This brief E.O. revokes the Obama-era E.O. that restricted the use of surplus military equipment by local law enforcement agencies.
Section 1 of this executive order revokes Executive Order 13688 issued on January 16, 2015 by then-President Obama. This order, entitled “Federal Support for Law Enforcement Equipment Acquisition,” created a working group to identify how surplus military equipment flowed to local law enforcement agencies, and it created a list of equipment that should be prohibited or restricted, including armored tanks, certain caliber ammunition, and bayonets.
Continue reading “Trump Signed E.O., “Restoring State, Tribal, and Local Law Enforcement’s Access to Life-Saving Equipment and Resources””
Another anti-immigrant policy aimed at creating a climate of discrimination, scapegoating, division and hatred, and which will embolden hate groups. Read more here:
This executive order will create a task force and insert a regulatory reform officer (RRO) at each federal agency, to be appointed by agency heads.
Section 2 directs the head of each executive agency to designate a “regulatory reform officer” or RRO to oversee the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives. The order then lays out the specific initiatives that it wants the RRO to focus on:
- Executive Order 13771 of January 30, 2017: “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (See our previous post on this E.O.)
- Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993: “Regulatory Planning and Review”
- Section 6 of Executive Order 13583 of January 18, 2011: “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” was signed by Bill Clinton and mandated that significant regulations be submitted for review to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Importantly, this E.O. set forth what is considered a “significant regulation,” as only significant regulations must go through this review and reporting process; however, this definition is rather broad:
Continue reading “Trump signed E.O., “Order on Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda””
The executive order which POTUS signed on January 27th restricts immigration from Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. It affects travelers on all types of visas (other than diplomatic and UN ones) and refugees. On January 25th, POTUS also signed an executive order aimed at strengthening border security and immigration enforcement.
These executive orders, designed to curb the migration to the U.S. of “undesirable” (dangerous or unauthorized) immigrants and refugees, represent a piece meal approach to a global social problem and does not take into consideration the complexity of issues involved in this worldwide phenomenon of migration or its unintended consequences. The following are some of the important points, other than the legal/constitutional or moral arguments already described in other editorials, that make these measures objectionable. Continue reading “Contributor Post: A holistic look at Trump’s three immigration E.O.s”
This presidential memo directs the Secretary of Labor to reexamine the “fiduciary rule” issued in final form in April 2016 and set to take effect on April 10, 2017.
At issue here is the Department of Labor’s newly propogated regulation entitled “Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice,” 81 Fed. Reg. 20946.
At the National Law Review, Scott A. Cammarn and other authors observe that this rule expanded the term “fiduciary” to include “plans and individual retirement accounts under the Employee Income Retirement Security Act of 1974 and Section 4975 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in connection with the provision of investment advice.”
As context, most financial advisors are already required to give this care and consideration to their clients, but the field of advisors to which this duty of care applied was narrowed by a Labor regulation in 1975. As explained in 81 Fed. Reg. 20946, if an advisor did not fit under this 1975 “five-part test” analysis, then that person could have conflicts of interests, give disloyal advice, steer consumers to invest based on their own interests, and have limited liability from any harms resulting from the advice given. One of the categories that fell through the gap was retirement planning – and the April 2016 rule closed it. Continue reading “Trump signed Pres. memo, “Fiduciary Duty Rule””
This executive order sets the new tone for financial regulations as “Core Principles” notably lacking in consumer protection.
General reform of the financial market arose as a response to economic crises, from the Great Depression (Glass-Steagall Act) to the more recent 2008 crash (Dodd-Frank Act). Glass-Steagall created a firewall between the banking, investment, and insurance industries. Every reform since then has questioned, revoked, and replaced such separations between the firms.
Section 1 of this executive order set out the overarching policies and values this administration will focus on for likely upcoming financial reform.
At the National Law Review, Scott A. Cammarn and other authors observe that the Core Principles noticeably lack any reference to consumer protection or the new direction of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to investigate government entities like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the Volcker Rule, or small bank relief.
Continue reading “Trump signed E.O., “Core Principles for Regulating the U.S. Financial System””
This E.O. establishes a cap for number and cost of regulations for FY2017.
The “2-for-1” Swap (Sec. 2(a) and (c))
Section 2(a) outlines the “2-for-1” swap, where for every one regulation passed, two must be repealed. While the “2-for-1” idea seems simple, the new regulation (the “1”) will have to go through the notice-and-comment rule making procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) while the two regulations to be repealed (the “2”) have their own time consuming repeal procedures.
Sec. 2. Regulatory Cap for Fiscal Year 2017.
(a) Unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive department or agency (agency) publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed.
It is unclear whether there will be a pool of regulations targeted for revocation that will begin the process immediately, or if the agencies will wait to begin revocation until a new regulation is proposed. The real-world application of this directive depends on this guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Continue reading “Trump signed E.O., “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs””