Author: The Watchman

House of Reps Votes to Repeal Broadband Privacy Rules

~ The Watchman

On March 28th, The House of Representatives passed a S.J.Res.34. This resolution overturns the rule published by the FCC, which required all Internet browsing data, as well as data regarding app usage on mobile devices, be subject to the same privacy requirements as sensitive or private personal information. It does not, however, return the power of regulating internet service providers back to the FTC.

Those who oppose this bill believe it will give internet service providers the ability to sell consumer’s personal information to third parties. Those who support it, believe it will allow ISPs the ability to be more competitive with companies that aren’t ISPs, such as Netflix.

Bill Text:

S.J.Res.34

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the third day of January, two thousand and seventeen

Joint Resolution

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5,
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications
Commission relating to “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of
Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services”.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the
rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to
“Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other
Telecommunications Services” (81 Fed. Reg. 87274 (December 2, 2016)),
and such rule shall have no force or effect.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.

References:

“S.J.Res. 34: A Joint Resolution Providing for Congressional Disapproval under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Federal Communications Commission Relating to “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services”.” GovTrack.us. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2017.

Flake, Jeff. “Text – S.J.Res.34 – 115th Congress (2017-2018): A Joint Resolution Providing for Congressional Disapproval under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Federal Communications Commission Relating to “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services”.” Congress.gov. N.p., 28 Mar. 2017. Web. 30 Mar. 2017.

Links:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/sjres34/summary

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/34/text?format=txt

Executive Order that could eliminate federal agencies

~ The Watchman

Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. This order is intended to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the executive branch by directing the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (Director) to propose a plan to reorganize governmental functions and eliminate unnecessary agencies (as defined in section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code), components of agencies, and agency programs.

Sec. 2. Proposed Plan to Improve the Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Accountability of Federal Agencies, Including, as Appropriate, to Eliminate or Reorganize Unnecessary or Redundant Federal Agencies. (a) Within 180 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall submit to the Director a proposed plan to reorganize the agency, if appropriate, in order to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of that agency.

(b) The Director shall publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to suggest improvements in the organization and functioning of the executive branch and shall consider the suggestions when formulating the proposed plan described in subsection (c) of this section.

(c) Within 180 days after the closing date for the submission of suggestions pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, the Director shall submit to the President a proposed plan to reorganize the executive branch in order to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of agencies. The proposed plan shall include, as appropriate, recommendations to eliminate unnecessary agencies, components of agencies, and agency programs, and to merge functions. The proposed plan shall include recommendations for any legislation or administrative measures necessary to achieve the proposed reorganization.

(d) In developing the proposed plan described in subsection (c) of this section, the Director shall consider, in addition to any other relevant factors:

(i) whether some or all of the functions of an agency, a component, or a program are appropriate for the Federal Government or would be better left to State or local governments or to the private sector through free enterprise;

(ii) whether some or all of the functions of an agency, a component, or a program are redundant, including with those of another agency, component, or program;

(iii) whether certain administrative capabilities necessary for operating an agency, a component, or a program are redundant with those of another agency, component, or program;

(iv) whether the costs of continuing to operate an agency, a component, or a program are justified by the public benefits it provides; and

(v) the costs of shutting down or merging agencies, components, or programs, including the costs of addressing the equities of affected agency staff.

(e) In developing the proposed plan described in subsection (c) of this section, the Director shall consult with the head of each agency and, consistent with applicable law, with persons or entities outside the Federal Start Printed Page 13960Government with relevant expertise in organizational structure and management.

Sec. 3. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

  THE WHITE HOUSE, March 13, 2017. Filed 3-15-17; 8:45 am]
[FR Doc. 2017-05399

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Releases Its Rating for the Republican Health Care Plane

~ The Watchman

The Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2017 directed the House Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce to develop legislation to reduce the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have produced an estimate of the budgetary effects of the American Health Care Act, which combines the pieces of legislation approved by the two committees pursuant to that resolution. In consultation with the budget committees, CBO used its March 2016 baseline with adjustments for subsequently enacted legislation, which underlies the resolution, as the benchmark to measure the cost of the legislation.

Effects on the Federal Budget

CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the legislation would reduce federal deficits by $337 billion over the 2017-2026 period. That total consists of $323 billion in on-budget savings and $13 billion in off-budget savings. Outlays would be reduced by $1.2 trillion over the period, and revenues would be reduced by $0.9 trillion.
The largest savings would come from reductions in outlays for Medicaid and from the elimination of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) subsidies for nongroup health insurance. The largest costs would come from repealing many of the changes the ACA made to the Internal Revenue Code—including an increase in the Hospital Insurance payroll tax rate for high-income taxpayers, a surtax on those taxpayers’ net investment income, and annual fees imposed on health insurers—and from the establishment of a new tax credit for health insurance.
Pay-as-you-go procedures apply because enacting the legislation would affect direct spending and revenues. CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the legislation would not increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits by more than $5 billion in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027.

Effects on Health Insurance Coverage

To estimate the budgetary effects, CBO and JCT projected how the legislation would change the number of people who obtain federally subsidized health insurance through Medicaid, the nongroup market, and the employment-based market, as well as many other factors.
CBO and JCT estimate that, in 2018, 14 million more people would be uninsured under the legislation than under current law. Most of that increase would stem from repealing the penalties associated with the individual mandate. Some of those people would choose not to have insurance because they chose to be covered by insurance under current law only to avoid paying the penalties, and some people would forgo insurance in response to higher premiums.
Later, following additional changes to subsidies for insurance purchased in the nongroup market and to the Medicaid program, the increase in the number of uninsured people relative to the number under current law would rise to 21 million in 2020 and then to 24 million in 2026. The reductions in insurance coverage between 2018 and 2026 would stem in large part from changes in Medicaid enrollment—because some states would discontinue their expansion of eligibility, some states that would have expanded eligibility in the future would choose not to do so, and per-enrollee spending in the program would be capped. In 2026, an estimated 52 million people would be uninsured, compared with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under current law.

Stability of the Health Insurance Market

Decisions about offering and purchasing health insurance depend on the stability of the health insurance market—that is, on having insurers participating in most areas of the country and on the likelihood of premiums’ not rising in an unsustainable spiral. The market for insurance purchased individually (that is, nongroup coverage) would be unstable, for example, if the people who wanted to buy coverage at any offered price would have average health care expenditures so high that offering the insurance would be unprofitable. In CBO and JCT’s assessment, however, the nongroup market would probably be stable in most areas under either current law or the legislation.
Under current law, most subsidized enrollees purchasing health insurance coverage in the nongroup market are largely insulated from increases in premiums because their out-of-pocket payments for premiums are based on a percentage of their income; the government pays the difference. The subsidies to purchase coverage combined with the penalties paid by uninsured people stemming from the individual mandate are anticipated to cause sufficient demand for insurance by people with low health care expenditures for the market to be stable.
Under the legislation, in the agencies’ view, key factors bringing about market stability include subsidies to purchase insurance, which would maintain sufficient demand for insurance by people with low health care expenditures, and grants to states from the Patient and State Stability Fund, which would reduce the costs to insurers of people with high health care expenditures. Even though the new tax credits would be structured differently from the current subsidies and would generally be less generous for those receiving subsidies under current law, the other changes would, in the agencies’ view, lower average premiums enough to attract a sufficient number of relatively healthy people to stabilize the market.

Effects on Premiums

The legislation would tend to increase average premiums in the nongroup market prior to 2020 and lower average premiums thereafter, relative to projections under current law. In 2018 and 2019, according to CBO and JCT’s estimates, average premiums for single policyholders in the nongroup market would be 15 percent to 20 percent higher than under current law, mainly because the individual mandate penalties would be eliminated, inducing fewer comparatively healthy people to sign up.
Starting in 2020, the increase in average premiums from repealing the individual mandate penalties would be more than offset by the combination of several factors that would decrease those premiums: grants to states from the Patient and State Stability Fund (which CBO and JCT expect to largely be used by states to limit the costs to insurers of enrollees with very high claims); the elimination of the requirement for insurers to offer plans covering certain percentages of the cost of covered benefits; and a younger mix of enrollees. By 2026, average premiums for single policyholders in the nongroup market under the legislation would be roughly 10 percent lower than under current law, CBO and JCT estimate.
Although average premiums would increase prior to 2020 and decrease starting in 2020, CBO and JCT estimate that changes in premiums relative to those under current law would differ significantly for people of different ages because of a change in age-rating rules. Under the legislation, insurers would be allowed to generally charge five times more for older enrollees than younger ones rather than three times more as under current law, substantially reducing premiums for young adults and substantially raising premiums for older people.

Uncertainty Surrounding the Estimates

The ways in which federal agencies, states, insurers, employers, individuals, doctors, hospitals, and other affected parties would respond to the changes made by the legislation are all difficult to predict, so the estimates in this report are uncertain. But CBO and JCT have endeavored to develop estimates that are in the middle of the distribution of potential outcomes.

Macroeconomic Effects

Because of the magnitude of its budgetary effects, this legislation is “major legislation,” as defined in the rules of the House of Representatives. Hence, it triggers the requirement that the cost estimate, to the greatest extent practicable, include the budgetary impact of its macroeconomic effects. However, because of the very short time available to prepare this cost estimate, quantifying and incorporating those macroeconomic effects have not been practicable.

Intergovernmental and Private-Sector Mandates

JCT and CBO have reviewed the provisions of the legislation and determined that they would impose no intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
JCT and CBO have determined that the legislation would impose private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. On the basis of information from JCT, CBO estimates the aggregate cost of the mandates would exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($156 million in 2017, adjusted annually for inflation).

Reference:

“American Health Care Act.” Congressional Budget Office. N.p., 13 Mar. 2017. Web. 14 Mar. 2017.

Link: CBO Report

List of New Laws Signed by President Trump

~ The Watchman

Here are the most recent laws enacted by President Trump:

S. 84: A bill to provide for an exception to a limitation against appointment of persons as Secretary of Defense within seven years of relief from active duty as a regular commissioned officer of the Armed Forces.

Summary: The bill was introduced by Senate Armed Services Committee Chair John McCain (R-AZ). The legislation doesn’t do away with the “seven years out” requirement. It just creates a one-time waiver for Mattis specifically. (Technically the legislation refers to “the first person appointed… as Secretary of Defense after the date of the enactment of this Act,” but in practice everybody knows that’s clearly referring to Mattis.)

H.R. 72: GAO Access and Oversight Act of 2017

Summary: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent government agency that analyzes and investigates federal expenditures. They often produce reports known as “blue books” that analyze congressional spending policies and make recommendations, as well as perform policy analyses and audit federal agencies.

The law is short. Its primary change allows the GAO to obtain federal agency records, for purposes of audit or investigation. And if an agency or department still refuses to cooperate, the law makes it easier for the GAO to file a civil action in court to obtain the records or documents.

The law also allows the GAO access to the federal National Directory of New Hires, which it had been blocked from accessing for years. A press release from the Republican Senate lead sponsor noted that this new access could improve GAO oversight over federal programs including unemployment insurance, student loans, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program often popularly referred to as “food stamps.”

Those three programs often draw the ire of Republicans, but Congress members generally support the GAO across party lines because it helps to fulfill checks and balances between branches of government

H.J.Res. 41: Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of a rule submitted by the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to “Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers”.

Summary: The law repeals an Obama-era rule requiring publicly traded companies to disclose payments by “resource extraction issuers” — such as those for oil, minerals, and natural gas — during the negotiation of the business contracts if those payments exceed $100,000 in a year.

The rule was issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which originally proposed it in 2012. The rule was vacated by a court in 2013, since the rule did not provide an exemption for companies legally prohibited from releasing such public reports. This slightly modified version of the rule was enacted in 2016.

The law repeals a portion of section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the financial reform legislation passed by Democrats and signed by President Obama in 2010. Republicans also want to repeal or significantly dismantle the Dodd-Frank Act in general, and may succeed during this Congress, but for now they’re taking a more piecemeal approach. Trump also signed executive orders rolling back some Dodd-Frank rules.

Public Law 115–4 was originally introduced in Congress as H.J. Res. 41 by Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-MI2), a member of the House Financial Services Committee and chair of the Capital Markets Subcommittee.

H.J.Res. 38: Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of the Interior known as the Stream Protection Rule.

Summary: This joint resolution nullifies the Stream Protection Rule finalized by the Department of the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement on December 20, 2016. The rule addresses the impacts of surface coal mining operations on surface water, groundwater, and the productivity of mining operation sites.

H.R. 255: Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship Act

Summary: (Sec. 3) This bill amends the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act to authorize the National Science Foundation to encourage its entrepreneurial programs to recruit and support women to extend their focus beyond the laboratory and into the commercial world.

H.R. 321: Inspiring the Next Space Pioneers, Innovators, Researchers, and Explorers (INSPIRE) Women Act

Summary: Inspiring the Next Space Pioneers, Innovators, Researchers, and Explorers (INSPIRE) Women Act

(Sec. 3) This bill directs the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to encourage women and girls to study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), pursue careers in aerospace, and further advance the nation’s space science and exploration efforts through support of the following initiatives:

NASA GIRLS and NASA BOYS; Aspire to Inspire; and Summer Institute in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Research. (Sec. 4) NASA shall submit to Congress a specified plan on how NASA can best facilitate and support both current and retired astronauts, scientists, engineers, and innovators, including early career female astronauts, scientists, engineers, and innovators, to engage with K-12 female STEM students and inspire the next generation of women to consider participating in STEM fields and to pursue careers in aerospace.

H.J.Res. 40: Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Social Security Administration relating to Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007.

Summary: This joint resolution nullifies the “Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007” rule finalized by the Social Security Administration on December 19, 2016. The rule implements a plan to provide to the National Instant Criminal History Background Check System the name of an individual who meets certain criteria, including that benefit payments are made through a representative payee because the individual is determined to be mentally incapable of managing them. (Current law prohibits firearm sale or transfer to and purchase or possession by a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective.)

References:

“Bills and Resolutions.” GovTrack.us. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Mar. 2017.

Executive Actions by the POTUS

~ The Watchman

An executive order is an official document signed by the president and provides instructions to government agencies/departments about how to operate in a certain area.

Executive actions describe all types of unilateral moves by a president. These actions include executive orders, proclamations, memorandums, and proposals.
Executive actions differ legal weight. Directives and memorandums carry the same legal effect as an executive order; however proclamations are more ceremonial.

Below is a list of the executive actions taken by President Trump.

Providing “relief” from the Affordable Care Act (January 20)
Trump’s first executive order on Inauguration Day involved “minimizing the economic burden” of the Affordable Care Act. This order allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the heads of other departments and agencies to waive or delay the implementation of any ACA provisions that would impose a financial burden or any state or a regulatory burden on any individuals.

Freezing all regulations (January 20)
Trump froze all pending regulations until they are approved directly by his administration or by an agency led by Trump appointees. The action, given in a memorandum from White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, delays all regulations with the exception of health, safety, financial or national security matters allowed by the Office of Management and Budget director.

Reinstating the “Mexico City” abortion policy (January 23)
The president reinstated the so-called “Mexico City Policy”, which blocks the use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund foreign non-governmental organizations that perform or promote abortions. It was established by former president Ronald Reagan and has been rescinded by Democratic presidents and reinstated by Republican presidents ever since.

Scrapping the Trans-Pacific Partnership (January 23)
Trump’s next executive action withdrew the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which former President Barack Obama negotiated with 11 other pacific nations. The deal was never ratified by the Senate, so it had not gone into effect. Instead, the Trump administration says it plans on negotiating bilateral deals with individual nations.

Freezing the federal workforce (January 23)
Trump issued a presidential memorandum Tuesday that prohibits government agencies from hiring any new employees, effective as of noon on January 22. The order does not apply to military personnel and the head of any executive department may exempt positions that include national security or public safety responsibilities.

Advancing the Dakota Access and Keystone XL Pipelines (January 24)
Trump’s next actions encouraged the construction of two controversial pipelines, the Dakota Access Pipeline and Keystone XL Pipeline. The DAPL action instructs an expedited review and approval of the remaining construction and operation of the pipeline by the Army for Civil Works and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Keystone XL action invites TransCanada, the Canadian energy company behind the pipeline, to re-submit its application for a presidential permit to construct the pipeline. It also instructs the Secretary of State to reach a final determination within 60 days.

Expediting Environmental Reviews on Infrastructure Projects (January 24)
Trump issued an executive order to streamline environmental reviews of high-priority infrastructure projects. The action states that infrastructure projects in the U.S. “have been routinely and excessively delayed by agency processes and procedures.” The action instructs the Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality to create expedited procedures and deadlines for environmental reviews and approvals for high-priority infrastructure projects.

Promoting “Made-in-the-USA” pipelines (January 24)
This memorandum instructs the Secretary of Commerce to create a plan for pipelines created, repaired or expanded in the United States to use materials and equipment produced in the country “to the maximum extent possible.” It establishes that all steel and metal used in such pipelines be completely produced in the United States, from the initial melting stage to the application of coatings.

Reviewing domestic manufacturing regulation (January 24)
Trump issued an action that instructs the Secretary of Commerce to contact stakeholders to review the impact of Federal regulations on domestic manufacturing. After the review, the Secretary of Commerce is instructed to create a streamlined Federal permitting process for domestic manufacturers.

Increasing border security measures (January 25)
Trump signed an executive order that directed the secretary of homeland security to:

Begin planning, designing and constructing a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, including identify available federal funds and working with Congress for additional funding
Construct and operate detention facilities near the border to make adjudicate asylum claims, subject to the availability of existing funding,
Hire 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents, subject to the availability of existing funding,
End “catch and release” policy
Quantify all “sources of direct and indirect Federal aid or assistance to the Government of Mexico on an annual basis over the past five years”
Take action to empower state and local law enforcement to act as immigration officers

Pursuit of undocumented immigrants (January 25)
Trump signed an executive order that directed the secretary of homeland security to:

Prioritize certain undocumented immigrants for removal, including those with criminal convictions and those who have only been charged with a crime
Hire 10,000 additional immigration officers at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, subject to the availability of existing funding,
Prohibit federal funding, with the help of the attorney general, to “sanctuary” jurisdictions, where local officials have declined to help enforce federal immigration laws
Reinstate the Secure Communities program, which was terminated in 2014 and enables state and local law enforcement to effectively act as immigration agents
Sanction countries, with the help of the secretary of state, that refuse to accept the return of undocumented immigrants deported from the U.S.
Create a list, updated weekly, of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants in sanctuary jurisdictions
Create an “Office for Victims of Crimes Committed by Removable Aliens” to “provide proactive, timely, adequate and professional services to victims of crimes committed by removable aliens and family members of such victims”

Reevaluating visa and refugee programs (January 27)
Trump signed an executive order Friday evening making significant changes to the visa and refugee programs in the United States. It includes:

Cuts the number of refugees allowed into the United States in fiscal 2017 from 110,000 to 50,000
Suspends for 120 days the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, which identifies and processes refugees for resettlement in the United States
Suspends the entry of all “immigrants and nonimmigrants” from Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Syria for 90 days.
Directs the secretary of homeland security, the director of national intelligence and secretary of state to put together a list of countries that do not provide adequate information to vet potential entry of foreign nationals into the United States. Foreign nationals from those countries will be banned from entering the United States.
Directs the secretary of state, the secretary of homeland security, the director of national intelligence, and the director of the FBI to implement uniform screening standards for all immigration programs
Directs the secretary of homeland security, upon the resumption of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, to “prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.”
Directs the secretary of homeland security to implement a biometric entry-exit tracking system
Grants state and local jurisdictions, whenever possible a “role in the process of determining the placement or settlement” of refugees
Suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program, which allows certain people renewing their visas to skip an in-person interview
Directs the secretary of state to expand the Consular Fellows Program

Strengthening the military (January 27)
The president on Friday issued a presidential memorandum directing the secretary of defense, James Mattis, to conduct a review on the military’s readiness in the next 30 days and develop a budget for fiscal 2018 capable of improving the “readiness conditions.” He also directed Mattis to complete a National Defense Strategy and to review the country’s nuclear capabilities and missile-defense capabilities

Reorganizing the National Security Council (January 28)
Trump signed a memorandum Saturday that reorganized the National Security Council, with the goal of making it more digitally-focused, as POLITICO previously reported. Part of the order allows some of the president’s staff, including chief of staff Reince Priebus and White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, to attend any NSC meeting, and widens the ability of appointees close to Trump to attend NSC meetings.

Implementing a lobbying ban (January 28)
This executive order bars “every executive appointee in every executive agency” from engaging in “lobbying activities with respect to that agency” for five years after leaving the agency. It also bars them permanently from lobbying for any foreign government or political party.

Defeating ISIS (January 28)
This memorandum instructs Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to create a plan to defeat ISIS and submit it to the president within 30 days. The plan must include a comprehensive strategy for defeating ISIS, changes to the rules of engagement, strategies to de-legitimize “radical Islamist ideology,” a plan for cutting off ISIS’ financial support and identification of new partners for the fight against the terrorist organization.

Reducing regulations (January 30)
This executive order requires any executive department or agency that proposes a new regulation to identify two regulations to be repealed. For fiscal 2017, it instructs that the total incremental cost of all new regulations and repealed regulations be no greater than zero. For fiscal 2018, the director of the Office of Management and Budget is required to issue for each agency a maximum total cost of all new regulations and repealed regulations for the fiscal year. No agency is allowed to issue a regulation whose costs exceed that maximum, “unless required by law or approved in writing by the Director.”

Regulating the financial system (February 3)
This executive order lays out a series of principles for regulating the financial system including promoting U.S. corporations’ ability to compete with international companies; to foster economic growth, prevent taxpayer-funded bailouts; and to make regulation efficient. It also instructs the secretary of the treasury to consult with the heads of the member agencies of the Financial Stability Oversight Council and report to the president within 120 days on how current laws and regulations promote those principles.

Rethinking Obama’s fiduciary standard (February 3)
This memorandum instructs the department of labor to review the Obama administration’s “Fiduciary Rule,” which required financial advisers to serve the best interests of their clients.

Preventing violence against the police (February 9)
This order instructs Attorney General Jeff Sessions to develop strategies for the Department of Justice to use existing federal laws or recommend new legislation to prosecute individuals who commit crimes against law enforcement officials.

Creating a task force to reduce crime (February 9)
This executive order instructs Sessions to establish a task force to discuss crime reduction ideas, identify “deficiencies” in current laws and evaluate the availability of crime-related data.

Combatting transnational criminal organizations (February 9)
This order aims to increase communication and coordination among different agencies relating to international criminal organization and create a strategy to disrupt these organizations. It also directs the Threat Mitigation Working Group to submit a report to the president within 120 days on transnational criminal organizations.

Enforcing regulatory reform (February 24)
This order instructs each federal agency to designate an official as its Regulatory Reform Officer within 60 days of the order. The EO also directs all agencies to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force composed of the following: Agency RRO, the agency Regulatory Policy Officer, a representative from the agency’s central policy office.

References:
Quigley, Aidan. “All of Trump’s Executive Actions so Far.” The Agenda. Politico, 27 Feb. 2017.
Web. 27 Feb. 2017.

To see more about Executive Actions taken by the POTUS see https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions