Top Regulatory News of 2025

In this special edition of our regular Friday feature, the Week in Review, The Regulatory Review revisits the top regulatory news from the past year, including President Donald J. Trump’s mega tax and spending law, key developments in the U.S. Supreme Court, such as recent oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, and more. We are also pleased to highlight some of the top regulatory scholarship that we have been reading throughout the year.

JANUARY

• President Trump signed an executive order to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs within the federal government, criticizing the programs for “immense public waste and shameful discrimination.” The order mandates the closure of all DEI-related offices and positions in the federal government within 60 days. The S. Office of Personnel Management issued a memo to the heads of government agencies instructing them to place affected federal employees on administrative leave by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 22. Although the order is not a ban, it directs the Attorney General to encourage the private sector to end DEI programs. The order does not prevent teachers at colleges and universities “from engaging in First Amendment-protected speech” or advocating practices prohibited by the order.
• A federal judge temporarily blocked President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship—an immigration policy granting citizenship to babies born in the United States regardless of the citizenship status of their parents. The executive order would withhold birthright citizenship from U.S.-born babies with mothers illegally or temporarily in the United States and non-citizen or permanent resident fathers. Critics of the executive order contend that it violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states that those born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are U.S. citizens. Some advocates of immigration restrictions argue, however, that the 14th Amendment was never intended to extend citizenship to everyone born in the United States.

FEBRUARY

• President Trump signed an executive order titled “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” requiring federal agencies to identify at least 10 existing regulations to repeal whenever they seek to issue a new one. The order aims to reduce “unnecessary, burdensome, and costly federal regulations” and requires that the cost of all new regulations be “significantly less than zero” for fiscal year 2025. The order reinstates President Trump’s first-term deregulatory efforts, reversing Biden-era rules and lowering review thresholds for new regulations. Critics argue that the policy prioritizes deregulation over public protections, while supporters claim it will boost economic growth and government efficiency.
• President Trump signed an executive order directing agencies to review and compile a list of all regulations that, among other things, are unconstitutional; depart from the “best reading” of authorizing statutes; “implicate matters of social, political, or economic significance” that are not authorized” by “clear statutory” language; impose costs on “private parties” that exceed public benefits; or “impose undue burdens on small businesses.” The order directs the administrator of the Office and Information and Regulatory Affairs to “consult” with agencies in developing plans to “rescind or modify” regulations that agencies identify. The order also directs agencies to “de-prioritize” actions to enforce regulations that exceed statutory authority or constitutional limits.

MARCH

• The S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced 31 deregulatory actions in an effort that Zeldin deemed the “greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen.” Key initiatives include reconsidering emission standards for power plants, oil and gas industries, and vehicle emissions, as well as revisiting the 2009 Endangerment Finding, which classified greenhouse gases as harmful to human health. Zeldin claimed that these measures will lower living costs, boost energy production, and revitalize industries such as automotive manufacturing. Environmental advocates and former EPA officials have criticized the move, warning that it could undermine public health protections and exacerbate climate change.
• The 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 Court 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.

APRIL

• President Trump issued an executive order imposing reciprocal tariffs on more than 100 countries. Citing a “national emergency” of “trade deficits,” the order applies a baseline 10 percent tariff “on all imports from all trading partners,” excluding Mexico and Canada—which are already subject to previously announced tariffs—and certain products, such as steel, pharmaceuticals, and energy commodities. Many countries—including China, Japan, and member states of the European Union—face additional tariffs. Leaders in many of the affected countries are considering countermeasures to protect their economic interests.
• President Trump announced a 90-day pause on blanket reciprocal tariffs for all countries except for those against China. A blanket 10 percent tariff on imports from all countries will remain in effect during the 90-day pause, according to President Trump’s executive order, and tariffs on imports from China will increase to 125 percent. The President stated that the pause came after over 75 countries reached out to the Administration signaling they were willing to negotiate new trade deals with the United States.

MAY

• The Supreme Court permitted the Trump Administration to enforce its ban on transgender individuals serving in the military, lifting a nationwide injunction previously issued by a federal judge who found the policy likely unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment. The Court’s unsigned decision allows the military to discharge current transgender service members and deny enlistment to transgender applicants while legal challenges proceed. President Trump reinstated the ban via executive order in January 2025, reversing the Biden-era policy that allowed transgender individuals to serve openly.
• The Supreme Court stayed district court orders enjoining the President’s removal of Democrat members of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board pending decisions in appeals of those orders by a federal court of appeals. In doing so, the Court stated that the government is “likely to show” on appeal that the statutory prohibition on removing these members except for cause violates the President’s powers under the U.S. Constitution.

JUNE

• President Trump issued a proclamation restricting travel to the United States from over 20 countries. The proclamation cites deficient screening procedures, “exploitation” of the American visa system, and refusal to accept deported nationals as the bases for the travel restrictions on the targeted countries. The proclamation imposes a complete travel ban on nationals of Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. It also restricts the issuance of certain visas to nationals of Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. Exemptions apply to permanent U.S. residents, dual citizens, refugees admitted prior to the ban, Afghan allies of the U.S., and Iranian immigrants fleeing ethnic or religious persecution, among other categories of individuals.
• The Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care— such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy—for minors with gender dysphoria. The Court ruled 6–3 that the law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts emphasized the importance of judicial restraint in reviewing state laws. He concluded that the law targets individuals based on age and medical use—not gender—and so required only a “plausible” justification. The Court found that Tennessee’s stated concerns about medical risks provided such a justification. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the law classifies by sex and so requires a heightened justification.

JULY

• President Trump signed into law a mega tax and spending law that cuts federal health care spending by over $1 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The law establishes an 80 hour per month work requirement for some Medicaid beneficiaries, limits provider taxes—a major source of federal Medicaid funding for states—and ends automatic reenrollment for policyholders who receive insurance under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act while shortening the annual enrollment period. Supporters, including bill sponsor U.S. Representative Jodey Arrington (R-TX), claimed the law will reduce fraud and waste, but critics, such as Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, president of the American Nurses Association, expressed fear that the funding cuts will harm rural hospitals, which rely heavily on federal funding.
• EPA proposed to rescind its 2009 “endangerment” finding that certain greenhouse gases—such as methane and carbon dioxide—can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. As EPA explained, the endangerment “finding is a prerequisite for regulating emissions from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines.” If it is “finalized, the proposal would repeal all resulting greenhouse gas emissions regulations for motor vehicles and engines.“ In the 2009 finding, EPA determined that greenhouse gases threatened public health. That determination provided the basis for regulating gas emissions across numerous industries. In proposing to rescind the finding, EPA has claimed that it lacks statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gases. EPA has given the public until September 15 to file comments on the proposal.

AUGUST

• President Trump imposed reciprocal tariffs on over 60 countries after failing to reach trade deals that might have averted the new tariff rates that range from 10 percent to 50 percent. The tariffs, part of President Trump’s “Liberation Day” initiative announced in April, are intended to boost U.S. manufacturing by encouraging companies to reshore production. Supporters have praised the initiative for generating over $152 billion in annual revenue, while critics have warned of rising consumer costs and potential stagflation. Challengers have questioned the tariffs’ legality under a 1977 law, with courts set to address President Trump’s national emergency authority that undergirds the tariff initiative.
• President Trump signed an executive order placing the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia (MPDC) under federal control by declaring a state of emergency due to a claimed increase in violent crime. As authority for the takeover, the order cites the Home Rule Act, which makes D.C.’s police force available to the President for 48 hours during a state of emergency. The order delegates authority over MPDC to Attorney General Pam Bondi and provides that the President plans to retain control for the “maximum period permitted.” President Trump also mobilized the D.C. National Guard and deployed agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation to assist MPDC officers. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser stated that she was not informed of the takeover and cited decreasing crime rates. MPDC’s year-to-date crime comparison shows a 26 percent decrease in violent crime as of the day the executive order was signed.

SEPTEMBER

• The Supreme Court lifted a lower court order barring Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from stopping people in Los Angeles on the basis of factors such as race or language without “reasonable suspicion” that they are in the country unlawfully. The Court offered no majority opinion to support its 6–3 decision. In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh reasoned that law enforcement officials had reasonable suspicion because Los Angeles contains a large number of undocumented immigrants who seek work in particular locations. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the majority’s decision enables the government to “seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low-wage job.”
• President Trump issued an executive order raising the fee for H-1B visas to $100,000. Previously, total application fees ranged from $2,000 to $5,000. The H-1B program allows skilled foreign workers to immigrate and fill labor shortages in specialty occupations, with 60 percent of current recipients employed in technology-related positions. The executive order restricts applications that do not include the one-time $100,000 payment, unless the Department of Homeland Security determines that the applicant’s work is “in the national interest and does not pose a threat to the security or welfare of the United States.” The change does not apply to pending or approved H-1B visas and does not impact current visa holders.

OCTOBER

• Congress failed to approve government funding legislation by its October 1 deadline, resulting in a shutdown. During this funding lapse, mandatory spending such as for social security benefits and postal services will continue, and “essential” federal employees will remain at work unpaid but entitled to later backpay, while other employees are furloughed or placed on a temporary, unpaid leave. The U.S. Congressional Budget Office reported that about 750,000 employees could be furloughed, although Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought reportedly suggested that the Administration would permanently fire some federal employees in lieu of furloughs. Vought previously directed federal agencies to identify programs “not consistent with the President’s priorities” and prepare plans for permanent firings in the event of a shutdown.
• The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a First Amendment challenge to a 2019 Colorado law banning conversion therapy for minors by licensed mental-health providers. The ban, which has been upheld by lower courts, prohibits conversion practices, citing evidence of harm and increased suicide risk, while allowing therapies that promote acceptance. The plaintiff, a Christian counselor, argued that the ban discriminates against her religious views and regulates protected speech subject to strict scrutiny. Colorado contended that it can regulate harmful, ineffective treatments according to its authority over health care standards. A majority of conservative justices reportedly appeared skeptical of the ban, questioning whether it amounted to viewpoint discrimination and suggesting remand for stricter review, which could potentially result in the invalidation of similar bans in over 20 states.

NOVEMBER

• President Trump signed a narrow spending package to end the 43-day government shutdown, allowing federal agencies to begin reopening after the longest lapse of government funding in U.S. history. The bill, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives 222–209 after a group of Democratic representatives broke with their party to advance it, funds the government through January, reverses recent federal worker layoffs, and guarantees back pay for furloughed employees. The package omits Democrats’ priority of extending enhancements to Affordable Care Act tax credits, prompting a separate vote over health care subsidies in mid-December.
• The Trump Administration announced six new interagency agreements that transfer programs and activities from the U.S. Department of Education to four other agencies. Under these agreements, the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and the Office of Postsecondary Education will be housed under the U.S. Department of Labor, the Office of Indian Education will move to the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the International Foreign Language Education program will now be run by the U.S. Department of State. In addition, accreditation programs for foreign medical schools and on-campus childcare support for college-age parents will be overseen by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon stated that these agreements, which follow an executive order signed by President Trump to close the Education Department, will “return education to the states.”

DECEMBER

• The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, a case expected by many to overturn a 90-year old decision that allows Congress to prevent the President from firing heads of independent agencies without cause. Under the current rule, which originated in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, Congress can pass federal laws that prevent the President from firing leaders of independent agencies for reasons other than “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” During oral arguments, the liberal justices warned that overruling Humphrey’s Executor could destroy the United States’ structure of government. The conservative justices, however, seemed skeptical about Congress’s constitutional authority to limit the President’s removal powers.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ended its recommendation that all U.S. newborns receive a hepatitis B vaccine at birth, adopting an individual-based decision-making approach for infants born to mothers who test negative for the virus. The CDC recommended that unvaccinated infants wait at least two months before receiving a first dose if vaccination is later pursued. The change follows a recommendation from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and alters a policy that has been in place since 1991, with implications for insurance coverage and clinical guidance nationwide. Critics warned that the shift departs from established scientific consensus and could increase the risk of hepatitis B transmission by weakening clear federal vaccination guidance.

HIGHLIGHTS OF WHAT WE WERE READING THIS YEAR

• In a recent essay in the Yale Journal on Regulation’s blog, Notice and Comment, Jane Manners, a professor at Fordham School of Law, and Lev Menand, a professor at Columbia Law School, argued that, when Congress designates an officer to serve for a fixed term, that designation should be historically understood to provide protection from “at will” removal. They explained that the current understanding by lawyers and judges is that fixed terms are simply a “device to facilitate rotation in office.” Historically, however, legislatures throughout the 19th and 20th centuries understood that “an officer serving a fixed term was widely and uncontroversially understood to be unremovable prior to the end of their term.” Manners and Menand explained that this misunderstanding stems from a repeated misreading of Parsons v. United States. They concluded that, when the Supreme Court decides current presidential removal cases such as Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook this term, it has a chance to “set things right.”
• In a Brookings Institution essay, Jay C. Shambaugh, a fellow in economics at Brookings, argued that tariffs are an ineffective way to raise federal revenue because they either depress economic growth or encourage workarounds. Shambaugh noted that, because U.S. tariff revenue now exceeds 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), which is more common in small economies, tariff rates are now high enough to push buyers and firms into less efficient, costlier sourcing. Shambaugh explained that broadly applied tariffs can cut trade by 10 percent and leave GDP 1.5 percent to 2.5 percent smaller over time, while burdening consumers and straining U.S. diplomacy. He concluded that the government should use less harmful taxes for steady revenue and save targeted tariffs for special strategic needs.
• In a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, Cavit Baran, a professor at Sabancı University, and several coauthors examined the effect of electric vehicle use on air quality and child health. Using county-level data from 2010 to 2021, the Baran team compared electric vehicle registrations to levels of nitrogen dioxide—a harmful pollutant linked to vehicle emissions—and several health measures including low infant birth weights, preterm births, and asthma-related emergency department visits. Baran and his coauthors found that a one-unit increase in electric vehicles per 1,000 vehicles led to significant declines in pollutant levels and reduced negative child health outcomes. They recommended increasing investment in electric vehicle charging infrastructure to encourage adoption of electric vehicles and further improve health.
• A recent U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report examined the effectiveness of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in providing grants to improve the accessibility of public transit in rural and tribal areas. GAO found that funding constraints, such as onerous reporting requirements, and driver staffing shortages posed the largest challenges to providing and supporting accessible transit services. GAO highlighted FTA’s role in connecting communities with federal grant funds and removing barriers to transit access, but noted FTA’s lack of procedures to assess the success of its objectives. GAO recommended that FTA establish a formal process to evaluate the effectiveness of its efforts to increase transit accessibility.
• In a recent Brookings Institution essay, Michael Feuer, a nonresident senior fellow in the Center for Universal Education, warned that reductions in grant funding threaten the beneficial partnership between federal research agencies, the recipient universities that advance scientific understanding, and the private sector that applies the findings. Feuer compared the first Trump Administration’s support for the “public-private” partnership that helped develop the COVID-19 vaccine to the proposed $18 billion research cuts to the National Institutes of Health for 2026, concluding that these cuts are a “potentially irreversible setback” to American science that is “largely self-inflicted.” Feuer also dispelled common critiques of universities used to advocate decreased research funding and argued that major advances in basic science originate from the public sector, where federal grants insulate science from commercial interests.
• In a recent Brookings Institution essay, Barry G. Rabe, a nonresident senior fellow of governance studies at the Center for Effective Public Management at Brookings, discussed the political dilemma surrounding America’s management of the highly radioactive materials produced as a byproduct of nuclear reactors, otherwise known as high-level nuclear waste. Rabe noted that even though nuclear energy comprises nearly one-fifth of American electricity, and has garnered a recent increase in bipartisan support and popularity, there is a general reluctance among the states as to how to store high-level nuclear waste. In the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision giving the Nuclear Regulatory Commission power to approve an interim waste storage facility in Texas, the outcome of any state facility looks uncertain. Rabe also explored Canada and other Western nation’s success in storing nuclear waste in permanent facilities by building public support through a variety of “deliberative processes,” compared to the United States, which focuses on more temporary measures.
• In a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, Dhaval Dave, a research professor at Bentley University, and several coauthors examined the impact of state abortion restrictions on the rate of intimate partner violence in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. Intimate partner violence is the most common form of violence experienced by women. The Dave team compared incident data from 2017 to 2023 with incident data after Dobbs, which triggered numerous state abortion restrictions. In doing so, it contrasted differences in violence rates between counties where the travel distance to the nearest abortion center increased and counties with minimal or no changes. The Dave team found incidents of intimate partner violence increased by 7 to 10 percent in the counties with abortion restrictions. It suggested that decreased abortion access can lead to financial strain and bind women to abusive partners if they become pregnant, which may cause this increase.
• In a recent Brookings Institution essay, Martin Totaro, counsel at Hecker Fink LLP, and Connor Raso, acting general counsel of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, argued that Congress should establish a compensation fund for victims of autonomous vehicle accidents. Totaro and Raso noted the lack of federal regulation surrounding autonomous vehicles and observed that the determination of legal liability in accidents currently relies on traditional notions of human fault and responsibility that is difficult to apply to autonomous vehicles. They contended that a specialized compensation fund, similar to those established for the September 11 terrorist attacks and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, would allow victims to receive payment efficiently while minimizing mass tort liability for automobile manufacturers.
• In a recent Brookings Institution article, Marta Wosińska, a senior fellow at the Center on Health Policy at Brookings, examined the possible impact of President Trump’s proposed pharmaceutical tariffs on drug prices, supply chains, and domestic manufacturing. Wosińska contended that these tariffs will likely raise prices on imported drugs, potentially leaving generic drugmakers with margins too thin to justify new domestic manufacturing plants. She argued that tariffs work best when paired with supportive measures, such as FDA inspection funding, targeted subsidies for generic drugmakers, and flexible mechanisms to prevent or relieve drug shortages.
• In an article in the Yale Journal on Regulation, Erika M. Douglas, an associate professor at Temple University Beasley School of Law, explored the phenomenon of “antitrust abandonment,” which refers to the long-term disuse of antitrust enforcement powers by industry regulators despite their statutory authority. Douglas specifically examined three industries—ocean shipping, rail, and meatpacking—all of which have largely failed to act against anticompetitive practices. Douglas argued that antitrust law has gradually abandoned its initial purpose of promoting consumer welfare and now focuses on market competition efficiencies, leading to significant gaps in competition oversight. Douglas discussed the implications of this shift, noting risks to consumers in highly concentrated markets. Douglas concluded by calling for a reevaluation of antitrust priorities to better balance consumer protection with market regulation priorities.
• In an article published in the Virginia Law Review, Barry Friedman, the Jacob D. Fuschberg Professor of Law at NYU Law School, and Danielle Keats Citron, the Caddell and Chapman Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, argued that personal data collected by police agencies needs to be regulated. Friedman and Citron contended that police agencies collect personal data indiscriminately—collected without probable cause and in-bulk—acquired from large numbers of the American public. Although not all instances of police agencies collecting personal data are improper, Friedman and Citron noted, regulatory oversight is needed to ensure that there is a “reasonable balance” to the amount of personal data that police agencies collect. Friedman and Citron emphasized the need for transparency in the personal data collection process by police officers and suggested laws enabling watchdogs to disclose certain information to the public as one solution to attaining transparency.
• In an article in the Cornell Law Review, Laura T. Kessler, the S.J. Quinney Endowed Chair 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.