Election

Following an announcement last month that the White House intends to deploy the Foreign Agents Registration Act (“FARA”) to investigate persons with foreign ties that “foment political violence,” the FARA Unit of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) quietly (and maybe inadvertently) published and then unpublished 17 new advisory opinions regarding…

Continue Reading DOJ Posts (then Takes Down) Seventeen New Advisory Opinions Regarding the Foreign Agents Registration Act

On September 16, 2025, Judge Trevor McFadden of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Dr. Ralph de la Torre’s effort to bar criminal or civil enforcement of the Senate’s resolutions holding him in civil and criminal contempt of Congress.  In bringing his pre-enforcement challenge, Dr. de la Torre alleged that any effort to pursue civil or criminal sanctions in connection with the resolutions would entail further “punishment” for his having invoked his Fifth Amendment rights in refusing to testify before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (“HELP”) Committee regarding the bankruptcy of Steward Health Care.  Judge McFadden’s sweeping rejection of this challenge underscores the limited ability of congressional subpoena targets to seek relief in court and highlights the formidable protection the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause provides to congressional investigators.Continue Reading Federal Court Dismisses Pre-Enforcement Challenge to HELP Committee Subpoena, Underscoring Limited Options for Congressional Subpoena Targets

Federal contractors, grantees, borrowers, and others receiving federal funds face a variety of restrictions on their use of those funds for political purposes, including for lobbying. A new presidential memorandum issued last week by President Trump highlights one of those restrictions, 31 U.S.C. § 1352, also known as the…

Continue Reading Administration Targets Lobbying by Federal Grantees with New Presidential Memorandum

Shareholder proposals on political issues—particularly lobbying spending disclosure and campaign finance issues—have been a common part of the proxy landscape for some time now. This proxy season, proposals seeking greater transparency around corporate political spending had surprising success compared to the past. Especially given this development, companies should be aware…

Continue Reading Corporate Political Disclosure Shareholder Proposals Draw Surprising Support

Employees in the investor relations departments of hedge fund managers and private equity firms typically do not consider themselves “lobbyists.” But state and local regulators sometimes have a different view. This article, published in the Hedge Fund Law Report, explains the types of investor relations activities that could…

Continue Reading When Investor Relations Become Procurement Lobbying

With a game-changing advisory opinion (AO 2024-01), 2024 started out with a bang at the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”). Other consequential opinions, enforcement actions, and regulations continued in the following months, challenging the notion that the divided Commission cannot find consensus.

In this alert, we highlight the FEC’s major…

Continue Reading FEC Year in Review 2024

The results of the 2024 U.S. election are expected to have significant implications for AI legislation and regulation at both the federal and state level. 

Like the first Trump Administration, the second Trump Administration is likely to prioritize AI innovation, R&D, national security uses of AI, and U.S. private sector investment and leadership in AI.  Although recent AI model testing and reporting requirements established by the Biden Administration may be halted or revoked, efforts to promote private-sector innovation and competition with China are expected to continue.  And while antitrust enforcement involving large technology companies may continue in the Trump Administration, more prescriptive AI rulemaking efforts such as those launched by the current leadership of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) are likely to be curtailed substantially.

In the House and Senate, Republican majorities are likely to adopt priorities similar to those of the Trump Administration, with a continued focus on AI-generated deepfakes and prohibitions on the use of AI for government surveillance and content moderation. 

At the state level, legislatures in California, Texas, Colorado, Connecticut, and others likely will advance AI legislation on issues ranging from algorithmic discrimination to digital replicas and generative AI watermarking. 

This post covers the effects of the recent U.S. election on these areas and what to expect as we enter 2025.  (Click here for our summary of the 2024 election implications on AI-related industrial policy and competition with China.)

The White House

As stated in the Republican Party’s 2024 platform and by the president-elect on the campaign trail, the incoming Trump Administration plans to revoke President Biden’s October 2023 Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence (“2023 AI EO”).  The incoming administration also is expected to halt ongoing agency rulemakings related to AI, including a Department of Commerce rulemaking to implement the 2023 AI EO’s dual-use foundation model reporting and red-team testing requirements.  President-elect Trump’s intention to re-nominate Russell Vought as Director of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) suggests that a light-touch approach to AI regulation may be taken across all federal agencies.  As OMB Director in the prior Trump Administration, Vought issued a memo directing federal agencies to “avoid regulatory or non-regulatory actions that needlessly hamper AI innovation and growth.”Continue Reading U.S. AI Policy Expectations in the Trump Administration, GOP Congress, and the States

At the end of his prior administration, President Trump tried to overhaul the federal workforce by making it easier to remove a substantial number of federal employees. With his incoming administration, President-elect Trump may try to do so again. Though Presidents have broad authority over federal employees, these renewed efforts may face new legal challenges because of a recent Biden Administration rule specifically intended to prevent a rollback of civil service protections.  Importantly, the rule itself recognizes federal employees’ long-standing reliance interests in their jobs that could make rescinding the new rule particularly difficult.

To go back to the end of the previous Trump Administration, on October 21, 2020, President Trump issued an “Executive Order on Creating Schedule F in the Excepted Service.”  That order created a new Schedule F for “[p]ositions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character not normally subject to change as a result of Presidential transition.”  Simply put, it would have allowed the President to treat some career civil servants as political appointees and exempt them from Civil Service Rules and Regulations, including protections from removal, thereby giving the President expanded authority to remove federal employees at will.

Though President Trump’s order never went into effect, the Biden Administration nonetheless finalized a rule on April 4, 2024, that clearly responded to it.  That rule, titled “Upholding Civil Service Protections and Merit System Principles,” “clarifies and reinforces longstanding civil service protections and merit system principles[.]”  Interestingly, the rule’s preamble directly addresses a situation where “a future Administration,” such as the incoming Trump Administration, “seeks to rescind this rule and replace it with [Schedule F].”  The preamble goes on to read as a roadmap of the significant hurdles rollback efforts would face.  With that framing in mind, the rule explains that a future Administration, in complying with the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), would need to:Continue Reading Civil Service Protections in the Trump Administration

November 25, 2024, Covington Alert

The inauguration of President Trump on January 20 is expected to bring important changes to U.S. trade policy that are likely to affect companies that supply international customers, or are reliant on global supply chains. As discussed in our prior client alert, international trade is expected to be a key focus of President Trump, who has repeatedly expressed a preference for using tariffs as a policy tool to create perceived leverage for dealmaking with international partners on both economic and non-economic issues. Recent announcements by the Trump transition team regarding cabinet and staff appointments reinforce the view that trade policy under a second Trump administration could involve significant unilateral U.S. action, including the imposition of substantial new tariffs and a hawkish stance toward China. These new tariffs could be implemented swiftly after Trump takes office, or could alternatively be subject to more extensive investigative and reporting procedures, depending on the legal authority invoked. New tariff measures, as well as other trade actions Trump has proposed, could lead to retaliatory responses by U.S. trading partners, including key U.S. allies. This alert explores how trade policy may be implemented by a second Trump administration, and considers how companies may prepare for and mitigate the risks associated with these developments.

Cabinet Nominations and Other Economic Appointees

In recent weeks, Trump has announced several cabinet and staff appointments for his second administration, including individuals responsible for implementing trade policy. Key among them is Howard Lutnick, chairman and CEO of a Wall Street investment firm and co-chair of Trump’s transition team, whom Trump has selected to be Secretary of Commerce. Echoing Trump’s own views, Lutnick has been a strong advocate for using tariffs as an industrial policy tool and bargaining chip to rebalance U.S. trade, though he has suggested tariff measures under a second Trump administration may be more “targeted” than the universal 10 to 20 percent tariffs proposed by Trump during his campaign. In announcing Lutnick’s forthcoming nomination, Trump noted Lutnick would lead the administration’s “Tariff and Trade agenda,” and that he would have direct responsibility over the Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”). As USTR is a separate agency established by Congress within the Executive Office of the President to lead on trade issues, it is uncertain if the announcement was referring to informal oversight over USTR or a formal restructuring of the agency. Should Trump seek to consolidate USTR within or under the Commerce Department, he may face opposition from Congress, whose approval would be required for such a reorganization. Continue Reading Trade Policy Under a Second Trump Administration and Implications for Business

The conventional wisdom in recent years has been that the political parties have been moving to their respective left and right extremes. At least for the Republicans, this is wrong. Republicans have been moving left – to the center – enabling them to steal some formerly Democratic voters.

It’s true that Republicans have become more focused on illegal immigration and border security. They used transgender issues in the election, as well as crime. They plan to cut taxes and expand U.S. energy production. This is all standard Republican fare. Superficially, it might be easy to think Republicans have been tacking right – and President Trump’s sometimes harsh language could easily reinforce that impression.

But when it comes to tariffs, entitlement spending, debt/deficits, organized labor, antitrust, and even abortion, Republicans are moving left, led by President Trump.  In fact, it’s difficult to think of a single issue on which the GOP has moved right in the last eight years.

Contrary to Republicans’ long-standing opposition to tariffs, President Trump embraces tariffs as a vital tool to fix the loss of manufacturing and the trade deficit. His vow to enact a 10 percent across-the-board tariff and a 60 percent tariff on Chinese imports is more than campaign bluster. He doesn’t need congressional approval to make these moves, and he’s likely to follow through on his vow. He might begin by announcing tariffs will commence on a date-certain and then use the time to negotiate new trade deals. But he might also let the tariffs take effect and then commence a bilateral negotiation.Continue Reading Republicans Moving to the Middle