‘Fair and Reciprocal Plan’ Threatens Future Tariffs on All U.S. Trading Partners
On Feb. 13, 2025, President Trump announced his “Fair and Reciprocal Plan” to “reduce [the United States’] large and persistent annual trade deficit in goods and to address other unfair and unbalanced aspects of [U.S.] trade with foreign trading partners.” At this time, the White House has only released a memorandum and accompanying Fact Sheet addressing this new Plan for reciprocal tariffs. Below are a few key observations based on the limited information so far:
Unlike the tariffs recently imposed against China and currently deferred on Mexico and Canada under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), reciprocal tariffs will not be imposed immediately. The memorandum states that the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative, in consultation with other agencies, shall initiate and investigate any harm to the U.S. from non-reciprocal trade practices of other countries after submission of the specified reports due under the America First Trade Policy Memorandum. Most of these reports under the America First Trade Policy are due April 1, 2025.
All U.S. trading partners will presumably be subject to the Fair and Reciprocal Plan investigations, including World Trade Organization (WTO) members. Indeed, the White House Fact Sheet refers to “132 countries and more than 600,000 product lines” where U.S. exporters face higher tariffs more than two-thirds of the time. Interestingly, the Fact Sheet provides specific examples of non-reciprocal treatment by certain countries and in certain industries, such as the European Union (shellfish, cars), India (agriculture and motorcycles), and Brazil (ethanol). It is unclear if these named countries and industries will become prioritized targets for reciprocal tariffs. Ultimately, any new reciprocal tariffs imposed by the U.S. are likely to be challenged in the WTO.
The Commerce Department and USTR will be charged with investigating not only unbalanced tariff treatment by other countries, but also other nontariff barriers such as digital trade barriers, government procurement, lack of intellectual property protection, and export subsidies, among others. Thus, we may see the U.S. take action beyond imposing just reciprocal tariffs, e.g., digital service taxes.
The Fact Sheet uses the phrase “The Art of the International Deal,” which may suggest that the “Fair and Reciprocal Plan” is intended primarily as a negotiating tactic.
New Administration Establishes International Criminal Court-Related Sanctions
On Feb. 6, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order (EO) establishing International Criminal Court (ICC)-related sanctions. The EO characterized the ICC as “ha{ving} engaged in illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America and our close ally Israel.”
The EO imposes sanctions on persons listed in its annex, which currently includes Karim Khan, prosecutor of the ICC since 2021. The EO also authorizes sanctions on any foreign person determined by the U.S. State Department to, e.g., have directly engaged in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute a protected person without consent of that person’s country of nationality or to have provided material assistance or support for such activities or persons sanctioned under the EO. As a result of these sanctions, U.S. persons generally may not engage in any unlicensed transactions with Khan, and his property in the U.S. is blocked (i.e., frozen). The sanctions also impose travel-related restrictions. These prohibitions would also extend to anyone else sanctioned under this authority.
These new ICC-related sanctions represent one of several actions President Trump has taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which provides the president with broad authority to regulate international transactions in response to a declared “national emergency.” IEEPA has previously been used to target China, Canada, and Mexico.
U.S. and international businesses must carefully monitor the Trump Administration’s use of IEEPA to regulate international trade. Prohibitions established under IEEPA can take effect immediately, and non-compliance can lead to significant penalties.
Executive Order Update on Construction Materials
Executive Order Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into The United States
On February 11, 2025, in an executive order titled Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the United States, President Trump increased, from 10% to 25%, the ad valorem tariff rate on imports of aluminum and aluminum-derivative articles from most countries. The tariff rate on imports of aluminum from Russia will be 200%. President Trump cited national security grounds as the reason for the tariff increases.
The executive order also ended previous exemptions on these imports for allies such as Argentina, Australia, Mexico, Canada, the EU, and the UK.
The tariffs begin on March 12, 2025.
The President stated that these actions aim “to protect America’s steel and aluminum industries, which have been harmed by unfair trade practices and global excess capacity.”
Executive Order Adjusting Imports of Steel into The United States
On February 10, 2025, in an executive order titled Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States, President Trump increased, from 10% to 25%, the ad valorem tariff rate on imports of steel and steel-derivative articles from most countries. President Trump cited national security grounds as the reason for the tariff increases.
The executive order also ended previous exemptions on these imports from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, the EU, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, and Ukraine.
The tariffs begin on March 12, 2025.
The President stated that these actions aim “to protect America’s steel and aluminum industries, which have been harmed by unfair trade practices and global excess capacity.”
Increasing Divergence Between US and EU Banks in Approach to Climate Change
Over the past several weeks, each of the major US banks have announced their withdrawal from the Net Zero Banking Alliance (presumably in response to the policy priorities of the second Trump Administration). Although participation in this group may have been more a matter of “virtue-signaling” rather than expressing and adopting a meaningful commitment, the departure of the US banks was nonetheless noteworthy as demonstrating the changing political climate in the United States. During this same time period, in contrast, many of the European Union’s largest banks have re-affirmed their commitment to the Net Zero Banking Alliance, declaring it a core component of their environmental and sustainability strategies.
This divergence between the US and EU with respect to the Net Zero Banking Alliance is illustrative of the increasing divide between the two major Western economies on an array of issues related to climate change. For example, while the SEC is preparing to dismantle the Biden Administration’s climate disclosure law, the EU is maintaining–although possibly adjusting–its own climate disclosure laws. Navigating this divide is becoming increasingly complex for the many companies that operate in both jurisdictions, or simply have commercial ties and are subject to regulatory burdens on both shores of the North Atlantic.
Several of Europe’s biggest banks have declared their commitment to the world’s largest climate alliance for the industry, distancing themselves from Wall Street’s sudden exit from the group. . . . The declarations of support for NZBA follow a period of crisis for the alliance, which saw its biggest US members walk away in quick succession after the Nov. 5 election. President Donald Trump has since taken a wrecking ball to the climate agenda of his predecessor, including ordering that the US leave the Paris climate agreement. Though Europe is struggling with its own backlash against environmental, social and governance regulations, its biggest banks say they remain committed to working together to fight climate change.
www.bloomberglaw.com/…
“Stupidly Rhetorical” Online Posts –Your Employer’s Rights to React (UK)
In these days of fevered and angry social media comment on almost everything, it is always wise for HR to keep its feet anchored firmly on the ground when all that online bile and indignation washes up at the employer’s door. Here to help with that is this week’s Court of Appeal decision in Higgs – v – Farmors School & Others, a case bulging at the seams with KCs (five!) and abstruse legal analysis.
In brief, Ms Higgs worked as an administrator for the School. She was dismissed after expressing on Facebook what a member of the public described as “homophobic and prejudiced views” concerning purported government policy on teaching same-sex relationships and gender identification matters in schools. Farmors was concerned that readers of the posts would conclude that Higgs held homophobic and transphobic views incompatible with her role there, and that this would put its reputation at risk. However, it did not suggest that Higgs had in fact ever brought those views into her work or had allowed them to affect her treatment of any of her colleagues or pupils.
The views which led to Higgs’ posts – a lack of belief in gender fluidity or that someone can change their biological sex, an Old Testament assertion that “divinely-instituted” marriage could be between opposite sexes only and a perceived duty, when unbiblical ideas or ideologies were promoted, to “witness to the world” her own views of “biblical truth – were accepted at the outset as protected under the Equality Act. Not everyone’s cup of tea, perhaps, but that did not mean that they were unworthy of respect in a democratic society.
Once that was accepted, the Court of Appeal had to consider the law around the manifestation of such beliefs. Article 9.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights grants an absolute right to freedom of thought and religion, while 9.2 limits one’s ability to manifest those beliefs by reference to any restrictions necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Article 10.1 confers a right to freedom of expression, but then qualifies it in terms very similar to 9.2.
Paraphrased, therefore, Higgs had a right to hold her beliefs, no question, but only to manifest them to the extent that they did not infringe the rights and freedoms of others. In that regard, the Court noted that this was a high bar, and that those rights and freedoms would not be infringed by expressions of opinion which merely disturb, shock or offend. “Free speech“, said the Court, “includes … the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative … freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having“.
Of course, free speech is not an employment law concept, whatever your more self-important employees may suggest. Your staff do not have an unfettered right to disturb, shock or offend each other. How should employers apply those principles to online statements which flirt with the Equality Act protections and so risk internal discord with other employees or harm to the reputation of the business? The Court of Appeal said that a balancing act is required to ensure that the restrictions or sanctions which employers impose (here, dismissal) are proportionate to the harm done or likely to be done by those statements. It noted a number of considerations as of particular relevance to that question, as below, but stressed that each case of course depends on its own facts:
Is the company’s unhappiness about the views themselves or the way in which they were expressed? A bold but neutrally-toned statement that this is what I believe is very different from a post crammed with gratuitously offensive hyperbole, spite, insult, incitement to violence or other “egregiously offensive language“. The Court of Appeal drew a distinction (perhaps easier in law than in fact) between that on the one hand and Higgs’ mere “derogatory sneers” and “stupidly rhetorical exaggeration” on the other. The more offensive the manner of the expression of the views (as distinct from the views themselves), the more easily an employer might justify action.
Substantial parts of Higgs’ posts were actually lifted from online comments by others. The Court said that this “does not absolve her of responsibility”, but at the same time that it was still “relevant to the degree of any culpability“. Not for me to say, and greatest of respect and all that, but I disagree. If as an adult you expressly reproduce someone else’s words, top-and-tail them with your own asterisked calls to action, admit in your disciplinary meeting that you meant to give them wider circulation, and decline to take them down when asked, you must surely be treated as if you wrote them. It cannot be correct that you are less culpable for publishing your views in someone else’s offensive words than in your own.
What do the offending words actually mean? The School concluded that readers of the posts might infer homophobic or transphobic views on Higgs’ part, but if we take refuge in semantics, the posts did not strictly say that. “It is necessary to judge an employee’s statements by what they actually say (including any necessary implications) rather than by what some readers might choose illegitimately to read into them“, said the Court, alternatively phrased as “What message would they convey to a reasonable reader?” In principle this has to be right, but the practical consequences are both highlighted and disregarded in the same paragraph of the decision. The Court goes on: “this is particularly important in the current social media climate where messages are often read hastily and sometimes by people who are partisan or even ill-intentioned or … simply succumb to the common human tendency to find in a communication what they expect to find rather than what is actually there“. By extension, that makes it OK if your company risks social media flak, cancelation, press persecution, reputational crucifixion, etc., so long as it is at the hands of people whose opinions are not objectively well founded because they are over-sensitive and under-informed. So when the Court of Popular Opinion despatches the torches-and-pitchforks brigade to your offices, you can just give them a decent lecture on reading their social media feeds more carefully next time, and all will be fine. Really?
Has any reputational or other harm actually been done? We all tend to be a little self-centred around the newsworthiness of our own businesses, but if the hurtful reality is that no one has been the least bit interested in the post or connected it to your company by some weeks later, the transient nature of social media comments must reduce the risk very substantially. Here the School could point to one person only who had complained, but not to any reputational, let alone actual, harm to it.
Did the post relate to the employee’s work, not just in the sense of the employer being identifiable in it, but also in terms of its subject matter? Higgs worked in a school and was complaining in fairly hysterical terms about government education policy, so there was obviously a link. If she had been expressing views on immigration or the conflict in the Middle East instead, the risk of reputational harm to the School would be much harder to establish.
Does the employee show remorse or understanding of the harm which the posts might do, so as to provide some reassurance to the employer that they won’t be repeated? Higgs didn’t, confirming expressly at her disciplinary meeting that she would do pretty much exactly the same again next time.
Is there any argument that the employee’s posts are anything more than their personal view, i.e. in some way representative of the business? That might be a function of their seniority or the use of their job title in the posts, for example.
Weighing up these main factors, the Court of Appeal decided that the School’s decision to dismiss had not been proportionate and therefore that Higgs had been discriminated against on the grounds of her beliefs. While Higgs had not scored well under a number of those factors, the fact remained that there had been no harm done and by the time of the dismissal there was no real reason to think it would be. The Court said in terms that “an employer does not have carte blanche to interfere with an employee’s right to express their beliefs simply because third parties find those beliefs offensive and think the worse of it for employing them“, but as soon as consequential harm is done, that position changes.
Despite first appearances, this case lays down no principle at all that you can’t be dismissed for saying stupid things on social media, provided that the sanction is proportionate to the damage caused or reasonably likely to be caused. Similarly, it does not mean that it is acceptable as a matter of employment law to disturb, offend or shock your colleagues online, particularly in the face of a policy and/or warnings to the contrary. I think that Ms Higgs can regard herself as much blessed here that almost no-one was sufficiently interested in what she wrote to react to it. If Farmors had received any material amount of heat as a result, her poor showing under those factors could well have tipped that balance the other way.
The March 2025 Visa Bulletin Shows Continues Marching Forward for EB-2 and EB-3 Categories
The Visa Bulletin for March 2025 shows continued forward movement in the priority dates for most EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
Quick Hits
The March 2025 final action dates for all EB-2 countries (except China) and EB-3 India will advance by six weeks.
The March 2025 final action dates chart for EB-2 China will advance by two weeks and EB-3 China will advance by one month.
USCIS has confirmed that it will accept adjustment of status applications based on the final action dates chart for March 2025.
SoSource: U.S. Department of State, March 2025 Visa Bulletin
The final action dates chart in the March 2025 Visa Bulletin continues to move ahead for the following employment-based preference categories:
EB-2
EB-2 China will advance by two weeks, from April 22, 2020, to May 8, 2020.
EB-2 India will advance by six weeks, from October 15, 2012, to December 1, 2012.
All other countries will advance by six weeks, from April 1, 2023, to May 15, 2023.
EB-3
EB-3 China will advance by one month from July 1, 2020, to August 1, 2020.
EB-3 India will advance by six weeks from December 15, 2012, to February 1, 2013.
Next Steps
Starting March 1, 2025, individuals with a priority date earlier than the listed final action date can file a Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.
European Commission Withdraws ePrivacy Regulation and AI Liability Directive Proposals
On February 11, 2025, the European Commission made available its 2025 work program (the “Work Program”). The Work Program sets out the key strategies, action plans and legislative initiatives to be pursued by the European Commission.
As part of the Work Program, the European Commission announced that it plans to withdraw its proposals for a new ePrivacy Regulation (aimed at replacing the current ePrivacy Directive) and AI Liability Directive (aimed at complementing the new Product Liability Directive) due to lack of a consensus for their adoption. The withdrawal means that the current ePrivacy Directive and its national transposition laws will remain in force and postpones the regulation of non-contractual liability for damages arising from the use of AI at the EU level.
Read the Work Program.
The BR International Trade Report: February 2025
Recent Developments
President Trump drives forward with “America First” trade policy. Shortly after taking office on January 20, President Trump issued a memorandum to various department heads outlining his “America First” trade policy. Notably, the memorandum paves the way for robust tariffs and calls for executive branch review of various elements of U.S. trade policy. Read our alert for additional analysis.
United States delays tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico but imposes 10 percent tariffs on imports from China. On February 1, President Trump, acting under the authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”), imposed a 25 percent tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico (excluding energy resources from Canada, which were subject to a tariff of 10 percent) and a 10 percent tariff on imports from China. After first threatening to respond in kind—with retaliatory tariffs or other measures—both Canada and Mexico negotiated a 30-day pause in exchange for increased enforcement measures at America’s borders. There was no similar agreement between the United States and China, which became subject to additional tariffs on February 4. Notably, the president initially eliminated the de minimis exemption for certain Chinese-origin imports of items valued under $800, but then later reinstated the exemption.
President Trump announces 25 percent tariff on all steel and aluminum imports entering the United States. On February 10, President Trump signed a proclamation imposing 25 percent tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum from all countries and cancelling previous tariff exemptions. Peter Navarro, a trade advisor to the president, remarked that “[t]he steel and aluminum tariffs 2.0 will put an end to foreign dumping, boost domestic production, and secure our steel and aluminum industries as the backbone and pillar industries of America’s economic and national security.” The new tariffs will take effect on March 12.
President Trump announces reciprocal tariff regime. On February 13, the president paved the way for what he called “the big one,” reciprocal tariffs directed against countries that impose trade barriers on the United States. Under the new framework, the United States will impose tariffs on imports from countries that levy tariffs on imports of U.S. goods, maintain a value-added tax (“VAT”) system, issue certain subsidies, or implement “nonmonetary trade barriers” against the United States. The president stated that the U.S. Department of Commerce will conduct an assessment, expected to be completed by April 1, to determine the appropriate tariff level for each country.
President Trump sets tariff sights on European Union. President Trump has said he “absolutely” plans to impose tariffs on goods from the European Union to address what he considers “terrible” treatment on trade. In an effort to stave off such measures, the European Union reportedly has offered to lower tariffs on imports of U.S. automobiles. Experts suggest that, in the event of U.S. tariffs, the European Union may retaliate with countermeasures against U.S. technology services.
Trump and Putin discuss commencing negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. President Trump stated on February 12 that he had a “lengthy and productive” phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin in which the two leaders discussed “start[ing] negotiations immediately” and “visiting each other’s nations.” The president followed up with a call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who reported that the call was “meaningful” and focused on “opportunities to achieve peace.” The dialogue comes amidst Russia and Belarus releasing American detainees in recent days.
President Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi meet to discuss deepening cooperation. On January 27, President Trump spoke with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to discuss regional security issues, including in the Indo-Pacific, the Middle East, and Europe. Notably, following the phone call, India cut import duties on certain U.S.-origin motorcycles, potentially in an effort to distance itself from President Trump’s claims on the campaign trail that India was a “very big abuser” of the U.S.-India trade relationship. Prime Minister Modi followed up the discussion with a meeting with President Trump at the White House on February 13.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio meets with “Quad” ministers on President Trump’s first full day in office. On January 21, foreign ministers of the “Quad”—a diplomatic partnership between the United States, India, Japan and Australia—convened in Washington, D.C. In a joint statement, the group expressed its opposition to “unilateral actions that seek to change the status quo [in the Indo-Pacific] by force or coercion.”
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio meets with Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino. In early February, Secretary of State Marco Rubio traveled to Panama to meet with Panama’s President José Raúl Mulino and Foreign Minister Javier Martínez-Acha. During the meeting, Secretary Rubio criticized Chinese “influence and control” over the Panama Canal area. Notably, following the meeting with Secretary Rubio, Panama announced that it would let its involvement in China’s Belt and Road initiative expire.
DeepSeek launches an artificial intelligence app, prompting U.S. national security concerns. In January, DeepSeek—a Chinese artificial intelligence (“AI”) startup—released DeepSeek R1, an AI app reportedly less expensive to develop than rival apps. Reports indicate that the United States is investigating whether DeepSeek, in developing its platform, accessed AI chips subject to U.S. export controls in contravention of U.S. law. Commerce Secretary nominee Howard Lutnick echoed these concerns in his recent confirmation hearing.
President Trump issues memorandum launching “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran. On February 4, the president issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum (“NSPM”) restoring his prior administration’s “maximum pressure” policy towards Iran, with a focus on denying Iran a nuclear weapon and intercontinental ballistic missiles. The NSPM directs the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the U.S. Department of State to take various measures exerting such pressure, including imposing sanctions or pursuing enforcement against parties that have violated sanctions against Iran; reviewing all aspects of U.S. sanctions regulations and guidance that provide economic relief to Iran; issuing updated guidance to the shipping and insurance sectors and to port operators; modifying or rescinding sanctions waivers, including those related to Iran’s Chabahar port project (which India has developed at considerable expense); and “driv[ing] Iran’s export of oil to zero.” See the White House fact sheet.
President Trump signs executive order calling for establishment of a U.S. sovereign wealth fund. On February 3, the president issued an executive order directing the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy to develop a plan for the creation of a sovereign wealth fund. A corresponding fact sheet describes the White House’s goals for the fund, including “to invest in great national endeavors for the benefit of all of the American people.” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated that he expects the fund to be operational within the next year.
Dispute between the United States and Colombia over deportation flights prompts brief tariff threat. On January 26, Colombian President Gustavo Petro barred “U.S. planes carrying Colombian migrants from entering [Colombia’s] territory” due to concerns over migrants’ treatment. President Trump responded by ordering 25 percent tariffs on Colombian goods, to be raised to 50 percent in one week, visa restrictions on Colombian government officials and their families, and cancellation of visa applications. The standoff between the two countries was resolved later that same day, signaling President Trump’s intention to use tariffs as a key foreign policy tool.
Impeached South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol officially charged with insurrection. On January 26, South Korean prosecutors formally charged impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol with insurrection. Yoon becomes the first president in South Korean history to be criminally charged while still in office. In addition to criminal charges, Yoon faces potential removal from office via impeachment. Should the Constitutional Court uphold the impeachment, as many experts anticipate, South Korea will have two months to hold a new election.
Global Data Protection Authorities Issue Joint Statement on Artificial Intelligence
On February 11, 2025, the data protection authorities of the UK, Ireland, France, South Korea and Australia issued a joint statement on building trustworthy data governance frameworks to encourage development of innovative and privacy-protective artificial intelligence (“AI”) (the “Joint Statement”). In the Joint Statement, the DPAs recognize “the importance of supporting players in the AI ecosystem in their efforts to comply with data protection and privacy rules and help them reconcile innovation with respect for individuals’ rights.”
The Joint Statement refers to the “leading role” DPAs have in “shaping data governance” to address the evolving challenges of AI. Specifically, the Joint Statement indicates that the authorities will commit to:
Foster a shared understanding of lawful grounds for processing personal data in the context of AI training.
Exchange information and establish a shared understanding of proportionate safety measures, to be updated in line with evolving AI data processing activities.
Monitor technical and societal impacts of AI.
Reduce legal uncertainties and create opportunities for innovation where data processing is considered essential for AI.
Strengthen interactions with other authorities to enhance consistency between different regulatory frameworks for AI systems, tools and applications, including those responsible for competition, consumer protection and intellectual property.
Read the full Joint Statement.
Criminal Charges Lodged Against Alleged Phobos Ransomware Affiliates
Unfortunately, I’ve had unpleasant dealings with the Phobos ransomware group. My interactions with Phobos have been fodder for a good story when I educate client employees on recent cyber-attacks to prevent them from becoming victims. The story highlights how these ransomware groups, including Phobos, are sophisticated criminal organizations with managerial hierarchy. They use common slang in their communications and have to get “authority” to negotiate a ransom. It’s a strange world.
Because of my unpleasant dealings with Phobos, I was particularly pleased to see that the Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced the arrest and extradition of Russian national Evgenii Ptitsyn on charges that he administered the Phobos ransomware variant.
This week, the DOJ unsealed charges against two more Russian nationals, Roman Berezhnoy and Egor Nikolaevich Glebov, who “operated a cybercrime group using the Phobos ransomware that victimized more than 1,000 public and private entities in the United States and around the world and received over $16 million in ransom payments.” They were arrested “as part of a coordinated international disruption of their organization, which includes additional arrests and the technical disruption of the group’s computer infrastructure.” I’m thrilled about this win. People always ask me whether these cyber criminals get caught. Yes, they do. This is proof of how important the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is in assisting with international cybercrime, and how effective its partnership with international law enforcement is in catching these pernicious criminals. This is why I firmly believe that we must continue to share information with the FBI to assist with investigations, and why the FBI must be allowed to continue its important work to protect U.S. businesses from cybercrime.
Three States Ban DeepSeek Use on State Devices and Networks
New York, Texas, and Virginia are the first states to ban DeepSeek, the Chinese-owned generative artificial intelligence (AI) application, on state-owned devices and networks.
Texas was first to tackle the problem when it banned state employees from using both DeepSeek and RedNote on January 31, 2025. The Texas ban includes other apps affiliated with the People’s Republic of China, including “Webull, Tiger Brokers, Moomoo[,] and Lemon8.”
According to the Texas Governor’s press release:
“Texas will not allow the Chinese Communist Party to infiltrate our state’s critical infrastructure through data-harvesting AI and social media apps. To achieve that mission, I ordered Texas state agencies to ban Chinese government-based AI and social media apps from all state-issued devices. State agencies and employees responsible for handling critical infrastructure, intellectual property, and personal information must be protected from malicious espionage operations by the Chinese Communist Party. Texas will continue to protect and defend our state from hostile foreign actors.”
New York soon followed on February 10, 2025, banning DeepSeek from being downloaded on any devices managed by the New York State Office of Information Technology. According to the New York Governor’s release, “DeepSeek is an AI start-up founded and owned by High-Flyer, a stock trading firm based in the People’s Republic of China. Serious concerns have been raised concerning DeepSeek AI’s connection to foreign government surveillance and censorship, including how DeepSeek can be used to harvest user data and steal technology secrets.” The release further states: “The decision by Governor Hochul to prevent downloads of DeepSeek is consistent with the State’s Acceptable Use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies policy that was established at her direction over a year ago to responsibly evaluate AI systems, better serve New Yorkers, and ensure agencies remain vigilant about protecting against unwanted outcomes.”
The Virginia Governor signed Executive Order 26 on February 11, 2025, “banning the use of China’s DeepSeek AI on state devices and state-run networks.” According to the Governor’s press release, “China’s DeepSeek AI poses a threat to the security and safety of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia…We must continue to take steps to safeguard our operations and information from the Chinese Communist Party. This executive order is an important part of that undertaking.”
The ban “directs that no employee of any agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall download or use the DeepSeek AI application on any government-issued devices, including state-issued cell phones, laptops, or other devices capable of connecting to the internet. The Order further prohibits downloading or accessing the DeepSeek AI app on Commonwealth networks.”
These three states determined that Chinese-owned applications DeepSeek and RedNote pose threats by granting a foreign adversary access to critical infrastructure data. The proactive ban by these states will no doubt be followed by others, much like we saw with the TikTok ban until the federal government, bipartisanly, issued one nationwide. President Trump has paused that ban, despite the well-documented national security threats posed by the social media platform. Hopefully, more states will follow suit in banning DeepSeek and RedNote. Consumers and employers can take matters into their own hands by not downloading either app and banning them from the workplace. Get ahead of the curve, learn from the TikTok experience, and avoid DeepSeek and RedNote now.
March 2025 Visa Bulletin – Some Cracks in the Ice
The State Department has published the March Visa Bulletin. After most priority dates froze in February, March promises modest thaws in all regions and most categories.
Below is a summary that includes Final Action Dates and changes from the previous month, but first – some background if you’re new to these blog posts. If you’re an old hand at the Visa Bulletin, feel free to skip the next paragraph.
The Visa Bulletin is released monthly by the US Department of State (in collaboration with US Citizenship and Immigration Services). If your priority date (that is, the date you got a place on the waiting list) is earlier than the cutoff date listed in the Bulletin for your nationality and category, that means a visa number is available for you that month. That, in turn, means you can submit your DS-260 immigrant visa application (if you’re applying at a US embassy abroad) or your I-485 adjustment of status application (if you’re applying with USCIS). If you already submitted that final step and your category then retrogressed, it means the embassy or USCIS can now approve your application because a visa number is again available.
Now for the March VB –
India progresses in all categories except EB-1:
EB-1 holds at February 1, 2022
EB-2 advances5 months to December 1, 2012
EB-3 Professionals and EB-3 Other Workers advance5 months to February 1, 2013
China advances in two categories:
EB-1 remains stalled at November 8, 2022
EB-2 advances 16 days to May 8, 2020
EB-3 Professionals advances another full month to August 1, 2020
EB-3 Other Workers stays stuck at January 1, 2017
All Other Countries, which did not move at all in February, progresses in two categories:
EB-1 remains current
EB-2 advances5 months to May 15, 2023
EB-3 Professionals holds at December 1, 2022
EB-3 Other Workers advances almost 2 months to February 1, 2021
NOTE 1: USCIS will accept I-485 applications in March based on Final Action Dates, not the more favorable Dates for Filing chart.