Latest news with #ExecutiveOrder14219
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump is right: The administrative state needs a reset
The federal courts have spoken, and the message is clear: the days of unaccountable bureaucratic enforcement are numbered. On April 17, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Federal Communications Commission's FCC forfeiture order against a broadcaster, signaling urgent need for internal reform. In so doing, the court joined a growing judicial movement to restore constitutional limits to the administrative state. If the FCC doesn't want to find itself repeatedly on the losing end of such rulings, it must act now to modernize its enforcement processes and recommit to our foundational principles of due process and statutory fidelity. This is not a niche procedural issue; it's a broader test of whether federal agencies can continue operating in legal gray zones. In sum, it raises a critical question: does the rule of law still matter? In Jarkesy v. SEC, the Supreme Court ruled that Americans are entitled to a jury trial when facing significant monetary penalties from federal agencies. This decision affirmed what should have been obvious: The government cannot bypass the Constitution simply by labeling its penalties 'administrative.' Though Jarkesy dealt with the Securities and Exchange Commission, its implications reach far wider. The FCC, which similarly relies on internal adjudication to impose forfeitures, is not exempt. The Fifth Circuit's April ruling is the first concrete indication that Jarkesy is reshaping the legal terrain in real time. The court struck down the FCC's order on grounds that mirror those at issue in Jarkesy — namely, concerns about due process and the proper role of the judiciary. We at the FCC must take this warning seriously. Our enforcement model, which depends heavily on internal proceedings and interpretations of ambiguous statutory authority, is increasingly vulnerable to constitutional challenge. If the FCC seeks to preserve the legitimacy and durability of its actions, we must proactively reform—not just reactively litigate. Moreover, this is not just about Jarkesy. The broader judicial trend, as seen in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, reflects a sharp decline in judicial deference to agency interpretations. The days of rubber-stamped regulatory overreach, justified by vague or expansive readings of congressional statutes, are coming to an end. Courts demand that agencies operate strictly within the clearly defined limits Congress prescribes. That's good for democracy, good for accountability, and essential for the rule of law. President Trump has long recognized the dangers of an unaccountable administrative state. His call to rein in regulatory overreach, most recently through Executive Order 14219 and the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), reflects a broader commitment to restoring constitutional order. These reforms are not theoretical — they are a mandate. The FCC must align with this vision by ensuring that every enforcement action is grounded in clear statutory authority, subject to judicial review, and respectful of due process. Anything less risks violating both the law and the trust of the American people. This is why DOGE is so promising. Every federal agency should embrace its mission — to identify and dismantle outdated, burdensome, or legally tenuous regulations. With its deep backlog of legacy rules and complex enforcement structures, the FCC is an ideal candidate for reform. Some may argue that stricter limits on agency enforcement will weaken regulatory effectiveness. We disagree. Reforms rooted in transparency, statutory clarity, and procedural fairness don't undermine the law — they strengthen it. They ensure that when the government acts, it does so with legitimacy and public trust. So what must be done? First, the FCC should immediately begin a top-to-bottom review of its enforcement procedures. That includes the internal adjudication mechanisms used to impose fines and penalties, many of which were designed in an era of far greater deference to agency discretion. We should ask whether those procedures offer adequate due process, whether they comply with current constitutional standards, and whether they can be improved to better reflect the rule of law. Second, we must reassess whether our interpretations of statutory authority — especially in areas like forfeiture and license enforcement — are firmly grounded in congressional intent. The courts have little patience left for creative agency readings of the law. It's time to return to textual fundamentals. Third, the FCC should actively support the work of DOGE and other reform initiatives. This includes identifying rules and precedents that, while perhaps once useful, now serve little purpose beyond entrenching bureaucratic inertia or legal risk. Finally, we should foster a new culture within the agency — one that values legal humility over expansive power. Agencies should not be in the business of stretching the law to fit their policy preferences. That's Congress's job. Our role is to execute the law faithfully, not reinvent it. The FCC has always adapted in times of technological and legal change. From the transition to digital broadcasting to the dawn of the broadband era, we have reformed our processes to meet the moment. Now, facing a constitutional correction in administrative law, we must do so again. If we get this right, we won't just avoid future litigation — we'll build a regulatory framework that is stronger, fairer, and more resilient for decades to come. Nathan A. Simington is a commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission. Gavin M. Wax is his chief of staff and senior advisor. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
14-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump is right: The administrative state needs a reset
The federal courts have spoken, and the message is clear: the days of unaccountable bureaucratic enforcement are numbered. On April 17, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Federal Communications Commission's FCC forfeiture order against a broadcaster, signaling urgent need for internal reform. In so doing, the court joined a growing judicial movement to restore constitutional limits to the administrative state. If the FCC doesn't want to find itself repeatedly on the losing end of such rulings, it must act now to modernize its enforcement processes and recommit to our foundational principles of due process and statutory fidelity. This is not a niche procedural issue; it's a broader test of whether federal agencies can continue operating in legal gray zones. In sum, it raises a critical question: does the rule of law still matter? In Jarkesy v. SEC, the Supreme Court ruled that Americans are entitled to a jury trial when facing significant monetary penalties from federal agencies. This decision affirmed what should have been obvious: The government cannot bypass the Constitution simply by labeling its penalties 'administrative.' Though Jarkesy dealt with the Securities and Exchange Commission, its implications reach far wider. The FCC, which similarly relies on internal adjudication to impose forfeitures, is not exempt. The Fifth Circuit's April ruling is the first concrete indication that Jarkesy is reshaping the legal terrain in real time. The court struck down the FCC's order on grounds that mirror those at issue in Jarkesy — namely, concerns about due process and the proper role of the judiciary. We at the FCC must take this warning seriously. Our enforcement model, which depends heavily on internal proceedings and interpretations of ambiguous statutory authority, is increasingly vulnerable to constitutional challenge. If the FCC seeks to preserve the legitimacy and durability of its actions, we must proactively reform—not just reactively litigate. Moreover, this is not just about Jarkesy. The broader judicial trend, as seen in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, reflects a sharp decline in judicial deference to agency interpretations. The days of rubber-stamped regulatory overreach, justified by vague or expansive readings of congressional statutes, are coming to an end. Courts demand that agencies operate strictly within the clearly defined limits Congress prescribes. That's good for democracy, good for accountability, and essential for the rule of law. President Trump has long recognized the dangers of an unaccountable administrative state. His call to rein in regulatory overreach, most recently through Executive Order 14219 and the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), reflects a broader commitment to restoring constitutional order. These reforms are not theoretical — they are a mandate. The FCC must align with this vision by ensuring that every enforcement action is grounded in clear statutory authority, subject to judicial review, and respectful of due process. Anything less risks violating both the law and the trust of the American people. This is why DOGE is so promising. Every federal agency should embrace its mission — to identify and dismantle outdated, burdensome, or legally tenuous regulations. With its deep backlog of legacy rules and complex enforcement structures, the FCC is an ideal candidate for reform. Some may argue that stricter limits on agency enforcement will weaken regulatory effectiveness. We disagree. Reforms rooted in transparency, statutory clarity, and procedural fairness don't undermine the law — they strengthen it. They ensure that when the government acts, it does so with legitimacy and public trust. So what must be done? First, the FCC should immediately begin a top-to-bottom review of its enforcement procedures. That includes the internal adjudication mechanisms used to impose fines and penalties, many of which were designed in an era of far greater deference to agency discretion. We should ask whether those procedures offer adequate due process, whether they comply with current constitutional standards, and whether they can be improved to better reflect the rule of law. Second, we must reassess whether our interpretations of statutory authority — especially in areas like forfeiture and license enforcement — are firmly grounded in congressional intent. The courts have little patience left for creative agency readings of the law. It's time to return to textual fundamentals. Third, the FCC should actively support the work of DOGE and other reform initiatives. This includes identifying rules and precedents that, while perhaps once useful, now serve little purpose beyond entrenching bureaucratic inertia or legal risk. Finally, we should foster a new culture within the agency — one that values legal humility over expansive power. Agencies should not be in the business of stretching the law to fit their policy preferences. That's Congress's job. Our role is to execute the law faithfully, not reinvent it. The FCC has always adapted in times of technological and legal change. From the transition to digital broadcasting to the dawn of the broadband era, we have reformed our processes to meet the moment. Now, facing a constitutional correction in administrative law, we must do so again. If we get this right, we won't just avoid future litigation — we'll build a regulatory framework that is stronger, fairer, and more resilient for decades to come. Nathan A. Simington is a commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission. Gavin M. Wax is his chief of staff and senior advisor.
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
CPAC wants Trump to overhaul FMCSA's waiver regime
WASHINGTON — An organization that holds significant weight with President Donald Trump is pressuring the administration to ease restrictions for approving exemptions and waivers to regulations it says disproportionately hinder small trucking companies. The Center for Regulatory Freedom (CRF), a project of the Conservative Political Action Coalition Foundation, also known as CPAC, has taken issue with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's requirement that exemption applications include a statement explaining 'how you would ensure that you could likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained in the absence of the waiver.' The code of federal regulations under 49 C.F.R. §381 also states that exemption applications must also 'include a copy of all research reports, technical papers, and other publications and documents you reference.' These FMCSA waiver and exemption requirements are 'far too restrictive, requiring excessive justification and public comment periods even for minor exemptions,' CRF contends in comments filed in response to the U.S. Department Transportation's request for deregulatory recommendations.'The 'equivalent safety' standard … disproportionately disadvantages small trucking companies, as FMCSA's regulations create a presumption against providing regulatory relief. Thus, carriers are forced to prove how receiving an exemption will improve safety conditions on the road, as opposed to stating the necessity of the exemption and how it will likely not affect safety.' Smaller companies have been forced to pay additional costs to help assist in providing the additional safety information, CRF noted. Waiver requests filed by truck drivers and small carriers during the Biden administration were routinely rejected for failing to clear the 'equivalent safety' hurdle, including those seeking exemptions from hours of service and electronic logging device regulations. CRF also takes issue with FMCSA's mandatory 30-day public comment period that comes with waiver and exemption requests, arguing that delay in the application process caused by the requirement exposes drivers and carriers 'to competitor challenges and subject firms to higher relative costs due to limited administrative capacity,' the group pointed out that the extra burden FMCSA's waiver and exemption process places on truck drivers and small carriers violates Trump's Executive Order 14219, 'Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementation of the President's 'Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Agenda,' issued the day before he was sworn in on Feb. 19. The mandatory public comment period, therefore, needs to be 'modified' to comply with the order, according to the group. To further comply with the executive order, CRF recommends adding a provision to FMCSA's regulations to provide a separate exemption application category 'for relief from non-safety-critical rules and regulations, such as recordkeeping requirements or paperwork reductions,' the group stated. 'This separate category can be expanded upon by adding a provision … that describes an expedited process for applying and receiving exemptions, eliminating all safety approximations and the inclusion of additional technical reports. 'For all exemption applications, CRF recommends removing the 'equivalent safety' standard.' FMCSA considering ELD exemption from 'inactive' trucker FMCSA denies exemptions for drivers traveling with pets FMCSA denies truck driver learner's permits for 17-year-olds Click for more FreightWaves articles by John Gallagher. The post CPAC wants Trump to overhaul FMCSA's waiver regime appeared first on FreightWaves.
Fibre2Fashion
23-04-2025
- Business
- Fibre2Fashion
NAM seeks overhaul of 44 rules to boost US manufacturing
In a move to strengthen US manufacturing, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) has submitted a comprehensive set of recommendations to key Federal agencies, calling for the revision or repeal of 44 regulations across 10 departments. This follows President Donald Trump's Executive Order 14219, which mandates a review of rules that hinder economic growth, innovation, and small business viability. NAM's proposals aim to eliminate outdated or overly burdensome regulations imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Trade Commission, Department of Labor, Department of Energy, and others. The association contends that these rules are driving up operational costs and hampering US manufacturing competitiveness. The NAM has urged US agencies to revise or repeal 44 costly regulations under Executive Order 14219, aiming to boost manufacturing by removing outdated rules. The move builds on earlier industry calls and follows actions like lifting the LNG export ban and revising EPA rules. EO 14219 mandates a 60-day review of rules that hinder growth, innovation, or small businesses. This initiative builds on a December 2024 letter to the administration, co-signed by over 100 manufacturing bodies, and follows recent government actions including the lifting of the liquefied natural gas export ban, the repeal of SEC Staff Legal Bulletin 14L, and plans to revise EPA's PM2.5 and Power Plants regulations, NAM said in a release. Executive Order 14219, issued on February 19, 2025, directs agencies to identify, within 60 days, any regulations that exceed statutory authority, impose high costs without proportional benefits, or obstruct R&D, innovation, or economic progress. Note: The headline, insights, and image of this press release may have been refined by the Fibre2Fashion staff; the rest of the content remains unchanged. Fibre2Fashion News Desk (HU)
Forbes
21-04-2025
- Business
- Forbes
IRS Scraps Partnership Tax Rules Under Trump Executive Order
WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 31: U.S. President Donald Trump talks to reporters after signing an ... More executive order, "Unleashing prosperity through deregulation," in the Oval Office on January 31, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by) On February 19, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14219, titled "Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's 'Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative." The primary purpose of Executive Order 14219 is to direct federal agencies to review and rescind regulations that are deemed unconstitutional or that undermine national interests. The Executive Order also emphasizes the efficient use of the executive branch's limited enforcement resources. The 'limited enforcement resources' is particularly imp In response to Executive Order 14219, the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued IRS Notice 2025-23. This notice announces the intent to remove the regulations related to certain basis shifting actions that imposed reporting obligations and potential penalties. The notice also withdraws IRS Notice 2024-54, which had outlined new proposed regulations addressing partnership related-party basis shifting transactions that will now, presumably, never occur. I previously wrote on whether Biden administration partnership enforcement initiatives would continue under the Trump administration. The IRS, of course, will need to continue monitoring partnership transactions for potential tax abuse. The removal of existing regulations and IRS Notice suggesting additional partnership regulations may not imply a relaxation of enforcement efforts, but it does signify a shift in the partnership tax enforcement priorities. Taxpayers and their advisors will need to rely on remaining guidance on partnership tax issues and, because of restrictions on new regulations, may not have the benefit of additional guidance on the change in enforcement methods and priorities. WASHINGTON, DC - AUGUST 16: U.S. President Joe Biden (C) signs The Inflation Reduction Act with ... More (L-R) Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY), House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC), Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Rep. Kathy Catsor (D-FL) in the State Dining Room of the White House August 16, 2022 in Washington, DC. The final regulations on basis shifting transactions and IRS Notice 2024-54 targeted specific types of partnership transactions and related-party transactions that were seen by the IRS as abusive and aimed at tax avoidance. The regulations sought to address transactions that resulted in artificial increases to the basis of property, thereby generating tax benefits without corresponding economic outlay. IRS Notice 2024-54 announced the Treasury Department and IRS's intent to issue additional proposed regulations targeting partnership basis-shifting transactions among related parties also seeking to prevent tax avoidance through manipulation of basis adjustments. The Biden administration regulations, now removed, required material advisors and participants in these transactions to disclose them to the IRS in an effort to enhance transparency and help the IRS detect, monitor, and challenge potentially abusive tax strategies. The regulations also imposed penalties for non-disclosure. These regulations faced significant criticism for being overly complex, burdensome, and retroactive. Interested parties argued that the regulations imposed costly compliance obligations and created uncertainty for businesses engaged in ordinary-course and tax-compliant activities. However, proponents of the regulations alleged that they dealt with a real problem of certain partnerships exploiting basis adjustment provisions under the Internal Revenue Code to create inappropriate or artificial increases in the basis of partnership property. For example, some adjustments seen by the IRS would increase depreciation deductions or reduce taxable gains without corresponding economic outlays or changes in economic ownership. The removal of IRS Notice 2024-54, means that the anticipated additional proposed regulations will never be issued. Although the proposed regulations were never issued, they were anticipated to provide the detail on the issues identified to taxpayers and their advisors so that they had both notice of the IRS views and could comment on the proposed regulations. According to the IRS Notice, the transactions at issue typically involved partners and their related parties orchestrating distributions or transfers of partnership property or interests in a manner that generates increased cost recovery allowances (such as depreciation or amortization) or reduces taxable gain (or increases loss) upon the sale or disposition of the property. The IRS claimed such transactions would not occur between unrelated parties acting at arm's length and allowed related parties to manipulate basis and obtain significant allegedly improper tax benefits. The proposed regulations anticipated by the IRS Notice were an attempt to close loopholes allowing the alleged fictitious and/or unjustified basis increases among related parties. Perhaps the IRS, regardless of administration change, will continue assert that the identified transactions are improper but there is no indication that different proposed regulations would be forthcoming to provide the details to allow taxpayers and their advisors to review, comment, and provide advice to clients on compliance. Further, under Executive Order 14192, any such proposed regulation would now require the elimination of 10 existing regulations such that providing such detail could be overly cumbersome with existing and or future resources at the IRS. Therefore, enforcement of partnership tax abuses may continue, but it will likely occur without significant guidance to professionals advising clients on compliance. Although the recent partnership tax enforcement regulations and IRS Notice were withdrawn, the IRS still has tools it can rely on to ensure compliance with the tax laws by partnerships. The primary tool is the Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) of 2015 which introduced a centralized partnership audit regime that significantly streamlines the audit process and enhances the IRS's enforcement capabilities. The BBA audit regime centralizes examinations and adjustments at the partnership level, introduces the concept of imputed underpayment, and provides modification procedures. It also enhances IRS enforcement efforts by ensuring consistent treatment of partnership-related items, enabling push-out elections, strengthening provisions to prevent abuse, and attempts to maintain flexibility in procedures the partnership structure allows. These measures collectively are designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of IRS audits and enforcement actions. The implementation of these new rules are not without criticism and the first disputes over the audit procedures are making their way to the courts for decision. In short, it will likely be several years before both the IRS, taxpayers and their advisors have a comfortable understanding of the interpretation and implementation of these new rules. Any partnership audit regime, however, is only effective if the right partnerships are chosen for audit and a sufficient number are chosen to effectively identify common issues where the IRS and taxpayers disagree. Historically, the IRS has struggled to audit partnerships. When the IRS released its Strategic Operating Plan in May of 2024 it indicated increasing audits for wealthy taxpayers, large corporations, and partnerships. That announcement indicated a 'ten-fold' increase for large complex partnerships but that increase would only be from 0.1% in 2019 to 1% by 2026. A U.S. General Accountability Office (GAO) study indicated that large partnerships in the United States increased 600% between 2002 and 2019 but the audit rate continued to decline. Therefore, this popular entity structure increases while audits continue to decline. The IRS blamed the declining audit rate to resource constraints. Further, the no-change results for the few partnerships audited are double those for large corporate taxpayers and the GAO study attributes the poor selection to statistical models used. This seems to indicate that even the few partnerships that are chosen for audit are not uncovering the right issues and disagreements in tax treatment of audited items such that clarity is achieved by either the IRS or the taxpayers. Complicating matters is personnel reductions at the IRS. As other authors have reported, the IRS has faced and will continue to face cuts in personnel as part of President Donald Trump's promise to reduce the size of the federal government. The IRS has already lost thousands of employees through terminations and other reductions in force that have removed both leadership, senior IRS personnel and other IRS employees within the IRS. Despite these losses, the Trump administration has signaled more reductions are anticipated following the recent tax filing deadline. Therefore, if partnership audits are going to be the main enforcement mechanism going forward, it is not yet known how many IRS employees will be left to conduct those audits and how that reduced staff will impact the amount and efficiency of those audits. Executive Order 14219 has forced all agencies, including the IRS, to reconsider the regulations currently on the books to ensure they are lawful, reduce compliance burdens, and still focus on enforcement efforts covered by applicable statutes. The recent IRS Notice 2024-54 could signal additional removal of regulations currently used by taxpayers and their advisors. Given the restrictions on issuing new regulations guidance appears likely to be removed but not replaced. While the removal of these regulations, and potentially others, provides immediate relief for taxpayers, tax avoidance schemes must still be found and challenged to protect the integrity of the tax system. The future of partnership tax enforcement must balance reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens with continued enforcement to ensure compliance with tax laws.
