Week in Review

IN THE NEWS

• President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order directing the closure of the U.S. Department of Education, fulfilling a campaign pledge to return educational authority to the states. Although the Education Department cannot be fully abolished without congressional approval, the executive order aims to reduce the size of the department while it continues to manage federal student loans and Pell grants, in addition to conducting enforcement of civil rights in some form. The Administration has not clarified which department responsibilities will be transferred or eliminated, raising questions about the future of programs such as Title I funding for low-income schools and protections for students with disabilities.
• The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary order blocking the Trump Administration from using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to conduct deportations. The Trump Administration invoked this 18th century law to expedite the deportation of alleged members of the Venezuelan gang “Tren de Aragua,” labeling its activities as an “invasion” that threatens national security. U.S. District Chief Judge James Boasberg, who issued the temporary order, noted that the law’s provisions pertain to hostile acts by nations during wartime, not criminal organizations, thereby questioning the Trump Administration’s legal justification for expedited deportations. Despite the order, the Trump Administration deported over 250 individuals to El Salvador under the 18th century law.
• The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary order blocking the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from enforcing its termination of $14 billion in clean energy grants awarded under the Biden Administration. The court ruled that the plaintiffs in the case, three nonprofit financial institutions, demonstrated a likelihood of success on their claims that EPA’s actions were arbitrary and capricious, and violated due process. According to the opinion, EPA “does not appear” to have followed required procedures before revoking the grants. The ruling prevents EPA from reclaiming the funds while litigation continues.
• A federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump Administration from eliminating 1,600 jobs at the U.S. Agency for International Development, following a lawsuit from employees who argued the mass firings were unlawful. The employees claim the Administration violated workforce reduction rules and failed to provide proper notice or justification for terminating staff—many of whom worked on global health and humanitarian programs. The order halts the layoffs while the case proceeds, marking a significant setback for the Administration’s broader efforts to downsize the federal workforce. If the court ultimately rules in favor of the employees, its ruling may limit future attempts to reduce rapidly government staffing without adhering to established procedures.
• President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order directing a major overhaul of national preparedness and resilience policies, shifting greater responsibility to state, local, and individual actors. The order emphasizes the need for “commonsense approaches” that prioritize local decision-making and risk-informed infrastructure investments, aiming to reduce taxpayer burdens and enhance national security. The order also mandates the creation of a National Resilience Strategy and National Risk Register and orders a comprehensive review and revision of existing policies related to critical infrastructure, national continuity, and emergency preparedness. The Trump Administration argues that the move will modernize outdated federal frameworks and end the “subsidization of mismanagement” by empowering states and communities to manage threats such as cyberattacks, wildfires, and hurricanes.
• The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule that eliminates the authority of the director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement to commence formal investigations into possible violations of federal securities laws and issue subpoenas. The rule reverses the SEC’s 2009 delegation of the authority to the director. The rule is intended to increase effectiveness and “more closely align the Commission’s use of its investigative resources with Commission priorities.”
• The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a proposed rule intended to protect consumers from “surprise tax liabilities” and challenges related to coverage changes and access to care resulting from “improper enrollments” or incorrect health insurance enrollment determinations. The proposed rule would strengthen income verification processes, remove Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients from the definition of “lawfully present” applicants for eligibility and enrollment purposes, and allow insurance companies to require payment of past-due premiums before providing new coverage. The proposed rule would also prohibit insurance issuers from providing coverage of “sex-trait modifications” as an essential health benefit. The proposal is purportedly designed to reduce improper health insurance enrollment and improve health care affordability and access.
• The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a final rule revising the Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) rules to allow for “silent alerts,” or alerts that, at their originator’s discretion, are presented without audio, vibration, or both. The rule is intended to provide greater flexibility in tailoring alerts and ensure that WEA messages remain an effective tool without “prompting widespread opt out” or creating “alert fatigue.” The FCC also issued a related proposed rule that would broaden the circumstances in which alert originators may use the “Public Safety Message” classification and requested public comments on whether consumers should be able to further customize alert receipt options.

WHAT WE’RE READING THIS WEEK

• In an article in the Yale Journal on Regulation, Amy B. Monahan, the Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Melvin C. Steen Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota, and Barak D. Richman, the Alexander Hamilton Professor of Business Law at George Washington University Law School, examined how the Employment Retirement Income Security Act’s (ERISA) fiduciary obligations could improve the regulation of employer-sponsored health benefits. Monahan and Richman argued that even though ERISA has successfully imposed stringent fiduciary duties on retirement plan administrators, it has largely failed to regulate employer health plans, allowing costs to rise unchecked while leaving workers with inadequate coverage. They contended that employers, as fiduciaries, should be held accountable for ensuring that health benefits provide value to employees, just as they are for retirement plans. Monahan and Richman proposed that the Department of Labor clarify fiduciary responsibilities for health plan administrators and create regulations to incentivize cost-efficient, high-quality healthcare coverage.
• In an article in the Yale Journal on Regulation, Luke Herrine, an assistant professor at the University of Alabama School of Law, defended a “paradigm shift” at federal consumer protection agencies from promoting informed consumer choice to prioritizing “sector-wide regulation, enforcement sweeps, and strategic cases against market leaders.” Herrine argued that the older consumer choice framework relies on a “too-simple” market model that assumes that informed consumers are able to protect themselves by choosing between sellers. The newer framework, in contrast, is committed to addressing power imbalances between consumers and businesses in imperfect markets, Herrine contended. Herrine noted that “skepticism about the power of informed consumer choice” encourages consumer protection agencies to take on a larger role in shaping consumer markets.
• In an article in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Ashley Deeks, Professor of Scholarly Research in Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, described how Presidents frequently delegate or subdelegate significant national security powers to lower-level officials. Deeks argued that this increasingly common practice raises serious concerns about accountability, transparency, and civilian control over high-stakes decisions. Deeks explained that, although such delegations are often necessary for efficiency, they can diffuse political accountability, undercut civilian control, and raise serious legal and normative concerns—especially when they are classified and escape congressional oversight. She argued that Congress and the President should take steps to enhance transparency and structure around these delegations. As part of her proposed reforms, Deeks suggested collecting and cataloging classified delegations and potentially adopting multi-headed delegations to ensure more oversight and alignment with congressional intent.

EDITOR’S CHOICE

• In an essay in The Regulatory Review, Clifford Winston, a senior fellow for economic studies at the Brookings Institution, analyzed the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) deregulation strategy under Elon Musk’s leadership. Winston asserted that DOGE’s sweeping policy changes have been implemented without sufficient input from economists, resulting in inefficiencies and unintended consequences. He contended that the lawyers facilitating DOGE’s reforms lack the economic expertise to evaluate their long-term effects. Winston advocated greater collaboration between economists and lawyers, along with more interdisciplinary education in law schools, to ensure future regulatory policies are informed by both legal and economic perspectives.