Executive Order To Restore America’s Maritime Dominance
On April 9, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) entitled “Restoring America’s Maritime Dominance.” This EO recognizes the urgent need to revitalize and rebuild the domestic maritime industry and the strategic importance of commercial shipbuilding capacity and the maritime workforce to the national and economic security of the United States.
The EO references decades of neglect for the declining U.S. flag fleet and sets forth a comprehensive agenda of legislative and governmental initiatives to bolster the United States as a maritime nation. The EO recognizes the need for consistent predictable federal funding to support shipbuilding, to make U.S. flag vessels competitive in international commerce, and to expand and strengthen the maritime workforce. The EO notes that the United States constructs less than one percent of commercial ships globally while China produces approximately half of the world’s commercial ships.
The EO directs the National Security Advisor, in consultation with various Cabinet level officials, to prepare and submit to the President within 210 days a Maritime Action Plan (MAP). The overarching goal of the MAP is to enhance the maritime infrastructure of the United States, to promote the construction of commercial vessels in the United States, and to have trained workforces of mariners and shipyard workers to support the construction and operation of a diversified fleet of commercial and military vessels that will be available to the Government during a war or national emergency.
The MAP will incorporate specific objectives within the timelines set out in the EO, including legislative proposals and recommendations as to any Congressional appropriations necessary to carry out the policy objectives of the EO. The EO is 15 pages in length and is divided into discrete topics that are summarized below on a section-by-section basis.
1. Policy — The EO broadly states that “[it] is the policy of the United States to revitalize and rebuild domestic maritime industries and workforce to promote national security and economic prosperity.”
2. Maritime Action Plan (MAP) — The National Security Advisor, in coordination with various Cabinet level officials, shall submit a MAP to the President within 210 days of the issuance of the EO that shall incorporate the following 18 action items:
a. Maritime Industrial Base — Within 180 days, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide for inclusion in the MAP an assessment of options and authorities, such as Title III of the Defense Production Act and use of private capital to the maximum extent possible, to invest in and expand the “Maritime Industrial Base,” including expansion of commercial and defense shipbuilding capabilities, ship repair and marine transportation capabilities, port infrastructure and the maritime workforce. The Secretary of Defense is to pursue using the Office of Strategic Capital loan program to improve the shipbuilding industrial base.
b. China’s Unfair Trading Practices — The EO references the United States Trade Representative’s (USTR) recent public hearing and proposed actions regarding Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. USTR is directed to coordinate with other agencies to collect additional information in support of administering proposed actions and to coordinate with the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to take steps to impose any restriction, fee, penalty, or duty that might be imposed. This includes possible tonnage-based fees on Chinese built or flagged vessels that dock in U.S. ports and tariffs on ship-to-shore cranes and other port cargo-handling equipment of Chinese origin.
c. Harbor Maintenance Fee (HMF) — The EO directs U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess applicable customs duties, taxes and fees, including enforcement of the collection of the federal Harbor Maintenance Fee (HMF), on all cargo of foreign origin, including cargo that is offloaded by carriers in Mexico or Canada and transported by land into the United States. CBP is directed to charge a 10% service fee for additional costs to CBP.
d. Engagement and Coordination with Allies — Within 90 days, the Secretary of State, together with the USTR, is directed to engage U.S. treaty allies and other like-minded countries to impose similar measures to those described in items b and c above in order to counter China’s unfair trade practices.
e. Shipbuilding Financial Incentives Program to Reduce Dependence on Adversaries through Allies and Partners — Within 90 days, the Secretary of Commerce, in coordination with the President’s Assistant for Economic Policy, shall deliver a proposal for inclusion in the MAP to establish financial incentives to assist shipbuilders based in allied nations to undertake capital investment in the United States to strengthen its shipbuilding capacity.
f. Legislative Proposal to Establish a Maritime Security Trust Fund — In conjunction with formulation of the President’s Budget, OMB and the Secretary of Transportation are to develop a legislative proposal to establish a “Maritime Security Trust Fund” to serve as a reliable funding source for MAP programs. In crafting this legislative proposal, OMB and the Secretary of Transportation shall consider how new or existing tariffs, taxes, or fees could further the goal of establishing a dedicated funding source for programs supported by the MAP.
g. Shipbuilding Financial Incentives Program — In conjunction with formulation of the President’s Budget, OMB and the Secretary of Transportation are to develop a legislative proposal to establish financial incentives to incentivize private investment in the construction of commercial shipyards and repair facilities, including grants and loan guarantees.
h. Maritime Prosperity Zones — Within 90 days, the Secretary of Commerce, in coordination with the Secretary of Transportation, shall develop a plan that identifies opportunities to incentivize investment in U.S. maritime industries and waterfront communities through newly created maritime prosperity zones. These maritime prosperity zones are to be geographically diverse and are to include river regions and the Great Lakes.
i. Report on Maritime Industry Needs — Within 90 days, the Secretary of Transportation, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall deliver a report to OMB that inventories Federal programs that can be used to grow and sustain the supply and demand for the U.S. maritime industry. The report shall include Maritime Administration programs (including the Maritime Security Program, the Tanker Security Program, the Cable Security Program, the Title XI shipbuilding loan guarantee program, and the Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP)), existing cargo preference programs and a review of the waiver process to ensure that such programs support American domestic shipping.
j. Mariner Training and Education — Within 90 days, numerous Cabinet-level officials are directed to prepare a report to address maritime workforce challenges. The report shall determine the number of credentialed mariners that are required to support the more robust maritime industry that is outlined in the EO. Among other things, the report shall review the U.S. Coast Guard’s credentialing program and identify steps necessary to expand maritime education and technical training.
k. Modernization of the United States Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA) — Within 30 days, the Secretary Transportation is to take action to hire the necessary facilities staff and execute deferred maintenance projects at the USMMA. Additionally, a long-term master facility and capital improvement plan is to be developed for the USMMA.
l. Improve Procurement Efficiency — Numerous Cabinet-level officials are directed to develop an improved contract solicitation process for the procurement of U.S. government vessels. Additionally, reforms are recommended to execute, build, and improve the vessel acquisition process.
m. Improve Government Efficiency — The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) shall undertake a separate review of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) procurement processes and make recommendations to the President to improve the efficiency of these processes.
n. Increase the Fleet of U.S. Flag Vessels Trading Internationally — Within 180 days, the Secretary of Transportation, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, shall deliver to OMB a legislative proposal to ensure the availability of U.S. flag commercial vessels that participate in international commerce. The proposal shall enhance existing subsidies to cover construction and operational costs and incentivize the commercial shipping industry to operate militarily useful vessels. The goal is to ensure adequate capacity of U.S. flag commercial vessels that can be called upon in times of war or national emergency.
o. Arctic Waterways — Within 90 days, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with other Department and agency heads, shall develop a strategy to secure arctic waterways.
p. Shipbuilding Review — Within 45 days, the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce, Transportation, and Homeland Security shall conduct a shipbuilding review and submit a report to the President with recommendations for increasing competition within the U.S. shipbuilding industry with the goal of reducing cost overruns and production delays.
q. Deregulatory Initiatives — Within 30 days, the Secretaries of Defense, Transportation and Homeland Security are to review their regulations pertaining to the domestic commercial maritime fleet and maritime port access and identify areas to deregulate.
r. Inactive Reserve Fleet — Within 90 days the Secretary of Defense is to review and issue guidance related to the retention, support, and mobilization of a robust inactive reserve fleet.
Read the full Executive Order here.
Read the White House Fact Sheet here.
Arbeitsrechtliche Elemente im Koalitionsvertrag
Gestern haben sich die Spitzen von CDU/CSU und SPD auf den Abschluss eines Koalitionsvertrages geeinigt. Dieser muss nun noch von den jeweiligen Parteigremien abgesegnet werden, bevor er unterzeichnet werden kann. Wir haben die wichtigsten arbeitsrechtlichen Themen herausgefiltert und kommentiert.
1. Mindestlohn von 15 EUR
Im Jahr 2026 soll „ein Mindestlohn von 15 Euro […] erreichbar“ sein. Hierbei handelt es sich nur um einen Wunsch, denn gleichzeitig betonen die zukünftigen Koalitionäre, dass sie an „einer starken und unabhängigen Mindestlohnkommission“ festhalten wollen. Über die Anpassung des allgemeinen gesetzlichen Mindestlohns entscheidet nach der Konzeption des MiLoG alle zwei Jahre eine unabhängige Kommission der Tarifpartner, die sich aus Vertretern der Arbeitgeberverbände sowie den Gewerkschaften zusammensetzt und außerdem von Wissenschaftlern beraten wird. Dies ist damit eine Absage an rein gesetzliche Erhöhungen des Mindestlohns, die die Ampel in 2022 (auf 12 EUR) letztlich entgegen der gesetzlichen Systematik auf den Weg gebracht hat.
2. Höherer Grad der Tarifbindung
Weiteres Ziel soll eine „höhere Tarifbindung“ sein, so dass „Tariflöhne […] wieder die Regel werden und […] nicht die Ausnahme bleiben“. Hierbei soll ein Bundestariftreuegesetz helfen, das für Auftragsvergaben auf Bundesebene ab EUR 50.000 Euro (und für Startups mit innovativen Leistungen in den ersten vier Jahren nach ihrer Gründung ab 100.000 Euro) eine Tarifbindung voraussetzt.
3. Flexibilität bei der ARbeitszeit
Zur Erhöhung der Flexibilität der Arbeitswelt („auch und gerade im Sinne einer besseren Vereinbarkeit von Familie und Beruf“) soll im Einklang mit der europäischen Arbeitszeitrichtlinie die Möglichkeit einer wöchentlichen anstelle einer täglichen Höchstarbeitszeit geschaffen werden. Dieser Punkt ist sehr interessant und könnte in der Tat ein großes Maß an Flexibilität schaffen. „Zur konkreten Ausgestaltung“ soll es allerdings zunächst einen „Dialog mit den Sozialpartnern“ geben. Ob dies dann bedeutet, dass die Flexibilisierungen nur für tarifgebundene Unternehmen gelten (ganz im Einklang mit dem Ziel unter Ziffer 2) und damit an den stark kritisierten Entwurf für die Anpassung des Arbeitszeitgesetzes aus dem BMAS aus 2023 angeknüpft wird, bleibt abzuwarten.
Darüber hinaus soll „die Pflicht zur elektronischen Erfassung von Arbeitszeiten unbürokratisch“ geregelt werden und „dabei für kleine und mittlere Unternehmen angemessene Übergangsregeln“ vorgesehen werden. Diese Formulierung spricht vor allem nicht dafür, dass kleine und mittlere Unternehmen beim Thema Arbeitszeiterfassung gänzlich mit einer Ausnahmeregelung rechnen können. Interessant ist aber das Bekenntnis der Verhandler, dass die „Vertrauensarbeitszeit […] ohne Zeiterfassung im Einklang mit der EU-Arbeitszeitrichtlinie möglich“ bleiben soll. Vor dem Hintergrund der bekannten höchstrichterlichen nationalen und unionsrechtlichen Argumentation zu diesem Thema ist es höchst interessant, wie diese Absicht rechtlich (und rechtssicher) umgesetzt werden soll. Würde dann der Wortlaut des Koalitionsvertrages tatsächlich gelten, dürften wir bundesweit die Renaissance der Vertrauensarbeitszeitregelungen erleben. Wehrmutstropfen könnte dann hier wieder die Absicht aus Ziffer 2 sein und dies möglichweise nur für tarifgebundene Arbeitgeber gelten.
4. Mehrarbeit, Überstunden & „Vollzeit-Prämien“
„Zuschläge für Mehrarbeit, die über die tariflich vereinbarte beziehungsweise an Tarifverträgen orientierte Vollzeitarbeit hinausgehen“ sollen „steuerfrei gestellt“ werden. Als Vollzeitarbeit soll dabei für tarifliche Regelungen eine Wochenarbeitszeit von mindestens 34 Stunden, für nicht tariflich festgelegte oder vereinbarte Arbeitszeiten von 40 Stunden gelten (wieder eine Referenz an das Ziel der Ausweitung der Tarifbindung). Details sollen abermals durch die Sozialpartner entwickelt werden. Dieser Punkt orientiert sich an der politischen Forderung, dass sich Überstunden mehr lohnen müssen und ist volkswirtschaftlich grundsätzlich zu begrüßen. Wird dies wie beabsichtigt umgesetzt, ist infolge des erheblichen finanziellen Anreizes eine Ausweitung der Überstunden in den Unternehmen zu erwarten. Bekanntermaßen entstehen diese nicht stets auf Verlangen des Unternehmens und so enthält eine solche Regelung durchaus Konfliktpotenzial für die Betriebe und Unternehmen (wer darf Überstunden leisten?).
In diese Richtung geht ein weiterer Aspekt, der vorsieht, dass eine Prämie, die Arbeitgeber zur Ausweitung der Arbeitszeit an Teilzeitbeschäftigte zahlen, steuerlich begünstigt wird. Hier ist zunächst unklar, ob es sich dabei um eine einmalige Zahlung oder dauerhafte Zulalge handeln soll. Eine einmalige Zahlung wird den gewünschten Effekt wahrscheinlich nur eingeschränkt erreichen können.
5. Sonstiges
Darüber hinaus finden sich noch einige andere arbeitsrechtlich relevante Themen im Koalitionsvertrag:
„Für die steigenden Herausforderungen der Digitalisierung und der Künstlichen Intelligenz in der Arbeitswelt“ sollen „die richtigen Rahmenbedingungen“ gesetzt werden, „damit diese sozialpartnerschaftlich gelöst werden“. Hierzu soll
Die Mitbestimmung weiterentwickelt werden (zur Erinnerung: der reine Einsatz von KI ist mitbestimmungsfrei);
Online-Betriebsratssitzungen und Online-Betriebsversammlungen sollen zusätzlich als gleichwertige Alternativen zu Präsenzformaten möglich sein (das ist bei der Betriebsversammlung derzeit nicht möglich).
Die BR-Wahlen sollen ebenfalls online möglich werden.
Für den Einsatz von KI im Unternehmen soll eine „Qualifizierung der Beschäftigten“ (die KI-Verordnung lässt grüßen) und „die faire Regelung des Umgangs mit den Daten im Betrieb“ geregelt werden (bei dieser Querschnittsmaterie ist die Umsetzung besonders kompliziert und trägt damit das Risiko, dass diese auf der Strecke bleibt).
Darüber hinaus kommen die zukünftigen Koalitionäre erneut auf eines ihrer Hauptanliegen (siehe oben Ziffer 2) zurück und bekräftigen am Ende:
Das Zugangsrecht der Gewerkschaften in die Betriebe soll um einen digitalen Zugang, der ihren analogen Rechten entspricht, ergänzt werden; und
Die Mitgliedschaft in Gewerkschaften soll durch steuerliche Anreize für Mitglieder attraktiver werden.
Fazit
Die Absicht zur Flexibilisierung der Arbeitszeit und Erleichterungen bei deren Erfassung sind aus Perspektive der Unternehmen ebenso zu begrüßen, wie steuerliche Anreize für Überstunden und eine Ausweitung der Arbeitszeit für Teilzeitbeschäftigte. Im Übrigen atmet der Abschnitt zum Arbeitsrecht den Geist des Junior-Koalitionspartners SPD, der ja auch wieder das Arbeitsressort übernehmen wird. Spannend dürfte hier die Frage werden, inwieweit die verfassungsrechtlich geschützte „negative Koalitionsfreiheit“ ausreichend beachtet wird. Übermäßig viele Themen haben sich die Koalitionäre in diesem Bereich für die 21. Legislaturperiode aber nicht gesetzt, so dass durchaus mit einer umfassenden Umsetzung gerechnet werden kann.
ETIAS 2026? Start of European Travel Authorization System Delayed Again
Implementation of the European Travel Information and Authorization System (ETIAS) has been delayed again. Initially expected to be operational in 2022, ETIAS is now scheduled to start in the last quarter of 2026. This delay allows more time for the Entry/Exit System (EES) to be fully implemented, which is expected to become operational in October 2025.
ETIAS will be a requirement for non-EU nationals from visa-exempt countries, including the United States, for short-term stays in the Schengen Area.
ETIAS is not a visa. Americans will maintain their visa-free privileges but will need to obtain the new travel authorization. This applies to U.S. visitors traveling to Europe for short stays of up to 90 days per 180-day period for any of the following purposes:
Tourism
Leisure activities
Business
Health and medical treatment
Transit en route to a third-country destination (only required if leaving the airport’s international transit area)
U.S. citizens will need to provide the following to register:
Valid Passport: U.S. passport must be valid for at least three months after planned departure from the Schengen Area
Payment Method: A debit or credit card to pay the application fee, which is slated to be approximately $8
Email Address: To receive approved ETIAS authorization
Additionally, travelers will need to fill out an online application form with:
Personal Information: Full name, date and place of birth, gender, and contact details
Passport Details: Passport number, issue date, and expiry date
Travel Plans: Intended first entry country and travel dates
Security Questions: Information about health, criminal record, and previous travel issues
The application process is designed to be quick and straightforward, with most approvals granted within minutes.
ETIAS will not be mandatory for U.S. citizens right away. There will be a six-month transitional period followed by a six-month grace period. During the transitional period, Americans will be allowed to cross the external border without ETIAS. They must meet all other entry conditions. During the grace period, Americans will be allowed to cross the external border without ETIAS only if it is the first time they are entering since the end of the transitional period.
ETIAS is valid for up to three years and for multiple trips to Europe. ETIAS authorizations validated during the transitional or grace periods can be used for trips once it becomes mandatory.
Have Your Say on CSRD: EFRAG Launches Public Call for Input on Revisions to ESRS
The European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) has launched a public call for input (Call for Input) on 9 April 2025, seeking feedback from stakeholders and, in particular, from the first wave of preparers who applied the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) in their 2024 Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) sustainability reports. The ESRS are at the core of the CSRD’s sustainability assessment and reporting requirements.
This follows the publication of the European Commission’s (the Commission) Omnibus proposals aimed to streamline European Union corporate sustainability requirements. To support these aims, on 27 March 2025, EFRAG received a targeted mandate from the Commission to provide proposals to revise and simplify the ESRS by 31 October 2025. The Commission intends to utilize EFRAG’s technical advice to draft a delegated act covering the reduced ESRS reporting obligations under CSRD.
EFRAG sets out that this Call for Input will complement its ongoing interviews and workshops with preparers, auditors, and users of sustainability data, which will also inform their technical advice on the revised ESRS. The request in the Call for Input is on key areas of the Commission’s identified areas for simplification, including:
Least relevant/most challenging: identifying mandatory datapoints that are least relevant or most problematic for general-purpose sustainability per each disclosure requirement in the ESRS, with separate consideration across cross-cutting, environmental, social, and governance matters in the ESRS;
Clarity: how to modify the ESRS provisions that are deemed unclear;
Consistency: how to improve consistency with other EU legislation;
Materiality: how to improve the ESRS provisions on materiality to ensure that undertakings report only material information, do not report unnecessary information and do not dedicate excessive resources to the materiality assessment process;
Simplifying: how to simplify the structure and presentation of the ESRS and any other modifications that could simplify the ESRS without comprising their role in supporting the European Union’s Green Deal; and
Interoperability: how to further enhance interoperability with global sustainability reporting standards.
Input is expected on the basis of an online questionnaire. The outcome of this Call for Input will be anonymized and leveraged only in aggregate form.
China’s State Council Releases White Paper “China’s Position on Certain Issues in China-US Economic and Trade Relations” – China Continuously Improves IP Protection and Prohibits Forced Technology Transfer
On April 9, 2025, China’s State Council Information Office released a white paper entitled “China’s Position on Certain Issues in China-US Economic and Trade Relations” (关于中美经贸关系若干问题的中方立场) in response to the ongoing trade war. With respect to intellectual property, the white paper states that China has continuously improved intellectual property protection and prohibits forced technology transfer. The white paper appears to address allegations made in the America First Trade Policy and the Report to the President on the America First Trade Policy Executive Summary but not the more recent and detailed United States Trade Representative 2025 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers.
The following are IP-related excerpts from the Chinese version of the white paper. The full text of the white paper is available here (Chinese). An English version of the white paper is available here.
II. China conscientiously implements the first phase of the China-US economic and trade agreement
As a responsible major country, China has conscientiously fulfilled its obligations under the agreement, protected intellectual property rights, increased imports, and expanded market access, creating a good business environment for investors from all countries, including American companies, to participate in sharing the dividends of China’s economic development.
1. Continuously improving intellectual property protection
Innovation is the primary driving force for development, and protecting intellectual property rights is protecting innovation. China has taken multiple measures to protect trade secrets, protect pharmaceutical intellectual property rights, combat online infringements, and tighten intellectual property law enforcement, and has conscientiously implemented the relevant commitments in the intellectual property chapter of the agreement.
Strengthen the protection of trade secrets. In September 2020, the Supreme People’s Court issued the “Regulations on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Cases of Infringement of Trade Secrets”, the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate issued the “Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights (III)”, and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate and the Ministry of Public Security issued the “Decision on Amending the Regulations on the Standards for Filing and Prosecuting Criminal Cases under the Jurisdiction of Public Security Organs”. In December 2020, the National People’s Congress passed the Criminal Law Amendment. The above regulations cover the definition of the scope of prohibited acts that constitute infringement of trade secrets, the definition of criminal acts of theft of trade secrets, the application for temporary injunctions in cases of theft of trade secrets, and the adjustment of the threshold for initiating criminal investigations.
Improve the pharmaceutical intellectual property protection system. In October 2020, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress reviewed and adopted the decision to amend the Patent Law, adding relevant provisions on the early resolution mechanism for pharmaceutical patent disputes [patent linkage] and the patent term compensation system. In July 2021, the National Medical Products Administration and the National Intellectual Property Administration jointly issued the “Implementation Measures for the Early Resolution Mechanism for Pharmaceutical Patent Disputes (Trial)“, the National Intellectual Property Administration issued the “Administrative Adjudication Measures for the Early Resolution Mechanism for Pharmaceutical Patent Disputes“, and the Supreme People’s Court issued the “Regulations on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Civil Cases of Patent Disputes Related to Drugs Applied for Registration“, establishing an early resolution mechanism for pharmaceutical patent disputes to ensure the effective implementation of the system. In December 2023, the State Council announced the decision to amend the Implementing Rules of the Patent Law, and the National Intellectual Property Administration simultaneously completed the revision of the patent examination guidelines and made detailed provisions on the patent term compensation system. In addition, in the revision of the patent examination guidelines completed by the National Intellectual Property Administration in 2021, the relevant content of supplementary experimental data was further improved.
Improve the trademark and geographical indication protection system. In April 2019, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress reviewed and adopted the decision to amend the Trademark Law, adding relevant content to regulate malicious trademark registration, increasing the penalties for infringement of trademark exclusive rights, and significantly increasing the illegal costs of counterfeiters of registered trademarks. Since then, the National Intellectual Property Administration has successively formulated and issued the “Several Provisions on Regulating Trademark Application and Registration Behaviors”, “Trademark Infringement Judgment Standards”, “Trademark General Violation Judgment Standards” and other regulations to continue to crack down on malicious trademark registration applications. In December 2023, the National Intellectual Property Administration formulated and issued the “Geographical Indication Product Protection Measures” and “Collective Trademark and Certification Trademark Registration and Management Regulations”, further improving the legal rules for the protection of geographical indications.
Actively promote Sino-US intellectual property exchanges and cooperation. Through consultations on work plans and signing of memorandums of understanding on cooperation with the US intellectual property authorities, deepen mutually beneficial and pragmatic cooperation in various technical fields such as intellectual property review, expert exchanges, and awareness raising. Maintain good communication and exchanges with US-funded enterprises with a positive and open attitude, listen to opinions and suggestions on China’s intellectual property system, and coordinate to resolve the reasonable intellectual property demands of enterprises in China.
Step up efforts to combat online infringement. In September 2020, the Supreme People’s Court issued the “Guiding Opinions on the Trial of Civil Cases Involving Intellectual Property Rights on E-commerce Platforms” and the “Reply on Several Legal Application Issues in Disputes Involving Internet Intellectual Property Infringement”, which involved issues such as rapid removal, the effectiveness of notifications and counter-notifications. In November 2020, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress passed amendments to the Copyright Law, including the addition of civil remedies for copyright infringement. In August 2021, the State Administration for Market Regulation issued the “Decision on Amending the E-commerce Law of the People’s Republic of China (Draft for Comments)”, which amended the procedures and penalty provisions of the notification and removal system.
Strengthening intellectual property law enforcement. In August 2020, the State Administration for Market Regulation and other departments issued the “Opinions on Strengthening the Destruction of Infringing and Counterfeit Goods”, and the State Council amended the “Regulations on the Referral of Suspected Criminal Cases by Administrative Law Enforcement Agencies”, requiring that cases involving intellectual property crimes be referred to public security agencies by administrative law enforcement agencies. China has also continuously strengthened infringement and counterfeiting law enforcement actions. In 2024, market supervision departments organized special actions such as intellectual property law enforcement to further strengthen the governance of key areas, key commodities, and key markets. Various special actions investigated and dealt with nearly 675,000 cases, including 43,900 trademark infringement and counterfeit patent cases, and carried out about 88,000 law enforcement actions against key physical markets with high incidence of infringement and counterfeiting. The General Administration of Customs further strengthened the enforcement of intellectual property protection, taking special actions as a starting point, and maintained a high-pressure situation to combat infringement in the import and export links. 41,600 batches and 81.6051 million pieces of suspected infringing goods were detained throughout the year.
2. Prohibition of forced technology transfer
China firmly opposes any form of forced technology transfer, always takes mutual benefit and win-win as the basic value orientation in conducting international technology cooperation, encourages and respects Chinese and foreign companies to voluntarily conduct technology transfer and licensing in accordance with market principles, provides a good market environment for Chinese and foreign technology holders to obtain benefits through technology transfer and licensing, and also provides support for promoting global scientific and technological progress and international economic and trade development. The US calls the voluntary contractual behavior of foreign-invested enterprises and Chinese companies to conduct technical cooperation and jointly obtain commercial returns in the Chinese market “forced technology transfer”, which is inconsistent with the facts.
Forced technology transfer is clearly prohibited from a legal perspective. The Foreign Investment Law, issued in March 2019, stipulates that “administrative organs and their staff shall not use administrative means to force technology transfer”. The Administrative Licensing Law, revised and issued in April 2019, stipulates that “administrative organs and their staff shall not directly or indirectly require technology transfer in the process of implementing administrative licensing”. The Regulations for the Implementation of the Foreign Investment Law, issued in December 2019, further refine the above provisions and prohibit any form of forced technology transfer.
Comprehensively strengthen the confidentiality responsibility of administrative agencies and staff. Chinese law clearly stipulates that administrative agencies and their staff shall keep confidential the commercial secrets of foreign investors and foreign-invested enterprises that they learn about in the course of performing their duties. The Foreign Investment Law stipulates that “administrative agencies and their staff shall keep confidential the commercial secrets of foreign investors and foreign-invested enterprises that they learn about in the course of performing their duties, and shall not disclose or illegally provide them to others”; administrative agency staff “who disclose or illegally provide to others commercial secrets learned in the course of performing their duties shall be punished in accordance with the law; if a crime is constituted, criminal liability shall be pursued in accordance with the law.” The Administrative Licensing Law also makes similar provisions in this regard.
Continuously expand market opening and investment access. China insists on optimizing the market environment, expanding foreign investment access, increasing the choice and freedom of foreign companies to invest in China, and creating good conditions for foreign companies to voluntarily carry out technical cooperation with Chinese companies in accordance with market principles. China has established a national treatment plus negative list management system for foreign investment access, replacing the “case-by-case approval” system for the establishment and change of foreign-invested enterprises with a convenient and fast information reporting system. China has also launched a series of measures to encourage foreign investment and continuously improve the foreign investment environment. In 2024, the General Office of the CPC Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council issued the “Opinions on Improving the Market Access System”, requiring “strengthening the coordination of domestic and foreign investment access policy adjustments, and adhering to the principle of national treatment without reducing the access opportunities of existing business entities”, and further improving the construction of the market access system, optimizing the access environment, and improving market access efficiency at the central level.
Influencer Marketing Practices Under Scrutiny in Europe
Influencer activities in the European Union may be deemed unfair market practices, potentially harming the brands they promote.
The influencer marketing industry has experienced significant growth, with its global value reaching approximately $24 billion in 2024. Brands often turn to this form of advertising, not always realizing that influencer activities may be scrutinized for compliance with consumer protection laws. Enforcement in Europe is increasing, and non-compliant actions may harm the reputation and credibility of both influencers and the brands they promote.
Influencer Marketing Under EU Law
The European Commission classifies influencers engaged in commercial activities—such as promoting brands and receiving compensation—as “traders” under the unfair commercial practices directive (Directive 2005/29/EC Of European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005, concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market). This classification requires influencers to comply with consumer protection laws, including transparency requirements for advertising disclosures.
Failure to disclose paid partnerships or affiliate marketing links may be considered a misleading commercial practice under EU law. The European Commission actively monitors influencer marketing and provides guidance and compliance tools through its Influencer Legal Hub.
Increasing Enforcement Actions Across Europe
National competition authorities from different jurisdictions are increasing enforcement actions against influencers and brands that appear to lack transparency in advertising. In Spain, investigations on social media content revealed that approximately 77.75% of the examined content did not comply with disclosure obligations. Many European jurisdictions have acted to raise awareness among influencers and the agencies representing them. The Italian antitrust authority regularly sends “moral suasion letters” to influencers violating consumer protection laws. However, in several countries, regulators have imposed financial penalties on influencers for breaching consumer rights, including in France, Latvia, Romania, Norway, Denmark, and Poland. The maximum amount of possible fines varies across jurisdictions. However, in some countries (e.g., Poland), maximum fines for such violations may be imposed at the same level as for the most serious competition law infringements (e.g., cartels), i.e., up to 10% of the company’s annual turnover.
Considerations for Influencers
Some of the European Commission’s guidance housed in the Influencer Legal Hub includes the following:
Clearly disclose advertising content: Influencers should inform audiences when content includes advertising and use clear labels such as “advertising” or “advertisement” in post or video language. Influencers should seek to avoid unclear or misleading terms when indicating advertising. Audiences should understand when they are viewing promotional content. Transparency is crucial to maintain trust and comply with legal obligations.
Use appropriate hashtags: Incorporating clear disclosure hashtags like #advertising or #advertisement help to indicate promotional content.
Label each promotional post individually: Posts, reels, or stories containing advertising should be individually labeled as such.
Utilize platform disclosure features: Influencers should consider using disclosure tools that social media platforms provide, such as “paid partnership with” tags, when available.
Ensure visibility and clarity of disclosures: Consider placing disclosure labels and hashtags at the beginning of posts or videos so they are easily noticeable to audiences.
Many national regulators have issued their own recommendations (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Poland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Portugal, Sweden), which may impose additional obligations for labeling advertising content. Advertisers and marketing agencies, in addition to influencers, may also be liable for non-compliance. Brands should ensure that contractual agreements require proper advertising disclosure.
In Poland, the national competition authority imposed a fine of PLN 5 million (USD 1.25 million) on a dietary supplements manufacturer for the misleading labeling of advertisements by influencers collaborating with the company on social media. According to the guidelines the company provided, the recommended practice included using vague ad disclosures, such as references solely to the advertiser’s brand.
Given Europe’s increasing regulatory scrutiny, companies engaging in influencer marketing should proactively review their compliance strategies.
What Every Multinational Company Should Know About … Customs Enforcement and False Claims Act Risks (Part I)
As detailed in our prior article on “What Every Multinational Company Should Know About … The Rising Risk of Customs False Claims Act Actions in the Trump Administration,” the Department of Justice (DOJ) is encouraging the use of False Claims Act (FCA) claims to address the underpayment of tariffs by importers. In addition, many of President Trump’s new tariff proclamations have directed Customs to prioritize enforcing the new tariffs while also stating that Customs should assess the maximum penalties for underpayments without considering any mitigating factors. This article is the first in a series that highlights the heightened risks of importing in a high-tariff, high-penalty environment based on a comprehensive review of all prior FCA enforcement actions based on underpayment of tariffs.
As detailed in other articles in this “What Every Multinational Company Should Know” series, Customs has full access to electronic data from every importer for every entry through the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) portal. This gives Customs the ability to run sophisticated algorithms, to find anomalies and ferret out potential underpayments. This includes comparing importers’ import patterns and entry-specific information (valuation, country of origin, etc.) not only against their own prior entries but also those of competitors bringing in similar merchandise. Much of this data also is available publicly, and the FCA permits private relators to file qui tam suits in the government’s name. The end result is that Customs and relators have the unparalleled ability to find underpaid tariffs.
There are five elements working to create a sharply increased risk profile for importers:
Heightened tariff levels, which make it possible to run up tariff underpayments and associated penalties very quickly.
Customs’ increased attention to tariff underpayments, particularly for the new Trump tariffs.
The threatened use of alternative enforcement tools on top of normal Customs penalty procedures, including the FCA and potential criminal penalties.
The increasing incentives for employees, competitors, and other potential relators to become whistleblowers.
The enhanced ability of Customs and plaintiff law firms to target and identify tariff underpayments.
The Customs enforcement and FCA risks are especially high for declaring the correct country of origin. This risk is encapsulated by the March 25, 2025 settlement of a Customs FCA action for $8.1 million. According to the DOJ, the importer misrepresented the country of origin of certain wood flooring imports by declaring them to be a product of Malaysia instead of the proper country of China, thereby paying the far-lower tariff rates levied on products of Malaysia.
Several aspects of this settlement are especially notable in the current high-tariff environment:
The underlying qui tamcomplaint did not contain specific evidence of scienter beyond the allegedly inaccurate statements on customs documents, although the government’s investigation likely uncovered such evidence because the FCA requires that false statements be made “knowingly.”
The settlement amount was based on unpaid duties from three different types of tariffs: antidumping duties, countervailing duties, and section 301 tariffs, all of which simultaneously applied to imports of wood flooring manufactured in China. While this type of multiple-tariff importation used to be rare, many of the new tariffs announced by the Trump administration “stack,” which means it will be common for entered products to be subject to multiple tariff regimes. This increases the chances of errors quickly multiplying and creating a much higher risk exposure.
In its press release, the DOJ highlighted the role that CBP played in the case, including how it made factory visits, detained shipments, analyzed import records, and conducted witness interviews. We expect this type of cooperation will become a regular feature of Customs FCA actions, as Customs has long-established expertise in identifying tariff underpayments.
The settlement states that the relator was a competitor of the importer, which ended up receiving $1,215,000 of the settlement proceeds. This is a reminder that FCA risks can arise from employees, former employees, suppliers, competitors, or even customers who could file qui tam suits as relators. Further, because services exist that gather import-related data and sell it to the general public, all of these parties — or relator-side law firms — could data mine this information to look for opportunities to file qui tam actions in hopes of achieving a similar payday. This also serves as a reminder that it is important for importers to file manifest confidentiality requests every two years, to minimize the amount of such information released to the public.
The allegations of underpaid duties were all related to the alleged failure to declare the correct country of origin. With the announcement of the new “reciprocal tariffs,” the country of origin generally will be the primary determinant of the amount of tariffs due. We accordingly expect Customs to focus heavily on whether importers are correctly declaring the country of origin, particularly when importers declare the country of origin to be low-tariff countries like the United Kingdom or Singapore.
Indeed, we expect that this specific fact pattern of misrepresenting the country of origin on goods will lead to numerous FCA actions. That fact pattern was present in one of the largest FCA cases, which resulted in the importer of printer ink paying $45 million in 2012 to resolve allegations that it misrepresented the country of origin on goods to evade antidumping and countervailing duties. In that settlement, the DOJ stated that although the printer ink “underwent a finishing process in Japan and Mexico before it was imported into the United States, the government alleged that this process was insufficient to constitute a substantial transformation to render these countries as the countries of origin.”
Preventing and Remediating Customs and FCA Enforcement Risk
The combination of increasing Customs FCA activity and sharply increasing tariff levels leads to the following corollaries that every importer should know:
Corollary #1: In a high-tariff environment, errors in Customs compliance can lead to quickly mounting underpayments of tariffs, thereby sharply increasing the risk profile of acting as the importer of record.
Corollary #2: In a high-tariff environment, Customs compliance is thus more important than ever.
Corollary #3: In a high-penalty environment, the aggressive and consistent use of post-summary corrections to fix import-related errors before they become final is also more important than ever.
Corollary #4: In an environment where Customs assesses penalties without considering mitigating factors, making voluntary self-disclosures is an essential tool to minimize Customs penalty risks, because Customs does not assess penalties for voluntarily disclosed conduct without analyzing aggravating and mitigating factors.
Corollary #5: In an environment of enhanced FCA actions, taking steps to minimize the risk of qui tamrelators is essential for all tariff-related issues.
These realities and recent enforcement cases underscore the importance of importers carefully reviewing areas where Customs is focusing its enforcement attention, which undoubtedly will include any shipments from low-tariff countries in light of the global and reciprocal tariff announcement. If the third-country processing or manufacturing is not enough to support an argument that the inputs were substantially transformed into a product with a different name, character, or use, thereby essentially changing its identity, then the importer could be accused of making a false statement by declaring an improper country of origin.
In sum, the combination of the new high-tariff environment, the heightened ability of Customs (and the general public) to data mine, and the stated emphasis of the DOJ to focus on and encourage the use of the FCA substantially increases import-related risks. In subsequent articles, we will highlight additional areas where we see heightened enforcement risk so that importers can take proactive steps to avoid Customs and FCA penalties.
US Halt on Foreign Anti-Corruption Enforcement Prompts New European Taskforce
Approximately two weeks ago, British, French and Swiss law enforcement authorities announced the creation of a new international alliance. With their joint Founding Statement (“Statement”), the three countries established the International Anti-Corruption Prosecutorial Taskforce (“Taskforce”) to tackle the threat of bribery and corruption. Though statements made by one of the three signing officials note that the launch of this new organization is “in no way a reaction to” the recent US pause on Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) enforcement, the timing of this debut coupled with the conspicuously absent American presence from the taskforce suggests otherwise.
The nascent organization was launched on March 20, 2025, via a collective statement promulgated by the United Kingdom’s Serious Fraud Office, France’s Parquet National Financier, and the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland. The Statement succinctly sets out the Taskforce’s aims in a single page. Beginning by recognizing the “significant threat of bribery and corruption and the severe harm that it causes,” the Statement then reaffirms its commitment to tackling such. It subsequently sets out two subgroups that will be formed: a “Leaders’ Group” that will focus on “the regular exchange of insight and strategy” and a “Working Group” that will “devis[e] proposals for co-operation on cases.” This is intended to strengthen cooperation and will also involve enhanced operational exchanges in the handling of individual cases, as well as the development of a broader framework for reflection on international anti-corruption strategy. The Statement concludes by extending an open invitation for other “like-minded agencies involved in tackling international bribery and corruption to join the Taskforce.”
Given the short timespan between the birth of this international organization and the Trump administration’s recent policy changes pausing FCPA enforcement, there has been a good deal of speculation that these two developments bear some relation to one another.
The policy changes related to FCPA-related prosecution began with a memorandum issued by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi on February 5, 2025 — the same day that she was sworn in. In one of her fourteen “Day One” memos, she stated that “[t]he Criminal Division’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Unit shall prioritize investigations related to foreign bribery that facilitate[] the criminal operations of Cartels and TCOs, and shift focus away from investigations and cases that do not involve such a connection.”
On February 10, 2025, President Trump followed up by issuing Executive Order 14209 (“Order”), “Pausing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement to Further American Economic and National Security,” in which he implemented a 180-day “review period” during which — among other items — no new FCPA investigations or enforcement actions may be brought barring the approval of the Attorney General. During this time, all current FCPA investigations or enforcement actions are also under scrutiny, as the Order notes that “appropriate action” will be taken with respect to existing matters “to restore proper bounds on FCPA enforcement.” The Order also provides for an additional 180-day extension to this review period should the Attorney General deem it appropriate.
Though the newly formed Taskforce has yet to take any affirmative steps since its inception, its very creation has signaled European dissent from President Trump’s policy shift regarding the FCPA prosecution. Despite a recent shift in American prosecution away from FCPA matters, businesses should still take precautions to remain in compliance with all applicable laws or risk facing consequences from any number of regulators — at home or abroad.
Going Nuclear–Industry Outlook and Issues
The nuclear energy industry continues to gain momentum and has a strong outlook for 2025 and beyond. This positive forecast is buoyed by support from both major political parties, increased demand, technical advancements, and some out-of-the-box thinking for deploying existing assets. There have also been a few notable judicial and legislative developments that are contributing to what some hope will be the realization of a long-promised nuclear renaissance.
Outlook for 2025 and Beyond
The new year is already off to a good start for nuclear power generation.
Expansion of the Price-Anderson Act
First, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently advanced a broad interpretation of the Price-Anderson Act that will expand the definition of private parties covered for certain nuclear accidents. This positive development broadens who can take advantage of government indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act, encouraging new parties to participate in the nuclear market. We wrote about this development and its impact on limiting private liability for nuclear accidents here.
Nuclear Market Growth
Second, a dynamic nuclear market appears to be taking root. As Nuclear Business Platform reports: (1) small modular reactors (SMRs) should lead the way in 2025, with several designs under development and NuScale Power Corporation achieving US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) certification; (2) increased demand from data centers and artificial intelligence should continue to drive new generation; (3) a positive financing environment for nuclear projects also appears to be in place; (4) new technology developments in both reactors and fuels from a variety of private market players should support further growth; and (5) new market participants in India, Turkey, and Africa will also support continued advancements and efficiencies.
Nuclear-Powered Hydrogen
Third, the US nuclear industry continues to evaluate opportunities for using nuclear fuel as an electricity source to produce hydrogen following the US Department of the Treasury’s final changes to the 45V clean hydrogen production tax credit, which exempt (with some restrictions) existing and future nuclear power plants from the additionality requirements imposed on other renewable energy sources. US nuclear leaders, along with EDF Energy’s initiatives in France and Japan’s High Temperature Engineering Test Reactor, could carve out a new generation space.
Global Agreements to Support Nuclear Power
Fourth, a collection of large tech companies, financial institutions, and members of the nuclear industry announced a pledge at the CERAWeek conference to “triple global nuclear capacity by 2050.” The coalition, including Amazon, Meta, Google, key nuclear power associations, and 31 countries, committed to supporting the rapid expansion of global nuclear power through financial investment, aggressive political advocacy, and global cooperation.
Palisades Nuclear Plant Set to Restart
Fifth, on Monday, 17 March, the US Department of Energy (DOE) approved a nearly US$57 million loan disbursement to Holtec for the Palisades Nuclear Plant in Covert, Michigan. The Palisades plant, retired in 2022, could be the first commercial reactor in the country brought back into service after being previously shut down. US Energy Secretary Chris Wright called the disbursement “yet another step toward advancing President Trump’s commitment to increase domestic energy production, bolster our security and lower costs for the American people.” The Palisades plant will have to receive approval from the NRC to resume operation.
World Bank Set to Invest in Nuclear Projects
Sixth, on Thursday, 20 March, the head of the World Bank announced that he had petitioned the bank’s board of directors to reverse its policy against investing in nuclear energy projects. Ajay Banga, the World Bank president, called small nuclear reactors “transformative and safe,” and he stated that nuclear power could be a viable path to green power for developing countries.
Support for Nuclear from the Trump Administration
Finally, the Trump administration has released several statements and executive orders promoting new nuclear generation. On his first day in office, President Trump issued the “Unleashing American Energy” executive order, which directed agencies to identify, revise, or rescind any regulations that “unduly burdened” domestic energy production. Among the domestic energy sources identified as key domestic resources, nuclear energy was included. President Trump, along with Secretary of Energy Chris Wright and Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, have expressed public support for increasing nuclear capacity as a reliable source of baseload power for the US electrical grid.
2024 in Review
The promise of 2025, and beyond, comes on the heels of an extremely successful 2024 in the commercial nuclear industry. DOE recently summarized the major nuclear achievements from 2024.
New Reactors Come Online in Georgia
Vogtle 4 entered commercial service on 29 April 2024. Plant Vogtle is now the largest clean power generator in the country and is home to two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors. These are the first new builds in the United States in more than 30 years.
Significant Restart and Recommissioning Activity Is on the Horizon
DOE closed a US$1.52 billion loan to repower and upgrade the Palisades nuclear power plant in Michigan. This would be the first reactor ever recommissioned in the United States, if approved by the NRC. Holtec’s decision to recommission Palisades is significant because the company originally purchased the plant with plans to decommission the plant at a profit. Holtec’s decision to stick with the plant provides a clear signal as to the improved economics and demand for nuclear power generation. The DOE loan was made possible by the Inflation Reduction Act.
In addition to Palisades, Constellation Energy recently announced its plans to restart Three Mile Island Unit 1, thanks to a 20-year power purchase agreement with Microsoft to power its data centers. The plant will be renamed the Crane Clean Energy Center and is expected to be online in 2028, pending regulatory approval.
The United States Announces Nuclear Generation Goals
The Biden administration released nuclear deployment targets in 2024 to expand domestic capacity by 200 gigawatts (GW). The plan outlines more than 30 actions the US government can take to add 35 GW of new capacity by 2035 and achieve a sustained pace of 15 GW per year by 2040. Most of that capacity could come from existing power plant sites. Research also shows that US nuclear power plants could host up to 95 GW of new capacity. An additional 174 GW could also be built near US coal plants, depending on the reactor type. The Trump administration has not specifically endorsed the Biden plan, but, as discussed above, the Trump administration has expressed support for a “nuclear renaissance.”
Strides Being Made in Development of a Domestic Nuclear Fuel Supply
Multiple companies are participating in low-enriched uranium and high-assay, low-enriched uranium capacity building programs sponsored by DOE. The US$3.4 billion effort will allow the awardees to bid on future task orders to produce, store, and deconvert material that can be fabricated into fuel for current and future reactors. The United States also took crucial steps toward strengthening our domestic energy security by issuing a ban on imported uranium products from Russia.
New Technologies Are Under Development
DOE-supported projects started in 2024 will bring the United States one step closer to the deployment of new advanced small modular and microreactor systems. TerraPower started nonnuclear construction on a sodium test facility in support of its Natrium reactor in Kemmerer, Wyoming. The Department of Defense broke ground on its Project Pele microreactor at Idaho National Laboratory. X-energy, which is already developing its high-temperature, gas-cooled reactor technology with Dow in Texas, announced a commitment from Amazon for a 320-megawatt project with Energy Northwest in Washington State. Kairos Power also started construction on its Hermes reactor in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The project is one of several projects being supported through DOE’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program.
DOE Launched a US$900 Million Program to Demonstrate up to Two Advanced Light-Water Small Modular Reactor Systems in the United States
The new program encourages a consortium-based approach to lower the risk of deploying new reactor technologies. It will also facilitate multi-reactor order books and provide additional support to build out the advanced light-water reactor supply chain.
The ADVANCE Act to Address the Speed of Licensing New Reactors
Four years after President Trump signed the 2019 Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, President Biden signed another key bipartisan bill known as the ADVANCE Act to help speed up the deployment and licensing of new reactors and fuels. The new bill helps develop a modernized approach to licensing new reactor technologies. The bill also makes strides to develop guidance for smaller reactor technologies and advanced fuel cycles.
In response to Congress’s legislation directing NRC to develop new frameworks for licensing nuclear technology, NRC is currently in the process of crafting two new regulatory processes—one for advanced reactor technology like SMRs and microreactors, and another for fusion energy machines under the byproduct materials rule. The new licensing regulations are designed to streamline applications to NRC and allow for design-specific safety reviews of first-of-a-kind reactor technology. The final rule for advanced reactor technology is expected to be issued in summer 2026, and the proposed rule for fusion machines is expected to be published in May 2025.
Further, in February 2025, NRC published its proposed fee schedule fiscal year 2025. The new fee schedule would reduce the hourly fee for advanced reactor pre-applicants and applicants by 50%, from US$146/hour to US$323 per hour. The rule is set to take effect on 1 October 2025.
New Areas of International Cooperation Were Put Forward
DOE launched the world’s first two regional Clean Energy Training Centers in Poland and Ghana this year to jump-start the countries’ domestic civil nuclear energy programs. The centers will serve the regions as training hubs for countries considering new or expanded nuclear reactor deployments and will build on previous international agreements to grow global nuclear energy capacity.
Additional Proposed Solutions to Deal with Spent Nuclear Fuel
DOE is moving forward on a project to design, build, and operate a federal consolidated interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel that would be sited through DOE’s consent-based siting process. The facility would be licensed by NRC and initially built to store around 15,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel, with options to expand. It would also include the development of new modern railcars to transport the spent fuel.
The firm is actively monitoring the exciting growth of nuclear power in the United States and across the world. As nuclear policy continues to evolve, and opportunities in the nuclear industry continue to grow, the energy, policy, and regulatory professionals at the firm stand ready to help guide you through the exciting developments happening now in nuclear energy.
US Customs and Border Protection Issues Guidance on Reciprocal Tariffs
US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued guidance on its Cargo Systems Messaging Service[1] on April 4, 2025 implementing the first round across-the-board 10% duty under the President’s reciprocal tariff executive order (the Reciprocal Tariffs EO), and issued additional guidance on April 8, 2025 concerning the Reciprocal Tariffs EO’s second round of country-specific tariffs (together, the CBP Guidance). The 10% duty went into effect on April 5 and the country-specific tariffs are effective on April 9, 2025. Both are imposed on most goods imported into the US, with narrow exceptions.
Tariff HTSUS Codes
A Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) code is a unique classification used to identify and categorize goods for import and export purposes. These codes help determine the applicable tariff rates and regulations for specific items entering the US.
10% Worldwide Tariff
The CBP Guidance requires importers to use HTSUS code 9903.01.25 when filing entry summaries for all imported goods subject to the 10% tariff. This applies to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. EDT on April 5, 2025, unless they are subject to country-specific tariffs or fall under one of the exceptions listed below.
Country-Specific Tariffs
The CBP Guidance also requires importers to apply the following country-specific HTSUS code listed in Annex I of the Reciprocal Tariffs EO. These country-specific ad valorem duty rates will replace the 10% additional ad valorem duty under HTSUS code 9903.01.25. This applies to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. EDT on April 9, 2025, unless they fall under one of the exceptions listed below.
HTSUS codes for select countries are set forth below; the full list is available in Annex I.
9903.01.50: Articles the product of Jordan or the European Union (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden) will be assessed an additional ad valorem rate of duty of 20%.
9903.01.53: Articles the product of Brunei, Japan, or Malaysia will be assessed an additional ad valorem rate of duty of 24%.
9903.01.54: Articles the product of South Korea will be assessed an additional ad valorem rate of duty of 25%.
9903.01.55: Articles the product of India will be assessed an additional ad valorem rate of duty of 26%.
9903.01.63: Articles the product of China, including Hong Kong and Macau, will be assessed an additional ad valorem rate of duty of 34%.
9903.01.72: Articles the product of Vietnam will be assessed an additional ad valorem rate of duty of 46%.
Exceptions
The above tariffs do not apply to goods that fall within one of the following categories. Importers should not use the HTSUS codes listed above and should instead use the alternate HTSUS codes listed below:
9903.01.25 – Goods in transit with country-specific rates: Goods from countries with a country-specific duty rate are loaded onto a vessel in transit on or after 12:01 a.m. EDT April 5, 2025, and before 12:01 a.m. EDT April 9, 2025, and entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption before 12:01 a.m. EDT May 27, 2025, are subject to the 10% additional tariff, rather than the country-specific rate.
9903.01.26 – USMCA-origin goods from Canada: Goods that originate in Canada, including those entered free of duty under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).
9903.01.27 – USMCA-origin goods from Mexico: Goods that originate in Mexico, including those entered free of duty under the USMCA.
9903.01.28 – Goods in transit: Goods loaded onto a vessel at the port of loading before 12:01 a.m. EDT on April 5, 2025, and entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse on or after this date. Notably, CBP clarifies that importers have until 12:01 a.m. EDT on May 27, 2025 to declare these items to use this code.
9903.01.29 – Goods from sanctioned countries: Articles from countries subject to US sanctions (e.g., Belarus, Cuba, North Korea, Russia).
9903.01.30 – Donations for humanitarian purposes: Donations intended for human suffering relief, such as food, clothing, and medicine.
9903.01.31 – Informational materials: Goods considered informational materials, such as books, films, photos, microfilm, and news wire feeds.
9903.01.32 – Articles in Annex II: Goods specifically enumerated in Annex II.
9903.01.33 – Iron, steel, aluminum, and vehicle parts: Certain articles of iron, steel, aluminum, and passenger vehicles or light trucks, as well as parts subject to Section 232 actions.
9903.01.34 – Goods with US content: Articles with at least 20% US-origin content will not be subject to tariffs under the Reciprocal Tariffs EO on the US portion; only the non-US content will be tariffed.
The above tariffs also do not apply to goods that are properly entered under certain provisions of HTSUS Chapter 98, as long as they meet CBP’s regulations. However, there are important exceptions:
9802.00.80 – Articles assembled abroad: Additional duties will apply to the value of the assembled article from abroad, minus the cost of any US-made parts.
9802.00.40, 9802.00.50, and 9802.00.60 – Repairs, Alterations, or Processing: Additional duties apply to the value of the work done abroad.
Tariff Mitigation Strategies
De Minimis Exemption
As noted in our previous client alert, shortly after releasing the Reciprocal Tariffs EO, the Trump Administration issued another executive order announcing that the $800 de minimis exemption would not be available for goods originating in or shipped from China and Hong Kong. CBP’s guidance confirms that the exemption remains available for shipments from other countries—at least for now. Importers sourcing low-value goods from non-Chinese suppliers may continue to rely on Section 321 entry, though future limitations could be imposed.
Foreign Trade Zones (FTZs)
The guidance reiterates that goods entered into FTZs under privileged foreign (PF) status are subject to the reciprocal tariffs upon withdrawal. This means that even if importers process or assemble goods within the FTZ, they will still be subject to the reciprocal tariffs upon withdrawal for US consumption.
Duty Drawback
In our prior client alert, we noted that the Reciprocal Tariffs EO did not restrict duty drawback—suggesting the possibility of recovery. CBP has now confirmed that duties paid under the reciprocal tariff are eligible for drawback, an important clarification. Duty drawback provides flexible opportunities for relief, including:
Unused Merchandise Drawback – For goods exported without use in the US.
Manufacturing Drawback – For imported components used in goods that are exported out of the US.
Rejected Merchandise Drawback – For defective or nonconforming goods returned or destroyed under CBP supervision.
Third-Party Drawback Agreements – Importers without sufficient exports may partner with exporters to share drawback benefits.
Critically, across many drawback categories, the exported items need not be identical to the imported goods—as long as they share the same 8-digit HTSUS classification, they may qualify for drawback. This classification-based matching significantly expands eligibility and should be evaluated as part of any mitigation strategy.
Conclusion
The CBP Guidance offers critical clarity on tariff scope and administration while reinforcing the importance of compliance strategies. Importers should take proactive steps to prepare for the new tariffs by reviewing their operations and identifying potential mitigation strategies. This includes auditing HTSUS classifications to ensure accuracy, including the appropriate Chapter 99 codes for exemptions. Importers should also evaluate their supply chains to determine opportunities for sourcing alternatives or utilizing FTZs. Exploring duty drawback options is key, and importers should consider formalizing these programs where appropriate. It is essential to stay informed on any additional guidance, particularly regarding the country-specific tariffs effective on April 9. Early engagement with legal or trade advisors will help minimize exposure and facilitate compliance.
We continue to monitor developments and are available to assist clients in navigating this evolving landscape. For additional information, please contact the International Trade Controls team.
[1] We note that while CBP implemented the February and March tariffs imposed on Canada, Mexico, and China through Federal Register notices, it used the Cargo Systems Messaging Service (CSMS) for its most recent announcement on the reciprocal tariffs (and may follow up with Federal Register notices). The reason for this deviation from the norm is unclear (and may be simply a result of the fast-moving pace of changes to tariff policy), but industry should be aware of the distinction and should monitor CSMS as well as the Federal Register for changes.
DORA Compliance: Navigating the Latest Developments
On 24 March 2025, the following two developments relating to the implementation of the EU Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) took place:
the European Commission (Commission) adopted a Delegated Regulation supplementing DORA with regard to regulatory technical standards (RTS) on the subcontracting of information communication and technology (ICT) services that support critical or important functions (Subcontracting RTS); and
the Delegated Regulation supplementing DORA regarding the RTS to specify the criteria for determining the composition of the joint examination team was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) (JET RTS).
In addition, on 27 March 2025, the Commission published a press release (Press Release)setting out its decision to open infringement procedures against certain EU member states for failing to fully transpose the Directive on DORA (DORA Directive) into their national law.
Subcontracting RTS
The Commission has adopted the Subcontracting RTS, which specifies the elements that a financial entity must determine and assess when it permits its ICT third-party providers (TPPs) to subcontract ICT services supporting critical or important functions (or material parts of such functions).
The Commission initially rejected a version of the draft Subcontracting RTS due to concerns that requirements introduced went beyond the mandate given to the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs). Further information regarding such rejection of the draft Subcontracting RTS can be found in our previous article (available here).
The most significant change since the previous draft of the Subcontracting RTS is the deletion of Recital 5 and Article 5, which would have included mandatory contract content requirements relating to ongoing monitoring of the chain of ICT subcontractors providing ICT services supporting critical or important functions.
Nevertheless, in-scope financial entities will still have to monitor their subcontracting supply chains:
financial entities must still maintain an adequate register of information, which may in turn trigger indirect supply chain monitoring obligations (including contractual obligations) on TPPs; and
the Subcontracting RTS still include certain flow down requirements in relation to TPPs subcontracts, which were not rejected by the Commission.
In summary, the Subcontracting RTS:
establish the rules on proportionality and group application;
set out rules on due diligence and risk assessment regarding the use of subcontractors supporting critical or important functions;
establish the description and the conditions under which ICT services supporting a critical or important function may be subcontracted; and
contain the rules on material changes to subcontracting arrangements of ICT service supporting critical or important functions and the provisions on the termination of contractual arrangements.
The Subcontracting RTS will enter into force on the twentieth day after its publication in the OJEU.
JET RTS
The JET RTS were published in the OJEU on 24 March 2025. This follows the Commission’s adoption of the JET RTS in December 2024.
The JET RTS have been developed under a mandate contained in Article 41(2) of DORA. The aim of the JET RTS is to ensure a balanced participation of staff members from the ESAs and from the relevant competent authorities, and to establish arrangements for their designation, tasks and working arrangements of team members.
The JET RTS will come into force on 13 April 2025 (i.e., 20 days after publication in the OJEU).
Non-transposition of DORA Directive
Member states were required to transpose the DORA Directive into national law by 17 January 2025.
The Commission has sent a letter of formal notice to 13 member states (i.e., Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Greece, Spain, France, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia) for failing to fully transpose the DORA Directive. These member states now have two months to respond and to complete their transposition and notify their measures to the Commission. In the absence of a satisfactory response, the Commission may decide to issue a reasoned opinion.
In the Press Release, the Commission explains how full implementation of DORA is key to strengthen the digital operational resilience of financial entities across the EU.
The Subcontracting RTS, the JET RTS and the DORA Directive are available here, here and here, respectively.
DOJ Rule Restricting Sensitive Data Transfers Takes Effect
Today, April 8, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Final Rule restricting transfers of bulk sensitive personal data and U.S. government-related data becomes effective, implementing former President Biden’s Executive Order 14117 – Preventing Access to Americans’ Bulk Sensitive Personal Data and United States Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern (the “Final Rule”). The Final Rule aims to protect U.S. national security by restricting certain data transactions with covered persons or countries of concern, which currently include Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and China (including Hong Kong and Macau). U.S. businesses must work now to ensure compliance and avoid significant penalties for violations.
The Final Rule defines many key terms such as “covered data transaction,” “country of concern,” “U.S. person,” “covered person,” “bulk U.S. sensitive personal data,” “government-related data,” “human ‘omic data,” and “knowingly,” while providing examples of restricted transactions. Ultimately, the Final Rule prohibits certain transfers of U.S. government related data and bulk U.S. sensitive personal data to covered persons (see §202.243 Prohibited Transaction), adopting a 50% ownership threshold to capture certain foreign persons as covered persons akin to Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanction designations for covered persons (see §202.211 Covered Person).
U.S. government-related data means certain precise geolocation data, regardless of volume, explicitly enumerated in the rule and any sensitive data, regardless of volume, linkable to current or recent employees of the U.S. government (see §202.222 Government-Related Data and §202.1401 Government-Related Location Data List).
While bulk U.S. sensitive personal data means any amount of sensitive personal data that meets or exceeds the following thresholds at any point in the preceding 12 months, whether through a single covered data transaction or aggregated across covered data transactions involving the same U.S. person and the same foreign person or covered person:
Human ‘omic data collected about or maintained on more than 1,000 U.S. persons, or, in the case of human genomic data, more than 100 U.S. persons (human ‘omic data includes human genomic data, human epigenomic data, human proteomic data, and human transcriptomic data, but excludes pathogen-specific data embedded in human ‘omic data sets);
Biometric identifiers collected about or maintained on more than 1,000 U.S. persons;
Precise geolocation data collected about or maintained on more than 1,000 U.S. devices;
Personal health data collected about or maintained on more than 10,000 U.S. persons;
Personal financial data collected about or maintained on more than 10,000 U.S. persons;
Covered personal identifiers collected about or maintained on more than 100,000 U.S. persons; or
certain data combinations of (a) – (f) combined data (see§202.205 Bulk and 202.206 Bulk U.S. Sensitive Personal Data).
Prohibited Transactions
The Final Rule prohibits U.S. persons from:
Knowingly engaging in any covered data transaction involving data brokerage with a country of concern or covered person; a covered data transaction is any transaction that involves any access by a country of concern or covered person to any government-related data or bulk U.S. sensitive personal data and that involves: (a) data brokerage; (b) a vendor agreement; (c) an employment agreement; or (d) an investment agreement (see 202.301 Prohibited Data-Brokerage Transactions and §202.210 Covered Data Transaction).
Knowingly engaging in any transaction that involves any access by a foreign person to government-related data or bulk U.S. sensitive personal data and that involves data brokerage with any person unless the foreign person is contractually restricted from engaging in a subsequent covered data transaction involving data brokerage of the same data with a country of concern or covered person and the U.S. person reports any known or suspected violation of the contractual requirement (see 202.302 Other Prohibited Data-Brokerage Transactions Involving Potential Onward Transfer to Countries of Concern or Covered Persons).
Knowingly engaging in any covered data transaction with a country of concern or covered person that involves access by that country of concern or covered person to bulk U.S. sensitive personal data that involves bulk human ‘omic data, or to certain human biospecimens (see 202.303 Prohibited Human `Omic Data and Human Biospecimen Transactions).
Knowingly directing any transaction that would be a prohibited transaction or a restricted transaction that fails to meet the applicable requirements if such transaction was engaged in by a U.S. person (see 202.305 Knowingly Directing Prohibited or Restricted Transactions).
Evading or avoiding, causing a violation of, or attempting to violate these prohibitions (see 202.304 Prohibited Evasions, Attempts, Causing Violations, and Conspiracies).
The prohibited transactions are categorically prohibited unless otherwise authorized pursuant to an exemption, general license, or specific license.
Restricted Transactions
The Final Rule creates a set of restricted transactions, including a vendor agreement, employment agreement, or investment agreement as to which U.S. persons may engage if the U.S. person complies with certain cybersecurity program requirements published by Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agent (CISA), as well as reporting and recordkeeping requirements (see §202.401 Authorization to Conduct Restricted Transactions).
Exempted Transactions
The Final Rule exempts the following categories of transactions that would otherwise be prohibited or restricted transactions:
Personal Communications
Information and Informational Materials
Travel
Official Business of the U.S. Government
Financial Services
Corporate Group Transactions
Transactions Required or Authorized by Federal Law or International Agreements, or Necessary for Compliance with Federal Law
Investment Agreements Subject to CFIUS Action
Telecommunication Services
Drug, Biological Product, and Medical Device Authorizations
Other Clinical Investigations and Post-Marketing Surveillance Data (see Exempt Transactions §§202.501 through 202.511)
Licensing and Advisory Opinions
The Final Rule provides for processes to obtain licenses authorizing otherwise prohibited or restricted transactions (see Licensing §§202.801 through 202.803). Additionally, the Final Rule provides the ability to apply for advisory opinions as necessary (see Advisory Opinions §202.901).
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
The Final Rule enacts compliance requirements for due diligence, audits of restricted transactions, as well as other record keeping and annual reporting requirements. The reporting requirements include an obligation to file an annual report of certain restricted transactions becoming effective on October 6, 2025 (see Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements §§202.1101 through 1104).
Penalties
The Final Rule provides substantial civil and criminal penalties for violations. Civil penalties can reach the greater of $368,136 or an amount that is twice the amount of the transaction (subject to adjustment for inflation). For willful violations, criminal penalties include $1 million fines and up to 20-year imprisonment (see Penalties and Finding of Violation §§202.1301 through 202.1306).
Conclusion
The Final Rule becomes effective today April 8, 2025. U.S. businesses that collect, maintain, or transfer sensitive personal data, or government-related data, should carefully review their business activities alongside related data collection and transfer policies. Then the U.S. business may assess potential exposure to liability under the Final Rule, making any necessary policy adjustments for covered data transactions to ensure ongoing compliance for data collection and transfers.