Opinion - Don't make me the last chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission
In what may be the first for an independent federal agency, the Consumer Product Safety Commission submitted a budget request to Congress last month proposing its own elimination.
The Trump administration seeks to absorb elements of the commission into the Department of Health and Human Services in order to eliminate the agency's independence and reduce the transparency of its operations. The budget request also seeks to decrease the number of employees by 75 (to a total of 459) and reduce its budget by $16 million.
If this budget request becomes law, I would likely be the last confirmed chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. It would mark the end of the commission as an independent agency dedicated to protecting the public from unsafe consumer products, and it would reverse 53 years of progress in product safety.
This budget request would never have existed if Trump had not unlawfully removed three sitting commissioners, including myself, last month. U.S. District Court Judge Maddox found the president's actions unlawful on June 13, enabling us to resume our jobs as commissioners. However, the Trump administration has appealed this ruling and continues to seek our removal.
President Richard Nixon signed the Consumer Product Safety Act into law in 1972, establishing CPSC as a bipartisan, independent agency led by five commissioners who are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Prior to that, the Department of Commerce and the Food and Drug Administration had responsibility for product safety, but their efforts lacked focus — as a result, Americans suffered. In the lead up to the creation of the CPSC, President Lyndon Johnson recognized that 'the homes that we live in can be more dangerous than a booby-trapped mine field' and that change was needed.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission was created to clear this mine field. In establishing the agency, Congress recognized that its independence was important to ensure that it remained unfettered by political dictates and self-interested pressure from industry.
Congress mandated that no more than three commissioners can belong to the same political party; that they are to be appointed to staggered terms, to ensure only a portion of their terms expire at any given time; and that they can only be removed for cause. These legal provisions were designed to prevent swift, drastic changes in the agency's composition and, ultimately, its regulations and policies. The commission's current structure promotes stability and continuity, which benefits consumers as well as manufacturers and sellers.
In the months leading up to our removal, my colleagues and I opposed staff reductions to meet arbitrary White House demands. We advanced proposed mandatory product safety standards to save lives — including from horrific fires ignited by faulty lithium-ion batteries. We rejected efforts to dismantle and embed CPSC into the Department of Health and Human Services.
Within weeks of our unlawful terminations, the remaining commissioners withdrew the proposed lithium-ion battery safety rule and embraced the administration's efforts to abolish the agency's independence and downsize our staff. The consequences of our absence were plain as the administration moved forward to eliminate the agency and weaken its functions.
The changes proposed by the Trump administration are wholly unnecessary. For over 50 years, the commission has validated the vision of Nixon and Congress for improving product safety. For example, crib fatalities have decreased by nearly 80 percent; pediatric poisonings have decreased by 80 percent; deaths from residential fires have decreased by more than 64 percent. There have been dramatic injury reductions as well. Bicycle injuries have declined by about 35 percent. Baby walker injuries, which resulted in 25,000 emergency room visits in 1992, had dropped by 88 percent by 2020.
Because of the commission's safety rules, children no longer suffocate in refrigerators, get crushed by closing garage doors or get entrapped underwater in swimming pool drain covers. Safety standards ban lead in toys and ensure that products manufactured for infants and toddlers meet basic safety standards.
The elimination of this agency and the incorporation of its parts into this administration's troubled HHS would put the agency's successes and future product safety progress at risk. As was recognized more than 50 years ago, product safety gets lost within a large department with competing priorities.
It would be too easy to put recalls or new product safety standards on the back burner when HHS is faced with a revamp of the Medicare system and with millions losing access to health care. In addition, as resources become harder to find, product safety staff and money may be shifted to politically favored projects within HHS at the whim of the secretary. Without an independent Consumer Product Safety Commission, there will be far less accountability and transparency.
When an agency is independent and commissioners come from multiple perspectives, undue political influence is moderated. The commissioners can work together to build consensus but also act as a check on each other. This ensures that the agency's actions are transparent to the public and the agency is not taking political direction to favor one company over another.
That is why, once the full commission was reinstated, it submitted a new budget request that affirms the independence of the agency and seeks full funding of its operations. This, however, does not change the administration's proposal or the HHS budget request to eliminate it and absorb parts of it into HHS.
The president's request threatens product safety. But, fortunately, eliminating the Consumer Product Safety Commission as it has existed for more than 50 years would require an act of Congress. There are Republican and Democratic members of Congress who recognize the importance of CPSC's work and its independence. I hope they can convince their colleagues to reject the president's proposal.
I don't want to be the last confirmed chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. And none of us want to go back to the days when the homes that we live in were 'more dangerous than a booby-trapped mine field.'
Alexander Hoehn-Saric served as chair of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission from October 2021 through January 2025 and is now serving as a commissioner.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
9 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Here are the 4 home trends that are hot in 2025
The NAHB asked 3,000 recent and prospective buyers what they want most in newly built homes. Newly built homes may be shrinking, but buyers aren't sacrificing comfort and quality. Buyers said that a great outdoor living space and smart technology are must-haves. Americans buying newly built homes are working with a lot less space, but that doesn't mean their expectations are any lower. In fact, it means they're looking to maximize every square foot. At the 2025 National Association of Real Estate Editors conference held earlier this month in New Orleans, Rose Quint, assistant vice president for survey research at the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), shared during a panel discussion what today's homebuyers value most. Drawing from NAHB's 2024 What Home Buyers Really Want report, a national survey of more than 3,000 recent and prospective homebuyers, Quint revealed that buyers are prioritizing spacious kitchens, ample outdoor space, and smart technology. "High home prices and elevated mortgage rates have made homebuyers keenly aware of what features add the most value to their daily lives," Quint said. "Buyers have determined that investing in the kitchen, in a patio, and home security features enhances the livability of a home." According to NAHB's survey, here are four trends shaping homebuying — from a bigger kitchen that focuses on efficiency to smart thermostats that allow homeowners to control their home's temperature remotely. 1. Buyers want a bigger kitchen. The American home may be shrinking, but one space buyers aren't willing to give up is the kitchen. "For those buying a smaller house, if that's what it takes to make the math work, we ask: What part of the home will you shrink? And they say, take the square footage from the home office, the dining room, even the living room, but for God's sake, stay away from the kitchen," Quint said. Homebuyers don't just want a large kitchen; they're looking for efficiency and a space that brings the family together. This means they're asking for bigger island spaces, walk-in pantries to store food and appliances, and even special-use storage for wine and spices. NAHB data shows that a central kitchen island is a top desired feature among buyers. In some luxury homes, Quint said buyers are even requesting two islands to accommodate cooking, dining, and entertaining needs. 2. Porches and patios are making a comeback. Outdoor living areas have become more important than ever, especially as homes get smaller and offer fewer gathering spaces. Survey data from the NAHB shows that 86% of respondents said they want a patio, and 81% said they'd like a back porch — a sign that porches are making a comeback. The numbers tell the story. In 2008, just 47% of newly built single-family homes had patios; by 2023, that figure had climbed to 64%. Likewise, the share of homes with porches rose from 60% to 68% over the same period. "Buyers want a patio. They want a front porch," Quint added. "They want exterior lighting to enhance the outdoor appeal of their home, landscaping, and a deck. If the home's shrinking, at least that space allows them to have more living space." 3. The modern McMansion can't beat a classic home. For a while, it felt like you couldn't drive through a neighborhood without seeing rows of boxy, modern homes. You know the look — white or gray stone exteriors, oversized rectangular windows, and often a flat roof. They may be trendy, but those minimalist builds may not be dominating the market after all. Today's buyers are leaning more toward traditionally designed homes inspired by classic styles like the kind of house you'd see on "Full House." While there's no clear majority when it comes to architectural preference, NAHB's survey found that 34% of respondents prefer traditional homes. Meanwhile, 26% favor contemporary designs, 17% lean toward bold modern styles, and just 12% prefer transitional homes, which blend modern aesthetics with traditional elements. 4. Homebuyers are tech-obsessed. From smartphones to smart cars, Americans crave cutting-edge tech, so of course, we want it in our homes, too. The NAHB found that the tech features homebuyers want most in their homes include wireless security systems, security cameras, video doorbells, smart thermostats that let them automate their home's temperature, and multi-zone HVAC systems so they can control the temperature in each room separately. "The reason these five features top the list is because homeowners are relying on technology to do two things: increase the safety of their home and improve temperature control," Quint said. "They want technology that works for them."
USA Today
21 minutes ago
- USA Today
Few thought airstrikes could ‘obliterate' Iran's nuclear program. Then Trump said they did.
Experts long argued that airstrikes alone would not be capable of permanently ending Iran's nuclear program absent negotiations. WASHINGTON — A highly politicized debate is unfolding over the impact of June 21 U.S. airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, raising questions over the attack's goal and projected impact. President Donald Trump quickly claimed total victory in the strikes' wake, claiming that Iran's 'key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.' Subsequent scrutiny of that claim amid early assessments from intelligence agencies has led Trump and his allies to double down on and even expand on his declarations of success. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed to CNN that the strikes 'obliterated Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons.' Iran itself has acknowledged the impact of the U.S. and Israeli attacks. But in the years since Washington's withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran, experts and analysts have emphasized that airstrikes alone would merely delay Iran's nuclear ambitions rather than permanently derail them. Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Illinois, reiterated that long-held understanding in a June 26 interview. 'The targets are hard targets, deep targets, mobile targets. So it was never meant to eliminate the program,' Quigley told USA TODAY. 'It was never meant to do anything but slow the program.' The congressman, who is on the House's intelligence committee and has regularly received briefings on Iran, added, 'We've always been told . . . the only way to end this (nuclear) program is with a lot of troops on the ground for a long time. A war.' The former head of the National Nuclear Security Agency's nonproliferation programs, Corey Hinderstein, struck a similar tone. 'The conventional wisdom that you can't destroy the Iranian (nuclear) program through air attack alone has actually held,' said Hinderstein, now a vice president at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 'While some are saying that the airstrikes were tactically and strategically successful, I think that the jury is still out on that, and we don't actually have the information that we need to believe that this program is gone.' Third nuclear site, hidden centrifuges, missing uranium Iran may have another nuclear site that, if equipped with enrichment centrifuges and conversion equipment, could continue the process of preparing uranium for use in a nuclear bomb, if the regime wishes to pursue one. Shortly before Israel began its air campaign against Iran, the regime told the International Atomic Energy Agency that it had a third nuclear enrichment site but did not reveal details. Analysts believe an undisclosed underground facility at Pickaxe Mountain near the Natanz nuclear plant may be even deeper under the surface than the Fordow enrichment plant that was severely damaged in the U.S. strikes. The Pickaxe Mountain facility was first publicly revealed in 2023 by experts who spoke with the Associated Press. And it's unclear how much of Tehran's approximately 880 pounds of highly enriched uranium was destroyed or buried during the strikes — satellite images show cargo trucks parked outside the Fordow enrichment plant in the days before the U.S. attack. U.S. lawmakers briefed June 26 and June 27 on intelligence assessments of the strikes acknowledged the missing uranium and called for a full accounting of the material, according to CNN. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, told the news agency that the question of the uranium's whereabouts underscores the importance of Iran negotiating 'directly with us, so the (IAEA) can account for every ounce of enriched uranium that's there.' More: Where is Iran's enriched uranium? Questions loom after Trump claims victory. But whether Iran wants to negotiate is another question. Despite the country's obligations as a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Iran's Guardian Council approved a law June 25 halting the country's cooperation with the IAEA and its inspections of Tehran's nuclear sites 'until the safety and security of our nuclear activities can be guaranteed,' the country's foreign minister said on social media. Contributing: Tom Vanden Brook and Cybele Mayes-Osterman, USA TODAY Davis Winkie's role covering nuclear threats and national security at USA TODAY is supported by a partnership with Outrider Foundation and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
USA Today
21 minutes ago
- USA Today
Stocks usually rise by 10% a year. Those days may be over.
Americans are wise to invest in the stock market, we are told, because stocks have yielded historical gains of about 10% a year. But not, perhaps, this year. Many analysts predict that the S&P 500 index will end 2025 essentially flat, or with only meager gains. In one June 25 roundup, Yahoo Finance charts several strategists with year-end projections that put the benchmark S&P index between 5,600 and 6,100. Those figures fall below, or only slightly above, where the S&P started the year, around 5,900. Some forecasts range higher, and forecasters have been growing more bullish about American stocks in 2025. But anyone who predicts double-digit returns this year risks being branded an outlier. If big investment firms expect the stock market to finish 2025 more or less where it started, how should armchair investors react? Is the investment landscape shifting beneath our feet? First, let's explore the reasoning behind those gloomy forecasts. Stocks opened high in 2025. Maybe too high. The stock market opened strong in 2025. The broad S&P index sat near its all-time high, following two years of conspicuous growth. That growth spurt, alone, was enough to seed caution in forecasters. A surging S&P means stock prices are relatively high. Some stocks are overpriced. Bargains are fewer. The index may not have that much room to grow. 'I believe that, given the strong returns over the past two years, some lower returns are expected,' said Eric Teal, chief investment officer at Comerica Bank. Comerica's own projections call for the S&P 500 to end the year at 6,400, a number toward the high end of forecasts. Wall Street prognosticators have been bearish on stocks in 2025 because of one overarching theme: uncertainty. 'It's all the volatile actors in our current economy,' said Catherine Valega, a certified financial planner near Boston. 'It's like you don't know from one day to the next: Do we have tariffs? Do we not have tariffs?' It's hard to predict how President Trump's import taxes will affect prices, and thus, inflation. The trade war, coupled with Trump's immigration crackdown, could slow economic growth. Recession fears are heightened. The Federal Reserve may or may not ease interest rates in response. 'We're assuming that we sidestep a recession, that interest rate cuts are on the horizon, but not immediate,' Teal said, reflecting a common view on Wall Street. 'And so, there is an element of cautious optimism that I think is in the market, but a high degree of uncertainty and macro policy unknowns that will keep markets contained.' Stock forecasters don't want to be wrong There's another big reason, analysts say, why year-end forecasts for the S&P 500 are trending low: Forecasters tend to err on the conservative side. 'The analysts have historically kind of underestimated S&P 500 returns,' said Kristy Akullian, head of iShares investment strategy, Americas, at BlackRock. 'People don't want to stick their necks out with a bold prediction and be wrong.' That impulse, she said, also explains why stock forecasts tend to bunch together. No one wants to stand out. 'It's hard being an outlier,' said David Meier, a senior analyst at Motley Fool. Meier cites yet another reason why stock forecasters tend to aim low: 'Being negative, let's call it bearish, tends to get more clicks,' he said. Readers gravitate to distressing news about stocks. So, stocks are having an off year. What can I do? Now, let's move on to the practical question: If the S&P 500 might not gain much ground in 2025, what should ordinary investors do about it? The easy answer, of course, is to do nothing. Stock market projections for next month, or next year, shouldn't matter much to an investor who is in for the long haul, advisers say. And that advice applies to just about everyone: If you aren't in for the long haul, experts advise, stocks might not be for you. 'If you need funds soon, don't have it invested,' said Randy Bruns, a certified financial planner in Naperville, Illinois. 'If you don't need the funds for 15 years, stop looking at the volatility.' Market downturns tend to be brief. Recessions are shorter than they seem. Anyone who is saving for retirement, or for other long-term goals, can generally ride them out. 'If you have the luxury of being a long-term investor, be one,' Akullian said. There is, however, a longer and more nuanced answer to the question of how to respond to those conservative projections for stocks in 2025. A gloomy forecast for 2025 -- and for 2035 It involves this complicating factor: Stock market forecasts are also surprisingly conservative for 2035. Vanguard, the investment firm, predicts the U.S. stock market as a whole will rise by an underwhelming 3.8% to 5.8% a year over the next 10 years. 'Growth' stocks, the likes of Nvidia and Amazon, are projected to rise by only 2.5% to 4.5%: not much faster than inflation. Those forecasts are based on the idea that many U.S. stocks are overpriced, in essence, and trading above their real value. In Vanguard's analysis, everyday investors who want the gaudy returns they have come to expect from American growth stocks would do well to look elsewhere: Global stocks. Small-cap American stocks, in companies with a lower market value. 'Value' stocks, trading below their intrinsic worth. 'I would say it's time to have a more balanced allocation,' said Teal of Comerica. Bruns, the financial planner, suggests average investors should 'diversify across all the broad asset classes that should comprise a textbook portfolio.' That doesn't mean you should sell all of your Alphabet stocks, experts say. But the time might be right to scrutinize your portfolio. Does it include foreign stocks? Small-cap stocks? Bonds? If not, then you might consider rebalancing your portfolio to make it more diverse. 'The easiest way to do that, if you are a 401(k) contributor, is to change your future allocations,' Valega said. That way, you don't have to tinker with your current investments. Not sure how to rebalance? 'Reach out to your adviser,' Valega said. 'That's what we're there for.'
