Latest news with #executiveorders
Reuters
2 days ago
- Business
- Reuters
Deregulation Orders Under the Second Trump Administration Practical Law The Journal
The second Trump administration has issued a number of broadly applicable executive orders and releases on deregulation designed to reduce rulemaking, eliminate certain existing rules, and exert broad presidential control over most federal regulatory agencies. These orders and releases have the potential to disrupt or even upend the modern US federal regulatory system, as well as many regulatory areas, including capital markets and finance, health care, the environment, energy, trade and investment, antitrust, consumer protection, and labor and employment. Market participants in regulated industries and their counsel must stay informed as these orders are implemented and their impact trickles down through various federal regulators. This article provides an overview of these developments and their implications for federal regulation. (For a collection of resources and commentary to help counsel manage developments arising during the second term of the Trump administration, see Trump Administration Toolkit on Practical Law; for the complete version of this resource, which includes information on Executive Order 14294 concerning 'overcriminalization' in federal regulations, see Deregulation Orders Under Second Trump Administration on Practical Law.) Freeze on New Rules Pending Administration Review On January 20, 2025, the White House issued a release (freeze order) referred to as a presidential action, ordering 'all executive departments and agencies' to: Refrain from proposing or issuing any rule in any manner, including by sending a rule to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR), until a department or agency head appointed or designated by the president reviews and approves the rule. The department or agency head may delegate this power of review and approval to any other person appointed or designated by the president, consistent with applicable law. Immediately withdraw any rules that have been sent to the OFR but not published in the Federal Register, so that they can be reviewed and approved. Consider: postponing for 60 days from the date of the freeze order the effective date for any rules that have been published in the Federal Register, or any rules that have been issued but have not taken effect, for the purpose of reviewing any questions of fact, law, and policy that the rules may raise; opening a comment period during this 60-day period to allow interested parties to provide comments about issues of fact, law, and policy raised by the rules postponed under the freeze order; re-evaluating 'pending petitions' involving such rules; and 'further delaying, or publishing for notice and comment, proposed rules further delaying' such rules beyond the 60-day period, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, and where necessary to continue to review these questions of fact, law, and policy. Consult with the director or acting director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB director) for rules that raise substantial questions of fact, law, or policy. Comply in all circumstances with any applicable executive orders concerning regulatory management. If rules do not raise substantial questions of fact, law, or policy during the 60-day postponement, no further action needs to be taken. Under the freeze order, the OMB director may exempt any rule deemed necessary to address emergency situations or other urgent circumstances, including rules subject to statutory or judicial deadlines that require prompt action. The term 'rule' in the freeze order follows the definition set out in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. § 551(4)). The freeze also applies to any: Regulatory action, as defined in Section 3(e) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review (Sept. 30, 1993), as amended. Guidance document, as defined in Section 2(b) of Executive Order 13891, Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents (Oct. 9, 2019), when that order was in effect. The freeze order expressly applies to any substantive action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register) that 'promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking,' as well as to 'any agency statement of general applicability and future effect that sets forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue or an interpretation of a statutory or regulatory issue.' The freeze order directs that any communications regarding any matters relating to this review be addressed to the OMB director. Offsetting New Regulations On January 31, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (Deregulation EO), which requires: Federal agencies that promulgate a new rule, regulation, or guidance to identify at least ten existing rules, regulations, or guidance documents to be repealed. Any new incremental costs associated with new regulations, to the extent permitted by law, to be offset by eliminating existing costs associated with at least ten prior regulations. The OMB director to identify and eliminate regulations, standardize cost measurements, and ensure compliance with the APA. The OMB director to provide the heads of agencies guidance on implementing this executive order, which includes, but is not limited to: processes for standardizing the measurement and estimation of regulatory costs; standards for determining what qualifies as new and offsetting regulations; standards for determining the costs of existing regulations that are considered for elimination; processes for accounting for costs in different fiscal years; methods to oversee the issuance of rules with costs offset by savings at different times or different agencies; and emergencies and other circumstances that might justify individual waivers of the requirements of this section. The total incremental cost of all new regulations, including repealed regulations, in fiscal year 2025 to be significantly less than zero. The head of each agency to: identify the offsetting regulations on an aggregated basis for regulations that increase incremental cost (as described in the Deregulation EO); and provide the agency's best approximation of the total costs or savings associated with each new regulation or repealed regulation. The OMB director to identify for each agency the total amount of additional incremental costs that will be allowed for that agency in issuing new regulations and repealing regulations during each fiscal year after fiscal year 2025. Expanded Oversight of Federal Agencies On February 18, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14215, Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies (Oversight EO), which expands White House oversight of federal regulatory agencies, including independent agencies (as defined in 44 U.S.C. § 3502(5)) like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (for more information, see Federal Independent Agencies in the June 2025 issue of Practical Law The Journal). Under the Oversight EO: All executive departments and agencies, including independent regulatory agencies, must submit for review all proposed and final significant regulatory actions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President before publication in the Federal Register. Independent regulatory agencies must consult with the White House on their priorities and strategic plans, and the White House will set their performance standards. The attorney general, subject to the president's supervision and control, will provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. The Oversight EO notes that it: Does not apply to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve Board) or to the Federal Open Market Committee in its conduct of monetary policy. Applies to the Federal Reserve Board in relation only to its supervision and regulation of financial institutions. The Oversight EO requires the OMB director to: Provide guidance on implementation of the Oversight EO to the heads of executive departments and agencies submitting new regulatory actions for review under the Oversight EO. Agency submissions by independent regulatory agencies may begin within the earlier of 60 days from the date of the Oversight EO or completion of the implementation guidance. Establish performance standards and management objectives for independent agency heads, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, and report periodically to the president on their performance and efficiency in attaining these standards and objectives. Review on an ongoing basis the independent regulatory agencies' obligations for consistency with the president's policies and priorities. Consult on an ongoing basis with independent regulatory agency chairs and adjust the agencies' apportionments by activity, function, project, or object, as necessary and appropriate, to advance the president's policies and priorities. The adjustments to apportionments may prohibit independent regulatory agencies from expending appropriations on particular activities, functions, projects, or objects, provided the restrictions are consistent with law. Additionally, each independent regulatory agency chair or head must: Regularly consult with and coordinate policies and priorities with the OMB director and the directors of the White House Domestic Policy Council and the White House National Economic Council. Establish a White House liaison position in each agency. Submit an agency strategic plan developed under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993)) to the OMB director for clearance before finalization. The fact sheet accompanying the Oversight EO states that Article II of the US Constitution vests all executive power in the president, 'meaning that all executive branch officials and employees are subject to his supervision.' The Oversight EO asserts that previously the independent agencies 'have exercised enormous power over the American people without Presidential oversight.' Rescission or Modification of 'Unlawful Regulations' On February 19, 2025, the Trump administration issued Executive Order 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's 'Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative (DOGE EO), which: Sets out a process for identifying, reviewing, and rescinding or modifying 'unlawful regulations.' Provides directives to agency heads regarding revised priorities for handling new and ongoing enforcement actions. 'Unlawful Regulations' and Regulations That 'Undermine the National Interest' The DOGE EO instructs agency heads, in coordination with their DOGE team leads (as described in Executive Order 14158, Establishing and Implementing the President's 'Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative (Jan. 20, 2025)) and the OMB director, to initiate a process to review all regulations subject to their sole or joint jurisdiction for consistency with law and administration policy. Within 60 days of the date of the DOGE EO, agency heads, in consultation with the attorney general as appropriate, are instructed to identify regulations that: Are 'unconstitutional' or 'raise serious constitutional difficulties,' such as those 'exceeding the scope of the power vested in the Federal Government by the Constitution.' Are based on: 'unlawful delegations of legislative power'; or 'anything other than the best reading of the underlying statutory authority or prohibition.' Implicate matters of social, political, or economic significance 'that are not authorized by clear statutory authority.' Impose: 'significant costs upon private parties that are not outweighed by public benefits'; or 'undue burdens' on small business and impede private enterprise and entrepreneurship. '[H]arm the national interest by significantly and unjustifiably impeding' technological innovation, infrastructure development, disaster response, inflation reduction, research and development, economic development, energy production, land use, and foreign policy objectives. In conducting this review, agency heads are instructed to: Prioritize review of those rules that 'satisfy the definition of 'significant regulatory action'' in Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), as amended, issued September 30, 1993. Provide a list of all regulations, classified in accordance with the DOGE EO guidelines, to the administrator of OIRA within OMB within 60 days of the date of the DOGE EO. Agencies are instructed to follow the processes set out in Executive Order 12866 for submitting regulations for review by OIRA. The administrator of OIRA is then instructed to consult with agency heads to develop a 'Unified Regulatory Agenda that seeks to rescind or modify these regulations, as appropriate.' Agency heads are further instructed to consult with their DOGE team leads and the administrator of OIRA on potential new regulations as soon as practicable. In evaluating any potential new regulations, agency heads, DOGE team leads, and the administrator of OIRA are instructed to consider, in addition to the factors set out in Executive Order 12866, the factors set out in the DOGE EO. Revised Enforcement Priorities The DOGE EO establishes revised priorities for handling new and ongoing enforcement actions and instructs agency heads to: '[P]reserve their limited enforcement resources by generally de-prioritizing actions to enforce regulations that are based on anything other than the best reading of a statute and de-prioritizing actions to enforce regulations that go beyond the powers vested in the Federal Government by the Constitution,' subject to their obligation to discharge their legal obligations, protect public safety, and advance the national interest. Determine whether ongoing enforcement of any regulations identified in their regulatory review is compliant with law and administration policy. Agency heads, in consultation with the OMB director, are instructed to 'direct the termination of all such enforcement proceedings that do not comply with the Constitution, laws, or Administration policy,' on a case-by-case basis and 'as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.' The DOGE EO instructs the OMB director to issue implementation guidance, as appropriate, and provides the OMB with the authority to issue exemptions from application of the DOGE EO. The DOGE EO language, together with the process specified in the EO, introduces the potential for subjective decision-making and inconsistency into determinations on amendments or other action on existing rules that are well established, provide market utility, or had a sound basis for agency adoption. The DOGE EO does not apply to any: Action related to a military, national security, homeland security, foreign affairs, or immigration-related function of the US. Matter pertaining to the executive branch's management of its employees. The DOGE EO includes broad language without definition (for example, 'best reading') and grants wide discretion to agency heads and acting heads to identify for rescission or amendment regulations that they believe fit the criteria set out in the DOGE EO. The DOGE EO language, together with the process specified in the EO, introduces the potential for subjective decision-making and inconsistency into determinations on amendments or other action on existing rules that are well established, provide market utility, or had a sound basis for agency adoption. Repeal of 'Unlawful Regulations' On April 9, 2025, the Trump administration issued a presidential memorandum (PM) entitled Directing the Repeal of Unlawful Regulations, which directs federal regulatory agency heads to prioritize repeal of regulations that are 'unlawful' under ten notable US Supreme Court decisions in undertaking the review and repeal of regulations directed under the DOGE EO. The DOGE EO directs the 'heads of all executive departments and agencies' to identify certain categories of 'unlawful and potentially unlawful' regulations within 60 days of the date of the order and begin plans to repeal those regulations. The PM notes that in undertaking this process, agency heads are instructed to prioritize evaluating each existing regulation's 'lawfulness' under the following US Supreme Court decisions: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024). West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 597 U.S. 697 (2022). SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024). Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743 (2015). Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. 651 (2023). Ohio v. EPA, 603 U.S. 279 (2024). Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139 (2021). Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023). Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767 (2022). Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. 14 (2020). The White House also released a fact sheet with further explanation regarding the cited cases. The PM asserts that 'notice-and-comment proceedings are 'unnecessary' where repeal is required as a matter of law to ensure consistency with a ruling of the United States Supreme Court,' and that '[a]gencies thus have ample cause and the legal authority to immediately repeal unlawful regulations.' Notably, the PM specifies that, in effectuating repeal of 'facially unlawful' regulations, agency heads are directed to finalize rules without notice and comment, where doing so is consistent with the good cause exception under the APA. The PM asserts that this exception allows agencies to dispense with notice-and-comment rulemaking when that process would be 'impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.' The PM further asserts that 'notice-and-comment proceedings are 'unnecessary' where repeal is required as a matter of law to ensure consistency with a ruling of the United States Supreme Court,' and that '[a]gencies thus have ample cause and the legal authority to immediately repeal unlawful regulations.' The PM directs that: Immediately following the 60-day review period for identifying unlawful and potentially unlawful regulations under the DOGE EO, agencies take steps to effectuate the repeal of any regulation, or the portion of any regulation, that 'clearly exceeds the agency's statutory authority or is otherwise unlawful.' The repeal of each unlawful regulation is to be accompanied by a brief statement of the reasons that the APA's good cause exception applies to permit the agency to dispense with applicable notice-and-comment requirements. Within 30 days of the conclusion of the review period, agencies submit to OIRA a one-page summary of each regulation that was initially identified as falling within one of the categories specified in the DOGE EO but which has not been targeted for repeal, explaining the basis for the decision not to repeal that regulation. Practical Implications and Further Action Trump's EOs and PM raise questions about the administration's authority over independent agencies created by Congress and will likely be challenged in court on constitutional grounds. In the meantime, they are sure to have a chilling effect on the federal agency rulemaking and enforcement process, at least in the intermediate term. These orders can also be expected to significantly impact, and have already begun to impact, the activities of most major federal regulatory agencies, including: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The Consumer Product Safety Commission. The Department of Commerce. The EPA. The FCC. The FTC. The Food and Drug Administration. The SEC. Federal prudential bank regulators including: the Federal Reserve Board; the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC); and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The Trump orders are already making a notable impact on banking and crypto and digital asset regulation (for more information, see 2025 Trump Administration Transition Toolkit: The First 100 Days on Practical Law and SEC Regulation of Crypto and Digital Assets Under Trump 2.0 in the June 2025 issue of Practical Law The Journal). Trump's EOs and PM raise questions about the administration's authority over independent agencies created by Congress and will likely be challenged in court on constitutional grounds. In the meantime, they are sure to have a chilling effect on the federal agency rulemaking and enforcement process, at least in the intermediate term. Recent regulatory actions in response to the Trump deregulation orders and the PM include: Banking deregulatory activity. US prudential bank regulators, including the FDIC, the Federal Reserve Board, and the OCC, have undertaken or been directed to engage in significant deregulatory efforts. (For more information, see Trump Administration Toolkit on Practical Law.) OMB notice of request for information (RFI). On April 11, 2025, OMB issued an RFI soliciting 'ideas for deregulation from across the country.' OMB seeks comment from the public on regulations that are 'unnecessary, unlawful, unduly burdensome, or unsound.' Comments should address the background of the rule and the reasons for the proposed rescission, with particular attention to regulations that are inconsistent with statutory text or the Constitution, where costs exceed benefits, where the regulation is outdated or unnecessary, or where regulation is burdening US businesses in unforeseen ways. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) repeal release. On April 15, 2025, the Treasury issued a 'direct' final rule entitled Eliminating Unnecessary Regulations, in which the Treasury states that it is conducting a review of existing regulations with the goal of reducing regulatory burden by revoking or revising existing regulations that meet the criteria set out in the DOGE EO and the PM. The rule states that, 'In support of that objective, this direct final rule streamlines titles 12 and 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)' by removing regulations and portions of regulations that are 'no longer necessary, or have no current or future applicability and, therefore, no longer provide useful guidance.' The regulations or portions of regulations removed are: Federal Financing Bank Bills, 12 CFR Part 810; Book-Entry Procedure for Federal Financing Bank Securities, 12 CFR Part 811; TARP Standards for Compensation and Corporate Governance, 31 CFR Part 30; TARP Conflicts of Interest, 31 CFR 31.211 through 216; and Civil Penalty, 31 CFR 1010.820. CFTC actions. An April 8, 2025 keynote address by Acting CFTC Chair Caroline Pham noted the following actions that she has taken in furtherance of the Trump orders: realignment of the CFTC Division of Enforcement task forces to 'end regulation by enforcement and refocus on fighting fraud and helping victims'; issuance of an advisory on the CFTC's new policy regarding self-reporting, cooperation, and remediation and another advisory related to DOE referrals; and launch of an initiative aimed at expeditiously resolving a backlog of noncompliance matters that do not involve customer harm or market abuse. House Committee on Financial Services (HFSC) Letters On April 1, 2025, HFSC Chair French Hill and committee members issued a release on a series of letters sent to agencies requesting the rescission, modification, or re-proposal of specific Biden-Harris administration actions that 'reduce competition and innovation and must be rescinded or significantly modified.' According to the release, 'These rules and guidance lacked proper cost-benefit analysis, would have significant negative economic consequences, and frequently ran afoul of statutorily-mandated procedures intended to ensure well-formulated rulemaking.' The committee sent the following letters on specific rules: Interagency letter to Acting FDIC Chair Travis Hill, Acting Comptroller of the Currency Rodney Hood, and Federal Reserve Board Chair Jerome Powell. Letter to Acting FDIC Chair Hill. Letter to Acting Comptroller of the Currency Hood. Letter to Federal Reserve Board Chair Powell. Letter to Acting CFPB Director Russell Vought. Letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in his capacity as Financial Stability Oversight Council chair on subjecting nonbank financial companies to prudential supervision by the Federal Reserve Board through updates to the Analytic Framework and Nonbank Designation Guidance. Digital Assets and Financial Technology HFSC Chair Hill and Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology, and Artificial Intelligence Chair Bryan Steil and subcommittee members sent letters urging the federal banking agencies and the CFPB to withdraw several regulatory actions that they assert have restricted financial institutions' engagement in digital assets and hindered the growth of fintech companies: Interagency letter to Acting FDIC Chair Hill, Acting Comptroller of the Currency Hood, and Federal Reserve Board Chair Powell. Letter to Acting CFPB Director Vought. SEC Rules On March 31, 2025, the HFSC sent a letter to then-Acting SEC Chair Mark Uyeda, stating that the SEC had recently lost sight of its mission of protecting investors, maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitating capital formation. The committee encouraged the SEC to withdraw the following final and proposed rules: These SEC rules appear to be candidates for review and potential rescission under the DOGE EO.
New York Times
2 days ago
- Business
- New York Times
Trump Appeals Ruling Blocking Executive Order Against Perkins Coie
The Trump administration filed an appeal on Monday challenging its loss in federal court to Perkins Coie, in a signal that it intends to prolong its fight in trying to force some of the nation's top law firms to capitulate. Earlier this year, fearing President Trump, a number of prominent firms shocked some of their peers and clients by agreeing to take on hundreds of millions of dollars of free legal work on causes of shared concern with the White House in exchange for the right to continue operating as usual. But a handful of firms declined to strike a deal and were singled out by Mr. Trump for punishment through executive orders that exiled them from work with the federal government. Those firms, including Perkins Coie, sued in March. The courts have found Mr. Trump's actions unambiguously illegal, and have blocked the government from following the orders. The filing on Monday was the first indication so far that Mr. Trump has not been deterred. The appeal follows the fourth straight ruling against the Trump administration on Friday, when a judge struck down an order targeting the firm Susman Godfrey. The decision in that case struck many of the same notes that Judge Beryl Howell of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia did when she declared the order targeting Perkins Coie illegal on May 2. 'The courts have permanently blocked all four unlawful executive orders targeting law firms because those orders violate core constitutional freedoms,' a spokesman for Perkins Coie said in a statement about the Trump administration's appeal. 'We look forward to presenting our case to the D.C. Circuit and remain committed to ensuring that the unconstitutional executive order targeting our firm is never enforced.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
5 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
A Triumphant Supreme Court Term for Trump, Fueled by Emergency Rulings
The Supreme Court term that ended on Friday included an extraordinary run of victories for President Trump, culminating in a 6-to-3 ruling largely eliminating the main tool that his opponents have used to thwart his aggressive agenda. In that case and others, the justices used truncated procedures on their emergency docket to issue decisions that gave Mr. Trump some or all of what he had asked for in cases dealing with immigration, transgender troops and the independence of government agencies. The emergency rulings in Mr. Trump's favor were theoretically temporary and provisional. In practice, they allowed the president to pursue his policies indefinitely and sometimes irreversibly. In the first 20 weeks of Mr. Trump's second term, his administration filed 19 emergency applications asking the justices to pause lower court losses while lawsuits continued. That is the total number of such applications the Biden administration filed over four years, and far more than the eight applications filed over the 16 years of the George W. Bush and Barack Obama presidencies. The spike was a result of challenges to the blitz of executive orders issued by the administration since Mr. Trump took office. The upshot was a winning streak delivered by a court he remade in his first term, appointing three of the six conservative justices. Many of the emergency decisions were based on rushed and cursory briefs, and came after the court did without oral arguments. They were usually delivered in orders containing scant or no reasoning. Trump-related emergency docket cases since January, with those granted in favor of the administration highlighted. Source: SCOTUSblog Note: In Mr. Abrego Garcia's, the court largely left in place the lower court's order, directing the Trump administration to 'facilitate' his release. The New York Times In the term that ended Friday, the court produced half the number of decisions with a 6-3 split than it did last term. Last term 5-4 6-3 7-2 8-1 9-0 This term 5-4 6-3 7-2 8-1 9-0 Last term 5-4 6-3 7-2 8-1 9-0 This term 5-4 6-3 7-2 8-1 9-0 Nonunanimous nine-person decisions that were orally argued and signed Source: Calculated by Lee Epstein and Andrew D. Martin, Washington University in St. Louis; and Michael J. Nelson, Penn State from the Supreme Court Database The New York Times 150 100 50 Roberts court 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 150 100 50 Roberts court 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 Source: Calculated by Lee Epstein and Andrew D. Martin, Washington University in St. Louis; and Michael J. Nelson, Penn State from the Supreme Court Database The New York Times Justices nominated by Republicans Justices nominated by Democrats 100% Roberts Kavanaugh Barrett 80% Kagan Thomas Sotomayor 60% Alito Gorsuch Jackson 40% 20% Last term This term Last term This term Justices nominated by Republicans Justices nominated by Democrats 100% 100% Roberts Kavanaugh Barrett 80% 80% Kagan Thomas Sotomayor 60% 60% Alito Gorsuch Jackson 40% 40% 20% 20% Last term This term Last term This term Nonunanimous decisions that were orally argued and signed Source: Calculated by Lee Epstein and Andrew D. Martin, Washington University in St. Louis; and Michael J. Nelson, Penn State from the Supreme Court Database The New York Times Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
22-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump considers extending TikTok deadline. Is third time a charm?
Will the third time be the charm for TikTok's future? With another extension deadline in two weeks, the social media platform's future lies in the hands of President Donald Trump. In January, TikTok went dark for 12 hours in the United States when China-based ByteDance failed to divest the app's U.S. assets, as required by law. Since coming into office on Jan. 20, Trump issued two executive orders to extend the ban's deadline, hoping to acquire the short-form video app used by 170 million Americans. But so far, a deal has yet to be struck. The next deadline is June 19. A plan had been in the works that would spin off TikTok's American operation into a new firm owned and operated by U.S. investors, but was put on hold, according to Reuters, after China would not approve it following Trump's announcements of steep tariffs on its goods. During an NBC News interview in May, Trump said he would extend the deadline a third time if a deal isn't made by the June 19 deadline. 'I'd like to see it done,' Trump said during the interview. The president added that he has a 'little sweet spot' in his heart for TikTok, which he claims helped him win votes during the 2024 presidential election. 'It'll be protected. It'll be very strongly protected. But if it needs an extension, I would be willing to give it an extension.' The White House declined to comment about a potential TikTok sale. It is unclear. If ByteDance does not divest TikTok by Thursday, June 19, the platform could be banned in the United States again. However, Trump has said that if the sale isn't finalized in time, he will extend the deadline again. This, too, is unclear. Under federal legislation that put the TikTok ban in place, the president can implement a 90-day extension on the deadline to sell. But Trump didn't take this route in January or April. Instead, he signed executive orders delaying the ban by 75 days. If Trump wishes to sign another executive order ahead of the June 19 deadline, he can. While it's within Trump's discretion to sign executive orders to delay the ban, there may be a time when Congress sees it fit to pass a law ordering a firm deadline, John Acevedo, Emory University School of Law professor, told Spectrum News in April. But just because the executive orders are within Trump's authority doesn't mean everyone is happy with his decisions. 'The deadline for Trump to follow the law passed 135 days ago. It is shocking that a bipartisan-backed law, signed by the former president and upheld by the Supreme Court, is being treated like a mere suggestion by the White House,' said Stephen Kent, Consumer Choice Center media director, in a news release. Former President Joe Biden signed federal legislation in 2024 that gave ByteDance until Jan. 19, 2025 to divest TikTok or face a ban in the U.S. Some politicians see TikTok as a national security threat, expressing concern that ByteDance may be sharing U.S. user data with the Chinese government. ByteDance has denied these claims, which remain unsubstantiated. However, ByteDance did not divest in time. In January, TikTok went dark for a little more than 12 hours in the U.S. after the app was effectively banned. U.S. internet hosting services made TikTok unavailable to access, and app stores removed the app for download. During the short-lived shutdown, Trump promised internet hosting services and app stores that they could restore TikTok and not face legal penalties. Under the federal legislation, companies could be fined $5,000 per user they help access TikTok. For companies like Google and Apple, this could mean a $5,000 fine for each user who downloads or updates TikTok. Internet hosting services like Oracle didn't waste time rebooting the app, but it wasn't until Feb. 13 that TikTok became available again in the Apple App Store and Google Play Store. Greta Cross is a national trending reporter at USA TODAY. Story idea? Email her at gcross@ This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump to decide Tiktok's fate no later than June 19
Daily Mail
18-06-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
The shocking date of Biden's first use of the autopen exposed... and it's earlier than previously known
During an explosive Republican-led hearing on Joe Biden 's rapid decline over the course of his four-year presidency, shocking details emerged about the extensive use of an autopen by the former president. One of the witnesses called by the Senate Judiciary committee was Theo Wold, currently a Visiting Fellow for Law and Technology Policy at The Heritage Foundation, a Washington, DC - based conservative think tank. Wold is also a board member of the Oversight Project, an independent, nonprofit organization previously a part of Heritage. The Oversight Project's research discovered that the first time President Joe Biden used an autopen was five days into his presidency, Wold stated as part of his sworn testimony. "The autopen is a device that signs the president's signature to a document. The Oversight Project, of which I am a board member, has discovered that the Biden White House deployed an autopen to affix President Biden's signature to pardons, prison commutations, executive orders, and presidential proclamations,' Wold noted. "The Oversight Project's research has found that the Biden White House first deployed the autopen to affix President Biden's signature to a proclamation on day five of his administration and that there were at least three different autopen signatures in use throughout president Biden's tenure in the White House,' Wold continued. He added: 'In June 2022, the Biden White House began deploying the autopen to sign clemency warrants and executive orders. Autopen use skyrocketed from there. We found that of the 51 clemency warrants issued during the Biden presidency, over half, 32 in total, were signed with an autopen.' Another eyebrow-raising revelation Wold shared was that after a review of the president's public schedule, and publicly available media, the Oversight Project was not able to find evidence of Biden 'personally approving these actions, such as a statement.' Were legally binding documents signed without President Biden's knowledge or consent? The American people deserve to know whether unelected bureaucrats usurped presidential power via autopen. @ItsYourGov @RealTheoWold — Heritage Foundation (@Heritage) June 18, 2025 Wold additionally disclosed that many of the days the autopen was used were days that the President was in Washington, DC for at least part of the day. Wold was formerly the Acting-Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Policy at the Department of Justice and Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy during the first Trump Administration. Before that, he served as Deputy Chief Counsel to United States Senator Mike Lee on the Senate Judiciary Committee, before which he testified Wednesday. Echoing Wold's concerns about evidence of Biden personally approving the times his autopen was used, Senator Josh Hawley called up the former president to release documents. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) on former President Biden and the autopen: "If you want an answer to the question 'Did Joe Biden actually assent to the use of the autopen?'... There should be a record of it. This is a binary question...I call on President the documents." — CSPAN (@cspan) June 18, 2025 Hawley's fellow Missouri colleague Eric Schmitt doubled down on he claims that nameless and faceless staffers were in control during the course of the Biden Presidency. Schmitt brought a graphic with him to Wednesday's hearing which showcased blacked out silhouettes, underneath which '46th, Liberal Staffers, 2021-2025' was written. . @SenEricSchmitt / @Eric_Schmitt calls out faceless nameless staffers as being truly in control during the Biden Presidency in today's Senate Judiciary Hearing titled Unfit to Serve: How the Biden Cover-Up Endangered America and Undermined the Constitution. Here for @DailyMail! — Victoria Snitsar Churchill (@snits_churchy) June 18, 2025 Earlier in the hearing, Democrat Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) tried to flip the script on his Republican colleagues. In his opening statement, Durbin attempted to paint Donald Trump, 79, as the one who is not fully mentally competent, not his predecessor Joe Biden. To prove his point, Durbin brought up the recent incident of Trump saying the UK was the same thing as the EU. A clip of Trump announcing the signing of the US/UK trade deal with Prime Minister Keir Starmer at the G7 meeting in Canada earlier this week quickly went viral. 'Now, I'd like you to see a short video that includes some other examples of cognitive ability,' Durbin stated, prior to showing a video compilation of what he said were gaffes, not by Biden, but Trump. After the video, Durbin asked 'do any of these statements raise the question of cognitive ability?' Standing alongside Starmer, Trump said on Monday: 'We signed it and it's done', before mistakenly announcing the deal was with the European Union, rather than the UK. He added: 'It's a fair deal for both. It'll produce a lot of jobs, a lot of income.' And as Trump attempted to open a black folder with the signed agreement inside, several papers spilled out on to the floor, prompting Starmer to quickly bend down and intervene. 'Oops sorry about that,' the president said, before Starmer tried to brush off the gaffe by quipping: 'It's a very important document.' A majority of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee did not show up to take part in Wednesday's hearing. Senate Republicans are doubling down on the efforts of Republicans on the House Oversight Committee, which has called former top Biden White House aides to appear for transcribed interviews. A number of these former aides were subpoenaed last C ongress, and had their subpoenas blocked by the Biden White House. Joe Biden's former White House Physician Dr. Kevin O'Connor has been issued a formal subpoena to appear before the House oversight committee, after not agreeing to appear before the committee voluntarily. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman James Comer announced earlier in June that he was issuing a formal subpoena to Biden's former White House Physician, Dr. Kevin O'Connor. The move was the latest escalation as the top Republican-led committee ramped up its investigation into the 'cover-up' of former President Joe Biden's mental decline. Chairman Comer ordered O'Connor to appear for a deposition on June 27 before his committee. Commenting on the importance of his investigation, Comer told members of the media earlier in June that the 'American people deserve full transparency and the House Oversight Committee is conducting a thorough investigation to provide answers and accountability. The cover-up of President Biden's mental decline is one of the greatest scandals in our nation's history.' Comer's subpoena comes on the heels of President Donald Trump's recent announcement via executive order, demanding a federal investigation into former President Biden's staff. 'This conspiracy marks one of the most dangerous and concerning scandals in American history.' 'The American public was purposefully shielded from discovering who wielded the executive power, all while Biden's signature was deployed across thousands of documents to effect radical policy shifts,' Trump said in the order. Under Trump's order, all of the pardons, clemency grants, executive orders, presidential memoranda, and other presidential policy decisions issued by Biden will be investigated. Actions under review would include Biden's pardons for son Hunter and other family members and orders related to a variety of areas including education, immigration, health care, climate change and more. Trump has argued the use of the autopen invalidates Biden's orders. If his administration can get the courts to agree, it could undo thousands of actions taken by the former president. It's unclear which documents from the Biden administration were signed by the then-president and which may have been signed by an electronic pen. Biden hit back at Trump hours after the executive order was signed, accusing the president of seeking out distractions to avoid criticism over bad legislation making its way through Congress. 'Let me be clear,' he said. 'I made the decisions during my presidency. 'I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false. 'This is nothing more than a distraction by Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans,' Biden stated. Biden added at the time that Trump and his allies 'are working to push disastrous legislation that would cut essential programs like Medicaid and raise costs on American families, all to pay for tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy and big corporations.' During his time in office, Biden was pictured signing some orders while in office, including ones on the use of AI and on gun safety issues. Biden's allies have pushed back on reports his mental and physical health were on the decline during his tenure.
