Week in Review

IN THE NEWS

• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a rule rolling back its 2009 finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, stating that the finding “unreasonably analyzed the scientific record.” The endangerment finding had served as the foundation for regulating six greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. In support of the repeal, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt noted that it would “save the American people $1.3 trillion in crushing regulations.” Scientists and environmental organizations strongly opposed the rollback, with Manish Bapna, the CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council, calling it the “single biggest attack in U.S. history on federal authority to tackle the climate crisis.”
• The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) declined to review Moderna’s application for a new mRNA-based flu vaccine. FDA said that the application lacked an “adequate and well-controlled trial” and noted that Moderna failed to follow guidance FDA officials provided to the company during the Biden Administration. This decision followed criticism of mRNA technology by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and actions by the Trump Administration to restrict access to COVID-19 vaccines.
• The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed a sweeping regulation to strengthen fraud prevention across Medicare, Medicaid, and Affordable Care Act marketplace plans for the 2027 plan year. The rule would require insurers to verify enrollee eligibility more rigorously, limit retroactive coverage, tighten special enrollment periods, and impose stricter network adequacy standards, aiming to reduce improper payments estimated at $100 billion annually. CMS argued these changes would protect program integrity and lower costs for taxpayers, while allowing more affordable plan options. Critics warned, however, that the changes could make plans skimpier, reduce access for vulnerable populations, and create barriers to enrollment during life events. The proposal is open for public comment through April 2026, with final rules expected later this year.
• The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) launched an investigation into ABC’s “The View” after the show’s hosts interviewed Democratic Texas Senate candidate James Talarico. The investigation followed an FCC decision earlier this year to no longer exempt certain late-night and daytime talk shows from having to provide equal airtime to opposing political candidates. Last month, the FCC said it had seen “no evidence” that the “interview portion” of any currently airing late-night or daytime talk show would qualify for the exemption. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has criticized such programs across multiple networks, including ABC’s “The View.”
• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit temporarily paused a lower court ruling that restricted the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from revoking Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations for Nepal, Honduras, and Nicaragua. The Ninth Circuit held that the government was likely to succeed in the dispute either because the court lacked jurisdiction or because DHS did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner by terminating these TPS designations. The Ninth Circuit also drew on the Supreme Court’s recent orders that paused lower court decisions to restrict DHS Secretary Kristi Noem from revoking Venezuela’s TPS designation.
• HHS confirmed that it will participate in the upcoming World Health Organization (WHO) influenza vaccine composition meeting, reversing earlier indications of withdrawal. The annual consultations help determine which virus strains should be included in the next season’s flu vaccines for the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. HHS officials stated that, although the decision reflects a commitment to global collaboration on vaccine strain selection, they are continuing to evaluate U.S. involvement in other WHO activities. Public health experts praised the move as essential for ensuring vaccines match circulating strains and protect populations worldwide, while critics warned that continued engagement could expose the United States to WHO influence over domestic vaccine policy.
• FDA announced that manufacturers will now be able to claim that food products without any petroleum-based colors contain “no artificial colors.” HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., stated that this initiative “makes it easier for companies to move away from petroleum-based synthetic colors and adopt safer, naturally derived alternatives.” Alongside this announcement, FDA approved petitions for beetroot red and the expanded use of spirulina extract—both color additives derived from natural sources. FDA, however, also reminded manufacturers that they must adhere to identity and purity standards while transitioning to natural color additives.
• U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, known for previously blocking Trump Administration policies, will oversee the first major legal challenge to the vaccine agenda proposed by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. The lawsuit, brought by a coalition of public health groups and physicians, contends that recent HHS actions—such as altering vaccine recommendations, restructuring advisory committees, and threatening funding for non-compliant states—violate the Administrative Procedure Act and exceed statutory authority. Supporters praised the challenge for defending evidence-based public health policy, while critics warned that judicial intervention could hinder efforts to restore public trust in vaccine programs. The litigation could shape HHS authority over immunization policy and CDC operations nationwide.

WHAT WE’RE READING THIS WEEK

• In a recent article in the Yale Journal on Regulation’s blog, Notice & Comment,, Gilbert Orbea, a staff attorney at Democracy Forward, and Emily Froud, a research analyst at Democracy Forward, examined factors that courts should consider when evaluating an agency’s use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the regulatory process. Orbea and Froud argued that courts should be more strict with agencies that use AI to enforce broad laws, to “substantially” write or analyze, or to make decisions that affect people’s rights or public safety. On the other hand, Orbea and Froud contended that courts can be less strict when agencies use AI to carry out narrow congressional mandates, handle tasks not as important in the regulatory process, or make decisions in areas that do not affect rights or safety.
• In a recent Brookings Institution article, Tom Wheeler, a Brookings visiting fellow, argued that lawmakers should take lessons from the 1996 Telecommunications Act when crafting AI policies. Wheeler explained that the 1996 Act, which was passed during the transition from analog to digital technology, collapsed the distinctions between regulations for different markets, resulting in an FCC that prioritized “promoting competition across converged markets” instead of one that cracked down on monopolies. This model, Wheeler noted, shifted regulation from the actual applications of technology to overseeing and advancing competition among telecommunications services. Wheeler stressed the importance of tackling the “concentration of AI power” by implementing transparency and oversight mechanisms, as well as building antitrust enforcement capacity to crack down on monopolistic practices.
• In a recent report published by the Brookings Institution, Maria Petrova, a professor of economics at Universitat Pompeu Fabra, and her coauthors examined artificial intelligence’s economic impact through “intelligence saturation,” where the rapid automation of cognitive tasks hits bottlenecks in the physical sector. They predicted that wages will first rise from higher output but later fall as workers are pushed into lower-paying jobs. Petrova and her coauthors highlighted the need for paced automation and subsidies to physical capital. They recommended wage insurance and taxes on AI labor substitutes to ease transitions and promote equitable growth.

EDITOR’S CHOICE

• In an essay in The Regulatory Review, Randolph J. May, president of The Free State Foundation, argued that the U.S. Supreme Court should revisit its 1969 decision upholding the “fairness doctrine,” which requires broadcasters to provide balanced coverage of important public issues. May reasoned that the decision gives broadcasters fewer First Amendment protections than “all other media” enjoy, and that recent changes in the U.S. media landscape make the Court’s reasoning outdated. May contended that, in the meantime, Congress should eliminate the FCC’s “public interest” authority, which would reduce the FCC’s ability to regulate programming content.