Week in Review

IN THE NEWS 

• The Office of Management and Budget rescinded a memo that froze spending on all federal loans and grants after widespread confusion and concern. The original memo, issued just two days earlier and temporarily blocked by a federal judge, was intended to give President Donald J. Trump’s Administration time to ensure spending was “consistent” with the President’s agenda. The Trump Administration has emphasized this revocation does not mean that the recent funding cuts, such as those to K-12 schools and DEI initiatives, issued through the President’s several executive orders are not in effect. Some confusion remained as some White House officials reportedly claim the freeze is still in effect even though the memo was rescinded.
• President Trump signed an executive order restricting transgender individuals from openly serving in the U.S. military, citing concerns over “radical gender ideology,” unit cohesion, and their mental and physical capabilities. The order stated that receiving gender-affirming care “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle.” Six transgender service members filed a lawsuit challenging the order, arguing that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Dan Danridge, a student flight officer in the U.S. Navy and a plaintiff in the lawsuit, reportedly said that “being transgender is irrelevant to my service. What matters is that I can complete the tasks that are critical to our mission.”
• President Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to prosecute and remove perpetrators of “unlawful anti-Semitic harassment and violence,” including those allegedly connected to pro-Palestinian campus protests. The order includes a provision to revoke the visas of and deport international students who allegedly engaged in such acts. Several free speech, Muslim, and Arab advocacy groups criticized the order, with the Council on American-Islamic Relations characterizing it as a “‘dishonest, overbroad and unenforceable attack on free speech and the humanity of Palestinians’” and an “‘attempt to smear the many Jewish, Muslim, Palestinian and other college students’” who protested the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza.
• President Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to withhold funding from K-12 schools that promote what he called “radical indoctrination.” The order targets classroom discussions on racism, gender identity, and systemic oppression, asserting that such teachings undermine national unity and parental authority. The order also reinstates the “1776 Commission,” which President Trump created during his first term to promote “patriotic education” and the concept that “celebration of America’s greatness and history is proper.” The order has drawn criticism from the American Federation of Teachers, whose president Randi Weingarten stated that the order “unfairly tarnishes teachers” and makes their job more difficult.
• President Trump signed an executive order directing the development of a “next-generation” missile defense shield. The order stated that advanced aerial attacks are the “most catastrophic” threat to the United States. So, to protect the country, an “Iron Dome for America” is to be constructed and deployed. The order noted that the United States will collaborate with allies in the development and construction of this, and other, defense systems. The order provided 60 days for the Secretary of Defense to submit a plan on the project’s implementation to President Trump. The order also mandated that this plan be developed and reviewed by the Department of Defense and Office of Management and Budget to ensure the plan is technologically and financially feasible.

WHAT WE’RE READING THIS WEEK

• In an article in the Cornell Law Review, Laura T. Kessler, the S.J. Quinney Endowed Chair and Professor of Law at the University of Utah, explored the impact of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on employment law. Kessler analyzed how reproductive health issues—such as abortion, infertility, and miscarriage—intersect with federal workplace protections, emphasizing the gaps in privacy and anti-retaliation safeguards for employees. Kessler argued that existing laws, including the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and Americans with Disabilities Act, fail to adequately protect workers navigating reproductive challenges. She advocated enhanced legal protections to address the vulnerability of workers post-Dobbs, including stronger privacy rights and national paid leave.
• In a working paper, Daniel J. Solove, the Bernard Professor of Intellectual Property and Technology at the George Washington University Law School, and Woodrow Hartzog, a Professor of Law at Boston University School of Law, discussed Franz Kafka’s view of human nature as insight for data privacy regulation. Solove and Hartzog argued that Kafka’s ideas about individual powerlessness highlight why an “Individual Control Model” system of privacy regulation, where individuals are empowered to make decisions on how their data is used, are misguided. Solove and Hartzog interpreted Kafka’s work to highlight that individuals will make wrong choices about their own preferences and safety. Therefore, Solove and Hartzog contended that “Societal Structure Models,” which focus on controlling organizations’ power over individual data, were more beneficial. The two encouraged policymakers to use this model over the individual control model.

EDITOR’S CHOICE

• In an essay in The Regulatory Review, Scott Slesinger, then Legislative Director of the National Resources Defense Council, and Robert Weissman, President of Public Citizen, discussed President Trump’s first term-era “one-in, two out” deregulatory executive order. Slesinger and Weissman explained that the order would “hamstring” most federal agencies and be potentially devastating to environmental protection. Slesinger and Weissman alleged the order is unconstitutional under the Administrative Procedure Act. The authors argued that the executive order missed the point of regulation entirely by focusing solely on the costs without discussion of consideration of benefits of regulations. Moreover, the two emphasized that new regulation does not render old regulation obsolete. Slesinger and Weissman concluded by calling courts to block the executive order.