Government Contracts Maritime Military – Page 3

Federal Contractor Minimum Wage Executive Order Revoked

On March 14, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order rescinding several policies from the previous administration, including Executive Order 14026, which had increased the minimum wage for federal contractors.
Background on Executive Order 14026
Signed on April 27, 2021, by then-President Joe Biden, Executive Order 14026 mandated that federal contractors pay a minimum wage of $15 per hour. This policy aimed to improve the livelihoods of workers on federal contracts and was set to adjust annually with inflation. By January 1, 2025, the minimum wage under this order had risen to $17.75 per hour.
Implications of the Rescission
The revocation of Executive Order 14026 means that federal contractors are no longer required to adhere to the previously mandated minimum wage rates. Instead, they will revert to using wage determinations provided under existing laws such as the Service Contract Act and the Davis-Bacon Act. This change could lead to variations in wages across different federal contracts, depending on the specific stipulations of each agreement.
Conclusion
The rescission of Executive Order 14026 marks a significant shift in federal labor policy, reflecting the current administration’s priorities. As this policy change unfolds, its full impact on the federal contracting landscape and the workforce involved remains to be seen.

New Executive Order Rescinds the $17.75 Per Hour Federal Contractor Minimum Wage

On March 14, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order rescinding eighteen (18) prior executive orders and actions, including Executive Order 14026’s substantial increase to the minimum wage for federal government contractors and subcontractors. The March 14 Executive Order puts to rest continuing legal uncertainty about the status of the increased minimum wage under Executive Order 14026, which had been invalidated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit but upheld by the Fifth and Tenth Circuits.
Executive Order 14026, issued in 2021, set forth a $15.00 per hour minimum wage, which has since increased to $17.75 per hour with adjustments for inflation. The $17.75 minimum wage is higher than the minimum wage applicable under any state’s law and is more than double the general federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Executive Order 14026 built upon the prior Executive Order 13658, issued in 2014, which provided for a $10.10 per hour minimum wage that subsequently increased to $11.25 per hour for inflation.
Importantly, the March 14 Executive Order did not rescind Executive Order 13658. Accordingly, the lower minimum wage set forth in the 2014 order, as adjusted, presumably remains in effect. In addition, the Department of Labor’s regulations implementing Executive Order 14026 (which have not yet been rescinded) were issued separately and in addition to those implementing Executive Order 13658. Therefore, the Department of Labor could rescind the newer regulations (14026) while leaving the prior version (13658) in place.
Until further regulatory action is taken, the rescission of Executive Order 14026 leaves another area of uncertainty about contractors’ obligations. Contracts subject to Executive Order 14026 may include the implementing FAR clause requiring payment of the increased minimum wage. It is unclear how or when agencies will take action to modify contracts incorporating Executive Order 14026’s minimum wage, or whether they will implement substitute language referencing the Executive Order 13658 minimum wage.
Contractors should closely review the applicable terms in any federal contracts with legal counsel in order to assess how their obligations may be affected by the new executive order. In addition, contractors seeking to change wages in response to Executive Order 14026’s rescission will need to review collective bargaining and state wage law requirements to avoid missteps in doing so.

Trump Revokes Biden Federal Contractor Minimum Wage Mandate: What to Expect Next

Takeaways

President Trump has rescinded President Biden’s 2021 executive order increasing the minimum wage for employees of federal contractors.
The minimum wage is now $13.30 per hour for federal contractors covered by President Obama’s 2014 executive order, which remains in effect.
Trump’s action does not formally revoke a Department of Labor rule implementing Biden’s wage mandate. However, there is no longer a basis for enforcing the rule.

BREAKING NEWS: OFCCP to Revisit Previously Submitted Contractor Files

The Wall Street Journal is reporting newly appointed OFCCP Director Catherine Eschbach announced to OFCCP staff that the Agency will review federal contractor affirmative action plans previously submitted to the Agency for evidence of discriminatory employment practices. The report quotes Director Eschbach’s email to staffers in which she states
…most of what OFCCP had been doing was out of step, if not flat out contradictory, to our country’s laws, and all reform options are on the table.”

It is unclear at this time what form these reviews will take or which contractors may be under review.
Importantly, the plans under review were submitted to OFCCP under the prior Executive Order 11246 and before the current administration’s recent issuance of Executive Order 14173, revoking EO11246.
This is a developing story so stay turned for further details.

From the Pickup Line to the Picket Line: What Employers Need to Know About the Gig Economy Labor Movement

The gig economy has emerged as a defining aspect of the modern workforce, transforming how people work, earn, and engage with employers. Unlike traditional full-time jobs, gig workers benefit from significant flexibility. Digital platforms, such as popular widely used ridesharing services and other platforms like TaskRabbit have played a key role in this shift, making gig work more accessible than ever.
Despite this newfound freedom, many workers have found themselves with limited power to influence a platform’s policies, including those involving compensation, benefits, and other working conditions. As a result, an organized labor movement has been gaining momentum within the gig economy, advocating for unions and the use of collective action to negotiate with employers for better protections and fairer treatment for workers.
Gig workers are frequently classified as independent contractors, which — if properly classified — excludes them from protections under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA); specifically, the right to form unions and engage in collective bargaining. As frustrations among gig workers have increased, they have pushed for the right to collectively bargain under the NLRA and advocated for state laws that grant them this right, despite their classification as independent contractors. With the passage of “Question Three,” Massachusetts is the most recent example of gig workers securing collective bargaining rights despite their classification as independent contractors.
Classification as Independent Contractors Under the NLRA
The risk of misclassifying gig workers as independent contracts under the NLRA has become a growing concern as the test for worker classification continues to evolve. In a number of recent matters, workers have challenged their classification as independent contractors for labor law purposes, accusing their employers of violating the NLRA. Employers who rely on the use of freelance and gig workers must therefore remain vigilant to ensure they are correctly classifying these workers as employees where appropriate.
The factors currently considered when determining worker classification under the NLRA include:

The extent of control by the employer
Whether or not the individual is engaged in a distinct occupation or business
Whether the work is usually done under the direction of the employer or by a specialist without supervision
Skill required in the occupation
Whether the employer or individual supplies instrumentalities, tools, and place of work
Length of time for which the individual is employed
Method of payment
Whether or not work is part of the regular business of the employer
Whether or not the parties believe they are creating an independent contractor relationship
Whether the principal is or is not in business
Whether the evidence tends to show that the individual is, in fact, rendering services as an independent business

It is important to note that this classification test is not static and can shift as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) updates its interpretation of the law. Employers run the risk of violating the NLRA when their employees are not properly classified.
Moreover, those who engage independent contractors should also be mindful of the multiple independent contractor tests for other purposes, such as federal and state wage and hour, unemployment, and tax laws.
What You Need to Know: Massachusetts’ Question Three
Gig workers have also advocated for the enactment of state laws that provide for their right to collectively bargain despite their classification as independent contractors. In November 2024, in a historic vote, Massachusetts residents approved a ballot question (“Question Three”) allowing rideshare drivers to form unions and collectively bargain. With just over 53% of the voters in favor of the ballot, there will likely be many speed bumps and challenges from opponents along the road to implementation.
Question Three sets up a first-of-its-kind state-run collective bargaining scheme for independent contractors working in the transportation network space. This law allows drivers to form unions and collectively bargain. Further, it establishes a hearing process and an appeals board to oversee the bargaining process and resolve disputes. In essence, Massachusetts has created a unique hybrid model that gives gig workers the power to collectively negotiate for better pay and conditions without fundamentally altering the classification of their work status.
What to Expect Next
There are likely legal challenges ahead with respect to Question Three. With the voices of many drivers going unheard in the process, we anticipate there will be litigation challenging the formation of these unions. Additionally, both sides will likely quarrel over the implementation of this new system.
Unrest in the gig economy is not unique to Massachusetts. For example, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (covering a number of Western states) has ruled against local ordinances that gave rights for rideshare drivers to collectively bargain, citing antitrust concerns and NLRA preemption (meaning that the local laws are invalid because federal labor law controls with respect to collective bargaining-related issues). Unrest has also been seen in California, where voters, in a closely fought battle, voted to classify ride share drivers as “independent contractors” rather than “employees”. Similar movements are likely to continue to pop up across the country. We will likely see additional workers in various gig industries advocate for similar laws to Question Three to secure their rights to collectively bargain.
Conclusion
There is growing unrest in the gig economy. Employers must stay vigilant to ensure they are not misclassifying their workers as independent contractors instead of employees. While the passage of Question Three is a significant development in labor law, it will take some time before we see the full impact of this measure. Other states and industries are likely going to keep a close eye on developments and seek to implement similar programs.

Trump Executive Order Affects Federal Contractor Minimum Wage

On March 14, 2025, the President issued a new executive order (EO) entitled, “Additional Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions.” This new executive order revokes EO 14026, issued by President Biden, which raised the minimum wage to $17.75 (effective January 1, 2025) for government contracts entered into after January 30, 2022 (including all renewals, extensions, and options). Some older contracts still operate under an Obama-issued executive order, EO 13658, which implemented a federal minimum wage that adjusts annually (currently it is $13.30, effective January 1, 2025).
In light of the revocation of EO 14026, we expect the Department of Labor (DOL) to issue a rule formally revoking EO 14026. The DOL also is not likely to enforce the higher federal minimum wage requirements of EO 14026. Practically, the revocation of EO 13658 means that EO 13838 (issued by President Trump during his first term) now becomes effective again. This means that the minimum wage requirements of EO 13658 are reinstated, and federal contractors with contracts entered into before January 30, 2022, and contracts entered into after January 30, 2022, will now be required to pay $13.30 as a federal minimum wage.
Contractors with contracts that include the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause imposing EO 14026 presumably are contractually obligated to pay at least $17.75 per hour, but this higher minimum wage will likely not be enforced by DOL, now that EO 14026 has been revoked. Also, state minimum wage laws could still apply.

Top Five Labor Law Developments for February 2025

A federal judge for the District of Columbia held President Donald Trump’s termination of National Labor Relations Board Member Gwynne Wilcox violated the National Labor Relations Act; Wilcox’s reinstatement restores Board quorum. Wilcox v. Trump and Kaplan, No. 1:25-cv-00334 (D.D.C Mar. 6, 2025). The decision stems from President Trump’s removal of Wilcox as a Board member prior to the expiration of her term. In her lawsuit, Wilcox argued her unprecedented removal violated the Act, which allows the president to remove Board members only in cases of “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, but for no other cause,” and only after “notice and hearing.” Wilcox cited for support the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor, in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of for-cause removal protections for federal agency leaders. The Trump Administration filed a Notice of Appeal with the D.C. District Court shortly after the judge’s decision. In the meantime, Wilcox’s return restores the Board’s three-member quorum, and it can resume issuing decisions.
Acting Board General Counsel (GC) William Cowen issued a memorandum rescinding dozens of former GC Jennifer Abruzzo’s enforcement initiatives. GC Memo 25-05. The memo signals Cowen’s intention to undo many of Abruzzo’s policies, including those related to protected concerted activities, settlement agreements, and employment agreement provisions like “stay-or-pay” provisions. While GC memos do not reverse Board decisions, the memo indicates the GC will interpret the law and act in a manner more favorable to employers’ interests. The memo also aims to address the Board’s unsustainable case backlog, largely due to the prior administration’s expansive enforcement priorities. Overall, GC Memo 25-05 impacts 31 GC memos issued between 2021 and 2025. It is likely the Board’s regional offices will no longer prosecute cases seeking to overturn longstanding Board law in favor of more employee-friendly standards.
The U.S. Senate confirmed Trump’s nominee for the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Secretary — former U.S. Representative Lori Chavez-DeRemer — by a 67-32 vote. Chavez-DeRemer’s nomination faced criticism from business groups and Republican lawmakers due to her previous support for the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, which would significantly expand union organizing rights if passed. However, Chavez-DeRemer backtracked on her support for the PRO Act during the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing. Chavez-DeRemer has since committed to preserving states’ right-to-work laws and protecting independent contractor and franchise models.
The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) ratified a six-year contract with the U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX), with almost 99 percent of members voting in favor of the agreement. The contract provides job guarantees amid concerns that automated technology would replace many union jobs. It also provides a 62 percent pay raise that was agreed to prior to a three-day strike in October 2024. Both parties previously praised President Trump for his assistance in helping the parties reach an agreement. The contract, which covers approximately 45,000 workers, will be effective through Sept. 30, 2030. Ratification also prevents another port strike that would have disrupted the nation’s supply chain.
The Board issued a “Return to Office Policy” requiring workers to return to the office full-time by March 31, 2025, according to a letter obtained by Law360. The Board cited guidance from the Office of Personnel Management and a recent Trump memorandum as the basis for the decision. Exceptions to the policy include accommodations under the Rehabilitation Act and temporary medical conditions. The policy has sparked backlash from the unions representing Board workers, including the NLRB Professional Association, which argue the policy violates their collective bargaining agreements. Acting GC Cowen recently stated that, while he will do what he can to prevent a reduction in the Board’s staff, the Agency is not immune from layoffs.

President Trump Ends $15-Per-Hour Contractor Minimum Wage Rate After Filing a Brief Defending Power to Set the Minimum Wage

On March 14, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14236—“Additional Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions”—revoking eighteen executive orders and actions issued by former president Joe Biden.
In particular, this new EO has revoked EO 14026 of April 27, 2021, which had established a $15-per-hour minimum wage rate for workers on certain federal contracts. The revocation followed the U.S. Department of Labor’s filing of a brief on March 13, 2025, stating that EO 14026 was a valid exercise of presidential authority.

Quick Hits

On March 14, 2025, President Trump issued EO 14236, “Additional Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions,” revoking EO 14026, which had set a $15-per-hour minimum wage rate for federal contractors.
The EO 13658 minimum wage rate (currently $13.30 per hour) is still in effect for certain covered contracts.
EO 14026 and its implementing regulations are still subject to ongoing litigation.
Federal contractors and subcontractors must continue to follow other federally mandated compensation requirements, including minimum wage rates and applicable wage determinations.

The $15-Per-Hour Minimum Wage Rate for Federal Contractors
EO 14026 generally required minimum wages for workers performing work on or in connection with contracts covered under the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act; contracts covered under the Davis-Bacon Act; contracts in connection with federal property or lands and related to offering services for federal employees, their dependents, or the general public; and concession contracts. Because of yearly adjustments, in 2025, the applicable wage rate under EO 14026 was $17.75 per hour.
Since its issuance on April 27, 2021, EO 14026 has been under legal attack, primarily concerning whether its promulgation was within presidential authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (also known as the Procurement Act). The Fifth Circuit (within presidential authority), Ninth Circuit (not within presidential authority), and Tenth Circuit (within presidential authority) have split over whether the order was within President Biden’s procurement authority.
In January 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to address the split. In February 2025, in the Fifth Circuit case, Republican attorneys general in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas called on the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider the three-judge panel’s unanimous decision. On March 13, 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) opposed rehearing on the basis that EO 14026 fell, as the panel of judges held, “directly within the President’s purview.” On March 17, 2025, the Texas Office of the Attorney General notified the Fifth Circuit of the revocation of EO 14026 and asked the Fifth Circuit to withhold issuance of the panel’s mandate and vacate the panel’s opinion.
EO 14236 of March 14, 2025, does not purport to address the existing regulatory or procurement basis for EO 14026. Specifically, to implement EO 14026, the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) published regulations on November 24, 2021, entitled, “Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors.” In addition, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) amended Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.222-55, a provision that remains in many federal contracts.
Consequently, we expect further action from the WHD, procuring agencies, and/or the FAR Council to address this existing regulatory framework. We also expect that, even if EO 14236 ends the Fifth Circuit appeal, litigation over the scope of a president’s authority to issue executive orders related to procurement will continue unabated.
Other Minimum Wage and Compensation Obligations for Federal Contractors
Importantly, EO 14026 was not the first EO specifying a general minimum wage for federal contractors. Former president Barack Obama issued EO 13658 on February 12, 2014 (“Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors”). EO 14026 superseded EO 13658 as of January 30, 2022, to the extent inconsistent with EO 14026. Thus, the EO 13658 minimum wage ($13.30 per hour as of January 1, 2025) has remained applicable only to covered contracts that were entered into on or between January 1, 2015, and January 29, 2022, and which were not renewed or extended on or after January 30, 2022.
In addition, the Davis-Bacon Act and the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act, for example, continue to require prevailing wages by certain federal contractors and subcontractors that perform services or construction work. However, 2023 changes—which, in particular, expanded the scope of Davis-Bacon coverage and changed the development of wage rates and their incorporation into contracts—to the Davis-Bacon regulations are also subject to pending legal challenges.
Key Takeaways
Federal contractors and grant recipients may want to consider taking the following steps:

Identifying any contracts subject to federally specified minimum wages and watching for notices from the FAR Council or the contracting agency implementing the revocation of EO 14026
Monitoring Davis-Bacon-related litigation if performing under Davis-Bacon-covered contracts
Monitoring executive order challenges to presidential authority under the Procurement Act

GAO Sustains Protest Over Agency’s Failure to Conduct Price Risk Analysis Under DFARS 252.204-7024

In the recent MicroTechnologies LLC and SMS Data Products Group, Inc. decisions, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) sustained protests challenging the Agency’s failure to perform the required price risk analysis under DFARS 252.204-7024. These cases mark the first time the GAO has addressed the application of the relatively new DFARS provision.
This article discusses the provision, the GAO’s holdings, and key takeaways for contractors.
DFARS 252.204-7024
In March 2023, the Department of Defense (DoD) implemented DFARS 252.204-7024, Use of Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) Assessments. DoD’s goal in implementing the provision was to ensure the consideration of price risk, item risk, and supplier risk “when determining contractor responsibility” DFARS Final Rule: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Use of Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) Assessments (DFARS Case 2019-D009) 88 Fed. Reg. 17336 (Mar. 22, 2023).
The DFARS provision—which is applicable to most DoD solicitations for supplies and services—requires a contracting officer to “consider SPRS risk assessments during the evaluation of quotations or offers received” in response to the solicitation, as follows:

Item risk will be considered to determine whether the procurement represents a high performance risk to the Government.
Price risk will be considered in determining if a proposed price is consistent with historical prices paid for a product or a service or otherwise creates a risk to the Government.
Supplier risk, including but not limited to quality and delivery, will be considered to assess the risk of unsuccessful performance and supply chain risk.

DFARS 252.204-7024(c)(1)-(3). The provision also provides that “[t]he Contracting Officer may consider any other available and relevant information when evaluating a quotation or an offer.” DFARS 252.204-7024(e).
To consider these risks, contracting officers are required to utilize the SPRS. The SPRS gathers, processes, and displays data about supplier performance and determines the risk associated with the contractor.
The GAO’s Ruling on DFARS 252.204-7024
On March 24, 2024, the Department of the Air Force issued a fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) for the Combined Air and Space Center Operations Center (CAOC) communications support for the U.S. Air Force Central Command MicroTechnologies LLC,B-423197.2, Mar. 4, 2025, 2025 WL 831122 at *2. The FOPR incorporated DFARS 252.204-7024 and required the Agency to conduct a supplier and price risk analysis. Id. at *3. Both MicroTechnologies, LLC (MicroTech) and SMS Data Products Group, Inc. (SMS) submitted proposals. The record in the protest showed that, during the evaluation, the Agency performed a limited supplier risk analysis but failed to perform a price risk analysis. SMS Data Products Group, Inc., B-423197, Mar. 4, 2025, 2025 WL 831119 at *9. Both MicroTech and SMS protested the Agency’s failure in this regard under DFARS 252.204-7024.
The record confirmed that the Agency had not performed a price risk analysis in the SPRS system. The Agency argued that the SPRS did not have the proper data to conduct a price analysis, and that it considered “other available and relevant information” in lieu of performing a price risk analysis. MicroTechnologies LLC, 2025 WL 831119 at *9. Specifically, the Agency claimed that it relied on price analysis techniques listed in the Solicitation, FAR 15.404-1, to satisfy the DFARS requirement. Id.
In both cases, the GAO did not definitively determine whether the Agency could substitute its own price analysis in lieu of the required SPRS price analysis, nor did it confirm whether the price risk information was available to the Agency in the SPRS system. However, the GAO sustained both protests on the grounds that the Agency’s underlying price analysis was flawed. See generally id. As a result, the Agency could not “rely on an unreasonable price evaluation under the FAR to satisfy the DFARS requirement.” Id. The GAO found that the Agency 1) failed to perform the required SPRS price analysis and 2) relied on an unreasonable underlying price evaluation to satisfy the DFARS provision.
What This Means for Contractors
The GAO’s decisions in MicroTechnologies and SMS marks the first instances in which the GAO sustained a challenge based on the agency’s failure to conduct a proper risk analysis as required by DFARS 252.204-7024. Going forward, contractors should ensure that the agency is conducting the required item, price, and/or supplier risk analyses as part of its evaluation process.
Additionally, contractors should monitor their data in SPRS. Contractors are permitted to access their own supplier, vendor, and awardee company data on the SPRS. If the data is wrong, contractors can challenge the information in the SPRS.

Beltway Buzz, March 21, 2025

The Beltway Buzz™ is a weekly update summarizing labor and employment news from inside the Beltway and clarifying how what’s happening in Washington, D.C., could impact your business.

DEI EOs “Unblocked.” T. Scott Kelly and Zachary V. Zagger have the details on a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that will allow the federal government to enforce its DEI-related executive orders (EO) (EO 14151 and EO 14173) while a decision on the merits awaits appeal. This means that the federal government can once again, for example, require federal contractors to certify that they do not operate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs that violate federal antidiscrimination laws. It also means that the U.S. attorney general can pursue legal challenges to private-sector DEI programs “that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences.” Other legal challenges to the DEI executive orders are still pending.
EEOC Issues Technical Assistance on DEI. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) this week issued two technical assistance documents, “What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination At Work” and “What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related To DEI At Work.” The first document, in particular, cautions employers that an “initiative, policy, program, or practice may be unlawful if it involves an employer or other covered entity taking an employment action motivated—in whole or in part—by race, sex, or another protected characteristic.” The document then provides examples of DEI-related workplace policies and practices that the EEOC believes may violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition to discrimination in hiring, firing, and compensation, the document notes that job duties, access to training, mentorship programs, and employee resource groups should also not be motivated in whole or in part on race, sex, or other protected characteristics. Nonnie L. Shivers has the specifics.
Secretary of State Asserts Control Over Immigration Rulemaking Process. On March 14, 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio published a notice in the Federal Register that will likely have a significant impact on the Trump administration’s immigration-related rulemaking protocols. In the notice, Secretary Rubio states that his primary foreign affairs duty is “to protect the people of the United States from any threats originating from foreign actors or from foreign soil” which includes policies related to the “protection and travel of U.S. citizens overseas, visa operations and visa issuance.” Rubio concludes with the following:
I hereby determine that all efforts, conducted by any agency of the federal government, to control the status, entry, and exit of people, and the transfer of goods, services, data, technology, and other items across the borders of the United States, constitute a foreign affairs function of the United States under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, 554. (Emphasis added.)

The “foreign affairs” exemption in the Administrative Procedure Act allows the federal government to avoid the normal notice and comment requirements of the rulemaking process. The U.S. Department of State has claimed this exemption regularly over the years, usually when going through the standard rulemaking process would result in some undesirable international consequence. Moreover, during Donald Trump’s first presidency, the administration also claimed this exemption relating to certain policy changes but was rejected by at least two federal courts. Secretary Rubio’s notice, at least on its face, would try to expand the use of this exemption beyond the State Department and extend it to other agencies involved in immigration rulemaking processes, such as the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
Democratic FTC Commissioners Fired. This week, President Trump fired Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, the two remaining Democratic commissioners on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson and fellow Republican Melissa Holyoak remain on the Commission, which can still bring cases, even with three vacant commissioner seats. Like the firings of NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox and EEOC commissioners Charlotte Burrows and Jocelyn Samuels, the removal of Bedoya and Slaughter is a further example of the administration’s efforts to assert executive branch authority over federal agency commissions and boards.
Trump Rescinds More Biden-Era EOs. On March 14, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order entitled, “Additional Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions,” which rescinds eighteen executive orders, memoranda, and determinations issued by President Joe Biden. The rescinded EOs relating to employment policy are as follows:

“Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors” (EO 14026, April 27, 2021). This EO set the minimum wage applicable to covered federal contractor employees at $17.75 per hour as of the beginning of this year (pursuant to a provision that provides for annual increases based on the Consumer Price Index). However, President Barack Obama’s Executive Order 13658, which also increases the minimum wage for covered contractors, remains in place. While still unclear at this time, federal minimum wage requirements could be $7.25 per hour or $13.30 per hour, depending on whether the contract was covered under the Biden or Obama EO. Clarification from the DOL on this would be helpful.
“Advancing Worker Empowerment, Rights, and High Labor Standards Globally” (Presidential Memorandum, November 16, 2023). This memorandum encouraged the promotion of workers’ rights (e.g., collective bargaining, safe workplaces, wage and hour protections, and prohibiting forced labor ) as they related to the United States’ “foreign, international development, trade, climate, and global economic policy priorities.”
“Scaling and Expanding the Use of Registered Apprenticeships in Industries and the Federal Government and Promoting Labor-Management Forums” (EO 14119, March 6, 2024 ). This EO directed federal agencies to promote opportunities to contract with employers that participated in union-supported registered apprenticeship programs.
“Investing in America and Investing in American Workers” (EO 14126, September 6, 2024). This EO encouraged federal agencies to include certain labor and employment standards in federal grants and contracts. This came to be known colloquially as the “Good Jobs” executive order.

FMCS on the Brink. Also, on March 14, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order entitled, “Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy,” that “continues the reduction in the elements of the Federal bureaucracy that the President has determined are unnecessary.” The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) is one of seven agencies ordered to eliminate its “non-statutory components and functions … to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law.” Pursuant to the EO, the FMCS (as well as the other agencies listed) must “submit a report to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget confirming full compliance with this order and explaining which components or functions of the governmental entity, if any, are statutorily required and to what extent” by March 21, 2025. The FMCS homepage currently displays the following message: “We are reviewing recent Executive Orders for immediate implementation. The requirements outlined in these orders may affect some services or information currently provided on this website.”
House Committee Gets Its Start. On March 21, 1867, the U.S. House of Representatives did something that is near and dear to our hearts here at the Buzz: it established the Committee on Education and Labor. Following the Civil War, Congress created the committee to address issues arising from the country’s rapid industrial growth. In 1883, the committee was divided into two separate committees, the Committee on Education and the Committee on Labor. After several decades, the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 joined the two committees together again as the Committee on Education and Labor. The committee has existed in that form ever since, though beginning in 1995, the name has been tweaked depending on the party in the majority. When Democrats are in the House majority, it is called the “Committee on Education and Labor.” When Republicans are in the House majority, the committee is referred to as the “Committee on Education and the Workforce.”

The Government Contractor: False Claims Act Liability Based On A DEI Program? Let’s Think It Through

One of the more attention-grabbing aspects of Executive Order 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” is the specter of False Claims Act liability for federal contractors based on their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. Many workplace DEI programs have been viewed as a complement to federal anti-discrimination law—a tool for reducing the risk of discrimination lawsuits. The new administration, however, views DEI programs as a potential source of discrimination. EO 14173 proclaims that “critical and influential institutions of American society … have adopted and actively use dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI) or ‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility’ (DEIA) that can violate the civil- rights laws of this Nation.” To counteract this potential “illegal” use of DEI programs, the Trump administration is leveraging the FCA, a powerful anti-fraud statute, to enforce its policy within the Federal Government contractor community.
We discuss below the framework of the FCA, how it might apply to federal contractor DEI programs under the administration’s orders, and potential hurdles the Government may face in pursuing FCA claims based on a contractor’s allegedly illegal DEI program. We recommend steps contractors can take to mitigate potential FCA risks when evaluating their own DEI programs.
To read the full article, please click here.

President Trump Issues Executive Order Promoting Domestic Mineral Production

On March 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed a sweeping executive order promoting mining and processing of “critical minerals” in the United States. The order – Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production – directs agencies of the federal government to prioritize and expedite permitting for mining and mineral processing projects, invoking the Defense Production Act among and other authorities. Key provisions include:
Expanded Critical Minerals List
For purposes of the order, “critical minerals” include uranium, copper, potash, and gold, in addition to the existing list of critical minerals designated by the secretary of the interior pursuant to the Energy Act of 2020 (30 U.S.C. § 1606(a)(3). Further, the order grants authority to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, who serves as chair of the National Energy Dominance Council (NEDC), to add “any other element, compound, or material” to the critical minerals list.
Priority Projects
The order directs permitting agencies to identify all mine and mineral processing projects awaiting federal approvals, to issue permits and approvals immediately where possible, and to expedite all permitting activities. The NEDC is to identify mine and mineral processing projects for inclusion in the expedited permitting procedures available under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (41 U.S.C. § 41003), and the Permitting Council must add the identified projects to the FAST Act Permitting Dashboard within 30 days of the order.
Mining the Primary Land Use
The Interior Secretary is instructed to provide a list of all federal lands known to contain mineral “deposits and reserves.” Mining and mineral processing are to be prioritized as the primary land use on these lands. Federal land managers are required to revise land use plans to align with the executive order’s directives.
Permitting Reform
To address regulatory inefficiencies, Interior Secretary Burgum, in his role as NEDC chair, is directed to publish a request for information seeking industry input on “regulatory bottlenecks” and “recommended strategies for expediting domestic mineral production.” The order further instructs the NEDC to develop legislative recommendations to clarify the treatment of mine waste disposal on federal lands under the Mining Law. This direction aims to address permitting delays and uncertainty stemming from Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 33 Fed. 4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2022) (commonly referred to as the “Rosemont” decision).
Defense Production Act
The order delegates Defense Production Act authority to the secretary of defense to facilitate domestic mineral production. Mineral production is to be added to the Defense Department’s Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment Program as a priority area. The defense secretary is also directed to work with the International Development Finance Corporation to use financing authorities and mechanisms to advance mineral production, including the creation of a dedicated mineral production fund.
Unneeded Federal Lands for Mining Projects
The secretaries of defense, energy, interior, and agriculture are tasked with identifying sites on “unneeded” federal lands within their jurisdiction that are suitable for “leasing or development” under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 2667 (Defense), 42 U.S.C. § 7256 (Energy), or other applicable authorities (Interior and Agriculture).