Politico: 138 things Trump did this year while you weren't looking
Behind the crazy headlines, more conservative priorities got pushed through than most people realize. An exhaustive list of what really happened to the government in 2017.
In Donald Trump’s first act as president, he signed a high-profile executive order intended to dismantle Obamacare, instructing federal agencies to take any measures they could to roll back the Affordable Care Act. In retrospect, the vaguely worded directive was only symbolic. The Trump administration did eventually make moves to obstruct the law, but they took months and another executive order to implement. For all the theater, it’s hard to say whether that order had any effect at all.
Less noticed on Inauguration Day was a surprise move by the Federal Housing
Administration to scratch a planned reduction in mortgage insurance premiums. That change helped shore up the financial health of the FHA’s mortgage insurance fund —but came at a real cost to homeowners, who would have saved an average of $500 a year if the Obama-era plan had stayed in place.
If you didn’t hear about the $500 you may have lost that day—well, that’s how the year went. The attention gap between the empty executive order and the real-life mortgage insurance rollback turned out to be representative of the whole first year of the Trump administration.
Again and again, Trump has taken the stage to an adoring crowd and declared victory on some issue, or announced lavish new promises, without any real results or plans to back them up. Meanwhile, very steadily, and almost totally separately from Trump’s speeches and tweet-storms, his administration has been ushering in a new conservative era of government—taking specific aim at Obama-era rules, and broader aim at the big regulatory mission of government.
At The Agenda, we’ve been tracking these policy changes weekly since June, ignoring the noise and explaining what the Trump administration actually accomplished each week. This week, we’re pulling them all into one mega-list—a portrait of a quiet but very serious Republican push against the scope and ambition of government.
What does it look like? There are a few consistent themes: Rolling back President Barack Obama’s legacy on everything from labor regulations to environmental protections, and more broadly tearing down rules across the government. Some topics have been largely missing: his infrastructure push has gone nowhere. Many of the rules are still in progress, or being delayed so long that it’s anyone’s guess what will really happen. (As you’ll see, some of our items are recurring episodes in long-running dramas, like what will finally happen to Obama’s fiduciary standard, which required stockbrokers to act in the best interest of their clients.) And finally, there are some perplexing surprises. After all the rhetoric against China and Mexico, the year’s big trade-war enemy has been … Canada?
Welcome to the annual wrap-up of our weekly guide to what Trump did while you weren’t looking.
June 3-9
1. A boost for Uber and McDonald’s
It’s the most controversial question in the labor world these days: When is a worker an employee, and when is he or she an independent contractor? That question has been especially controversial for “gig economy” companies like Uber and Postmates. But increasingly, regular businesses are also opting to classify their workers as independent contractors, which can cut their labor costs sharply by not obliging them to offer benefits like health insurance or pay employer payroll taxes. According to one recent study, the percentage of workers employed as contractors grew almost 30 percent from 2005 to 2015.
It’s the most controversial question in the labor world these days: When is a worker an employee, and when is he or she an independent contractor? That question has been especially controversial for “gig economy” companies like Uber and Postmates. But increasingly, regular businesses are also opting to classify their workers as independent contractors, which can cut their labor costs sharply by not obliging them to offer benefits like health insurance or pay employer payroll taxes. According to one recent study, the percentage of workers employed as contractors grew almost 30 percent from 2005 to 2015.
In 2015, the Obama administration gave workers a win on this one: It issued a guidance document explaining how the Department of Labor would interpret the law, outlining the economic tests it employed in determining whether an employer was misclassifying its workers. The agency had been using that policy in enforcing the law, but putting it in writing sent a clear message to employers across the country that the Obama administration was serious about cracking down on worker misclassification.
2. A trade war with Mexico averted—for now
Trump has stormed on about the North American Free Trade Agreement, calling it a “trading disaster” and vowing to rip it up, suggesting that a trade war with Mexico may be on the horizon. But on Tuesday, the United States and Mexico went the other direction and actually came to a deal, averting a potential trade crisis when they ended a dispute on Mexican sugar exports. The showdown was seen as a first test for the two countries as they, along with Canada, seek to preserve and update NAFTA later this year.
Trump has stormed on about the North American Free Trade Agreement, calling it a “trading disaster” and vowing to rip it up, suggesting that a trade war with Mexico may be on the horizon. But on Tuesday, the United States and Mexico went the other direction and actually came to a deal, averting a potential trade crisis when they ended a dispute on Mexican sugar exports. The showdown was seen as a first test for the two countries as they, along with Canada, seek to preserve and update NAFTA later this year.
The sugar deal is a quintessentially in-the-weeds trade agreement: It raises the minimum prices for raw and refined sugar and cuts the percentage of Mexico’s sugar exports that are refined from 53 percent to 30 percent, while redefining the purity level for refined sugar. The U.S. sugar industry objected to the deal, arguing that it did not address loopholes that give Mexican producers an unfair advantage in the U.S. market. It wasn’t the win that industry wanted, but many experts were encouraged that the administration’s first big dispute with a major trading partner had an amicable ending.
3. The end of a DOJ “slush fund”
Three years ago, when the Department of Justice settled a $17 billion settlement with Bank of America over its mortgage lending practices, it came with a requirement: The bank had to pay $100 million to various legal and community groups, a sum intended to help homeowners hurt by Bank of America’s wrongdoing. Many other DOJ settlements with financial institutions during the Obama administration required similar payouts to outside groups.
Three years ago, when the Department of Justice settled a $17 billion settlement with Bank of America over its mortgage lending practices, it came with a requirement: The bank had to pay $100 million to various legal and community groups, a sum intended to help homeowners hurt by Bank of America’s wrongdoing. Many other DOJ settlements with financial institutions during the Obama administration required similar payouts to outside groups.
Conservatives have long objected to this practice, which was used by Obama and, before him, George W. Bush: They see it as a way for a president to direct money to his favored organizations, illegally sidestepping the congressional appropriations process. The Obama administration argued that so-called third-party settlements were simply another tool for reparations: The money, they said, didn’t go to random organizations but to groups that could help repair the damage caused by financial misdeeds. Opponents called it a “slush fund.”
That ended Wednesday , when Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memo prohibiting U.S. attorneys from including such third-party payouts in any settlements. When the Department of Justice settles a case from now on, third-party groups won’t get a dime.
4. A win for nursing homes
Last October, the Obama administration banned any nursing home that receives federal funding — which is most of them — from requiring that prospective tenants sign an arbitration agreement as a condition to be admitted, a common practice in the industry. Such agreements prevent residents from taking the facility to court, requiring them to appeal to an arbitration tribunal. Nursing homes prefer arbitration because it’s usually cheaper than getting sued; critics say it’s unfair to residents, who often have no idea they signed away their right to sue in court until they actually try to file charges, at which point the nursing home shows them the fine print.
Last October, the Obama administration banned any nursing home that receives federal funding — which is most of them — from requiring that prospective tenants sign an arbitration agreement as a condition to be admitted, a common practice in the industry. Such agreements prevent residents from taking the facility to court, requiring them to appeal to an arbitration tribunal. Nursing homes prefer arbitration because it’s usually cheaper than getting sued; critics say it’s unfair to residents, who often have no idea they signed away their right to sue in court until they actually try to file charges, at which point the nursing home shows them the fine print.
The nursing home industry fought the rule, suing the Department of Health and Human Services. In November, it won a temporary injunction against the regulation, so it never actually took effect. And now it may be dead. On Tuesday, the Trump administration signaled its view on arbitration agreements: the DHS issued a new proposed regulation that rolled back the Obama rule. Because it’s not final, the new rule doesn’t immediately overturn the ban on arbitration agreements; it has to go through the same process as any other rule. But it sends a strong signal for where the administration will ultimately land.
5. Get THAAD out of here
Not every major policy change affecting America originates in Washington. On Wednesday, South Korean President Moon Jae-in blocked the deployment of an American missile defense system intended to block missile attacks from North Korea.
Not every major policy change affecting America originates in Washington. On Wednesday, South Korean President Moon Jae-in blocked the deployment of an American missile defense system intended to block missile attacks from North Korea.
Moon — a left-leaning leader who supports a more open dialogue with North Korea than his scandal-plagued predecessor—was already reluctant to host THAAD at all, but allowed its continued deployment until he discovered last week, to his surprise, that the Pentagon had sent four more launchers into the country. On Wednesday, he stopped any further deployment of the system—just a day before North Korea conducted its 10th missile test of the year.
June 10–16
1. U.S. and China make nice on beef, dairy and poultry
Throughout his campaign, Trump railed against Chinese trade policies, vowing to label the country a currency manipulator and scaring the business community that a trade war was on the horizon. But Trump backed off his promise to officially label Beijing a “currency manipulator.” And in May, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced the U.S.-China 100-Day trade agreement, calling it a “herculean accomplishment.”
Throughout his campaign, Trump railed against Chinese trade policies, vowing to label the country a currency manipulator and scaring the business community that a trade war was on the horizon. But Trump backed off his promise to officially label Beijing a “currency manipulator.” And in May, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced the U.S.-China 100-Day trade agreement, calling it a “herculean accomplishment.”
Still, trade experts who looked at the details of the agreement, were less convinced. Many of the ten policy changes were already underway; on the new changes, China made few firm commitments.
This week, a trio of trade announcements revealed there was more substance to the deal than originally thought, if not quite “herculean.” On Tuesday, the Department of Agriculture announced it had finalized an agreement with its Chinese counterparts to allow U.S. beef imports into China, breaking a 14-year ban that Beijing has more-than-once promised to end. On Thursday, the U.S. and China signed a memorandum to promote U.S dairy products in China , and , on Friday, the USDA published a proposed rule to allow Chinese poultry products into the U.S.
These aren’t huge changes to the U.S.-China trade relationship, and some were in the works long before Trump took office. In fact, China promised last September to lift the ban on U.S. beef exports; the dairy agreement wasn’t actually part of the “100-Day” trade deal. But the trio of agreements show that even as Trump rails against Beijing’s trade policies, the two sides are still capable of compromising. For all the eye rolls that Trump’s initial “100-Day” deal invited, it’s looking a lot more real two months later, especially once beef shipments actually arrive in China, which Ross estimated could be as soon as 10 days. “Everyone has been justified in taking a wait and see attitude,” said Bruce Hirsh, a former assistant U.S. trade representative. “Even now, until actual shipments are accepted, it's best to wait and see.”
2. Education Department targets Obama-era student protections
With student-loan debt a trillion-dollar issue, the Obama administration announced a new policy last October that would allow defrauded borrowers to have their federal student loans cancel ed—an expensive proposition for the government, which would cover the cost. Student advocates, who had long pushed Obama to adopt such a rule, cheered the news, arguing it was simply a matter of fairness.
With student-loan debt a trillion-dollar issue, the Obama administration announced a new policy last October that would allow defrauded borrowers to have their federal student loans cancel ed—an expensive proposition for the government, which would cover the cost. Student advocates, who had long pushed Obama to adopt such a rule, cheered the news, arguing it was simply a matter of fairness.
One problem: The rule wasn’t scheduled to take effect until July 1—and now it looks like it will never take effect. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos announced this week that the agency was delaying the implementation of the so-called “defense to repayment” rule indefinitely, on the grounds that it is the subject of an ongoing lawsuit. In effect, this means the idea is almost certainly dead: DeVos also announced that the department intends to rewrite the rule altogether, along with another major Obama-era education rule, known as “gainful employment,” that required colleges to meet certain standards or risk losing access to federal student loan dollars.
Unlike “defense to repayment,” the “gainful employment” rule was finalized in 2014 and had already taken effect, so the Trump administration will have to undertake a full rule making process to rewrite it, a time-consuming process.
The changes are a defeat for defrauded students and a big victory for for-profit colleges, which are disproportionately represented among both loan-fraud cases and colleges that leave students with high debt levels. For-profits loudly argued that the Obama administration was effectively trying to choke out the industry altogether. This week, DeVos gave it new life.
3. The Pentagon flexes its muscles
During the Obama administration, the military often complained that the White House was micromanaging its affairs, requiring high-level, inter agency approval for decisions on troop levels or drone strikes outside of active war zones. Trump has dramatically reversed those policies, giving the Department of Defense wide autonomy to conduct overseas military operations.
During the Obama administration, the military often complained that the White House was micromanaging its affairs, requiring high-level, inter agency approval for decisions on troop levels or drone strikes outside of active war zones. Trump has dramatically reversed those policies, giving the Department of Defense wide autonomy to conduct overseas military operations.
That autonomy was on display in two countries this week: Somalia and Afghanistan. On Sunday, the U.S. struck al- Shabab, a terrorist group, in southern Somalia, the DOD’s first known use of additional war-making powers in Somalia. In March, the Trump administration had declared parts of Somalia as an “area of active hostilities,” which gives military commanders the same authority to conduct raids and strikes as they now have in active war zones like Iraq; it also reduces protections for civilians. Human rights advocates criticized the move, saying it effectively allows the Pentagon to conduct unauthorized wars with little oversight. U.S. officials responded that it was necessary to confront emerging threats quickly. The U.S. Africa Command was slower than the White House expected in launching operations after the March change; Sunday’s strike appears to be the first under the new authority.
This week, Trump also gave the Department of Defense the autonomy to decide whether more troops are needed in Afghanistan. Washington had been anticipating a decision from the White House on the proposed Afghan troop surge for weeks, with Defense Secretary James Mattis arguing in favor and White House officials like chief strategist Steve Bannon arguing against it. Trump’s decision to outsource the decision to the Pentagon is a big win for the agency and for Mattis—and an outcome that would have been unthinkable under Obama.
4. VA civil service reforms heads to Trump’s desk
For years, Congress has tried to reform the rules for firing workers at the Department of Veterans Affairs, having grown frustrated at the difficulty of removing employees responsible for the scandal at VA hospitals in 2014, which eventually led to the resignation of Secretary Eric Shinseki.
For years, Congress has tried to reform the rules for firing workers at the Department of Veterans Affairs, having grown frustrated at the difficulty of removing employees responsible for the scandal at VA hospitals in 2014, which eventually led to the resignation of Secretary Eric Shinseki.
This week lawmakers sent a substantive set of reforms to the president’s desk; he is expected to sign them in the days ahead. The legislation, called the VA Accountability and Whistle-blower Protection Act, creates a new office to provide greater protection for whistle-blowers and significantly shrinks the time needed to fire VA employees. Previously, it could take months, if not years, to broom out problem employees; agencies often deemed it not worth the effort to try. Under the bill, the review structure largely remains in place for rank-and-file employees—it changed more for senior executives—but it sharply cuts the time for filing appeals and for the oversight board to reach a decision. It also lowers the burden of proof necessary for agencies to take action against employees. Groups representing federal employees, including the American Federation for Government Employees and the Senior Executives Association, said the legislation would undermine worker protections like due process. Veterans’ groups cheered the changes.
Civil-service reforms don’t often get much attention, but these are significant changes with bipartisan support, and government reformers are watching them closely. If they prove successful at the VA, lawmakers could soon look to implement them across government.
5. New food labels? Not so fast.
Not every Trump rollback targets a Barack Obama policy—some of them target Michelle Obama policies. The former first lady made healthy living her top priority during her husband’s presidency, promoting exercise with her “Let’s Move” program and working to improve the nutrition of school lunches. One of her big policy wins was the redesign of the nutrition facts panel, the one that appears on all the packaged foods you buy. Unveiled by Obama in May 2016, the first redesign in more than two decades makes the calorie number more visible and includes information on “added sugars” for the first time, provoking a sharp response from the sugar industry.
Not every Trump rollback targets a Barack Obama policy—some of them target Michelle Obama policies. The former first lady made healthy living her top priority during her husband’s presidency, promoting exercise with her “Let’s Move” program and working to improve the nutrition of school lunches. One of her big policy wins was the redesign of the nutrition facts panel, the one that appears on all the packaged foods you buy. Unveiled by Obama in May 2016, the first redesign in more than two decades makes the calorie number more visible and includes information on “added sugars” for the first time, provoking a sharp response from the sugar industry.
Food makers were supposed to start using the new labels by July 26, 2018—but on Tuesday, the Food and Drug Administration put them on indefinite hold. There’s no timetable for when it could be implemented; industry groups had also been pushing to align the timing with another FDA rule on the disclosure of genetically modified organisms, which isn’t expected until 2018. In a note explaining the delay, the FDA said the extra time was needed for manufacturers to print the new label. It said nothing about actually rethinking the redesign altogether, although it’s possible that could happen too.
June 17–23
1. The Labor Department loosens a rule on beryllium exposure
You haven’t heard of it since chemistry class, but beryllium is a chemical toxic to lung tissue. The Department of Labor took years to finalize a rule protecting workers from exposure, and didn’t issue the final version until the tail end of Obama’s presidency—January 9, to be exact. It was always at risk of removal by the Republican Congress, which could have repealed it with just a majority vote, but it survived until now.
You haven’t heard of it since chemistry class, but beryllium is a chemical toxic to lung tissue. The Department of Labor took years to finalize a rule protecting workers from exposure, and didn’t issue the final version until the tail end of Obama’s presidency—January 9, to be exact. It was always at risk of removal by the Republican Congress, which could have repealed it with just a majority vote, but it survived until now.
On Friday, the Department of Labor proposed a new rule on beryllium exposure; it doesn’t change the original exposure limits imposed by Obama but instead eliminates additional safety requirements for the construction and shipyard industries, such as conducting medical surveillance or providing training for those workers who are near, but not above, the exposure limits. Labor groups slammed the change, saying that it would lead to more lung disease and cancer among workers. Industry groups applauded the changes; the original rule, they argued, was too restrictive.
The DOL must still go through a full rule-making process, so the new beryllium rule won’t be finalized for months. In the meantime, the department said it wouldn’t be enforcing the Obama-era rule.
2. A new emergency alert for cops
We’ve all noticed the emergency warnings on television or radio, which alert audiences about a child abduction (the “Amber Alert”) or severe weather. Soon, there may be a new alert: a “Blue Alert” for when a police officer is missing, seriously injured or killed in the line of duty.
We’ve all noticed the emergency warnings on television or radio, which alert audiences about a child abduction (the “Amber Alert”) or severe weather. Soon, there may be a new alert: a “Blue Alert” for when a police officer is missing, seriously injured or killed in the line of duty.
On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission unanimously approved the first stage of rulemaking to add such a “Blue Alert” to the FCC’s Emergency Alert System , which was created in 1997 to enable the president to communicate quickly and directly with the American people in the case of an emergency. Stations are required to carry such presidential alerts , but alerts for a child abduction or severe weather are voluntary.
A “Blue Alert” has already been implemented in 27 states; the FCC proposal would make it a national standard. The change has bipartisan support—it’s hard to see politicians taking a stance against showing concern for officer safety—but it also fits with the Trump administration’s focus on attacks on cops, and the Department of Justice’s pivot from Obama-era policies on police accountability toward a more protective stance on police.
3. The Yucca nuclear controversy reopens
So … where is America supposed to put its spent nuclear fuel over the long term? A decades-old debate was reawakened this week when Rick Perry, the energy secretary, announced at a congressional hearing on Tuesday that he was reconstituting the Office of Civilian Radioactive Management, which ran a proposed Nevada site for long-term waste storage.
So … where is America supposed to put its spent nuclear fuel over the long term? A decades-old debate was reawakened this week when Rick Perry, the energy secretary, announced at a congressional hearing on Tuesday that he was reconstituting the Office of Civilian Radioactive Management, which ran a proposed Nevada site for long-term waste storage.
Throughout the Obama administration, with Nevada Sen. Harry Reid leading the Senate Democrats, plans to store nuclear waste in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain had no chance of actually happening. Now it’s back. This wasn’t exactly a surprise, since Trump’s budget included $120 million to restart the licensing process for the Yucca site; in fact, in May, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission took the first steps toward restarting that process. But Perry’s words nevertheless created a sharp backlash from Nevada politicians who have long fought any plan to store nuclear waste in their state.
Perry somewhat walked back his comments at a separate congressional hearing on Wednesday, saying that “no decision has been made at this time with respect to the timing or the location, for that matter, of waste storage." But the Office of Civilian Radioactive Management is still set to reopen during fiscal 2018. The next Yucca fight is just beginning.
4. The White House gets tough with Russia
Amid multiple congressional inquiries and the investigation by special prosecutor Robert Mueller, the Trump administration hasn’t done much to distance itself from Moscow. So it may have come as a surprise on Tuesday when the Treasury Department imposed sanctions on more than three dozen individuals and organizations involved in Russia’s annexation of Crime.
Amid multiple congressional inquiries and the investigation by special prosecutor Robert Mueller, the Trump administration hasn’t done much to distance itself from Moscow. So it may have come as a surprise on Tuesday when the Treasury Department imposed sanctions on more than three dozen individuals and organizations involved in Russia’s annexation of Crime.
The announcement coincided with Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko’s visit to the White House, but many observers wondered if the administration had a different motive: discouraging the House from taking up the Senate’s Russian sanctions bill. That legislation, which passed the Senate last week by a 98-2 vote, would limit Trump’s ability to ease sanctions on the Russian government. The White House has been working to water down or kill the Senate bill. The new sanctions can’t hurt those efforts.
5. Trump quietly releases another immigration executive order
It went almost entirely unnoticed: At 9:20 p.m. on Wednesday, the White House released a new executive order on immigration. Compared to Trump’s past orders on immigration, which have set off national protests and ongoing court cases, this one was minor. It makes a very small change to an Obama-era executive order, removing one section that directed the secretaries of state and homeland security to create a plan so that “80 percent of non-immigrant visa applicants are interviewed within 3 weeks of receipt of application.”
It went almost entirely unnoticed: At 9:20 p.m. on Wednesday, the White House released a new executive order on immigration. Compared to Trump’s past orders on immigration, which have set off national protests and ongoing court cases, this one was minor. It makes a very small change to an Obama-era executive order, removing one section that directed the secretaries of state and homeland security to create a plan so that “80 percent of non-immigrant visa applicants are interviewed within 3 weeks of receipt of application.”
So now, DHS and State can take more time to review non-immigrant visa applicants. What’s the reasoning for this? Michael Short, a White House spokesperson, said in an email that the change was “a very straightforward step that removes an arbitrary requirement and ensures the State Department has the needed discretion to make real world security determinations.” He explained that the White House didn’t want to set an “arbitrary deadline” for reviewing and vetting visa applicants.
For people seeking non-immigrant visas, which include everything from business travelers to foreign athletes to diplomats, this could mean longer waits as their applications are processed. But to the White House, any additional waits are simply a necessary step to keep the country safe.
June 24–30
1. The Labor Department was busy, Part 1
The Department of Labor issued some big regulations under Obama, and Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta isn’t wasting any time targeting those. Just this week, he took aim at three big ones: the overtime rule, the fiduciary standard and an electronic record-keeping rule.
The Department of Labor issued some big regulations under Obama, and Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta isn’t wasting any time targeting those. Just this week, he took aim at three big ones: the overtime rule, the fiduciary standard and an electronic record-keeping rule.
Under Obama, the department said it would require certain large employers to electronically submit data on injuries and illnesses, starting July 1. But on Tuesday, the Department of Labor officially proposed delaying the record-keeping rule to December 1. The rule isn’t final yet, so it will technically take effect Saturday , but the Department previously said it won’t yet accept electronic submissions. Supporters of the rule hope that sunshine will act as a disinfectant, shaming companies into better labor practices; companies say it is onerous and unnecessary.
Then on Thursday, the Department asked for comments about delaying the January 1, 2018 , compliance date of another major Obama rule—the “fiduciary standard,” which requires financial advisers selling investment products to act in the best interest of their clients. In May, Acosta announced in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that he was going to allow the fiduciary rule to take effect as planned on June 9, prompting cheers from Democrats who thought the rule was doomed. Those cheers may have been premature: The department had previously announced that it wouldn’t actually enforce the rule until January 1—and Thursday’s news is a sign that Acosta is considering more substantive reforms.
Comments
Post a Comment