US Policy Archives | Page 2 of 13 | McDermott US Policy Archives | Page 2 of 13 | McDermott

McDermott Will & Schulte, a global law firm

Keywords – External: US Policy

  • May 2026 deadline: HHS imposes accessibility standards for healthcare company websites, mobile apps, kiosks

    May 2026 deadline: HHS imposes accessibility standards for healthcare company websites, mobile apps, kiosks

    CLIENT ALERT / US POLICY

    May 2026 deadline: HHS imposes accessibility standards for healthcare company websites, mobile apps, kiosks

    January 8, 2026

    Read time: 8 min

    Key takeaways
    Overview

    Update: HHS OCR announced a one-year extension of the compliance deadline for its mobile application and web content accessibility requirements under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The new deadline is May 11, 2027, for recipients of HHS funding with 15 or more employees and May 10, 2028, for recipients with fewer than 15 employees. While this extension provides more time to implement necessary changes and meet accessibility standards, it also underscores the importance of ensuring that all required measures are fully in place by the revised timeline, as further delays are unlikely.

    Covered entities should continue advancing their compliance efforts without interruption, particularly given that required changes (especially where third-party vendors are involved) can be complex, resource intensive, and require significant lead time to implement. We recommend using this additional time to address any remaining accessibility gaps well in advance of the deadlines. 

    A US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Section 504 final rule imposes a May 2026 deadline on covered healthcare companies. Never before has a rule required all recipients of federal financial assistance – including private healthcare providers – to comply with digital accessibility standards for websites, mobile apps, and kiosks.

    By creating a legal framework that was not previously available in the public accommodation context, this rule places heightened scrutiny on healthcare companies. As a result, noncompliance is likely to lead to greater litigation exposure and increased business risks.

    In depth

    Background

    To promote access to healthcare for individuals with disabilities, HHS, through its Office for Civil Rights (OCR), published a final rule on May 9, 2024, creating various digital accessibility requirements under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). HHS implemented these new requirements because it determined that many healthcare-related services are provided through websites and mobile applications that are not accessible to individuals with disabilities. Examples of these accessibility issues include images, graphics, and maps that cannot be read or understood by blind patients using screen readers, as well as videos that lack captions for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing.

    HHS’s 2024 rule applies digital accessibility standards to all facilities, programs, and activities that receive federal funds or financial assistance, or that are conducted by a federal agency. Federal financial assistance for entities receiving funds from HHS includes credits, subsidies, and insurance contracts, such as Medicare Parts A, C and D; Medicaid; Children’s Health Insurance Program; Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; HeadStart; Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; child welfare programs; and clinical research. Therefore, this rule will affect a wide range of healthcare facilities and entities that benefit from these programs, including hospitals, health clinics, dental and vision providers, long-term care facilities, and mental health treatment centers.

    Website/mobile app accessibility and exceptions

    The rule’s accessibility requirements apply to a healthcare company’s website and mobile applications, including those operated by third parties on the company’s behalf (e.g., electronic medical record vendors). Third-party tools, such as appointment schedulers, patient registration platforms, bill pay portals, and telehealth platforms must also comply with these requirements.

    However, certain types of content are exempt from these requirements. The exceptions include:

    • Archived web content.
    • Preexisting conventional electronic documents.
    • Content posted by a third party acting independently (i.e., not under any contractual, licensing, or other arrangement with the healthcare company).
    • Individualized password-protected documents.
    • Preexisting social media posts.

    Although these exceptions may appear broad at first glance, their scope is limited in certain respects. For example, the exception for “archived web content” does not include older web content that remains in use for reasons other than reference, research, or recordkeeping; such content that is still widely and consistently used must comply with the rule’s accessibility requirements. Similarly, the exception for “preexisting conventional electronic documents” does not include any documents currently used to apply for, access, or participate in a company’s programs or activities.

    If content falls under an applicable exception, a company may still be required under existing Section 504 obligations to make that content accessible if the company receives a specific request from an individual with a disability. An entity will not be deemed as violating the rule if it can demonstrate that noncompliance has only a minimal impact on the ability of an individual with a disability to access content in a manner that provides substantially equivalent timeliness, confidentiality, independence, and ease of use.

    Making websites and mobile apps accessible through the provision of auxiliary aids and services constitutes providing an accommodation under the ADA. Accordingly, the requirement to do so may be subject to the ADA’s fundamental alteration and undue burden defenses.

    Technical standard (WCAG 2.1)

    To ensure website and mobile accessibility, the rule applies a widely used and recognized technical standard based on the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). Websites and mobile apps must comply with WCAG 2.1 Levels A and AA (WCAG 2.1 AA), which include extensive and highly technical criteria.

    Companies may also conform with the rule’s requirements by complying with WCAG 2.2 AA or AAA standards (which became an official standard in October 2023) or by adopting an alternative standard that results in substantially equivalent or greater accessibility than WCAG 2.1 AA, which has now become the legal floor under this rule.

    Kiosk accessibility requirements

    The rule imposes accessibility requirements for healthcare programs and activities provided through kiosks. Kiosks are defined as self-service transaction machines designed for independent use by patients or program participants. Common examples include devices patients use on their own to check in, access services, or record vital signs.

    Healthcare companies that use kiosks must avoid discrimination on the basis of disability in connection with participation in, or benefits provided through, kiosk-based programs and activities. To comply with these new requirements, healthcare companies can either use kiosks that are accessible to individuals with disabilities or implement alternative procedures to provide access without the use of a kiosk for those unable to use kiosks because of inaccessible features. Any alternative procedures must afford individuals with disabilities the same level of access, confidentiality, and convenience as those who use a kiosk. The rule’s fact sheet provides an illustrative example whereby a company with an inaccessible kiosk may need to offer direct assistance with registration at the front desk as an alternative accommodation for individuals with disabilities.

    Timeframe for compliance

    Healthcare companies must comply with the rule’s accessibility standards in accordance with the following timeframe:

    • Small companies (fewer than 15 employees) must comply by May 10, 2027.
    • Larger companies (15 or more employees) must comply by May 11, 2026.

    Risks of noncompliance

    Failure to comply with the rule may result in serious penalties such as loss of federal funding. OCR can investigate complaints and enforce compliance, conduct a compliance review without a complaint, or refer any complaint of noncompliance to the US Department of Justice to secure compliance with the rule through any other legally authorized means.

    In addition to regulatory enforcement, the ADA creates opportunities for plaintiff lawyers to pursue individual claims against healthcare companies whose websites or mobile apps fail to comply with these accessibility standards. In the past year, plaintiffs have filed thousands of lawsuits in federal and state courts, claiming that private businesses have failed to comply with Title III of the ADA (which applies to places of public accommodation), even though no rules had set forth digital accessibility requirements for these private businesses. Trolling plaintiff attorneys can easily use website scanning technologies that identify lack of compliance with WCAG standards, thereby creating a significant litigation risk for healthcare companies that do not comply with the rule.

    The rule may also create business risk for healthcare companies. For healthcare companies engaged in government contracts, noncompliance could hinder their ability to secure new contracts or disrupt the maintenance of existing ones.

    Best practices

    In light of this far-reaching rule and the growing trend of website accessibility litigation, healthcare companies should consider adopting the following best practices:

    • Conduct an accessibility audit and identify any noncompliance with WCAG 2.1 AA standards across the company’s website, mobile apps, and patient portals.
    • Regularly test website functionality against WCAG criteria using scanning technologies frequently used by plaintiff lawyers, such as WAVE or PowerMapper.
    • Collaborate with internal/external technical teams to implement accessibility features and make any required changes.
    • Train personnel on accessibility requirements and WCAG standards and incorporate accessibility workflows into the company’s content management system and quality assurance processes.
    • Ensure that appropriate contractual arrangements are in place with vendors and that they are aware of the rule’s accessibility standards.
    • Develop and publish an accessibility policy outlining the company’s accessibility practices.
    • Assess and frequently reevaluate digital and kiosk accessibility practices and ensure any alternative procedures for kiosks afford equal access, convenience, and confidentiality for persons with disabilities.

    For more information, please contact the authors or your regular McDermott Will & Schulte lawyer.

    Authors

    Jeremy White

    Partner

    Washington, DC

    Sandra M. DiVarco

    Partner

    Chicago

    Allie Kelley

    Associate

    Chicago

    More Insights

  • White House executive order moves to restrict state AI legislation

    White House executive order moves to restrict state AI legislation

    CLIENT ALERT / US POLICY

    White House executive order moves to restrict state AI legislation

    December 16, 2025

    Read time: 7 min

    Key takeaways
    Overview

    On December 11, 2025, the White House issued an executive order (EO) attempting to restrict state-level artificial intelligence (AI) laws. This EO follows bipartisan legislative decisions to exclude preemption of state-level AI law provisions from two separate bills in 2025.

    In the past several years, the number of state AI-related laws has significantly increased. In 2025 alone, 38 states adopted more than 100 laws relating to AI. Existing laws span consumer protection, employment, healthcare, election interference, and AI governance, to name a few. The administration’s stated goal is to maintain “global AI dominance” through a “minimally burdensome” framework. The EO sets out several measures and efforts, in furtherance of the administration’s desire to avoid a patchwork of state laws and regulations, to reduce barriers to innovation, and to ensure consistent oversight of interstate commerce.

    In depth

    Implementing the EO

    The EO’s first three measures for implementing a “minimally burdensome” AI framework focus largely on states with existing AI laws:

    1. AI litigation task force: The EO instructs the attorney general to establish, within 30 days, an “AI Litigation Task Force” whose “sole responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws” that are inconsistent with the EO, including on grounds that such laws unconstitutionally regulate interstate commerce, are preempted by existing federal regulations, or are otherwise unlawful in the attorney general’s judgment.
    2. Evaluation of existing state laws: The EO directs the secretary of commerce to publish, within 90 days, an evaluation identifying state AI laws that do not meet the standard of “minimally burdensome.” The secretary of commerce must do so in consultation with the special advisor for AI and crypto, the assistant to the president for economic policy, the assistant to the president for science and technology, and the assistant to the president and counsel to the president. This evaluation must identify “onerous laws that conflict with” the EO and laws that should be referred to the task force. The evaluation must, at a minimum, identify laws that “require AI models to alter their truthful outputs” or that “compel AI developers or deployers to disclose” information in violation of the First Amendment or other provisions of the Constitution.
    3. Conditions on federal funding: Executive agencies are directed to assess their discretionary grant programs to determine whether agencies may condition their grants on states’ decisions to not enact conflicting AI laws or to enter into agreements to not enforce existing AI laws. The secretary of commerce is directed to issue a policy notice within 90 days, that will outline states’ eligibility for leftover funds once a state fulfills obligations under the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment program. Specifically, the notice will clarify that states with “onerous” AI laws are ineligible for leftover federal funding for broadband access.

    Next, the EO identifies three key areas in which federal agencies and the administration are directed to publish or to initiate proceedings to consider issuing standards and policy statements to provide guidance on potential preemption of state AI laws:

    1. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) standard: The EO directs the FCC chair, within 90 days and in consultation with the special advisor for AI and crypto, to initiate a proceeding to assess whether to adopt a federal reporting and disclosure standard that preempts existing state laws.
    2. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) policy statement: The FTC chair is directed, within 90 days, to issue a policy statement that addresses the applicability of the FTC Act’s “prohibition on unfair and deceptive acts or practices” to AI models. This policy statement must explain the extent to which state laws that “require alterations to the truthful outputs of AI models are preempted by the FTC Act.
    3. Legislative recommendation: The special advisor for AI and crypto and the assistant to the president for science and technology will prepare a “legislative recommendation establishing a uniform Federal policy framework for AI that preempts State AI laws that conflict” with the EO.

    Exceptions to the legislative recommendation

    The EO provides three explicit exceptions from preemption by the legislative recommendation and leaves room for the administration to determine future carve-outs. The EO clarifies that the legislative recommendation would not preempt laws involving child safety protections, AI compute and data center infrastructure, and state procurement and use of AI.

    State-level laws that may be affected

    A wide range of AI laws may be targeted for preemption. However, laws targeting algorithmic discrimination may be prioritized under this EO. For example, the EO references the Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act (SB24-205), which includes requirements designed to protect against “algorithmic discrimination,” as an example of a law that “may even force AI models to produce false results.” Other US state and local laws that contain specific provisions intended to address the risks posed by algorithmic bias include:

    • California’s automated decision-making technology (ADMT) regulations: Under the California Consumer Protection Act, businesses are required to perform risk assessments, provide notices and opt-out rights, and conduct cybersecurity audits when they use ADMT to make a “significant decision” about housing, education, employment, healthcare, or financial services. Parts of the ADMT regulations are scheduled to become effective on January 1, 2026.
    • California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) AI regulations: Effective October 1, 2025, these regulations extend the FEHA to cover automated decision systems (ADS) in employment contexts and prohibit discriminatory ADS, primarily targeting three compliance areas: bias testing, recordkeeping, and vendor liability.
    • Colorado Division of Insurance, 3 C.C.R. § 702-10: Colorado requires covered insurers to conduct prescribed testing before using predictive models, external consumer data, or algorithms to underwrite certain personal or small commercial lines, to ensure they do not result in unfair discrimination/disparate impact, and to adopt a governance and risk management framework.
    • Illinois’ Human Rights Act amendments: Effective January 1, 2026, these amendments will prohibit employers from using AI that discriminates against employees on the basis of a protected class.
    • New York City’s Local Law 144: Effective July 5, 2023, this law requires employers and employment agencies to conduct bias audits of automated employment decision tools (AEDTs) that are used to screen candidates or to substantially assist employers at any point in the hiring or promotion process. They must also provide notice to job applicants of the use of AEDTs and their right to request alternative evaluation processes, and they must publish audit results.
    • Texas’ Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (TRAIGA): Effective January 1, 2026, the TRAIGA prohibits AI systems from being developed or deployed to unlawfully discriminate against a protected class.
    • Utah’s Artificial Intelligence Consumer Protection amendments: Effective May 7, 2025, these amendments require businesses to make certain disclosures when providing a “high-risk” AI system that can be used to make “significant personal decisions” involving financial, legal, medical, or mental health services.

    What now?

    The EO seeks to restrict further state legislative efforts involving AI that do not meet a standard of “minimally burdensome” and to provide a framework for agencies to craft relevant standards. The scope and authority of the EO, however, are expected to face constitutional challenges concerning states’ rights in the coming months. While the EO could prompt Congress to act, consensus on the moratorium’s duration and terms is unlikely to happen quickly. This presents challenges for businesses that are investing time and resources in complying with, or preparing to comply with, potentially impacted laws.

    The introduction of the EO is ultimately one factor among several that businesses will have to incorporate into their risk calculation when determining the best approach for their organizations. We will be closely monitoring this space for developments.

    If you have questions or would like to discuss any issues related to this EO, contact your regular McDermott Will & Schulte lawyer or one of the authors.

    Olivia Andrews, a law clerk in the New York office, also contributed to this client alert.

    Authors

    Jiayan Chen

    Partner

    Washington, DC

    Shawn C. Helms

    Partner

    Dallas

    Kathryn Linsky

    Partner

    New York – One Vanderbilt Avenue

    Michael G. Morgan

    Partner

    Los Angeles, Silicon Valley

    Kristen O'Brien

    McDermott+

    Washington, DC

    Alexander H. Southwell

    Partner

    New York – One Vanderbilt Avenue

    Michael Roberts

    Counsel

    New York – One Vanderbilt Avenue

    Allison Emge

    Associate

    Los Angeles

    H. Michael Byrne

    Partner

    New York – One Vanderbilt Avenue

    More Insights

  • FTC settles first INFORM Consumers Act case over online marketplace disclosure violations

    FTC settles first INFORM Consumers Act case over online marketplace disclosure violations

    CLIENT ALERT / US POLICY

    FTC settles first INFORM Consumers Act case over online marketplace disclosure violations

    October 8, 2025

    Read time: 7 min

    Key takeaways
    Overview

    The first enforcement action under the Integrity, Notification, and Fairness in Online Retail Marketplaces for Consumers Act (INFORM Consumers Act) has been brought with important implications for companies operating online marketplaces. The INFORM Consumers Act requires online marketplaces to provide clear mechanisms for reporting suspicious activity related to, and for identifying, third-party volume sellers. In September 2025, the US Department of Justice (DOJ), on a referral from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), filed a complaint and proposed settlement agreement with a $2 million civil penalty against Chinese e-commerce platform Temu for violations of the act.

    In depth

    The INFORM Consumers Act, which took effect in June 2023, was enacted to combat counterfeit online sales by requiring improved transparency on online marketplaces. The act specifically requires prominent and accessible reporting mechanisms on the product listings for all high-volume third-party sellers, as well as identification information about the sellers, so that consumers can report suspicious activity related to the sellers either electronically or by telephone. The act defines high-volume third-party sellers as sellers that do not have contractual relationships with the marketplace, have had 200 or more separate transactions of new or unused consumer products, and have more than $5,000 in gross revenues for the previous 12 months. The act also requires online marketplaces to collect and verify the bank information, contact information, and tax ID number of high-volume third-party sellers operating on their sites and to suspend any sellers who do not provide this information.

    Temu connects international third-party sellers with consumers through its gamified shopping online platform. The government’s complaint accused Temu of failing to provide shoppers a telephonic reporting mechanism, failing to disclose electronic and telephonic reporting mechanisms in an easy-to-notice and -understand way, failing to provide one-click access to the reporting tools, and failing to present the reporting mechanisms in each medium and interface through which shoppers may access Temu’s online marketplace. Temu was also accused of failing to provide names, physical addresses, and contact information for high-volume third-party sellers as required by the act. In cases where the information was provided by Temu, the complaint alleged that shoppers were required to scroll far down the page and click through numerous small or vague links to access sellers’ identity information, constituting another violation of the act.

    The parties agreed to a settlement, with Temu neither admitting nor denying the allegations. As part of the settlement agreement, Temu committed to pay a $2 million civil penalty. Violators of the INFORM Consumers Act are subject to the civil penalties of the FTC Act, which carry a maximum penalty per violation of around $53,000; however, the settlement agreement does not spell out how the $2 million figure was reached. Notably, the FTC referred the matter to the DOJ to file the complaint, likely in order to circumvent the Supreme Court of the United States’ 2021 ruling in AMG Capital Management v. FTC, which restricts the FTC’s ability to seek equitable monetary relief.

    The settlement also requires Temu to take a number of steps to rectify its alleged noncompliance with the act, including:

    • Introducing a telephonic reporting mechanism that provides clear audio instructions for making a report and allows consumers the opportunity to listen back and re-record any reports
    • Providing one-click access to any electronic reporting mechanism for deceptive sellers
    • Ensuring reporting mechanisms are present in every format of Temu’s online marketplace, including mobile apps
    • Placing sellers’ identity information at the top or in the body of the product listing page in a larger and contrasting font to make the disclosure more conspicuous
    • Providing one-click access to any direct electronic messaging services featured on the product listing

    In addition to this substantial penalty, the settlement requires substantial reporting and recordkeeping from Temu. Notably, though the DOJ brought the complaint, Temu is required to provide reports only to the FTC. Temu must make a report one year after the settlement identifying:

    • The primary physical, postal, and email addresses and phone number for Temu
    • All of Temu’s businesses by their names, telephone numbers, and physical, postal, email, and internet addresses
    • Descriptions of the activities of each of Temu’s businesses
    • Detailed descriptions of how Temu remains in compliance with each section of the settlement

    For the next 10 years, Temu must also inform the FTC within 14 days of:

    • Changes to any point of contact at Temu
    • Any change to Temu’s corporate structure, including the creation, sale, merger, or dissolution of any Temu entity
    • Any bankruptcy or insolvency petition filed against Temu

    The settlement also requires Temu to maintain certain records for the next 10 years, including:

    • Accounting records of all goods or services sold
    • Personnel records for Temu employees involved in keeping Temu in compliance with the INFORM Consumers Act
    • Records of all consumer complaints, refund requests, and Temu responses to those complaints and refund requests

    Additionally, Temu must also respond to any ad hoc requests from both the FTC and DOJ for additional compliance reports or other requested information. Notably, despite this long list of business conduct requirements, the settlement does not require a monitor or assessor of Temu’s actions, something that the FTC would have historically imposed under prior administrations.

    There has been notable bipartisan support for the INFORM Consumers Act, likely due to prevalent fraudulent behavior from sellers on online marketplaces. In August 2025, US Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin and Republican Senator Bill Cassidy sent letters to 46 companies that operate online marketplaces to request information on efforts the companies have taken to comply with the act and to hold high-volume third-party sellers accountable for violations. This bipartisan interest will likely lead to heightened regulatory scrutiny of online marketplaces, including potential congressional hearings or further inquiries on the behaviors of e-commerce companies. This added risk means online marketplaces should keep on top of their compliance with the act and policing of fraudulent third-party sellers operating on their sites.

    The FTC’s action against Temu reinforces the fact that the current agency administration under President Trump continues to be invested in taking steps to protect American consumers from fraudulent third-party sellers and scammers. The complaint and settlement send the message to other online marketplaces that compliance with the INFORM Consumers Act will be enforced and that the marketplaces themselves are obligated to prevent third-party sellers from hawking stolen, counterfeit, or damaged goods on their sites. Pursuing third-party sellers is difficult for the FTC and DOJ given the sheer number of sellers operating on online marketplaces and the fact that many are international sellers. The FTC thus makes clear through this enforcement action that it will be aggressively monitoring online marketplaces to determine their compliance with the INFORM Consumers Act. Online marketplaces should engage in robust efforts to ensure they are fully following the requirements of the act and consider efforts to police the sellers on their sites.

    Authors

    Alexander H. Southwell

    Partner

    New York – One Vanderbilt Avenue

    Megan C. Ingram

    Associate

    Washington, DC

    More Insights

  • HIRE Act would significantly impact outsourcing payments (but questions remain)

    HIRE Act would significantly impact outsourcing payments (but questions remain)

    CLIENT ALERT / US POLICY

    HIRE Act would significantly impact outsourcing payments (but questions remain)

    October 1, 2025

    Read time: 4 min

    Key takeaways
    Overview

    On September 5, 2025, Senator Bernie Moreno (R-OH) introduced the Halting International Relocation of Employment Act (2025 HIRE Act).[1] While the bill’s prospects for enactment are unclear and an attempt to pass it by unanimous consent in the US Senate was blocked, US companies that provide or receive services from outside the United States should monitor this legislation and consider its possible effects.

    The 2025 HIRE Act consists of three components:

    • A new 25% excise tax on “outsourcing payments” made by US persons to foreign persons for services that directly or indirectly benefit US consumers.
    • A prohibition on deductibility of those outsourcing payments.
    • The creation of a domestic workforce fund to provide workforce development, apprenticeship, and similar programs.

    The proposed excise tax and the limitation on deductibility would significantly impact a wide range of cross-border payments routinely made by US businesses.

    In depth

    Summary of the 2025 HIRE Act

    The 2025 HIRE Act would establish a 25% tax on “outsourcing payments,” which is defined to include any “premium, fee, royalty, service charge, or other payment” that is made during a trade or business to a foreign person with respect to labor or services, “the benefit of which is directed, directly or indirectly, to consumers located in the United States.”[2] “Foreign person” is defined to mean any person who is not a US person, other than any corporation or partnership organized under the laws of a US possession.[3] There are no exceptions for payments to foreign affiliates (e.g., shared service center subsidiaries located outside of the US).

    In the case of “mixed payments” for services that only partially benefit US consumers, the proposed excise tax would be prorated so that the tax only applies to the portion of the payment that represents labor or services “directed to consumers within the United States” as compared “to all consumers” or, presumably, non-consumers or internal business functions.

    The 2025 HIRE Act also provides that the new excise tax is not deductible, and any outsourcing payment within the scope of the new excise tax is also not deductible for corporate income tax purposes.[4]

    Finally, the 2025 HIRE Act establishes the Domestic Workforce Fund, a trust fund that would collect the new excise tax and any associated penalties or additions for spending on workforce development, retraining programs, apprenticeships, and partnerships “to expand domestic employment in sectors impacted by outsourcing.” It may also be used for making grants to certain states for “workforce development initiatives” where there has been a high level of job displacement.[5]

    Who would be affected

    Groups or arrangements most likely to see material impact include:

    • US companies with foreign vendors or service providers whose work relates (directly or indirectly) to services benefitting US customers. This is broad and could include many IT services, customer support or call centers, business process services for consumer-facing services, telehealth or remote clinical services for consumers, finance, and accounting services for US consumers.
    • Foreign service providers who supply affected services. Contracts with US entities will presumably need to be repriced or renegotiated.
    • Global Capability Centers, captive centers, or foreign affiliates that serve US consumer-facing operations.

    Key implications

    The 2025 HIRE Act raises several questions, including:

    • How “benefit…to consumers located in the United States” will be defined and proven[6]
    • The mechanics of mixed payments and how to apportion tax and cost
    • Whether we will see potential carve outs for specific industries or critical services
    • What anti-avoidance rules will look like in practice (e.g., via intermediaries, related parties, or value-added resellers)

    These and other technical questions presumably will be addressed in greater detail if the 2025 HIRE Act proceeds in the legislative process. As of the date of this client alert, the 2025 HIRE Act is merely proposed legislation.

    In the meantime, businesses should be aware that a truly seismic change affecting nearly all companies that leverage offshore outsourcing and multinational enterprises may be imminent. Both US customers and foreign vendors should begin assessing exposure and consider building flexibility into their contracts.

    Special thanks to Shawn Helms and David Noren, who also contributed to this article.

    Authors

    Caitlin Howe

    Partner

    Dallas

    John Karasek

    Counsel

    Boston

    More Insights

  • CMS launches $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program

    CMS launches $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program

    CLIENT ALERT / US POLICY

    CMS launches $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program

    September 16, 2025

    Read time: 9 min

    Key takeaways
    Overview

    Public Law 119‑21 (also known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) created a $50 billion Rural Health Transformation (RHT) Program to strengthen healthcare across the rural United States. The $50 billion fund will be allocated to approved states, with 50% of the funding to be distributed equally across all states that have approved applications. The other 50% will be distributed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) based on a variety of factors. To access the RHT Program funds, states must submit a one-time application to CMS. On September 15, 2025, CMS released a notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) with application details. Applications are due by November 5, 2025, with awards to be decided by December 31, 2025.

    While only states are eligible to apply, many states are soliciting feedback and comments from stakeholders on how RHT Program funds should be used. Interested stakeholders should provide input to the agency that is responsible for the application in their state.

    In depth

    Background

    As part of Public Law 119‑21, US Congress established the $50 billion RHT Program to help rural communities reimagine their healthcare delivery systems and improve health outcomes.

    The RHT Program seeks to advance five strategic goals outlined in Public Law 119‑21:

    Make rural America healthy again
    Support rural health innovations and new access points to promote preventative health and address root causes of diseases. Projects will use evidence-based, outcomes-driven interventions to improve disease prevention, chronic disease management, behavioral health, and prenatal care.
    Sustainable access
    Help rural providers become long-term access points for care by improving efficiency and sustainability. With RHT Program support, rural facilities work together – or with high-quality regional systems – to share or coordinate operations, technology, primary and specialty care, and emergency services.
    Workforce development
    Attract and retain a high-skilled healthcare workforce by strengthening recruitment and retention of healthcare providers in rural communities. Help rural providers practice at the top of their license and develop a broader set of providers to serve a rural community’s needs, such as community health workers, pharmacists, and individuals trained to help patients navigate the healthcare system.
    Innovative care
    Spark the growth of innovative care models to improve health outcomes, coordinate care, and promote flexible care arrangements. Develop and implement payment mechanisms incentivizing providers or accountable care organizations to reduce healthcare costs, improve quality of care, and shift care to lower cost settings.
    Tech innovation
    Foster use of innovative technologies that promote efficient care delivery, data security, and access to digital health tools by rural facilities, providers, and patients. Projects support access to remote care, improve data sharing, strengthen cybersecurity, and invest in emerging technologies.

    Although the goal of the RHT Program is to effectuate impact on rural communities, per CMS FAQs, the NOFO does not include specific restrictions on which provider organizations may be eligible to receive funding. Some stakeholders have expressed concerns that the funds may go to providers that are not located in rural areas or that only nominally serve rural communicates.

    Funding

    Funding allocation

    The RHT Program provides $50 billion in funding to be allocated to approved states:

    • CMS will distribute 50% of the funding ($25 billion) equally among all approved states. This suggests approved states will receive the same amount from this pool regardless of the size of their rural population, the number of rural health facilities in the state, or other factors. CMS refers to this funding in the NOFO as “baseline funding.”
    • CMS will allocate 50% of the funding ($25 billion) based on a variety of factors, including the content and quality of the state’s application and rural factors. In the NOFO, CMS refers to this funding as “workload funding.” CMS developed a point scoring methodology for workload funding in the NOFO that includes data driven metrics (based on rural facility and population factors), initiative-driven metrics (based on programmatic initiatives outlined in the state’s application and subsequent follow-through), and state policy metrics. CMS will recalculate each approved state’s technical score and corresponding workload funding amount for each subsequent budget period based on the information and data the approved state provides in the required annual reporting each year. A state’s rural facility and population score will only be calculated once as part of the application process.

    The funding will be allocated over five fiscal years, with $10 billion of funding available each fiscal year, beginning in fiscal year 2026 and ending in fiscal year 2030.

    Funding eligibility

    Only the 50 US states are eligible to receive an RHT Program award. The District of Columbia and US Territories are not eligible. Local governments, hospitals, universities, nonprofits, federally recognized Tribes, and individuals may not apply.

    Use of funds

    States must use RHT Program funds for three or more of the approved uses:

    • Prevention and chronic disease: Promoting evidence-based, measurable interventions to improve prevention and chronic disease management.
    • Provider payments: Providing payments to healthcare providers for the provision of healthcare items or services, subject to the restrictions described in the NOFO.
    • Consumer technology solutions: Promoting consumer-facing, technology-driven solutions for the prevention and management of chronic diseases.
    • Training and technological assistance: Providing training and technical assistance for the development and adoption of technology-enabled solutions that improve care delivery in rural hospitals, including remote monitoring, robotics, artificial intelligence, and other advanced technologies.
    • Workforce: Recruiting and retaining clinical workforce talent to rural areas, with commitments to serve rural communities for a minimum of five years.
    • IT advances: Providing technical assistance, software, and hardware for significant information technology advances designed to improve efficiency, enhance cybersecurity capability development, and improve patient health outcomes.
    • Appropriate care availability: Assisting rural communities to right size their healthcare delivery systems by identifying needed preventative, ambulatory, pre-hospital, emergency, acute inpatient care, outpatient care, and post-acute care service lines.
    • Behavioral health: Supporting access to opioid use disorder treatment services (as defined in Social Security Act § 1861(jjj)(1)), other substance use disorder treatment services, and mental health services.
    • Innovative care: Developing projects that support innovative models of care that include value-based care arrangements and alternative payment models, as appropriate.
    • Additional uses: Uses designed to promote sustainable access to high-quality rural healthcare services, as determined by the CMS administrator, including:
      • Capital expenditures and infrastructure: Investing in existing rural healthcare facility buildings and infrastructure, including minor building alterations or renovations and equipment upgrades to ensure long-term overhead and upkeep costs are commensurate with patient volume, subject to restrictions in the NOFO.
      • Fostering collaboration: Initiating, fostering, and strengthening local and regional strategic partnerships between rural facilities and other healthcare providers to promote quality improvement, improve financial stability of rural facilities, and expand access to care.

    Prohibited uses of funding

    The NOFO outlines unallowable costs, including the following:

    • Funding cannot be used for new construction. This prohibition includes supplanting funding for in-process or planned construction projects or directing funding toward new construction builds. Renovations or alterations are allowed if they are clearly linked to program goals in, and in accordance with, the requirements and limitations set forth in the NOFO. Capital expenditures and infrastructure funding cannot exceed 20% of the total funding that CMS awards to a state in a given budget period.
    • Funding cannot be used to replace payment for clinical services that could be reimbursed by insurance or another form of health coverage. CMS will not approve proposed initiatives that would pay for clinical services where payment for the services is available from another source of coverage, including where the initiative would increase the payment amount available from the other source of coverage. If a state plans to fund direct healthcare services, it must justify in its application why such services are not already reimbursable, how the payment will fill a gap in care coverage (such as uncompensated care or services not covered by insurance), and/or how such funding will transform the current care delivery model. Funding for provider payments cannot exceed 15% of the total funding that CMS awards to a state in a given budget period
    • Funding cannot be used for clinician salaries or wage supports for facilities that subject clinicians to noncompete contractual limitations.
    • No more than 5% of the total funding that CMS awards to a state in a given budget period can support the replacement of an electronic medical record (EMR) system if a previous HITECH-certified EMR system is already in place as of September 1, 2025.
    • To the extent a state seeks to implement a “rural tech catalyst fund initiative” or similar initiative for accelerating technology adoption, as described in the NOFO, funding for such initiative cannot exceed the lesser of 10% of total funding awarded to a state in a given budget period or $20 million. Funding for such an initiative is subject to all restrictions and requirements described in the NOFO.

    State application process

    CMS released the NOFO, including application instructions, for the RHT Program on September 15, 2025. Application submissions are due by November 5, 2025. There is only one opportunity to apply for funding and one application period for the RHT Program. Awards will be decided by December 31, 2025.

    To assist states with the application process, CMS has made available an FAQs document. The agency also will hold introductory webinars on September 19 and 25, 2025, and will continue to engage with states during the open application period to answer any questions. More details regarding webinars are available on CMS’s website.

    Each state must separately apply for its own funding. However, proposed initiatives could include multistate collaborations, such as regional networks or complementary workforce initiatives. States also may consult and involve partners, such as universities, local health departments, community-based organizations, and provider associations, in designing and implementing the planned activities proposed in the application, and may sub-award or contract RHT Program funds to such partners for various activities. Stakeholders interested in participating in their state’s application process should contact the state agency (or agencies) responsible for the application. The specific state agency may vary from state to state and may require some effort to identify. For example, some states have tasked the governor’s office with the application and others have tasked the state health services agency.

    Next steps for stakeholders

    As states prepare their RHT Program applications, many states are soliciting input from stakeholders and seeking feedback on how the state, if awarded, should use the federal funding to transform rural healthcare. Interested stakeholders should provide input to their applicable state agency.

    We will continue to monitor updates to the RHT Program. Please contact the authors of this article or your regular McDermott Will & Schulte lawyer with any questions.

    Authors

    Emily Jane Cook

    Partner

    Los Angeles, Washington, DC

    Lisa Mazur

    Partner

    Chicago

    Jayda Greco

    Partner

    Chicago

    Grayson I. Dimick

    Associate

    Washington, DC

    Brigit Dunne

    Associate

    Chicago

    More Insights

  • DOJ guidance on unlawful discrimination: Implications for DEI practices in the private sector

    DOJ guidance on unlawful discrimination: Implications for DEI practices in the private sector

    CLIENT ALERT / US POLICY

    DOJ guidance on unlawful discrimination: Implications for DEI practices in the private sector

    August 28, 2025

    Read time: 6 min

    Key takeaways
    Overview

    On July 29, 2025, the US Department of Justice (DOJ), led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, issued a new guidance memorandum that clarifies what the DOJ considers to be “unlawful discriminatory policies and practices” under federal civil rights laws (the guidance). The guidance also provides a list of non-binding “best practices” to help entities minimize the risk of legal violations. While the guidance is directed primarily at recipients of federal funding, the DOJ cautions that private employers who are subject to federal civil rights statutes – such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act – should review the guidance and ensure their employment practices do not run afoul of federal law.

    In depth

    Unlawful discriminatory policies and practices

    The guidance offers a non-exhaustive list of unlawful practices that could result in the revocation of federal grant funding. The list includes (i) preferential treatment based on protected characteristics; (ii) prohibited use of proxies for protected characteristics; (iii) segregation based on protected characteristics; and (iv) training programs that promote discrimination or a hostile environment. The most salient issues from this list are as follows:

    DEI programs remain a bull’s-eye target

    The guidance reiterates that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, “no matter the program’s labels, objectives, or intentions,” will continue to be scrutinized. According to the DOJ, “[t]he use of terms such as ‘DEI,’ ‘Equity,’ or other euphemistic terms does not excuse unlawful discrimination or absolve parties from scrutiny regarding potential violations” of federal anti-discrimination laws.

    Guidance on sex discrimination conflicts with existing case law and state law

    The DOJ also asserts that permitting males, including those who self-identify as “women,” to access single-sex spaces designed for females (e.g., sex-segregated restrooms) risks creating a hostile environment under Title VII. However, this guidance conflicts with existing law. For example, in Bostock, the US Supreme Court held that discriminating against someone because she is homosexual or transgender violates Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex. (Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., Georgia, 590 U.S. 644 (2020).) Care must be taken to also comply with state and local anti-discrimination laws (e.g., New York State Human Rights Law, Illinois Human Rights Act, California Fair Employment and Housing Act), which typically offer broader protections than Title VII and explicitly outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity (including transgender status).

    Although the guidance urges organizations to “affirm sex-based boundaries rooted in biological differences,” employers must also consider Bostock and state law on the issue to help manage their legal risks.

    Neutral criteria cannot serve as a proxy for unlawful discrimination

    The DOJ further warns that seemingly neutral criteria, such as “lived experience” and “cultural competence,” may function as “potentially unlawful proxies” for a protected characteristic, and therefore should be examined carefully to ensure their usage is in compliance with federal law. For example, if the goal of asking candidates to describe “obstacles they have overcome” in their life is to attract more candidates of a particular racial or ethnic group, such criteria is unlawful even if cloaked in neutral terms.

    Training programs may create a hostile work environment

    While many jurisdictions require employers to provide annual anti-harassment training, the guidance now targets “unlawful DEI training,” explaining that trainings that penalize individuals based on their protected characteristic or include stereotypes may constitute unlawful discrimination. For example, statements like “all white people are inherently privileged” or discussions of “toxic masculinity” may create a hostile work environment, according to the DOJ.

    Renewed focus on religious protections

    The guidance also highlights that religious discrimination is evaluated under analogous standards as race and gender discrimination. To that end, recent case law has held that employers must satisfy a heightened standard for denying religious accommodations. (See Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447, 468 (2023) (raising the bar for employers in religious accommodation cases for showing undue hardship from “more than a de minimis cost” to requiring the employer to show that the “burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business”).)

    Given these developments, employers can anticipate a rise in employees relying on their religion to object to practices that are meant to protect the rights of LGBTQ+ employees. While Bostock previewed this tension between accommodating religious observers and complying with anti-discrimination laws, the court declined to offer any remedy. (Bostock, 590 U.S. at 682 (“But how these doctrines protecting religious liberty interact with Title VII are questions for future cases too.”).)

    Best practices to avoid “legal pitfalls”

    The guidance presents nine “best practices,” which it describes as “non-binding” “to help entities . . . avoid legal pitfalls.” However, given the backdrop of Loper Bright, in which the US Supreme Court expressly overruled the doctrine of deferring to an agency’s interpretation of allegedly ambiguous statutory language first articulated in Chevron, it is uncertain whether the courts will defer to this guidance. (Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 376 (2024).)  The legal uncertainty of this guidance notwithstanding, some of the proposed best practices can help employers manage their legal risk in this area. As such, employers should undertake to:

    • Eliminate policies that categorize applicants or employees by protected characteristics (e.g., use of diverse hiring slates, requiring candidates to be “culturally competent,” mentorship programs focused on women or employees from underrepresented groups).
    • Scrutinize facially neutral criteria (e.g., zip code, first-generation status, socioeconomic background) to ensure they are not serving as proxies for race or other protected characteristics.
    • Review and revise training materials to make explicit that participation does NOT require the employee to personally agree with anything stated during the program.

    Conclusion

    While the guidance does not change existing law, it reinforces the Trump administration’s view that many DEI employment practices may be unlawful. The guidance may further complicate employers’ ability to comply with the panoply of federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws. Private employers can anticipate continued scrutiny of their practices and, for those who receive federal funds, perhaps even more aggressive tactics (e.g., rescission of funds). As such, employers should take this opportunity to assess their policies and practices to reduce legal risk and ensure compliance with existing law.

    If you have any questions concerning this alert, please contact your McDermott Will & Schulte lawyer or one of the authors.

    Authors

    Martin L. Schmelkin

    Partner

    New York – 919 Third Avenue

    Ronald E. Richman

    Partner

    New York – 919 Third Avenue

    Mark E. Brossman

    Partner

    New York – 919 Third Avenue

    Donna K. Lazarus

    Partner

    New York – 919 Third Avenue

    Scott A. Gold

    Special Counsel

    New York – 919 Third Avenue

    More Insights

  • Unpacking the Trump administration’s new EO on Federal grantmaking: What applicants and recipients need to know

    Unpacking the Trump administration’s new EO on Federal grantmaking: What applicants and recipients need to know

    CLIENT ALERT / US POLICY

    Unpacking the Trump administration’s new EO on Federal grantmaking: What applicants and recipients need to know

    August 15, 2025

    Read time: 7 min

    Key takeaways
    Overview

    On August 7, 2025, the White House issued an executive order (EO) titled “Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking.” The EO calls for significant changes to the process of making and administering grants, cooperative agreements, loans, loan guarantees, and other awards of Federal financial assistance:

    • Sections 3 and 4 of the EO requires “senior appointees” or their designees to review and approve awards and funding opportunity announcements (FOAs) to ensure alignment with the president’s policy priorities
    • Section 4 of the EO further requires that awarding agencies establish a preference for “institutions with lower indirect cost rates”
    • Section 5 of the EO directs changes to the Uniform Guidance at 2 C.F.R. Part 200 to “clarify and require all discretionary grants to permit termination for convenience,” and Section 6 requires awarding agencies to ensure that their standard grant terms and conditions permit termination for convenience
    In depth

    The impact of the EO on current and prospective recipients of Federal awards will be significant. The most immediate impact of the EO will likely be further delay to many new awards as the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and awarding agencies review and modify applicable rules, terms, and conditions as directed by the EO.

    Moreover, requiring senior appointees or their designees to review and approve new awards and FOAs will likely create bottlenecks that will further delay both the issuance of FOAs and the issuance of awards against those FOAs. The EO requires these officials to “use their independent judgment” in reviewing all new awards and apply the seven principles outlined in the EO in all assessments of grant proposals. These principles are consistent with many other EOs, as an attempt to limit any grants not perceived to be consistent with the president’s policy priorities including an open rejection of grants which promote or facilitate “racial preferences,” “illegal immigration,” or “denial of the sex binary in humans.”

    The EO’s provisions on indirect cost rates and terminations for convenience will likely be even more important. Several agencies have sought to cap indirect cost rates at 15%, which is the current “de minimis” rate at 2 C.F.R. 200.414(f). At least one agency – the US Department of Energy – has gone further and mandated a 15% indirect cost rate that is inclusive of fringe expenses, eliminating the ability of recipients to apply the de minimis rate to a modified total direct cost base that includes fringe expenses. See Policy Flash 2025-27, Adjusting Department of Energy Financial Assistance Policy for For-Profit Organizations’ Financial Assistance Awards (May 8, 2025). The EO arguably supersedes these efforts, instructing agencies to apply a set of “principles” when making awards, one of which is: “All else being equal, preference for discretionary awards should be given to institutions with lower indirect cost rates.” This principle contemplates that recipients will compete for new awards based, in part, on their proposed indirect rates, which is entirely inconsistent with agency attempts to mandate a single rate for all recipients.

    In our view, the most significant aspect of the EO is the direction to revise the Uniform Guidance to provide for “terminations for convenience.” The phrase “termination for convenience” is a term of art used in procurements under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). That phrase, however, is not used in the Uniform Guidance in connection with the termination of grants. An example of language permitting termination for convenience is FAR 52.249-1, Termination for Convenience of the Government (Fixed Price) (Short Form), which states: “The Contracting Officer, by written notice, may terminate this contract, in whole or in part, when it is in the Government’s interest.”

    The Uniform Guidance, by contrast, allows for termination of a Federal award “pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Federal award, including, to the extent authorized by law, if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities.” 2 C.F.R. 200.340(a)(4). Agencies across the Federal Government have invoked this provision to terminate grants en masse based on the agencies’ conclusion that the terminated grants do not effectuate the new administration’s priorities. These agencies have effectively treated Section 200.340(a)(4) as establishing a broad right to terminate for convenience. The language of Section 200.340(a)(4), however, imposes at least three limitations on the Government’s right to terminate:

    1. The “terms and conditions of the Federal award” must provide for termination, and this limitation arguably is not satisfied by generic cross references to the Uniform Guidance
    2. The ability to terminate has to otherwise be “authorized by law”
    3. The Government must determine that the award “no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities”

    With respect to the third limitation, the text and history of Section 200.340(a)(4) arguably only allow an agency to terminate a grant when the grant no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities at the time the grant was issued and that the grant was intended to effectuate, and does not permit the Government to change its priorities and goals and then terminate a grant on the basis of those changed priorities and goals.

    The EO, of course, does not concede any of these points. Instead, Section 5(a) of the EO directs OMB to “revise the Uniform Guidance and other relevant guidance to . . . clarify and require all discretionary grants to permit termination for convenience, including when the award no longer advances agency priorities or the national interest.” And Section 6(b) directs agencies to “take steps to revise the terms and conditions of existing discretionary grants to permit immediate termination for convenience, or clarify that such termination is permitted, including if the award no longer advances agency priorities or the national interest.”

    By acknowledging that the Uniform Guidance and agency terms and conditions require “clarification,” however, the new EO actually supports the many recipients that are challenging the termination of their grants under Section 200.340(a)(4). Grant instruments are almost always drafted by the Government, and, as the EO recognizes, are usually based on standard agency terms and conditions. Under established principles of contract interpretation, ambiguities in terms and conditions drafted by the Government are resolved against the Government. See, e.g., Metric Constructors, Inc. v. NASA, 169 F.3d 747, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The EO’s acknowledgment that current rules, terms, and conditions require clarification arguably is an acknowledgement that those rules, terms, and conditions are, at best, ambiguous. That acknowledgment, in turn, arguably precludes the Government from relying on its expansive interpretation of those terms under existing awards and instead requires courts to adopt the narrower interpretation of the recipients.

    McDermott Will & Schulte’s Government Contracts Group can assist recipients in navigating the impact of the EO and the various changes that it directs to existing rules, terms, and conditions. For more information, reach out to the authors or your regular McDermott Will & Schulte lawyer(s).

    Authors

    Daniel P. Graham

    Partner

    Washington, DC

    Elizabeth Hummel

    Associate

    Chicago

    More Insights

  • Trump EO seeks to expand access to alternative investments in retirement plans

    Trump EO seeks to expand access to alternative investments in retirement plans

    CLIENT ALERT / US POLICY

    Trump EO seeks to expand access to alternative investments in retirement plans

    August 15, 2025

    Read time: 7 min

    Key takeaways
    Overview

    On August 7, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order titled “Democratizing Access to Alternative Assets for 401(k) Investors.”

    The order seeks to clarify the obligations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plan fiduciaries when considering alternative assets as potential investment options for employer-sponsored defined contribution plans, as well as to mitigate litigation risk that currently may inhibit plan fiduciaries from including such investment options on the plan’s investment menu.

    In depth

    The order considers the use of alternative assets within asset allocation funds offered as investment options under defined contribution plans. Notably, the order does not direct federal regulatory agencies to consider issues with defined contribution plans offering participants the opportunity to invest directly in alternative assets.

    Neither ERISA nor other current law prohibits retirement plans from investing in alternative assets. In fact, the US Department of Labor (DOL) issued an information letter in 1996 addressing its views on investing pension plan assets in derivatives. The information letter notes that plan fiduciaries considering investments in derivatives must “engage in the same general procedures and undertake the same type of analysis that they would in making any other investment decision.” The guidelines set forth in the information letter for derivatives as a form of complex investments may provide a helpful framework for future guidance on investing in alternative assets.

    The limited use of alternative assets by defined contribution plans is largely due to market practice focusing on mutual funds and other collective investments. Alternative assets can present a number of challenges for retirement plans when compared to traditional retirement plan investment options, including liquidity constraints, infrequent valuations, and higher fees.

    Multiple options for asset allocation funds with investments in alternative assets have been in development by recognized names in the retirement plan industry and well-known alternative asset fund managers. Expected interest in such funds will lead to additional options. Some of these options are designed to be target retirement date funds that could serve as a plan’s qualified default investment alternative. As these funds become available for retirement plan investments in the coming months, additional guidance from the DOL and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) should assist plan fiduciaries in understanding how to satisfy their heighted duties to plan participants and beneficiaries as they consider adding such funds to the investment menus of their 401(k) and 403(b) plans.

    Directives for regulatory agencies

    The order directs the DOL to issue guidance within 180 days to clarify the process that plan fiduciaries should follow when offering asset allocation funds containing investments in alternative assets. The guidance must clarify the duties a fiduciary owes to plan participants in connection with offering such funds, including potential safe harbors. In addition, the guidance must identify criteria that a plan fiduciary should consider when balancing potentially higher fees for alternative assets with long-term return and diversification objectives.

    The DOL is also directed to review its past and present guidance and consider whether to rescind its 2021 guidance titled “Supplemental Private Equity Statement.” Issued by the DOL under the Biden administration, the 2021 guidance attempted to limit the scope of a 2020 information letter issued by the DOL under the previous Trump administration that encouraged use of private equity investments for defined contribution plans.  In response to the order, on August 12, 2025, the DOL rescinded the 2021 guidance and thereby restored the 2020 information letter.

    The order directs the DOL to consult with the SEC, the US Department of the Treasury, and other federal agencies to carry out its objectives. The SEC is directed to work with the DOL to consider means to allow participants in defined contribution plans to invest in alternative assets, including changes to the SEC’s guidance for accredited investors and qualified purchasers.

    Alternative assets defined

    Alternative assets are defined broadly in the order to include the following:

    • Private market investments, such as direct and indirect interests in equity, debt, or other financial instruments that are not traded on public exchanges, including those where the managers of such investments, if applicable, seek to take an active role in the management of such companies
    • Direct and indirect interests in real estate, including debt instruments secured by direct or indirect interests in real estate
    • Holdings in actively managed investment vehicles that are investing in digital assets
    • Direct and indirect investments in commodities
    • Direct and indirect interests in projects to finance infrastructure development
    • Lifetime income investment strategies, including longevity risk-sharing pools

    Common challenges for plans

    Alternative assets present several key challenges for plan fiduciaries that the federal regulatory agencies need to address.

    Defined contribution plans allow participants to access their retirement savings immediately upon termination of employment. Regulatory guidance on how to address liquidity constraints common to alternative assets is needed because limiting access to retirement savings based on liquidity timing of alternative asset investment options may violate current law and plan terms. Liquidity constraints also prevent plan participants from changing investment elections and moving assets between a plan’s investment options on a daily basis, as is typical for defined contribution plans. Liquidity concerns may be one reason the order focuses on the use of alternative assets within asset allocation funds: Such funds may hold cash or other liquid investments that can be used for distributions to participants needing immediate access to their retirement savings while also holding alternative assets as long-term investments for participants who are many years away from retirement.

    Another challenge with utilizing alternative assets for defined contribution plans is valuation frequency. Investment in alternative assets can prevent plan participants from monitoring the growth of their retirement savings in real time, as most alternative assets are valued annually, unlike the stock and mutual fund investments typically offered in defined contribution plans, which are valued in real-time.

    Finally, fees have become an increasingly critical focus for plan fiduciaries. Alternative assets typically require higher fees that must be benchmarked and balanced against the potential for greater long-term investment results.

    ERISA considerations for alternative asset funds

    When an alternative asset fund holds assets of a retirement plan subject to ERISA, the underlying assets of the fund are deemed to be ERISA plan assets unless one of three exceptions applies. The most commonly used exception is for alternative asset funds to prohibit ERISA retirement plans from owning 25% or more of the value of any class of equity in the fund. The other exceptions apply to funds designed as venture capital operating companies (VCOCs) or real estate operating companies (REOCs). To avoid becoming subject to ERISA and its complex rules, nearly all alternative asset funds with retirement plan investors are designed to comply with one of these exceptions.

    Next steps

    Plan fiduciaries and alternative asset fund managers should continue to monitor guidance from the DOL, SEC, and other federal regulatory agencies related to the use of alternative investments by 401(k) and 403(b) plans.

    If you have questions about the order, please contact your regular McDermott Will & Schulte lawyer or the authors of this client alert.

    Authors

    David M. Cohen

    Partner

    New York – 919 Third Avenue

    Ian L. Levin

    Partner

    New York – 919 Third Avenue

    Brian J. Tiemann

    Partner

    Chicago

    More Insights

  • DOJ complaint underscores Trump administration’s use of the FCA to enforce US trade laws

    DOJ complaint underscores Trump administration’s use of the FCA to enforce US trade laws

    ARTICLE / CLIENT ALERT / US POLICY

    DOJ complaint underscores Trump administration’s use of the FCA to enforce US trade laws

    July 30, 2025

    Read time: 6 min

    Key takeaways
    Overview

    A recent complaint – U.S. ex rel. Joyce v. Global Office Furniture, LLC, et al. – marks one of the Trump administration’s first publicly filed False Claims Act (FCA) enforcement actions focused on tariff evasion. In its July 2025 filing, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) alleged that a furniture company, in an effort to avoid paying more than $2 million in tariffs and in coordination with a Chinese manufacturer, defrauded US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) by underreporting the value of imported merchandise.

    This case signals the administration’s intention to use the FCA as a tool to monitor trade fraud and enforce compliance with US customs laws. It also highlights the increasing role of whistleblowers in surfacing potential violations in the international trade space. Companies involved in international trade should remain vigilant in adhering to tariff and customs laws and maintain thorough documentation for all customs filings and transactions.

    In depth

    The facts

    On July 15, 2025, the US Attorney’s Office for the District of South Carolina filed a complaint under the FCA against Global Office Furniture, LLC (GOF), a South Carolina-based furniture company, and its owner, Malcolm E. Smith. The complaint alleges that defendants GOF and Smith executed a multi-year scheme to evade paying more than $2 million in customs duties on merchandise imported from China.

    GOF imports and sells office chairs manufactured by Global Furniture (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd. (Global Furniture), a Chinese manufacturer. Smith, GOF’s founder and president, previously worked as a US-based sales representative for the Chinese manufacturer. In 2013, GOF began selling office chairs from Global Furniture on an online retail website.

    In September 2018, the US Trade Representative (USTR) imposed a 10% tariff on an assortment of merchandise imported from China pursuant to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Such merchandise included products manufactured by Global Furniture and imported by GOF. In May 2019, the USTR increased the rate of Section 301 tariffs from 10% to 25%.

    According to the complaint, between 2019 and 2023 – and to evade the Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports – GOF allegedly engaged in a “double invoicing” scheme by underreporting the value of imported office chairs. The scheme involved GOF creating two sets of invoices for its imported merchandise: one reflecting the actual transaction value and used for customer billing; and another that had significantly lower prices and was submitted to CBP for purposes of assessing the applicable tariff rate. This practice allegedly enabled GOF to avoid paying more than $2 million in tariffs. The government further alleges that Smith and GOF attempted to delete emails and documents related to furniture pricing after being notified of a federal investigation.

    The alleged conduct occurred prior to the most recent round of tariffs, but the whistleblower qui tam complaint alleging FCA violations that originated the case was filed under seal by GOF’s former office manager in March 2020, more than five years ago and during the last year of the first Trump administration. The DOJ formally intervened in the FCA lawsuit in April 2025, a move that reflects the current DOJ’s heightened focus on customs enforcement, even with respect to historical violations only.

    The government’s complaint charges defendants GOF and Smith with concealing or improperly avoiding or decreasing obligations to pay money to the government, making or using false records or statements material to an obligation to pay money to the government, and unjust enrichment.

    On July 20, 2025, just days before this complaint was filed, the DOJ announced a major restructuring of its fraud enforcement efforts and the creation of the Market, Government, and Consumer Fraud Unit (MGCF Unit) within its Criminal Division’s Fraud Section. The MGCF Unit consolidates civil and criminal enforcement resources to focus on trade fraud and tariff evasion, underscoring the administration’s commitment to enforcing compliance with US trade laws. Moreover, in a May 2025 memo, the head of the DOJ’s Criminal Division released a memorandum identifying “trade and customs fraud, including tariff evasion[,]” as the DOJ’s number-two corporate criminal enforcement priority.

    False Claims Act

    The FCA, codified at 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733, is a federal statute that enables the US government to recover losses resulting from fraud. It holds individuals and entities liable for knowingly submitting false claims for payment to the government. Violators of the FCA may be required to pay up to three times the government’s damages, plus an additional civil penalty.

    The FCA also includes a qui tam provision that allows private citizens – often whistleblowers – to file FCA lawsuits on behalf of the government and to potentially receive significant monetary awards for successful lawsuits. Many DOJ investigations and complaints originate from these qui tam actions.

    Key takeaways and guidance for companies

    This complaint and the recent creation of the DOJ’s MGCF Unit reinforces the DOJ’s and the Trump administration’s shared focus on using the FCA to prosecute trade fraud and tariff evasion, including with respect to historical violations such as those alleged against GOF, which violations allegedly began more than five years ago and ended prior to the current administration.

    To ensure readiness in the event of external review, companies should proactively assess their tariff exposure and document key decisions relating to tariff compliance. Additionally, companies should recognize the risk of internal whistleblowers as employees with access to import documentation and pricing data may bring FCA claims if they suspect misconduct.

    Among other next steps, companies engaged in international trade should:

    • Maintain comprehensive documentation for all customs filings and transactions, ensuring consistency across all invoices.
    • Properly memorialize reasonable customs-related decisions that result in a lower tariff exposure for imported products, such as properly reclassifying goods or providing a dutiable value to CBP other than the actual transaction value of the purchased goods, as permitted under CBP regulations under certain circumstances.
    • Review and update compliance programs to address tariff- and customs-related risks.
    • Conduct regular internal audits to identify and correct discrepancies in import operations.
    • Provide ongoing training for employees involved in import activities on customs regulations and FCA-related risks.
    • Promptly investigate whistleblower complaints and ensure thorough follow-up.
    • Consider voluntary disclosure to the DOJ or CBP in cases of customs or tariff violations to potentially reduce penalties and demonstrate cooperation, even with respect to historical violations only.

    For questions about tariff compliance and other preventive measures, contact your regular McDermott lawyer or the authors.

    Authors

    Sagar K. Ravi

    Partner

    Washington, DC, New York – One Vanderbilt Avenue

    Alexander H. Southwell

    Partner

    New York – One Vanderbilt Avenue

    Arielle Ahrendts

    Associate

    Washington, DC

    More Insights

  • OBBBA’s impact on employee benefit plans, programs, and arrangements

    OBBBA’s impact on employee benefit plans, programs, and arrangements

    CLIENT ALERT / US POLICY

    OBBBA’s impact on employee benefit plans, programs, and arrangements

    July 28, 2025

    Read time: 8 min

    Key takeaways
    Overview

    On July 4, 2025, President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) into law. This sweeping tax and spending package affects large swaths of the US economy. Though reduced significantly from the original House version of the bill, the OBBBA includes provisions impacting employee benefit plans that affect health savings account (HSA) eligibility, telehealth services, dependent care assistance limits, and other fringe benefits. The benefits-related provisions of the law fall into three broad categories:

    1. Those that affect existing benefit plans,
    2. Those that present new benefit-related opportunities, and
    3. Those that make other tax-related changes affecting individuals irrespective of employment status.
    In depth

    OBBBA provisions affecting existing benefit plans

    Safe harbor allowing plans to be treated as high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) despite not having a deductible for telehealth services (Section 71306)

    The OBBBA permanently and retroactively extends the telehealth safe harbor for HDHPs and HSA eligibility for plan years beginning after December 31, 2024. Among other things, the telehealth HDHP safe harbor expands access to telehealth and other remote-care services for millions of individuals and dependents who are covered by HDHPs. The previous, COVID-era safe harbor temporarily permitted HDHPs to cover telehealth and remote-care services on a first-dollar basis without jeopardizing eligibility for HSA contributions through December 31, 2024. The retroactive effective date ensures that there is no interruption in the safe harbor, and HDHPs may continue covering these services without cost-sharing.

    As a result of the permanent extension of the telehealth HDHP safe harbor, digital health and telehealth providers, virtual and remote care providers, employer plan sponsors, insurers, and third-party administrators may reassess and update their services and coverage for HDHP participants. For example, employer plan sponsors may elect to reinstate free or low-cost coverage for telehealth services retroactively to January 1, 2025, or choose to do so prospectively for the next plan year, if at all.

    Individuals may enroll in qualifying direct primary care (DPC) arrangements without jeopardizing their status as HSA-eligible (Section 71308)

    The OBBBA prevents certain DPC arrangements from being treated as disqualifying coverage for purposes of determining eligibility to participate in an HSA and allows the use of HSA funds to pay for such DPC arrangements. The OBBBA defines DPC arrangements as a program under which a participant pays a flat, monthly fee up to an annually indexed maximum that covers primary care services provided to them by a primary care practitioner.

    Under prior law, coverage under a DPC would, in most cases, disqualify an individual from HSA eligibility since these arrangements routinely cover non-preventive care services prior to an individual meeting their HDHP plan deductible. To qualify for the favorable treatment under the OBBBA, the DPC participant must not be required to pay more than $150 per month in membership fees (indexed for inflation) for individual coverage or $300 per month (indexed for inflation) for family coverage. An individual who is enrolled in both a qualifying DPC arrangement and an HDHP remains HSA eligible. The fees an individual pays for the DPC are treated as a qualified medical expense for HSA purposes, which means that these fees may be paid out of an HSA tax-free. The DPC provisions of the law take effect for months beginning after December 31, 2025.

    Increase in dependent care flexible spending account limits and employer-provided child care credit (Sections 70404 and 70401)

    The OBBBA increases, for tax years beginning after December 31, 2025, the maximum amount that can be excluded from income on a pretax basis in a dependent care assistance program (frequently referred to as a dependent care flexible spending account (FSA)) to $7,500 (or $3,750 for a married individual filing separately). Previously, the maximum contribution was $5,000 (or $2,500 for a married individual filing separately).

    The law also enhances the credit available to employers that provide childcare services to their employees. After December 31, 2025, the maximum employer credit for employer-provided childcare is 40% of qualified childcare expenses (up to $500,000). In addition, small businesses may qualify for a credit of 50% of qualified childcare expenses (up to $600,000).

    Student loan repayment through an educational assistance program (EAP) (Section 70412)

    Since 2020, employers have been allowed to use an EAP (not to be confused with an employee assistance plan) to reimburse an employee’s qualified student loans on a tax-free basis up to $5,250 through December 31, 2025. The OBBBA permanently extends the ability of employers to reimburse or pay for an employee’s student loans on a tax-free basis under Section 127 of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) through an EAP. For taxable years beginning after 2026, the $5,250 per employee per year reimbursement/payment limit will be indexed for inflation.

    OBBBA provisions that represent new benefit-related opportunities

    Expansion of HSAs to allow all bronze and catastrophic plans to be considered eligible plans for HSAs (Section 71307)

    For policies beginning on or after January 1, 2026, the OBBBA for the first time permits bronze and catastrophic plans in the individual market offered on state marketplaces to be treated as HDHPs. Under prior law, bronze or catastrophic plans would not have qualified as such. As a result of the OBBBA, individuals enrolled in a bronze or catastrophic plan through the health insurance marketplace may be considered HSA-eligible.

    Trump accounts (Section 70204)

    The OBBBA makes available so-called “Trump accounts” beginning in July 2026. From and after that date, parents can open a Trump account for children younger than 18 years who have a Social Security number. Parents of other individuals can contribute a total of up to $5,000 annually (adjusted for inflation in years after 2025) until the account beneficiary turns 18. Employers can contribute up to $2,500 (adjusted annually for inflation) into the Trump accounts of employees and their dependents. While it is not yet clear, employer contributions will likely count toward the overall $5,000 limit. Contributions must be invested in a mutual fund or exchange-traded fund made up entirely of equities, designed to comprise equity investments in primarily United States companies. While Trump accounts are taxed in a manner similar to individual retirement accounts (IRAs), contributions to Trump accounts are not tax-deductible. Distributions from Trump accounts are not allowed until January 1 of the year in which the account owner reaches age 18.

    The law also establishes a federal contribution pilot program under which the federal government will provide a one-time contribution of $1,000 for children born in the United States between 2025 and 2028 if their parents elect to participate.

    The employer credit for paid family and medical leave (Section 70304)

    The OBBBA permanently extends, for tax years beginning after December 31, 2025, the employer credit for family and medical leave (FML) paid under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The amount of the credit rate depends on how much employers provide for paid FML relative to wages normally paid. If paid leave is 50% of wages normally paid to an employee, the tax credit is 12.5% of wages paid. If paid leave is 100% of wages normally paid to an employee, the tax credit is 25% of wages paid. The credit rate increases from 12.5% to 25% ratably as leave wages increase from 50% to 100% of wages normally paid. No credit can be claimed for paid FML that is less than 50% of wages normally paid. Nor can a credit can be claimed for wages paid on leave that exceed an employee’s normal wage rate.

    The law also expands eligibility to include paid family and medical leave (PFML) insurance premiums and leave taken by newer employees.

    Other selected tax-related provisions affecting individuals irrespective of employment status

    Adoption credit (Section 70402)

    For tax years beginning in 2025, $5,000 of the adoption tax credit (subject to inflation adjustments) is now refundable.

    Code Section 529 savings accounts (Section 70413)

    From and after July 4, 2025, the OBBBA modifies Code Section 529 savings accounts such that grade K–12 expenses include not just those for tuition but also for books, materials, testing fees, tutoring costs, and certain other expenses. The law also increases, for tax years beginning after December 31, 2025, the annual limit for K–12 tuition expenses from $10,000 to $20,000 and permits the use of the 529 funds for various post-secondary credentialing programs.

    Transportation benefits and moving expenses (Sections 70112 and 70113)

    The OBBBA either eliminated or simply permitted to expire certain tax-advantaged benefits for tax years beginning after December 31, 2025. These include transportation benefits (bicycle commuting expense reimbursements for employees will be eliminated from the definition of qualified transportation fringe benefits) and most moving expenses.

    Action items

    In light of the OBBBA, plan sponsors should consider the following measures, among others, relative to their employee benefit plans:

    • Reevaluate dependent care FSAs. Assess whether to adopt the higher $7,500 limit and perform nondiscrimination testing to avoid an increased risk of tax issues for highly compensated employees.
    • Update telehealth coverage. Consider retroactively or prospectively reinstating first-dollar telehealth and other remote-care service coverage under HDHPs.
    • Plan for direct primary care integration. Identify whether to adopt or further explore DPC arrangements (or ensure compliance for existing programs).
    • Analyze childcare tax credit opportunities. Review current or potential employer-provided childcare programs in light of expanded tax credits.
    • Plan document updates. Evaluate and make any required updates to plan documents in light of the OBBBA and any changes adopted. This could include, for example, plan documents, summary plan descriptions, and other employee communications.

    For more information on these changes, please contact your regular McDermott lawyer or one of the authors listed below.

    Authors

    Jacob M. Mattinson

    Partner

    Chicago

    Sarah G. Raaii

    Partner

    Chicago

    More Insights