On 4 June 2025, the European Commission published a decision recognising 13 critical raw material projects located in non-EU countries as “Strategic Projects” under the Critical Raw Materials Act (“CRMA”, Regulation (EU) 2024/1252). This first set of Strategic Projects based outside the EU adds to the 47 Strategic Projects based within the EU announced earlier this year. These Strategic Projects are recognized as significantly contributing to the security of the EU’s supply of strategic raw materials, and will benefit from preferential access to finance and other advantages. For more information on the CRMA and the framework for Strategic Projects, see our previous blog post here.Continue Reading EU Designates 13 Non-EU Critical Raw Materials Projects as Strategic
GAO: DCAA Built a Valuable Bench of Independent Public Accountants, Now What?
The Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) released a report on the Defense Contract Audit Agency’s (“DCAA”) past and future use of private-sector, independent public accountants to augment its auditor workforce. The initiative—approved under Section 803 of the Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”)—began in fiscal year 2020 and
Continue Reading GAO: DCAA Built a Valuable Bench of Independent Public Accountants, Now What?FCC Seeks Comment on Opening Up Spectrum for Satellite Broadband
At an Open Meeting last week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) unanimously adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) that proposes to permit more intensive and efficient use of the 12.7 GHz and 42 GHz bands by satellite communications, either as an alternative or complement to terrestrial wireless. Chairman Carr emphasized that, if adopted, the Proposed Rule would make 20,000 megahertz of spectrum available for satellite-based services, which Chairman Carr characterized as a necessary step for U.S. leadership in spectrum and a clear sign to China. Carr stated that the additional spectrum, in conjunction with other actions the FCC is taking across multiple spectrum bands, would protect American technological leadership.
The FNPRM builds upon the FCC’s recent requests for comments on providing increased access to spectrum for terrestrial wireless services. This FNPRM expands upon that record to contemplate authorizing satellite communications in the 12.7 GHz and 42 GHz bands and seeks comment on the feasibility of allowing satellite communications in those bands in both the Earth-to-space and space-to-Earth directions.
The 12.7 GHz band
The 12.7 GHz band is currently allocated for satellite and terrestrial wireless uses, with limited Federal operations in the band. The 12.75-13.25 GHz portion of the band is also allocated for NASA to operate its Deep Space Network. The FCC’s U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations, which outlines how radio spectrum is allocated for use by various entities including Federal government and private sector entities, precludes fixed-satellite service (FSS) systems in geostationary orbit from using the 12.75-13.25 GHz band for domestic services. The FNPRM asks whether it is still necessary to prohibit FSS deployment in the 12.7 GHz band, or if there are other ways to protect incumbent operations without prohibiting domestic satellite operations.
This FNPRM follows the FCC’s recent efforts to more effectively utilize the 12.7 GHz band. In October 2022, the FCC released the 12.7 GHz Notice of Inquiry to solicit input on how the FCC could encourage more efficient use of the 12.7 GHz band and whether it should authorize mobile broadband in the band. In May 2023, the FCC moved forward with expanding the use of the 12.7 GHz band and issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to repurpose some of the 12.7 GHz band for mobile terrestrial broadband, or other uses.
The FNPRM adopted last week seeks comment on ways to minimize or eliminate existing regulatory burdens that prevent use of the 12.7 GHz band by geostationary orbit (GSO) and non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) satellite systems. GSO operations in the 12.7 GHz band are currently only authorized for communications between domestic and international points.Continue Reading FCC Seeks Comment on Opening Up Spectrum for Satellite Broadband
FCC Looks to Identify Telecom Investments by Foreign Adversaries
Today, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) released the final text of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) aimed at identifying FCC regulated entities that are controlled by a “foreign adversary.”
This development, along with a separate action recently taken by the FCC to adopt new rules that prohibit the use
Continue Reading FCC Looks to Identify Telecom Investments by Foreign AdversariesEP Approves Draft FDI Regulation Giving Extensive Powers to EC
Introduction
On Thursday 8 May 2025, the EU took another important step towards revamping its framework to screen foreign investment, with the European Parliament adopting an amended version of the bill (the “EP Bill”, available here). That vote has now cleared the way for the next step in the legislative process: the tri-partite negotiations between the European Commission, the Council of the EU, and the European Parliament (aka “trilogue”) to arrive to a final text that will become law.
The EP Bill endorses the Commission proposal[1] that sought to bring more harmonisation/oversight over Member States, but also goes further and makes several ambitious additions to the Commission proposal in particular, the EP Bill would: (i) give new decision-making powers to the Commission in an area where such powers previously have squarely rested in the hands of the EU Member States, (ii) expand the list and scope of sectors in which foreign investments could undergo screening, and (iii) require reporting and screening of greenfield investments above a certain amount in many sectors.
This post explains these key proposed changes for non-EU investors and sets out how we see the prospects of these changes surviving the remainder of the legislative process.
What key changes has the Parliament made to the European Commission’s Proposal?
1. New decision-making powers for the Commission
By way of context, the existing EU foreign investment screening regulation (“Current FIR Regulation”) establishes a complex mechanism requiring a Member State authority screening a given foreign investment into its country to notify it to the Commission and the other Member States.[2] The screening Member State authority must then take “due consideration” of any comments from the Commission or other Member States, but it remains the ultimate decision maker.[3]Continue Reading EP Approves Draft FDI Regulation Giving Extensive Powers to EC
Department of Energy Rulemakings Show What’s in Store under Trump’s Deregulatory Initiative
On May 12, the Federal Register put on public inspection a group of 42 proposed and final rules from the Department of Energy. The rules cover a wide variety of topics, ranging from energy efficiency standards to biofuel production to the conditions attached to grants from the Department. Many of these rules are notable for the extreme brevity of their analysis. Taken together, these proposed and final rules offer one of our first windows into the way the new Trump administration intends to expedite the rulemaking process.
The Federal Register generally must put documents it intends to publish on public display a few days before publication. On May 12, the virtual public inspection window was mostly taken up with proposed and final rules from the Department of Energy. DoEoffered for display 29 proposed rules and 13 direct final rules. (The Register also displayed a fourteenth DoE direct final rule that the agency subsequently withdrew.)
The Administrative Procedure Act requires that notices of proposed rulemaking include “either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved.”[1] Courts have interpreted section 553 to require agencies to provide sufficient detail about their proposed rules for the public to comment intelligently on them. Similarly, final rules issued under the Administrative Procedure Act must contain “a concise general statement of their basis and purpose.”[2] Case law requires that statements of basis and purpose contain sufficient detail for courts to conduct “hard look” review under 5 U.S.C. 706’s arbitrariness standard, assessing whether agencies have adequate reasons for the regulations they adopt.Continue Reading Department of Energy Rulemakings Show What’s in Store under Trump’s Deregulatory Initiative
EU Consults on New Tariffs on €95 Billion of U.S. Imports
On 8 May 2025, the European Union launched a public consultation on potential countermeasures in response to U.S. automotive tariffs and the potential imposition of a 20% “reciprocal” tariff on EU-origin goods—covering around €379 billion of EU exports to the U.S. In particular, the EU is considering imposing tariffs on U.S. imports worth approximately €95 billion, covering a wide range of industrial and agricultural products. The Commission is also evaluating possible restrictions on EU exports to the U.S., principally steel scrap and certain chemical products, valued at €4.4 billion. If implemented, the export restrictions could take the form of export duties, quantitative restrictions such as quotas or licensing requirements, additional administrative charges, or a combination of these measures. No specific tariff rates have been proposed at this stage and the consultation is open until 10 June. Notably, the EU has not thus far targeted U.S. services as part of its retaliatory measures.
These countermeasures could be activated if ongoing EU-U.S. negotiations fail to deliver a mutually acceptable resolution, and the U.S. tariffs remain in place. While the U.S. currently imposes a 10% global reciprocal tariff on most imports, the negotiations follow a decision by President Trump to pause higher, country-specific tariff rates that were scheduled to come into effect on April 9 and would have increased the reciprocal tariff rate on U.S. imports from the EU to 20%. Those higher tariffs are paused for 90-days, or until 9 July 2025, absent an extension. EU exports of autos and auto parts to the U.S. are also subject to 25% tariffs, while the U.S. is also considering imposing additional sector-specific tariffs on—among other sectors—imports of pharmaceuticals and related ingredients; semiconductors and semiconductor manufacturing equipment and their derivative products; critical minerals and their derivative products; as well as commercial aircraft, jet engines, and related parts. Should it proceed with any of these measures, the EU is likely to increase the scope of its proposed response.
If adopted, the EU countermeasures would supplement the existing EU “Rebalancing Tariffs” previously introduced—and suspended until 14 July—in response to increased U.S. steel and aluminum duties. Most of the products covered by the Rebalancing Tariffs would be subject to a 25% ad valorem duty, with some facing a reduced rate of 10%. The Rebalancing Tariffs would apply to U.S. goods exports worth up to €26 billion.
The Enforcement Regulation and the Anti-Coercion Instrument
In preparing for a scenario in which negotiations with the U.S. fail to bring tariff relief, the EU has several legal instruments at its disposal to take responsive countermeasures, most notably the Enforcement Regulation and the Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI), with some overlapping and some distinguishing features.
A. Intended Use of the Two Instruments
The Enforcement Regulation is a long-standing mechanism designed to enforce the EU’s rights under international trade agreements, including under World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. Initially adopted in 2014 and amended in 2021, it empowers the EU to respond to breaches of trade obligations—particularly when a trading partner withdraws concessions granted under WTO agreements or fails to implement a ruling adopted by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body. Crucially, the amended Regulation now allows the EU to act unilaterally when multilateral adjudication is not possible, including in the absence of a functioning WTO Appellate Body (which has lacked the necessary quorum since late 2019, following a U.S. refusal to appoint additional members to the body).Continue Reading EU Consults on New Tariffs on €95 Billion of U.S. Imports
California Updates Pay-to-Play Law Regulations to Reflect Recent Law Changes
Important changes to California’s pay-to-play law took effect January 1, 2025, and now the state’s regulations have caught up to the law.
The state’s Fair Political Practices Commission adopted the new regulations late last month, following statutory revisions to California’s complex pay-to-play law found at California Government Code § 84308
Continue Reading California Updates Pay-to-Play Law Regulations to Reflect Recent Law ChangesCalifornia Frontier AI Working Group Issues Report on Foundation Model Regulation
On March 18, the Joint California Policy Working Group on AI Frontier Models (the “Working Group”) released its draft report on the regulation of foundation models, with the aim of providing an “evidence-based foundation for AI policy decisions” in California that “ensure[s] these powerful technologies benefit society globally while reasonably managing emerging risks.” The Working Group was established by California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) in September 2024, following his veto of California State Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco)’s Safe & Secure Innovation for Frontier AI Models Act (SB 1047). The Working Group builds on California’s partnership with Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley, established by Governor Newsom’s 2023 Executive Order on generative AI.
Noting that “foundation model capabilities have rapidly improved” since the veto of SB 1047 and that California’s “unique opportunity” to shape AI governance “may not remain open indefinitely,” the report assesses transparency, third-party risk assessment, and adverse event reporting requirements as key components for foundation model regulation.
Transparency Requirements. The report finds that foundation model transparency requirements are a “necessary foundation” for AI regulation and recommends that policymakers “prioritize public-facing transparency to best advance accountability.” Specifically, the report recommends transparency requirements that focus on five categories of information about foundation models: (1) training data acquisition, (2) developer safety practices, (3) developer security practices, (4) pre-deployment testing by developers and third parties, and (5) downstream impacts, potentially including disclosures from entities that host foundation models for download or use.
Third-Party Risk Assessments. Noting that transparency “is often insufficient and requires supplementary verification mechanisms” for accountability, the report adds that third-party risk assessments are “essential” for “creating incentives for developers to increase the safety of their models.” To support effective third-party AI evaluations, the report calls on policymakers to consider establishing safe harbors that indemnify public interest safety research and “routing mechanisms” to quickly communicate identified vulnerabilities to developers and affected parties.
Whistleblower Protections. Additionally, the report assesses the need for whistleblower protections for employees and contractors of foundation model developers. The report advises policymakers to “consider protections that cover a broader range of [AI developer] activities,” such as failures to follow a company’s AI safety policy, even if reported conduct does not violate existing laws. Continue Reading California Frontier AI Working Group Issues Report on Foundation Model Regulation
West Virginia Passes Law Prohibiting the Use of Seven Food Dye Ingredients
On March 24, 2025 Governor Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia signed into law H.B. 2354 which will impose a ban on the use of specified food additives, including seven food dyes, in food, drink, confectionery, or condiment products in the state. In passing this law, West Virginia became the first state
Continue Reading West Virginia Passes Law Prohibiting the Use of Seven Food Dye Ingredients