Election Law / Legislative News – Page 25

SB 760: Maryland Regulated Retail Display of ‘Closed-Loop’ Gift Cards

Go-To Guide:

On Sept. 24, 2024, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore signed SB 760 into law.
Beginning Oct. 1, 2025, Maryland merchants selling prepaid gift cards redeemable only at their stores must display fraud warnings, use tamper-proof packaging, and train employees on fraud prevention.

SB 7601 adds several requirements to Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act that implement new safeguards aimed at preventing gift card fraud.
This GT Alert discusses requirements related to the sale of “closed loop” gift cards, defined as cards issued to consumers on a prepaid basis and redeemable on presentation only at the merchant’s store(s). (See discussion at end of this Alert regarding “open loop” cards usable with multiple different merchants.) When selling a closed loop gift card in a Maryland retail store, the merchant must

display warning language “at or near” the point of sale to caution consumers about potential scams,
comply with specific packaging requirements to prevent tampering, and
provide instruction to employees engaged in the sale of such cards, all as further described below.

A. Warning Language ‘At or Near’ the Point of Sale
The merchant must conspicuously display a warning notice at or near the physical location where the gift card is displayed for sale, or where the sale occurs. The notice must

i.
caution consumers about gift card scams,

ii.
instruct consumers what to do if they suspect they are a victim of a gift card scam, and

iii.
indicate that the gift card may not be used to pay debt.

The Maryland Division of Consumer Protection will publish a model notice, which merchants are encouraged to adopt. As of this writing, the model notice has not yet been published.
B. Gift Card Packaging Requirements
Gift cards generally must be enclosed in packaging not easily removed or replaced without signs of tampering. Additionally, the packaging must either

i.
fully conceal all numeric codes specific to the card’s redemption, or

ii.
partially conceal all such codes if the card can be made more secure through partial (rather than full) concealment.

Such packaging must also display the following suggested warning:
“DO NOT SELL OR PURCHASE IF PACKAGING HAS BEEN BROKEN OR INDICATES TAMPERING.”
While merchants can use language that is “substantially similar” (rather than identical) to the suggested warning, the Maryland Division of Consumer Protection recommends they adopt the language exactly as displayed to help avoid any potential dispute about the disclosure’s validity.
Packaging Exception: Chip-Enabled Cards
In the case of chip-enabled gift cards – i.e., cards without a displayed numeric code that become enabled via registration on the card issuer’s website – the above packaging requirements can be avoided if the cards meet the following conditions:

i.
the card must be sold exclusively by the merchant, or a group of affiliated merchants, for use only at the retail store(s) of the merchant(s); and

ii.
the card must be secured in a physical location within the merchant’s retail store that only the merchant’s employees can access.

C. Training Requirement
Merchants offering closed loop gift cards must provide training to all employees whose duties regularly include selling such cards, including instruction on how to identify and respond to gift card fraud. The Maryland Division of Consumer Protection will publish the exact nature and content of this required instruction, but as of this writing, specific instructional requirements have not yet been published.
Risks and Penalties of Non-Compliance
Businesses should be wary of government enforcement efforts. Violating the new statute may constitute an unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practice, which might result in penalties under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act – including restitution and injunctive relief – and the possibility of state attorneys’ fees and costs. (See, e.g., MD. CODE ANN., COM. LAW §§ 13-402, 13-046). Consumer class actions may also be brought alleging violation of the law.
Takeaways
Companies offering closed-loop gift cards for sale in Maryland should review their packaging and marketing materials to ensure conformity with the requirements outlined in the law. Such companies should also monitor publications from the Maryland Division of Consumer Protection for further detail regarding the model warning notice and instructional requirements for employees.
‘Open Loop’ Gift Cards
SB 760 includes additional requirements for the sale of “open loop” gift cards, which are redeemable with multiple, unaffiliated merchants operating within that payment card’s network. Any seller of such cards should review the law carefully to understand the separate requirements applicable to “open loop” cards.

1 Acts 2024, Ch. 463; MD. CODE ANN., COM. LAW §§ 14-4601 – 14-4606

Jacob Langsner contributed to this article.

Healthcare Preview for the Week of: January 21, 2025 [Podcast]

First Official Week of Trump 2.0

President Trump officially began his second term yesterday. He briefly discussed healthcare in his first inaugural speech, committing to tackle chronic disease and keep children safe, healthy, and disease free. He also signed several executive orders, with fewer than expected directly focusing on healthcare on day one.
It is important to note that executive orders generally are not immediately effective; rather, they initiate a longer process and require additional steps before they can be enforced. Executive orders generally signal values and future plans, but they can be challenged in court. Thus, we need to be precise when looking at executive orders and their potential implications.
Yesterday, President Trump used executive orders to rescind several Biden-era policies, including some related to diversity, equity, and inclusion; climate; and the COVID-19 pandemic. He also issued an order to begin the process of withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization, referencing the organization’s “mishandling” of COVID-19. This process could take up to a year to go into effect.
President Trump also revoked President Biden’s 2022 executive order on lowering prescription drug costs. This revocation did not stop prescription drug pricing initiatives that are moving forward at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, but we’ll need to watch closely any next steps that may stem from it.
President Trump also ordered federal employees to return to in-office work full time, limited the release of new regulations, and froze federal hiring, although he specified that Medicare won’t be adversely impacted. He named Dorothy Fink, MD, as the acting Health and Human Services secretary, while we await the nomination hearings for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
In health-related legislative news this week, the Senate Committee on the Budget will hold a hearing for Russell Vought’s nomination to become director of the Office of Management and Budget. The House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Health Oversight will hold a hearing on community care for veterans. The House Committee on Rules will also meet on items for potential suspension and may consider an abortion-related bill later in the week.
This is only day two of the Administration, so we know that there will be much more healthcare policy to come.
Today’s Podcast

In this week’s Healthcare Preview podcast, Debbie Curtis and Rodney Whitlock join Maddie News to discuss Day One actions by President Trump, including what to take away from his first executive orders and what is still to come for healthcare.

Online judicial sales – Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law Enters the Digital Age

Purchasers of distressed real estate in mortgage foreclosure proceedings can now work remotely, too. Governor JB Pritzker signed into law Public Act 103-930 S.B. 2919, which became effective January 1, 2025, and allows the “sheriff or other person” to conduct a judicial sale “in person, online or both.” 735 ILCS 5/15-1507(b)(2). From the birth of the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law (IMFL) in 1987 through 2024, foreclosure auctions could only be conducted in person.
The primary purpose of this amendment to the IMFL is to maximize the value of real estate sold at auction by expanding the reach to bidders unbound by geography. So, rather than needing to appear in person in the lobby of a sheriff’s office or in a room of a court-approved selling officer, bidders can now log in to an online platform like Ten-X through their computer or mobile device, perhaps in their sweats, and bid up the price of the collateral being sold. The higher the sale price, the better the chance the first mortgage holder gets paid in full, a junior lien holder makes a recovery and the mortgagor collects a surplus.
The rules applicable to online judicial sales are set forth in section 15-1507.2 of the IMFL. The highlights are as follows: the sheriff or other person may may conduct an online sale or engage a third-party online sale provider and charge an additional fee for associated costs to be paid by the seller; must demonstrate to the court’s satisfaction the processes and procedures for conducting online auctions and adequate record-keeping; shall require bidders to complete a registration process that includes providing information relevant to identify the buyer, contact the buyer and complete the sale of the property; and shall verify the identity of the bidder through an independent verification process. Importantly, the person conducting the online sale and the third-party online sale provider may “promote and market the sale to encourage and facilitate bidding.”

Vigorous Immigration Law Enforcement Is Here: I-9 Inspections, Site Visits, and More

President Trump’s new administration takes charge this week with a renewed focus on enforcing federal immigration law. In fact, as explained in today’s companion article, one of President Trump’s first action items on Inauguration Day was the issuance of a series of executive orders relating to immigration policy. Employers should therefore review their operations and identify steps to improve compliance and prepare for possible government visits. Here are a few key areas to consider.
Form I-9 Inspections
Under the new administration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will increase its scrutiny of employers’ compliance with Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification by initiating a higher number of I-9 inspections. Some inspections will be targeted, and some will be random to encourage I-9 compliance among employers. As to targeted inspections, ICE likely will focus initially on employers operating in areas that may affect infrastructure or national security (e.g., electrical grid, other energy, transportation, some technology). ICE also may target employers in sectors that historically have employed higher numbers of unauthorized individuals. These sectors include hospitality, food processing, manufacturers that heavily rely on temporary staffing agencies, retail, and certain construction and agriculture operations.
Poor I-9 compliance can lead to significant fines. The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) increases fine levels annually. On January 2, 2025, DHS announced the following new I-9 fine schedule:

I-9 Paperwork Violations: $288 to $2,861 per Form I-9
Knowingly Employing Unauthorized Alien (First Offense): $716 to $5,724 per individual
Knowingly Employing Unauthorized Alien (Second Offense): $5,724 to $14,308 per individual
Knowingly Employing Unauthorized Alien (Third or More Offense): $8,586 to $28,619 per individual

The federal government will announce additional I-9 related fine increases in the weeks to come. These will include penalties for violating the antidiscrimination provisions of the I-9 rules, such as for document abuse (asking for specific documents or for more or different documents after the employee already has presented qualifying I-9 documents).
To defend against the risk of I-9 penalties, employers should conduct periodic training of employees and ensure that only well-trained employees handle I-9 duties. Employers also should plan and conduct periodic internal I-9 audits. ICE may consider an employer’s internal audits as a mitigating factor when assessing fines. While internal I-9 audits can be helpful, they must be correctly completed. Flawed internal audits can result in additional mistakes and higher fines. Some of the mistakes may lead to complaints of discrimination to the United States Department of Justice’s Immigrant and Employee Rights (IER) division.
For information, please see our recent post with I-9 compliance tips. Guidance also can be found in the government’s I-9 Handbook for Employers and at I-9 Central.
Site Visits
Immigration-related government visits to employer facilities are likely to increase. Among others, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), ICE, and the United States Department of Labor (DOL) may soon be visiting. These visits may occur with or without advance notice. They may occur randomly or based upon tips that an agency has received regarding a particular employer.
FDNS Visits
USCIS is likely to increase the number of Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) visits related to an employer’s recent immigration cases. Most FDNS visits are unannounced and are related to H-1B specialty occupation and L-1 intracompany transfer cases. FDNS Officers usually visit the employer in the months following favorable decisions on cases. In doing so, the Officers ask to interview the person who signed the immigration petition on behalf of the employer. FDNS Officers usually will not have a subpoena or warrant. USCIS asserts that the employer agreed to these visits when it signed and submitted the immigration petitions and applications. If the employer refuses to cooperate with the FDNS site visit, the Officers will note the employer’s response and refer the matter to a higher level within USCIS. USCIS may reopen the immigration case for further review or to issue a Notice of Intent to Revoke the approval. In some situations, USCIS may refer the matter to ICE to investigate.
If the site visit proceeds, FDNS Officers will ask questions about the employer’s business operations, the business locations, the number of employees, the job title and job duties of the H-1B or L-1 employee named in the immigration case, the employee’s regular hours of work, and employee’s current rate of pay. The FDNS Officers may ask to see documents to verify the active business operations and the employee’s rate of pay. The Officers also may ask to speak with the foreign employee.
STEM OPT Site Visits
ICE may increase visits to employers that employ foreign students based upon STEM Optional Practical Training (“STEM OPT”). ICE often will notify the employer a few days in advance of the upcoming visit, unless ICE has received information suggesting a serious violation. ICE will have a copy of the employer’s Form I-983 Training Plan and seek to confirm that the employer is following the plan. ICE also may review the employer’s compliance with the E-Verify program.
Best Practices to Prepare for Immigration-Related Site Visits
Employers that are commencing immigration cases or are submitting STEM OPT training programs must prepare for this increased scrutiny. Here are a few tips:

Review even more carefully all future submissions to USCIS, DOL, or ICE, and confirm the accuracy of the employer’s representations before signing and filing.
Review again the approved immigration applications, petitions, or active training programs that provide the employer’s basis for employing any current employees. Confirm that the company is complying with the representations made to the federal government (business information, job title, job duties, hours, rate of pay, worksite location, etc.). File an amended application, petition, or training program if appropriate.
For H-1B cases, review the related Labor Condition Application (LCA) Public Access File and make sure it is up to date and contains all of the required documents. (In addition to FDNS, the DOL may conduct a site visit to review LCA compliance. The DOL usually will give the employer advance notice.)
For E-Verify employers, review your organization’s Memorandum of Understanding and compliance with the E-Verify program.
Alert the receptionist that no government visitor should be given access to the facility beyond the lobby and that in-house counsel or the Human Resources manager should be contacted immediately should such a visitor arrive.
Obtain the business card of the government officials who visit. Call counsel before admitting the government officials beyond the reception area. In most circumstances, counsel may participate by phone or in person during the government’s interview of the employer.

Facility Wide Enforcement Actions (Worksite Raids)
In circumstances where the employer is suspected of employing a high number of unauthorized individuals, ICE is more likely to conduct enforcement across the employer’s facility (surround the facility and initiate a worksite raid that may result in numerous arrests of employees suspected to be unauthorized). ICE will come with a warrant, and the employer is usually unable to stop the worksite action.
Employers that encounter ICE initiating such action should do the following:

Ask to speak with the ICE Officer or Special Agent in Charge.
Ask the ICE Officer for his or her business card, badge number, and the warrant to confirm the scope of what ICE is permitted to search or seize.
Call counsel immediately and put counsel in contact with the ICE Officer or Special Agent in Charge of the raid.
If you are comfortable doing so, ask the ICE Officer to observe ICE’s actions within the facility. ICE may deny the request and instruct the employer’s management to remain in a certain location. Occasionally, shadowing the Officer in Charge is permitted. Do not obstruct or otherwise take steps that could constitute interference with the operation.
Ask to make copies of any documents seized by ICE and for an inventory of the items taken.
Follow up further with counsel regarding legal issues and potential employer liability arising from the raid. Develop a plan to cover positions that may be open following the raid.

Conclusion
Employers should be vigilant in complying with all employment-related immigration laws. Many of these laws contain compliance and antidiscrimination provisions.

President Trump Issues Six Executive Orders Pertaining to Immigration

As one of his first acts in office, on January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump issued a flurry of executive orders covering various immigration-related policy decisions mere hours after taking his oath of office. The six executive orders discussed below cover a wide range of policy updates, all of which have been discussed by President Trump during his 2024 presidential campaign.

Quick Hits

On his first day in office, President Trump issued a number of executive orders covering various immigration-related policy decisions.
One of the orders reviews U.S. trade policy centered around tariffs and the review of existing foreign trade agreements.
Another order also ends birthright citizenship for infants born after February 19, 2025, to parents not holding Lawful Permanent Residence or U.S. Citizenship

Here is an overview of each of the six executive orders.
(1) “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”
This executive order ends birthright citizenship for those infants who: (1) are born on or after February 19, 2025; and (2) do not have at least one parent in possession of lawful permanent resident (LPR) status and/or U.S. citizenship at the time of the infant’s birth. This executive order impacts only infants born at least thirty days from January 20, 2025, and does not apply retroactively.
Impact
Already, some civil rights organizations have jointly filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the executive order. The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship to all children born in the United States. It plainly states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In 1898, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment extended to all children born in the United States irrespective of parent citizenship and has remained foundational in interpreting the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
While the lawsuit is pending, a court may grant an injunction of the order. If an injunction is not granted, the order takes effect on February 19, 2025. Parents on a valid nonimmigrant visa (i.e., H-1B, L-1, F-1) will likely need to apply for a dependent visa for their newborn children (i.e., H-4, L-2, F-2) respectively—though details on exactly how this order will be executed and implemented by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which is the relevant government agency, is to be determined.
(2) “America First Trade Policy”
This executive order revisits and reviews the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, as well as other existing U.S. trade agreements in consultation with other executive departments and agencies. The order specifically focuses on tariffs and foreign trade agreements, looking into the establishment of an “External Revenue Service” (ERS) to collect “tariffs, duties, and other foreign trade-related revenues.” The order specifically calls for a review of trade policies relating to China, in particular. It also calls on the U.S. trade representative in consultation with other relevant executive departments and agencies to assess USMCA and its impact on U.S. workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses, and to make recommendations regarding the United States’ participation in the agreement.
Impact
Though no immediate impact, it is through the United States’ participation in UMSCA that makes the TN professional work visa available for citizens of Canada and Mexico. Whether the TN visa is at risk will depend upon the outcome of this order’s assessment.
(3) “Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats”
This executive order ensures “enhanced vetting and screening across agencies.” The order seeks to utilize in-depth vetting and screening of all individuals seeking admission to or already present in the United States, including obtaining information to confirm any claims made by those individuals. Security and public safety threats are consistently emphasized, as is enhanced screening for individuals from “regions or nations with identified security risks.” The order also calls on relevant government heads to “evaluate all visa programs” and emphasizes that agencies “must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process” to protect Americans.
Impact
We can anticipate more visa issuance delays as a result of additional vetting and screening processes and potential partial or full bans on admission (i.e., “travel bans”) for individuals from certain countries.
(4) “Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions Program”
This order suspends the entry of refugees into the United States under the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). The order will take effect within one week, on January 27, 2025.
Refugees may be admitted to the United States on a case-by-case basis, once the secretary of state and secretary of homeland security jointly determine that the entry of such aliens as refugees is “in the national interest and does not pose a threat to the security or welfare of the United States.” Within ninety days of January 20, 2025, the secretary of homeland security will submit a report regarding whether or not it would be in the interests of the United States to resume allowing refugees to enter the United States. These reports will continue every ninety days until the USRAP program is resumed.
(5) Securing Our Borders
This executive order sets border enforcement policies. The order outlines the administration’s focus on:

the establishment of a physical wall “and other barriers” at U.S. borders;
deterring and preventing the entry of undocumented individuals into the United States;
detaining “aliens apprehended on suspicion of violating Federal or State law,” i.e., undocumented migrants and removing them promptly;
pursuing criminal charges against undocumented migrants and “those who facilitate their unlawful presence in the United States,” notably ending the practice of “catch-and-release,”
enacting federal-state partnerships to enforce these immigration policies;
“obtaining complete operational control of the borders of the United States,” which includes deploying “sufficient personnel” to the borders;
terminating parole programs for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, and
utilizing advanced vetting techniques to determine familial relationships and biometrics scanning for all individuals encountered or apprehended by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

(6) “Declaring a National Emergency at the Southern Border of the United States”
This executive order details the use of armed forces, physical barriers, and unmanned aerial systems at the southern border to address the newly declared national emergency. The order also calls for a revision of existing policies and strategies, echoing the order titled “Securing Our Borders” (which is summarized above).

Some Unofficial Predictions for Spring 2025 Alabama Tax Legislation

Each year we are asked to predict the tax-related bills that died in the last legislative session but will likely be re-introduced in one form or another, as well as the tax issues that we expect to see addressed for the first time in the upcoming session of the Alabama Legislature. Because of the November general elections, Alabama’s 2025 Regular Session starts a bit later than normal – February 4, 2025. Here is our list as of January 21, 2025, which is a moving target. Oftentimes we will not see some of the more important tax bills filed until a week or two (or less) before the session convenes:

House Bill 36 has been prefiled to amend the Simplified Sellers Use Tax Program (SSTP) to increase the rate from the current flat 8% to a combined rate much closer to the average rate charged by retailers within most municipalities in our state, e.g., 9.3%, and to allocate the incremental revenue differently than the current population-based formula. That bill died last session, but Rep. Chris England has announced he will try again, with the backing of the state’s largest municipalities.
We expect a bill to be introduced by House Minority Leader Anthony Daniels and others to repeal the June 30, 2025, sunset date for the popular “overtime exemption,” and make it permanent or at least extend the current sunset date. Readers may recall that the fiscal impact of this exemption far exceeded initial estimates, which has decreased Education Trust Fund (ETF) receipts.
House Bill 52 has been prefiled to extend the sunset date for the deductibility of contributions to ABLE accounts (Rep. Danny Garrett).
Senate Bill 22 has reappeared, which if enacted would, under unstated criteria and procedures, recapture or “claw-back” Jobs Act incentives if a company previously awarded these incentives or a “related company” violates federal child labor or state human trafficking laws (Sen. Merika Coleman).
House Bill 46 would amend the controversial Rural Physician Tax Credit statute to clarify the criteria, increase the amount of the credit to $10,000 annually, and allow it to be claimed for four consecutive years (rather than the current five-year period). This was called for by Chief Judge Jeff Patterson in a recent Alabama Tax Tribunal ruling that, as is often the case, denied the credit to what both parties agreed to be an otherwise deserving rural doctor (Rep. Ed Oliver).
We anticipate a bill to be introduced that would reduce the state sales tax on “food” from 3% to 2%, even though less-than-stellar ETF growth did not trigger the automatic reduction that many hoped for, and that would clarify how much municipalities may reduce their respective tax rates. Most recently, Kansas completed its multi-step repeal of its “grocery tax.” Tennessee, Mississippi and Arkansas are also considering the proposal.
We expect a bill will be introduced (again) to allow municipalities that forfeited their authority to levy taxes and fees on residents and businesses in their police jurisdictions to re-acquire that authority by filing delinquent reports with the Examiners of Public Accounts and submission of annual reports (hopefully this time with fair notice to taxpayers).
We expect a bill to be introduced (again) to increase the income tax exemption for withdrawals from IRC Section 401(k) plans and IRAs to $10,000 annually for “seniors.”
We expect that a bill will be introduced (again) to create a Small Business Health Care Insurance Premium deduction for individuals, which was backed last session by several prominent business and trade associations.
We are monitoring legislative and Alabama Department of Revenue (AL DOR) reaction to Congressional and President Trump’s efforts either to extend various provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, that will otherwise sunset on December 31, 2025, or allow certain provisions to lapse or be amended in some way, e.g., the so-called SALT Cap and the IRC Section 163(j) interest limitation.
We should also monitor legislative and AL DOR reaction to President Trump’s tax proposals that if enacted would, for example, exempt tip income and overtime pay from income tax.
Last but certainly not least, look for legislation extending the deadline to appeal either a preliminary or final assessment from 30 days to either 60 or 90 days, as recommended by the Council On State Taxation (COST) and the AICPA.

California Employment Law Update Chamber of Commerce Challenges California Ban on “Captive Audience” Meetings

As we reported here, California’s Senate Bill (S.B.) 399, took effect on January 1, 2025. This law prohibits employers from requiring employees to attend meetings about the company’s opinions on political or religious matters, including discussions about unionization. California joins almost dozen other states, including Illinois, New York, and Oregon, in enacting union-backed statutes that prohibit so-called “captive audience” meetings.
The Teamsters Union openly boasts that they “secured” the legislation and “spearheaded the multi-union coalition that made this victory possible.” State Senator Aisha Wahab (Dem.- Sen. Dist. 10) who authored the bill received the bulk of contributions to her 2022 election campaign from public and private unions, as shown here.
The California Chamber of Commerce and the California Restaurant Association (the “plaintiffs”) filed suit in federal court seeking to block enforcement of S.B. 399. The lawsuit charges that S.B. 399 infringes upon employers’ rights to free speech and equal protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs contend that the law discriminates against employers’ viewpoints on political matters, unlawfully regulates the content of employers’ communications with their employees, and chills employer speech. You can read the entire complaint here.
Plaintiffs also argue that S.B. 399 is preempted by National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), which protects employer free speech. Notably, just a few months ago, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) overturned decades of precedent by finding that requiring employees “to attend a meeting at which the employer expresses its views on unionization” violates the NLRA. However, this ruling and its applicability to state-sponsored “captive audience” meetings ban laws may be short-lived when President Trump tilts the Board back to a Republican majority in the near future. More information on the NLRB’s decision here.
If the plaintiffs are successful in their lawsuit, S.B. 399 may be blocked from enforcement but employers will need to wait to see how the court views the case. We will continue to track the legal challenge to S.B. 399.
View original.

Crypto in the Courts: Five Cases Reshaping Digital Asset Regulation in 2025

There has rarely been a larger or more widely distributed financial market that existed in a more uncertain regulatory context than cryptocurrencies and decentralized finance (DeFi) at the start of 2025. In the past several years, the regulatory status of this asset class in the United States has been at the center of a concerted effort by the US Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) to apply the regime applicable to securities to diverse crypto instruments and methods of exchange and transfer. (Although the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has also consistently enforced its regulations on products it deems to be commodities, that effort has not led to the widespread litigation that is likely to define the regulatory status of these products.)
The SEC’s effort is now in jeopardy. As we begin 2025, the legal landscape surrounding digital assets stands at a critical inflection point, with several watershed cases poised to reshape how these assets will be governed, traded, and regulated in the United States. The convergence of these cases — spanning securities law, administrative procedure and federalism — presents opportunities to clarify how traditional legal frameworks apply to digital assets. Further, the Trump administration has promised that it will be a “pro-crypto” administration — driving the SEC towards a friendlier stance with the cryptocurrency industry and having cryptocurrency rules and regulations “written by people who love [the] industry, not hate [the] industry”1 — and that the United States will become the “crypto capital of the world.”2 President Donald Trump has nominated Paul Atkins, a former SEC Commissioner, to become the next SEC chairperson, stating in his announcement that Mr. Atkins “recognizes that digital assets & other innovations are crucial to Making America Greater than Ever Before.”3 The Trump administration’s announced intention to change the course of cryptocurrency regulation and the selection of an SEC chairperson who is an avowed advocate for innovation through blockchain technologies raise questions about the future of the pending litigation at the center of this industry.
This article examines five cases that may define the future of digital asset regulation in the United States and sets out the issues at stake in those cases. These cases are the Second Circuit’s review of SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., the interlocutory appeal in SEC v. Coinbase, Inc., and three cases representing the industry’s shift toward offensive litigation against federal agencies — Blockchain Association v. IRS, Bitnomial Exchange, LLC v. SEC, and Kentucky et al. v. SEC. The purpose of this article is not to predict how those cases will progress — that determination is going to lie in the hands of the courts and policymakers — but rather to make clear what is at stake, especially in light of an anticipated shift in regulatory priorities regarding digital assets with the Trump administration, which could decide to no longer support the government’s positions in these cases.
SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc. (2d Cir.)
The SEC’s appeal in SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc. follows a July 2023 ruling in the Southern District of New York that began when the SEC charged Ripple Labs, Inc. (Ripple) with conducting an unregistered securities offering through sales of its XRP token. The SEC argued that the offer and sale of XRP tokens constituted an offer and sale of investment contracts under SEC v. W.J. Howey, which provides that an “investment contract” is a contract, transaction, or scheme whereby a person: (1) “invests his money” (2) “in a common enterprise” and (3) “is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party.”4 In response, Ripple advanced an “essential ingredients test,” arguing that in addition to the three-part Howey test, investment contracts must also contain “essential ingredients”: (1) “a contract between a promoter and an investor that establishe[s] the investor’s rights as to an investment,” which contract (2) “impose[s] post-sale obligations on the promoter to take specific actions for the investor’s benefit” and (3) “grant[s] the investor a right to share in profits from the promoter’s efforts to generate a return on the use of investor funds.”5
The district court, in its July 2023 ruling, rejected Ripple’s novel “essential ingredients” test, noting that “in the more than seventy-five years of securities law jurisprudence after Howey, courts have found the existence of an investment contract even in the absence of Defendants’ ‘essential ingredients,’ including in recent digital asset cases in this District.”6 Nevertheless, the district court found that, while Ripple’s institutional sales violated securities laws, the company’s programmatic sales (sales of XRP on digital asset exchanges) and other distributions (such as employee compensation and third-party development incentives) did not constitute securities offerings — marking the first major setback to the SEC’s digital asset enforcement initiative.7 Crucially, the district court distinguished between XRP sales based on their economic reality: institutional sales to sophisticated buyers under written contracts were deemed securities transactions because buyers reasonably expected profits from Ripple’s efforts, while programmatic sales on exchanges were not because buyers could not know they were purchasing from Ripple. The court also found that other distributions failed to meet the basic requirements of an “investment of money” since recipients did not provide payment to Ripple.
The SEC filed a notice of appeal on October 4, 2024, and Ripple has cross-appealed. This will likely be the first appellate court to consider how Howey applies to digital assets unless the Trump administration determines to freeze the litigation.8 The SEC filed its appellate brief on January 15, 2025, arguing that the district court erred in concluding that programmatic sales to retail investors were not offers or sales of investment contracts under Howey because “investors were led to expect profits” based on the efforts of Ripple.9 The SEC also argued that other distributions of XRP were also offers or sales of investment contracts because Ripple the “recipients provided tangible and definable consideration in return for Ripple’s XRP.”10 Ripple will likely challenge whether digital assets are ever securities under the Howey framework.
The SEC maintains that the district court’s decision “conflicts with decades of Supreme Court precedent and securities laws.”11 If the SEC persists in this appeal, it will likely be the first appellate court to consider how Howey applies to particular types of primary sales of digital assets and, more broadly, how securities laws are to be applied to the digital asset economy. The appeal’s resolution will provide important clarity on how federal securities laws apply to various types of primary sales of digital assets.
SEC v. Coinbase, Inc. (2d Cir.)
On January 7, 2025, a Southern District of New York court granted Coinbase Inc.’s motion to certify for interlocutory appeal the court’s March 2024 order denying in substantial part Coinbase’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.12 The certification permits the Second Circuit to address Howey’s reach and application to digital assets, particularly in secondary market transactions.
The case arose from the SEC’s June 2023 enforcement action, alleging that Coinbase operated as an unregistered national securities exchange, broker and clearing agency by intermediating transactions in 13 digital assets that the SEC claimed were investment contracts and, thus, securities. The district court in March 2024 rejected Coinbase’s argument that cryptoasset transactions could not be investment contracts absent post-sale contractual obligations between issuers and purchasers.13
In granting Coinbase’s motion to certify for interlocutory appeal, the court found that the case presents a “controlling question of law regarding the reach and application of Howey to cryptoassets, about which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion.”14 In particular, the court emphasized that applying Howey to cryptocurrencies “is itself a difficult legal issue of first impression for the Second Circuit” and questioned the adequacy of the SEC’s application of Howey to secondary market sales.15
The grant of interlocutory appeal is significant for several reasons. First, it creates parallel tracks of appellate review in the Second Circuit, as the SEC’s appeal in Ripple Labs will also be pending. Both cases will allow the Second Circuit to examine how Howey applies to digital assets but from different procedural postures — Ripple Labs on final judgment and Coinbase on interlocutory appeal from a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Second, the interlocutory appeal addresses a fundamental split in the Southern District of New York regarding whether and how Howey applies to secondary market transactions of digital assets. Judge Torres in Ripple Labs drew a distinction between Ripple’s institutional sales, which satisfied Howey, and programmatic sales (i.e., blind bid-ask transactions on exchanges), which did not. In contrast, Judge Rakoff in SEC v. Terraform Labs and Judge Failla in Coinbase declined to differentiate based on the manner of sale, finding that Howey could apply equally to secondary market transactions.16 The Second Circuit’s resolution of this split will have profound implications for all regulatory disputes relating to digital asset trading platforms, as the designation as a security triggers the application of the securities laws for all participants in the industry, including issuers, traders, and trading platforms.
Third, the appeal will address the novel question of how a digital asset’s “ecosystem” factors in the Howey analysis. The district court in Coinbase found that, unlike traditional commodities, cryptoassets lack inherent value absent their digital ecosystem — a distinction that helped justify treating them as securities.17 However, the district court also recognized in its certification of its appeal that Coinbase raised “substantial ground” to dispute this view of the ecosystem, noting Coinbase’s argument that other commodities such as carbon credits, emissions allowances and expired Taylor Swift concert tickets similarly have no inherent value outside of the ecosystem in which they are issued or consumed.18 The Second Circuit’s treatment of this issue could influence how other courts analyze a wide range of digital assets.
The implications for the digital asset industry are substantial. Coinbase represents the largest US digital asset exchange, and the SEC’s theory would subject most major trading platforms to securities regulation. Resolution of the interlocutory appeal could, therefore, provide crucial guidance on whether and when trading platforms must register with the SEC.
Blockchain Association et al. v. IRS (N.D. Tex.)
On December 27, 2024, three blockchain industry organizations filed suit in the Northern District of Texas, challenging Department of the Treasury (Treasury) regulations that would impose “broker” reporting requirements on DeFi participants.19 The case represents a significant test of Treasury’s authority to regulate the digital asset industry through information reporting requirements.
The challenged regulations implement provisions of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 requiring certain digital asset brokers to report transaction information to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on Form 1099-DA. The plaintiffs argue that Treasury’s interpretation of who qualifies as a “broker” exceeds its statutory authority. While Congress defined brokers as persons who “effectuate transfers of digital assets” for consideration, Treasury regulations extend to anyone providing “facilitative services” who theoretically could request customer information — potentially including software developers, front-end interface providers and other technology participants who never take custody of assets or directly execute trades.
The complaint raises several significant challenges under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the US Constitution. The plaintiffs argue that the regulations are arbitrary and capricious, violating the APA by failing to engage in reasoned decision-making and ignoring substantial evidence about the practical impossibility of compliance for many DeFi participants. They also contend that the rules violate the Fourth Amendment by compelling warrantless collection of private information and the Fifth Amendment’s due process requirements through unconstitutionally vague standards for determining who qualifies as a broker.
The case has significant implications for the DeFi industry’s future in the United States. According to the IRS’s calculations, compliance with the regulations would cost the industry over $260 billion annually — a potentially existential burden for many DeFi projects. The plaintiffs argue this would force US-based DeFi participants to either relocate overseas, cease operations or fundamentally alter their business models in ways that undermine decentralization.
The case is part of a recent trend of offensive litigation by the cryptocurrency industry against federal agencies, as the industry increasingly turns to the courts to challenge perceived regulatory overreach. In doing so, litigants can at least initially select the venue of these proceedings, subject to the restrictions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Venue selection can be critical as certain courts in Texas, and the Fifth Circuit itself, have recently expressed criticism of expansive agency authority. In November 2024, the Northern District of Texas vacated the SEC’s rulemaking, expanding the definition of “dealer” under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act).20 The same month, the Fifth Circuit reversed a decision wherein Treasury imposed sanctions on Tornado Cash, a cryptocurrency software protocol that conceals the origins and destinations of digital asset transfers.21 The case remains in its early stages, as the government has yet to respond to the complaint.
Bitnomial Exchange, LLC v. SEC (N. D. Ill.)
Bitnomial Exchange, LLC v. SEC marks a notable offensive litigation against the SEC, with a futures exchange regulated by the CFTC directly challenging the SEC’s authority to regulate a cryptoasset security futures product.22 Filed in October 2024 in the Northern District of Illinois, the case stems from Bitnomial’s attempt to list XRP futures contracts after completing the CFTC’s self-certification process. The complaint seeks both a declaratory judgment that XRP futures are not security futures under the Exchange Act and injunctive relief to prevent SEC oversight of these products.
Bitnomial argues that the SEC has created an impossible regulatory situation by taking the view that XRP futures constitute security futures, requiring both registration of the underlying asset (XRP) as a security and Bitnomial’s registration as a national securities exchange. The exchange contends this position is legally untenable, particularly given the court’s ruling in SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc. that “XRP, as a digital token, is not in and of itself a ‘contract, transaction[,] or scheme’ that embodies the Howey requirements of an investment contract,” and that anonymous secondary market sales of XRP do not constitute investment contracts.23
According to the complaint, even if Bitnomial were to accept the SEC’s position that XRP futures are security futures, compliance would be impossible because XRP itself is not registered as a security with the SEC — a prerequisite for listing single stock security futures under current regulations. Moreover, Bitnomial, as a trading venue rather than the issuer, lacks the authority to register XRP as a security.
The outcome of the litigation could have far-reaching implications for how digital asset futures products are regulated and traded in the United States. A ruling in Bitnomial’s favor would reinforce the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction over non-security futures products and potentially clear the way for other futures exchanges to list similar products. Conversely, if the SEC prevails, it could effectively prevent the listing of futures contracts on many digital assets, as the vast majority of digital assets are not registered as a security with the SEC and cannot be registered by the exchanges seeking to list futures on them. As cases are litigated across jurisdictions, there is also the possibility of a split in how federal circuits view secondary transfers of digital assets.
Kentucky et al. v. SEC (E. D. Ky.)
In November 2024, 18 states and a blockchain industry association filed a lawsuit against the SEC in the Eastern District of Kentucky, challenging the agency’s authority to regulate digital asset trading platforms as securities exchanges. The case, which remains in its initial stages, challenges the SEC’s assertion of regulatory authority over digital asset trading platforms, arguing that the agency’s approach improperly preempts state money transmitter laws and interferes with state unclaimed property regimes that many states have specifically adapted for digital assets.
The states detail how they have developed specific regulatory frameworks for crypto businesses, including licensing requirements and consumer protection measures. Under the SEC’s interpretation that most digital asset transactions constitute securities transactions, platforms facilitating these transactions would be required to register as securities exchanges, brokers or dealers. The states argue that this interpretation would effectively nullify their respective regulatory regimes, as the Exchange Act prohibits states from imposing certain requirements — including licensing and bonding requirements — on entities that qualify as securities brokers or dealers. For example, states such as Kentucky have issued guidance stating that transmitters of digital assets are money transmitters under state law. Still, this classification would be preempted if these entities must register with the SEC as securities intermediaries.
This case could help resolve a key question underlying several ongoing SEC enforcement actions against major crypto exchanges: whether secondary market transactions in digital assets on trading platforms constitute securities transactions subject to SEC oversight. A ruling that such transactions fall outside the SEC’s authority could undermine the agency’s enforcement strategy against these platforms. On the other hand, a decision upholding the SEC’s interpretation could strengthen the agency’s positions in these enforcement actions and potentially impact other trading platforms currently operating in the United States.
The timing of the lawsuit, filed just days after the 2024 presidential election, adds another layer of complexity to the litigation.
Conclusion
The five cases examined above will help define the coming shift in digital asset litigation under the new Trump administration. While the Second Circuit’s consideration of Ripple Labs and Coinbase will determine whether the manner of sale creates meaningful distinctions under Howey, the industry-led cases signal an equally important development: the emergence of coordinated challenges to agency authority. The Blockchain Association’s challenge to Treasury’s broker regulations, Bitnomial’s challenge to the SEC’s claim of authority over CFTC-regulated futures products, and 18 states’ defense of their regulatory frameworks collectively represent sophisticated attempts to define and limit federal oversight of digital assets.
The resolution of these cases, coupled with the anticipated regulatory shifts under the new administration, could fundamentally alter the landscape for digital asset innovation in the United States. Market participants should closely monitor these developments as they may significantly impact operational strategies and regulatory obligations in the digital asset space.

1 MacKenzie Sigalos, Here’s What Trump Promised the Crypto Industry Ahead of the Election, CNBC (Nov. 6, 2024), https://www.cnbc.com/2024/11/06/trump-claims-presidential-win-here-is-what-he-promised-the-crypto-industry-ahead-of-the-election.html.
2 Mauricio Di Bartolomeo, Trump’s Top 3 Bitcoin Promises and Their Implications, Forbes (Nov. 7, 2024), https://www.forbes.com/sites/mauriciodibartolomeo/2024/11/07/trumps-top-3-bitcoin-promises-and-their-implications/.
3 Rafael Nam, Trump Picks Crypto Backer Paul Atkins as New Securities and Exchange Commission Chair, NPR (Dec. 4, 2024), https://www.npr.org/2024/12/04/g-s1-36803/trump-crypto-paul-atkins-sec-chair.
4 SEC v. W.J. Howey, 328 U.S. 293 (1946).
5 SEC. v. Ripple Labs, Inc., 682 F. Supp. 3d 308, 322 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2023).
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Hanna Lang and Chris Prentice, Trump’s New SEC Leadership Poised to Kick Start Crypto Overhaul, Sources Say, Reuters (Jan. 15, 2025), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-new-sec-leadership-poised-kick-start-crypto-overhaul-sources-say-2025-01-15/ (noting top Republican official at the SEC are “reviewing some crypto enforcement cases pending in the courts.”).
9 Brief for SEC at 27-28, SEC v. Ripple, No. 24-2648 (2d Cir. Jan. 15, 2025) (“Ripple publicly promised that it would create a rising tide that would lift the price of XRP for all investors, whether having purchased from Ripple, its affiliates, or a third party.”).
10 Id. at 49-50 (citing Intl. Teamsters v. Daniel, 439 U.S. 551, 560 n. 12 (1979) for the proposition that an “investment of money” under Howey includes “goods and services” so long as the investor provides “some tangible and definable consideration.”).
11 Nikhilesh De, SEC Files Notice of Appeal in Case Against Ripple (Oct. 2, 2024), CoinDesk, https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2024/10/02/sec-files-notice-of-appeal-in-case-against-ripple.
12 SEC v. Coinbase, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-04738-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2025).
13 SEC v. Coinbase, Inc., 726 F. Supp. 3d 260 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2024).
14 Supra note 9 at 12.
15 Id. at 26.
16 SEC v. Terraform Labs Pte. Ltd., 684 F. Supp. 3d 170, 197 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2023) (“It may also be mentioned that the Court declines to draw a distinction between these coins based on their manner of sale, such that coins sold directly to institutional investors are considered securities and those sold through secondary market transactions to retail investors are not.”); Coinbase, Inc., 726 F. Supp. 3d at 293 (“Contrary to Defendants’ assertion, whether a particular transaction in a crypto-asset amounts to an investment contract does not necessarily turn on whether an investor bought tokens directly from an issuer or, instead, in a secondary market transaction.”).
17 Coinbase, Inc., 726 F. Supp. 3d at 295.
18 Coinbase, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-04738-KPF at *28.
19 Blockchain Ass’n et al. v. IRS, No. 3:24-cv-03259-X (N.D. Tex. Dec. 27, 2024).
20 See Nat’l Ass’n of Private Fund Managers et al. v. SEC, No. 4:24-cv-00250 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2024); Crypto Freedom All. of Tex. et al. v. SEC, No. 4:24-cv-00361 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2024).
21 See Van Loon v. Department of the Treasury, No. 23-50669 (5th Cir. 2024).
22 Bitnomial Exch., LLC v. SEC, No. 1:24-cv-09904 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 10, 2024).
23 Ripple Labs, Inc., 682 F. Supp. 3d at 324 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2023).
Yawara Ng also contributed to this article.

2025 Labor and Employment Outlook for Manufacturers: Employer-Friendly Skies on the Horizon

As we look ahead to 2025, several important labor and employment law changes, planned and potential, are on the horizon. With President Trump set to return to the Oval Office on January 20, 2025, labor and employment law priorities at the federal level are expected to change significantly. Meanwhile, state legislatures remain active in enacting new laws that will impact the labor and employment law landscape for manufacturers. Below are a few key issues likely to impact manufacturers in 2025.
Minimum Wage for Non-Exempt Employees and Salary Threshold for Exempt Employees
While President Biden called for an increase to the federal minimum wage (currently $7.25 per hour) to $15 per hour during his presidency—that did not occur; rather, the minimum wage rate has remained unchanged since 2009. During President-elect Trump’s recent campaign, he signaled an openness to raising the federal minimum wage. However, any forthcoming increase will likely be substantially less than the Biden administration’s goal. Similarly, it is unlikely that the incoming administration will seek to revive the Biden administration’s increased “white collar” overtime exemption salary threshold, which a federal judge recently struck down. Nonetheless, manufacturers should remain current on federal and state minimum wage rates and salary thresholds.
Independent Contractor v. Employee Classification Enforcement
It is possible that the incoming administration may undo the Biden administration’s efforts to make it more difficult for manufacturers to classify workers as independent contractors, thereby simplifying wage and hour compliance for manufacturers under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Further, the Trump administration may not prioritize this issue from an enforcement perspective. Regardless, manufacturers should continue to ensure compliance with more stringent state and local laws and guidance regarding worker classification.
Status of Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, & Belonging (DEIB) Programs and Policies
As seen during Trump’s first presidency, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under the incoming administration may aim at governmental and corporate diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (DEIB) initiatives in employment, focusing on equality compared to equity. Some entities are preemptively rolling back their DEIB programs and practices regarding recruiting, hiring, promotions, and similar efforts in anticipation of the new administration’s position. The Trump administration may also change protections for LGBTQ+ workers. At the state and local levels, it is expected that there will be a continued expansion of protected statutes. Manufacturers should be aware of these developments and ensure that their handbooks and policies comply with the state and local laws where their employees are working.
Workers’ Right to Organize and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
Under the incoming Trump administration, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) may revert to more employer-friendly policies aimed at ensuring companies have rights regarding union organizing and similar activities, as seen during the first Trump administration. We also anticipate that the incoming General Counsel of the NLRB will rescind the memoranda issued by the current NLRB General Counsel, which implemented a pro-labor policy by expanding the scope of available remedies for unfair labor practices and restricting permissible non-compete agreements, among other key efforts to support union-organizing activity. The new NLRB may return to using more balanced standards and rulings when analyzing employer policies and confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions. Whether unionized or union-free, manufacturers may be impacted by these changes at the NLRB and beyond and should be aware of these developments.
Artificial Intelligence (AI)
While manufacturers continue to turn towards artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithm-based technologies for recruiting, hiring, and other employment needs, there may be developments in legislation at the state and federal levels. At the federal level, it is possible that the incoming administration could approach the issue of AI from a self-governance perspective, meaning refraining from legislating around the use of AI in employment and, instead, relying on employers to monitor their use of AI in recruiting, hiring, etc. AI tools could be a key focus for state and local legislatures in 2025. Manufacturers should ensure that their deployment and use of AI tools in employment comply with federal, state, and local laws.
Non-Compete Legislation
The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) final rule banning non-compete agreements did not go into effect as planned in 2024, and the FTC will likely abandon its efforts to revive the final rule once the incoming administration takes office. We do not anticipate further legislative or regulatory efforts at the federal level during the second Trump administration. However, at the state level, we expect to see more states and localities enact laws banning or restricting the scope of non-compete agreements, including based on position and salary, thereby challenging manufacturer efforts to protect their business interests and proprietary information and defend against unfair competition.

Chamber of Commerce Challenges California Ban on “Captive Audience” Meetings

WELL THAT WAS NICE: Democratic FCC Commissioner “Welcome[s]” The Opportunity to Work with Olivia Trusty

So last week now-President Trump suggested he would nominate Olivia Trusty to serve as the fifth FCC commissioner and return the FCC to full strength.
We did a profile review of her last week and came to the conclusion she was really well qualified for the role.
Well apparently Democratic FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez is of the same mindset. Her office released a short statement on Thursday reading as follows:
“Congratulations to Olivia Trusty on the President-Elect’s announcement of his intent to nominate her as Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission. She is widely respected, a consummate professional, and has a strong background on communications policy. I welcome the opportunity to work with her.”
Well look at that– a democrat welcoming a republican with open arms. Maybe there is hope for this country afterall.
Olivia Trusty’s nomination is looking pretty good from everything I have seen or heard. Will keep an eye on it.

Will UK Business Face Supply Chain Challenges Now Trump is in Office?

Throughout his 2024 campaign, President Donald Trump vowed that if re-elected, he would address unfair trade practices, rebalance trade relationships, and fund other economic proposals through new and expanded tariffs. With his return to the White House, the world is grappling with a complex web of international trade risks and potential opportunities in 2025.
President Trump’s first term offered only a small preview of what we can expect on trade policy over the next four years. If executed, his campaign promises represent a transformational restructuring of US tariff policy, a manifestation and acceleration of the broader evolution of how the United States – and the world – approaches trade and economic policy.
His remarks, as well as long-standing proposals developed by his closest trade advisers, will present challenging scenarios for businesses that rely on global supply chains, exports and investments across virtually every industry. Tariff actions implemented (like those applied against goods from China and steel and aluminum generally) as well as threatened (such as those proposed against numerous trading partners in response to digital services taxes) during his first term are discrete examples of what could follow, but the stakes are much higher, and the scope much wider, today. There is no one point in time where companies must respond – President Trump has already pledged new tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China, and the playing field will remain dynamic as the administration debates, proposes and implements new trade policies.
But what does all this mean for UK businesses?
For those companies that export to the US, President Trump’s proposed universal tariff will be of immediate concern. President Trump has proposed a 10%-20% universal tariff on all imports. To remain competitive in the US, suppliers from the UK must either absorb the cost or increase the price of its products – likely reducing demand. Either way, the impact will squeeze financial margins, particularly for those companies that rely heavily on exports to the US.
Although only Congress can permanently increase regular tariffs. Congress has given President Trump certain authorities that he may invoke to unilaterally increase tariffs – which could make his actions difficult to predict.
In addition to the universal tariff, significant tariff increases on goods supplied to the US from China – 50 or 60% – is also concerning. This could particularly affect those UK companies that have Chinese components in their products – increased costs may be passed on – but also because the UK could be used as a “dumping ground” for cheap Chinese goods that would otherwise have been sent to the US.
How this might play out is not clear – but for UK companies that have navigated post Brexit supply chain difficulties, it is likely there is more disruption to come. In addition to whatever actions the US might take, UK companies must also prepare for the impact of retaliatory action which other jurisdictions could take in response to the imposition of US tariffs – the EU and China in particular would be likely to retaliate, raising risks of further distortions to global trading patterns. It is not clear whether the UK would also impose retaliatory tariffs, further inhibiting trans-Atlantic trade, or would refrain from doing so, leaving the UK open to imports from jurisdictions whose exports to the US were affected.
Although many companies will have sought to de-risk their supply chains (pre or post Brexit) now may be an opportune time to review the risk areas again.