of the automated decision system.
AB 1331 would place limits on workplace surveillance, including devices used for video or audio recording, electronic work pace tracking, location monitoring, electromagnetic tracking, and photoelectronic tracking. The bill would prohibit employers from using surveillance tools during off-duty hours or in private, off-duty areas, such as bathrooms, locker rooms, changing areas, breakrooms, and lactation spaces. The bill also would prohibit employers from monitoring a worker’s residence or personal vehicle.
SB 590 would expand eligibility for benefits under the state’s paid family leave program to include individuals who take time off work to care for a seriously ill designated person, meaning any individual whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship. State law already permits paid leave to care for a seriously ill child, stepchild, foster child, spouse, parent, sibling, grandparent, or grandchild.
AB 1371 would permit employees to refuse to perform a task assigned by an employer if the assigned task would violate safety standards, or if the employee has a reasonable fear that the assigned task would result in injury or illness to the employee or others. The bill would prohibit employers from disciplining or retaliating against an employee for refusing to perform the assigned task.
AB 1234 would revise the process for the state labor commissioner to investigate and hear wage theft complaints. The bill would require the labor commissioner to set a hearing date and establish procedures for the hearing within ninety days after issuing a formal complaint. It would require the labor commissioner to issue an order, decision, or award within fifteen days of the hearing, known as a Berman hearing.
AB 1015 would authorize employers to satisfy the state’s workplace discrimination and harassment training requirements by demonstrating that the employee possesses a certificate of completion within the past two years.
SB 261 would establish a civil penalty for employers that fail to pay a court judgment awarded for nonpayment of work performed.
Next Steps
Most of these bills are in the committee review stages and have not yet passed either the California Senate or Assembly. To advance, the bills must pass both legislative bodies. The last day for the legislature to pass bills is September 12, 2025. The governor will have until October 12, 2025, to sign or veto bills passed by the legislature.
California employers may wish to stay abreast of legislative action on state bills related to pay transparency, workplace surveillance, paid family leave, automated decision systems, employee training, and other employment law topics.
President Trump Ends $15-Per-Hour Contractor Minimum Wage Rate After Filing a Brief Defending Power to Set the Minimum Wage
On March 14, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14236—“Additional Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions”—revoking eighteen executive orders and actions issued by former president Joe Biden.
In particular, this new EO has revoked EO 14026 of April 27, 2021, which had established a $15-per-hour minimum wage rate for workers on certain federal contracts. The revocation followed the U.S. Department of Labor’s filing of a brief on March 13, 2025, stating that EO 14026 was a valid exercise of presidential authority.
Quick Hits
On March 14, 2025, President Trump issued EO 14236, “Additional Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions,” revoking EO 14026, which had set a $15-per-hour minimum wage rate for federal contractors.
The EO 13658 minimum wage rate (currently $13.30 per hour) is still in effect for certain covered contracts.
EO 14026 and its implementing regulations are still subject to ongoing litigation.
Federal contractors and subcontractors must continue to follow other federally mandated compensation requirements, including minimum wage rates and applicable wage determinations.
The $15-Per-Hour Minimum Wage Rate for Federal Contractors
EO 14026 generally required minimum wages for workers performing work on or in connection with contracts covered under the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act; contracts covered under the Davis-Bacon Act; contracts in connection with federal property or lands and related to offering services for federal employees, their dependents, or the general public; and concession contracts. Because of yearly adjustments, in 2025, the applicable wage rate under EO 14026 was $17.75 per hour.
Since its issuance on April 27, 2021, EO 14026 has been under legal attack, primarily concerning whether its promulgation was within presidential authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (also known as the Procurement Act). The Fifth Circuit (within presidential authority), Ninth Circuit (not within presidential authority), and Tenth Circuit (within presidential authority) have split over whether the order was within President Biden’s procurement authority.
In January 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to address the split. In February 2025, in the Fifth Circuit case, Republican attorneys general in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas called on the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider the three-judge panel’s unanimous decision. On March 13, 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) opposed rehearing on the basis that EO 14026 fell, as the panel of judges held, “directly within the President’s purview.” On March 17, 2025, the Texas Office of the Attorney General notified the Fifth Circuit of the revocation of EO 14026 and asked the Fifth Circuit to withhold issuance of the panel’s mandate and vacate the panel’s opinion.
EO 14236 of March 14, 2025, does not purport to address the existing regulatory or procurement basis for EO 14026. Specifically, to implement EO 14026, the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) published regulations on November 24, 2021, entitled, “Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors.” In addition, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) amended Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.222-55, a provision that remains in many federal contracts.
Consequently, we expect further action from the WHD, procuring agencies, and/or the FAR Council to address this existing regulatory framework. We also expect that, even if EO 14236 ends the Fifth Circuit appeal, litigation over the scope of a president’s authority to issue executive orders related to procurement will continue unabated.
Other Minimum Wage and Compensation Obligations for Federal Contractors
Importantly, EO 14026 was not the first EO specifying a general minimum wage for federal contractors. Former president Barack Obama issued EO 13658 on February 12, 2014 (“Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors”). EO 14026 superseded EO 13658 as of January 30, 2022, to the extent inconsistent with EO 14026. Thus, the EO 13658 minimum wage ($13.30 per hour as of January 1, 2025) has remained applicable only to covered contracts that were entered into on or between January 1, 2015, and January 29, 2022, and which were not renewed or extended on or after January 30, 2022.
In addition, the Davis-Bacon Act and the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act, for example, continue to require prevailing wages by certain federal contractors and subcontractors that perform services or construction work. However, 2023 changes—which, in particular, expanded the scope of Davis-Bacon coverage and changed the development of wage rates and their incorporation into contracts—to the Davis-Bacon regulations are also subject to pending legal challenges.
Key Takeaways
Federal contractors and grant recipients may want to consider taking the following steps:
Identifying any contracts subject to federally specified minimum wages and watching for notices from the FAR Council or the contracting agency implementing the revocation of EO 14026
Monitoring Davis-Bacon-related litigation if performing under Davis-Bacon-covered contracts
Monitoring executive order challenges to presidential authority under the Procurement Act
West Virginia Set to Ban Certain Food Additives and Colors
On March 19, 2025, the West Virginia Senate and House sent HB 2354 to the governor for final approval, which proposes banning various food additives and synthetic dyes.
The bill would prohibit the sale of any food product in the state that contains butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), propylparaben, Red No. 3, Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, Yellow No. 6, Blue No. 1, Blue No. 2, or Green No. 3. If enacted, the legislation would apply to food products in school nutrition programs beginning August 1, 2025, then extend to all food products in the state on January 1, 2028.
While there was some push back arguing that the state should wait for changes to come top down from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and that the ban will cause food prices to go up or limit the competitiveness of the state, the voting pattern shows that the opposition was minimal. This article by West Virginia Watch stated that Senator Barrett, who spearheaded the effort, feels confident that the Governor will sign HB 2354.
The West Virginia bill is the latest state legislative effort to regulate food dyes, following California, Utah, Florida, and Virginia.
New York Attorney General Proposes Bill to Expand Consumer Protection Law
On March 13, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced the introduction of the Fostering Affordability and Integrity through Reasonable Business Practices Act (FAIR Business Practices Act). The proposed legislation seeks to extend the state’s existing ban on deceptive business practices to also prohibit unfair and abusive practices, aligning New York with 42 other states.
The bill, introduced in both state Senate and Assembly, would enhance enforcement capabilities for the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) and private consumers, including the ability to seek civil penalties and restitution for UDAAP violations. According to Attorney General James, the legislation is needed to tackle a host of consumer harms, including:
Subscription cancellations. Preventing companies from making it unreasonably difficult for consumers to cancel recurring payments.
Debt collection abuses. Prohibiting debt collectors from improperly seizing Social Security benefits or nursing homes from suing relatives of deceased residents for unpaid bills.
Auto dealer practices. Prohibiting car dealerships from withholding a customer’s photo identification until a sale is finalized.
Student loan servicing misconduct. Restricting student loan servicers from steering borrowers into costlier repayment plans.
Exploitation of limited English proficiency consumers. Addressing deceptive practices targeting non-English-speaking consumers.
Junk fees and hidden costs. Reducing unnecessary and deceptive charges in various industries, including healthcare and lending.
Artificial intelligence (AI) scams and online fraud. Strengthening enforcement against AI-driven scams, phishing schemes, and deceptive digital marketing practices.
The proposal has garnered support from former CFPB director Rohit Chopra and former FTC Chair Lina Khan, both of whom have emphasized the need for stronger state-level enforcement against deceptive and abusive business practices.
Putting It Into Practice: New York’s proposed legislation is the latest example of a growing trend among states taking a more active role in consumer protection enforcement (previously discussed here and here). This also highlights how some states are proactively responding to the CFPB’s state-level consumer protection recommendations from January, which encourage the adoption of the “abusive” standard (previously discussed here). With ongoing uncertainty surrounding the future of the CFPB, more states are likely to step in to fill the regulatory void by expanding their own consumer protection laws.
Listen to this post
Alright, Alright, A Write-Off: Matthew Mcconaughey’s Push for Texas Film Tax Incentives
Texas has long been a hub for film and television production, offering diverse landscapes, a rich cultural backdrop, and some real characters. Back in 2007 the state implemented the Texas Moving Image Industry Incentive Program, which is administered by the Texas Film Commission under the Economic Development and Tourism Division of the Office of the Governor.[1] Allocations have continued to grow ever since.[2] Starting with $20 million in the first year,[3] it is now the largest in state history at $200 million with a 22.5% tax rebate.[4]
However, this funding is still below competitive states like Georgia and New Mexico.[5] If Senate Bill 1 (SB1), which was filed on January 22, 2025, is approved, then $498 million would be allocated “to revamp the Texas Film Incentive, making Texas the movie capital of the world.”[6] The incentive would consist of two parts: “$48 million in grants for small films and TV commercials, and up to $450 million in new tax credits, including Texas residency requirements for workers,” which Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick provides would give Texas $4 back for every $1 invested.[7]
In early 2025, a coalition of prominent actors—including Matthew McConaughey, Woody Harrelson, Renée Zellweger, Billy Bob Thornton, and Dennis Quaid—launched the “True to Texas” campaign.[8] This initiative features a commercial directed by True Detective creator Nic Pizzolatto, where the actors emphasize the economic benefits, such as job creation and local business growth, that could result from increased investment in the Texas film industry.[9]
This push is no surprise given the new film studios opening in the state, including a 546- acre studio in Bastrop.[10] Also, over the past few years, more hit productions, such as Taylor Sheridan’s Yellowstone, 1923, and Landman, have filmed in Texas.[11]
As of February 13, 2025, SB1 has been scheduled for a public hearing in the Senate Finance Committee.[12] Given that our firm has represented clients in some of the industry’s largest and most complex transactions in the entertainment industry and has worked on numerous deals utilizing tax incentives around the world, we continue to monitor the status of SB1 and standby ready to advise clients as needed.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Texas Moving Image Industry Incentive Program | Fort Bend Economic Development Council
[2] Film Subsidies – Texas Public Policy Foundation
[3] Film Subsidies – Texas Public Policy Foundation
[4] McConaughey, Harrelson channel ‘True Detective’ in Texas films ad
[5] McConaughey, Harrelson channel ‘True Detective’ in Texas films ad
[6] Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick: Statement on the State Budget Filed in the Texas Senate – Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick
[7] Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick: Statement on the State Budget Filed in the Texas Senate – Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick
[8] Dennis Quaid says Texas wants to be ‘New Hollywood’ in ad: photos
[9] Dennis Quaid says Texas wants to be ‘New Hollywood’ in ad: photos
[10] Bastrop film studio could produce $1.9B over 10 years and Bastrop reels in massive film studio and entertainment complex from California company
[11] McConaughey, Harrelson channel ‘True Detective’ in Texas films ad
[12] TX SB1 | 2025-2026 | 89th Legislature | LegiScan
California Assemblymember Sharp-Collins Introduces Workplace Safety Bill Authorizing Refusals to Work and Requiring Wages
On February 21, 2025, California Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins (D), representing San Diego, introduced Assembly Bill (AB) No. 1371 (“Right to Refuse Unsafe Work With Pay”) in the California State Assembly. The measure, which is now pending before the Assembly’s Committee on Labor and Employment, would revise and expand employee protections and establish continuing wage payment obligations if an employer fails to abate a work hazard to an employee’s satisfaction.
Existing law prohibits California employers from laying off or discharging an employee for refusing to perform work that would violate prescribed safety standards where the violation would create a real and apparent hazard to the employee or other employees.
Quick Hits
California AB 1371 would revise and expand employee protections and establish continuing wage payment obligations if an employer fails to abate a work hazard—including heat illness—to an employee’s satisfaction.
The bill specifically provides a “right of action” for the recovery of unpaid wages for the employer’s failure to pay “full wages” as described.
The bill provides for payment of “full wages” if the employee complies with the bill’s enumerated conditions and the employer doesn’t assign a different task to the employee that would not expose the employee to the health and safety risks complained of.
Under the legislation, an employee would be authorized to refuse to perform work if three conditions are met:
The employee believes, in good faith, that the work creates a “real and apparent hazard to the employee or their fellow employees” or “has a reasonable apprehension” that the performance of the work “would result in injury or illness to the employee or other employees.”
The employee or another employee has communicated or attempted to notify the employer of the health and safety risk.
The employer has not provided a response that is reasonably calculated to allay the safety and health concerns regarding the specific work.
The bill specifically provides a “right of action” for the recovery of unpaid wages for the employer’s failure to pay “full wages” as described. The bill does not specify, however, whether this right of action is limited to a claim before the labor commissioner or in court.
Additionally, California employers could be exposed to risks of derivative claims that arise from the nonpayment of wages. Such derivative claims include statutory and waiting time penalties for the failure to timely pay wages during and at the termination of employment which can easily add thousands of dollars to any claim.
AB 1371 will proceed to committee hearings over the next few months with likely opposition from California trade associations and employer groups.
McDermott+ Check-Up: March 21, 2025
THIS WEEK’S DOSE
Government Is Funded, Congress at Home for the Week. The continuing resolution signed by President Trump last Saturday funds the government through the rest of the fiscal year.
Senate Finance Committee Holds CMS Administrator Nomination Hearing. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) administrator nominee Mehmet Oz, MD, testified.
President Trump Issues EO on Domestic Preparedness. Implementation of this executive order (EO) will likely have implications for drug supply chains and pandemic preparedness.
CONGRESS
Government Is Funded, Congress at Home for the Week. On March 15, 2025, President Trump signed a continuing resolution (CR) into law that funds the government and provides short-term extensions of certain healthcare programs and provisions, including Medicare telehealth flexibilities and community health center funding, through September 30, 2025, the end of the fiscal year. The CR did not include a Medicare physician payment fix. Instead, Republican leadership committed to include a fix in the upcoming budget reconciliation bill to secure votes from the GOP Doctors Caucus. Given the timeline of a potential reconciliation bill, it is uncertain whether Congress will consider any mitigation to the 2025 Medicare physician payment cut that is currently in effect. The House passed the CR mostly along party lines in a 217 – 213 vote. In the Senate, after much internal debate, 10 Democrats joined all but one Republican in a 62 – 38 vote to advance the CR to a final vote, ultimately allowing Republicans to pass it with a simple majority. Congress then went home for a recess week. Both the House and Senate return on March 24, 2025, for a three-week stint until they hit a two-week April recess around the Easter and Passover holidays.
Senate Finance Committee Holds CMS Administrator Nomination Hearing. In the hearing on March 14, 2025, members from both parties discussed concerns about access to care in rural areas as well as high prior authorization and upcoding usage by Medicare Advantage (MA) insurers. Mehmet Oz, MD, agreed with members and stated that he would seek to address upcoding in MA as CMS administrator – which is notable in light of his previous outspoken endorsements of the program. Republicans focused on the insights Oz can bring to CMS as a physician, while Democrats pressed to see if Oz supports reforming or cutting Medicaid, including through work requirements.
ADMINISTRATION
President Trump Issues EO on Domestic Preparedness. The “Achieving Efficiency Through State and Local Preparedness” EO seeks to expand the role of states and localities in preparedness, which will likely have impacts on drug supply chain issues and future pandemic response. The EO directs the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, in coordination with other relevant agencies, to:
Publish a national resilience strategy within 90 days
Review critical infrastructure policies, including the following EOs, and recommend a risk-informed approach within 180 days:
EO 14017, “America’s Supply Chains”
EO 14123, “White House Council on Supply Chain Resilience”
Review all national continuity policies, including the following, and recommend options to modernize and streamline the current approach within 180 days:
National Security Memorandum 32, National Continuity Policy
Review the findings of the Federal Emergency Management Agency Council and provide recommendations to edit policies, including the following, to reformulate the process and metrics for federal responsibility within 240 days:
Presidential Policy Directive 8, National Preparedness
Create a National Risk Register within 240 days
The EO also directs the secretary of homeland security to propose policy changes to improve federal-state communication. A fact sheet can be found here.
QUICK HITS
House Democrats Launch Congressional Doctors Caucus. The Congressional Doctors Caucus will work to advance “pragmatic healthcare policy.” This caucus joins the long-established and larger GOP Doctors Caucus in the House. The new Democratic caucus comprises:
Ami Bera, MD (CA) – internal medicine
Herb Conaway, Jr., MD (NJ) – internal medicine
Maxine Dexter, MD (OR) – pulmonary and critical care
Kelly Morrison, MD (MN) – obstetrics and gynecology
Raul Ruiz, MD (CA) – emergency medicine
Kim Schrier, MD (WA) – pediatrics
CMS Announces Manufacturer Participation in Current Round of Medicare Drug Price Negotiation. CMS stated that agreements have been signed with the manufacturers of the 15 drugs chosen for participation in the second cycle of Medicare drug negotiations.
FDA Study Shows Impact of E-Cigarette Prevention Campaign. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) study found that “The Real Cost” campaign successfully prevented 450,000 new youth e-cigarette users between 2023 and 2024. Read the press release here.
HHS Renews Opioid Crisis PHE Declaration. US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kennedy renewed the opioid crisis public health emergency (PHE) declaration for another 90 days. The PHE was set to expire on March 21, 2025, and allows more federal coordination efforts and flexibilities.
HHS, FDA Announce Operation Stork Speed. This initiative seeks to address the safety, reliability, and nutrition of infant formula by starting the statutorily required nutrient review, increasing testing for heavy metals, and extending the personal importation policy. HHS Secretary Kennedy was outspoken in support of these steps.
OCR Takes Action Against Maine for Alleged Title IX Violation. Following an investigation, the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) stated that Maine’s Department of Education and other entities in the state are in violation of President Trump’s “Keeping Men out of Women’s Sports” EO because they allegedly allowed transgender female students to play in women’s sports. OCR’s letter to the entities requires them to voluntarily commit to resolve the matter within 10 days or risk referral to the US Department of Justice. Read the press release here.
FTC Requests Stay of Noncompete Rule, Citing New Administration. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed motions requesting a 120-day stay of the agency’s appeal of district court decisions blocking the Biden-era FTC proposed ban on noncompete agreements. This is a signal that FTC’s new leadership is rethinking the agency’s defense of the proposed rule. FTC Chairman Ferguson also released a memo creating the Joint Labor Task Force, which will evaluate policy options related to noncompete agreements.
NEXT WEEK’S DIAGNOSIS
Congress will return to session on Monday to continue work on budget reconciliation. While each body has passed a budget resolution, they must now agree to and pass a unified budget resolution through both bodies in order for reconciliation to proceed. The House Veterans’ Affairs Health Subcommittee will hold a hearing on healthcare access and a markup of several healthcare-related bills, and the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade will hold a hearing on online safety. On the regulatory side, we await the release of the inpatient prospective payment system proposed rule.
Executive Order to Close the Department of Education: What It Means for Your School
On March 20, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order (“EO”) titled “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities,” directing the Secretary of Education to undertake all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education (“Department”).
What the EO Says
Citing historically low reading and math scores, the EO asserts that the federal bureaucracy has not served students, teachers, or families effectively, and aims to return decision-making power to those closest to the educational process—“States and local communities.”
The EO mandates that existing services, programs, and benefits—such as student loans, Title I funding, and special education support—continue without interruption during this transition, though it provides no details for achieving this continuity. In addition, the EO targets “illegal discrimination” in DEI and so-called “gender ideology” programs, potentially impacting school funding and compliance.
Notably, the EO recognizes its own legal boundaries: the Department, established by Congress in 1979 under the Department of Education Organization Act, cannot be unilaterally eliminated by the President. Any bill to shut down the Department requires 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster—a challenging threshold given the current political landscape on Capitol Hill. And legal challenges are likely to be filed. These lawsuits could delay implementation or reshape the order’s trajectory.
What This Means for Your School and Next Steps to Consider
For local school districts and charter schools, this EO introduces a range of practical and strategic considerations. Federal funding currently constitutes about 14 percent of public school budgets, primarily through programs like Title I, which supports schools in low-income areas, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), which ensures resources for students with disabilities. While the order does not immediately terminate these funds, a successful closure of the Department could lead to their disruption or reallocation. Districts in distressed regions may face additional challenges in maintaining current levels of service without federal support. Charter schools may have to grapple with the potential loss of federal Charter School Program grants (“CSP”), which may constrain their ability to expand or sustain operations.
Additionally, the EO includes a mandate to terminate any program or activity receiving federal assistance that is deemed to engage in “illegal discrimination” under described terms like “diversity, equity, and inclusion” or programs promoting “gender ideology.” For districts and charter schools, this could mean increased scrutiny of existing DEI programs, staff training, or curriculum elements related to gender identity, potentially requiring adjustments to maintain eligibility for federal funding during the transition. Non-compliance could risk funding cuts or legal challenges from federal authorities, while compliance might spark local backlash or litigation from stakeholders who support such programs, placing schools in a delicate balancing act.
The order also raises questions about civil rights enforcement, currently managed by the Department’s Office of Civil Rights. If this function dissolves or transfers, it could lead to an increase in private civil litigation. Additionally, the Department’s management of a $1.6 trillion student loan portfolio may move to another federal entity, such as the Treasury Department. This could affect districts offering dual-enrollment programs or employing staff eligible for loan forgiveness under programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness.
The broader implications of the policy shift represented by the EO may be significant. To prepare, it may be prudent for districts and charter schools to evaluate their dependence on federal programs like Title I, IDEA, and CSP grants. Engaging with your local ISD and with MDE to understand contingency plans may also be appropriate, as well as strengthening internal policies to address potential shifts in civil rights enforcement can help mitigate legal risks in an uncertain regulatory environment.
President Trump Issues Executive Order Promoting Domestic Mineral Production
On March 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed a sweeping executive order promoting mining and processing of “critical minerals” in the United States. The order – Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production – directs agencies of the federal government to prioritize and expedite permitting for mining and mineral processing projects, invoking the Defense Production Act among and other authorities. Key provisions include:
Expanded Critical Minerals List
For purposes of the order, “critical minerals” include uranium, copper, potash, and gold, in addition to the existing list of critical minerals designated by the secretary of the interior pursuant to the Energy Act of 2020 (30 U.S.C. § 1606(a)(3). Further, the order grants authority to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, who serves as chair of the National Energy Dominance Council (NEDC), to add “any other element, compound, or material” to the critical minerals list.
Priority Projects
The order directs permitting agencies to identify all mine and mineral processing projects awaiting federal approvals, to issue permits and approvals immediately where possible, and to expedite all permitting activities. The NEDC is to identify mine and mineral processing projects for inclusion in the expedited permitting procedures available under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (41 U.S.C. § 41003), and the Permitting Council must add the identified projects to the FAST Act Permitting Dashboard within 30 days of the order.
Mining the Primary Land Use
The Interior Secretary is instructed to provide a list of all federal lands known to contain mineral “deposits and reserves.” Mining and mineral processing are to be prioritized as the primary land use on these lands. Federal land managers are required to revise land use plans to align with the executive order’s directives.
Permitting Reform
To address regulatory inefficiencies, Interior Secretary Burgum, in his role as NEDC chair, is directed to publish a request for information seeking industry input on “regulatory bottlenecks” and “recommended strategies for expediting domestic mineral production.” The order further instructs the NEDC to develop legislative recommendations to clarify the treatment of mine waste disposal on federal lands under the Mining Law. This direction aims to address permitting delays and uncertainty stemming from Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 33 Fed. 4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2022) (commonly referred to as the “Rosemont” decision).
Defense Production Act
The order delegates Defense Production Act authority to the secretary of defense to facilitate domestic mineral production. Mineral production is to be added to the Defense Department’s Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment Program as a priority area. The defense secretary is also directed to work with the International Development Finance Corporation to use financing authorities and mechanisms to advance mineral production, including the creation of a dedicated mineral production fund.
Unneeded Federal Lands for Mining Projects
The secretaries of defense, energy, interior, and agriculture are tasked with identifying sites on “unneeded” federal lands within their jurisdiction that are suitable for “leasing or development” under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 2667 (Defense), 42 U.S.C. § 7256 (Energy), or other applicable authorities (Interior and Agriculture).