Category:Regulation
Navigating the Shifting Tides of Regulatory Compliance in Climate Policy
The United States finds itself at a regulatory crossroads when it comes to environmental policy. The current administration’s efforts to block state climate regulations through executive action stand in stark contrast to the growing movement of state governments implementing stringent greenhouse gas reporting requirements. This divergence creates a complex compliance landscape where businesses must simultaneously adapt to federal deregulation while meeting expanding state-level environmental mandates. This tension between federal and state approaches to climate regulation presents both challenges and opportunities for corporate compliance programs. As federal agencies scale back environmental oversight, progressive states are filling the regulatory void with ambitious climate policies that often exceed previous federal standards. This blog examines this emerging dichotomy, explores its implications for business operations, and provides strategic guidance for maintaining compliance in this evolving landscape.
Chicago’s Bold New Vision: Green Social Housing for a Sustainable, Equitable Future
Last week, Chicago City Council committees on Housing and Finance convened for negotiations and discussions on a monumental—and markedly contentious—green social housing plan. This comes nearly two months after Mayor Brandon Johnson and the Chicago Department of Housing introduced an enabling ordinance in the Chicago City Council, allowing the City to establish an independent nonprofit with the authority to serve as the Green Social Housing (GSH) developer. The GSH model tackles both housing insecurity and climate change head-on by developing permanently affordable, energy-efficient homes in every community. Spearheaded by the Chicago Department of Housing and the Illinois Green New Deal coalition, this initiative is poised to reshape how housing is built, owned, and lived in across the city.
The Corporate Transparency Act: Now Featuring Much Less Transparency
Among some of the big changes being made by the new Administration is the intention to no longer enforce the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) against U.S. citizens and domestic reporting companies. The CTA, enacted back in 2021, was designed and implemented to enhance corporate accountability and combat financial crimes like money laundering, fraud, tax evasion, and the like. It requires certain businesses to disclose their beneficial owners to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) with the goal of increasing transparency in corporate structures and organization. However, some recent developments have led to significant changes in the ability to enforce this act, sparking a lot of debate on the implications of (or without) the act.
From Spreadsheets to Statutes: KPMG Enters into Law
The Arizona Supreme Court has approved the accounting firm Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler (KPMG) to enter the practice of law. KMPG will be the first Big Four accounting firm to open its own law firm. This approval has created a stir in the legal community due to conflict and ethical compliance concerns. Although KPMG only has received approval in Arizona, there could be potential issues regarding conflicts, ethical challenges, and fair competition.
Trump IRS Downsizing Could Lead to $500B in Lost Tax Revenue for the Federal Government
As part of the Trump administration’s broad efforts to downsize the federal government, it reportedly plans to cut more than 20% of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) workforce by mid-May 2025. This planned reduction in staff follows the nearly 6,700 probationary IRS employees already fired by the administration and the 4,700 employees who left the IRS after accepting the administration’s “voluntary buyout” offer. In total, reports indicate that the Trump administration could reduce the IRS workforce by nearly half its current size. Downsizing of this magnitude could greatly impact the amount of tax revenue collected by the IRS as there may no longer be adequate staffing to conduct large audits and complete other tax collection efforts. In fact, these cuts have led Treasury Department and IRS officials to project a decrease of up to 10% in federal tax collection compared to 2024, representing over $500 billion in lost revenue for the federal government. This level of reduced tax collection would primarily benefit the wealthiest Americans, while low- and middle-income individuals would be the most impacted by the likely continuation of offsetting funding cuts to public welfare and services.
Chicago’s Battle for Affordable Housing
As Chicago grapples with a severe affordable housing shortage—an estimated 119,000 units short—the city continues to experiment with policy solutions. More than half of Chicagoans are rent-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their income on rent and utilities. In response, city leaders have turned to tax abatements and zoning mandates to increase the supply of affordable housing. Two key programs—the Affordable Housing Special Assessment Program (AHSAP) and the Affordable Requirements Ordinance (ARO)—represent different approaches to tackling this crisis. Chicago’s affordable housing crisis requires a multifaceted approach, and while the AHSAP and ARO offer valuable incentives and mandates, neither alone is sufficient to address the city’s deep-rooted affordability and racial equity challenges.
Regulating Childhood: Mass Deportations of Unaccompanied Minors
Undocumented minors are children, and the federal government should treat them as such. The attitude and justifications for harsh immigration policies are deeply rooted in the United States’ history along the Southern border and remain all too prevalent in today’s “tough on crime” approach to immigration. The Trump administration has repeatedly referred to undocumented immigrants as “criminals,” even though more than half of the 43,759 people held in ICE detention facilities have no criminal record. Yet, undocumented children appear to be the latest target of the president’s anti-immigrant crusade.
CFPB Faces Uncertain Future: What it Means for Consumers
The US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is a government agency that ensures consumers are “treated fairly by banks, lenders, and other financial institutions.” Along with enforcing consumer protection laws, the CFPB oversees products, like credit cards and mortgages, and investigates complaints regarding dishonest or illegal activity to hold companies accountable. The CFPB has faced controversy about whether or not the agency has too much power. However, the CFPB is currently under increased scrutiny by the Trump administration, which could result in issues with consumer financial protections.
Executive Order 14216: What it Means for the Regulatory State
On February 18, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14216, titled “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies,” mandating that independent federal agencies route their rules and new actions through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The order aims to enhance presidential oversight over agencies that traditionally operate with a degree of autonomy, like as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The order signifies a substantial shift in the dynamics of the American regulatory state.
Effects of Ongoing Deregulation Under the Trump Administration: DOGE and the Congressional Review Act
Congressional Republicans have faced growing public pushback in early 2025, even from their own voters, regarding their collective inaction as the Trump administration has continued to consolidate power in the executive branch. At the same time, Congressional Republicans have faced increased pressure from the Trump administration, and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, to continue to gut regulations and deliver President Trump’s corporate-focused agenda. One method that experts expect Republican lawmakers to utilize in addressing these pressures is the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The CRA allows Congress to repeal recently issued final regulations with only a narrow majority, which could thus lead to harmful deregulation that will likely compound the deregulatory actions already seen by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).