February 9, 2017

Conflict Minerals: Executive Order Banning Rule for 2 Years?!?

Lights, camera, action! There certainly is a lot of action so far by President Trump. Here’s an excerpt from this Reuters article:

President Donald Trump is planning to issue a directive targeting a controversial Dodd-Frank rule that requires companies to disclose whether their products contain “conflict minerals” from a war-torn part of Africa, sources familiar with the administration’s thinking.

Reuters could not learn precisely when the directive would be issued or what the final version would say. However, a leaked draft that has been floating around Washington, D.C., and was seen by Reuters on Wednesday calls for the rule to be temporarily suspended for two years. Reuters could not independently verify the authenticity of the document.

Someone sent me this draft executive order – but as Reuters notes, it’s unclear if it’s the real deal. This executive order apparently will be based on a “national security interests” rationale.

Anyway, conflict minerals filings are still due on May 31st – until we know otherwise. I’ll post the transcript from our recent webcast on conflict minerals in the next day or so (audio archive available now)…

Here’s a Mother Jones article about the impact (or lack thereof) of the conflict minerals disclosure rule…

Challenged in Court: Trump’s “2-for-1” Regulatory Order

Last week, I blogged about President Trump’s executive order that requires federal agencies to eliminate two regulations for every new one created. This order doesn’t apply to the SEC & other independent agencies. This order has been challenged now in this lawsuit: Public Citizen v. Trump. Here’s a press release from Public Citizen – and this blog summarizes the complaint.

White House’s Interim Guidance Encourages “Net Zero” Rulemaking

Meanwhile, the Administration issued this interim guidance last week about how to implement the “2-for-1” executive order – which includes language that encourages independent agencies that aren’t subject to the order – including the SEC – “to identify existing regulations that, if repealed or revised, would achieve cost savings that would fully offset the costs of new significant regulatory actions.”

Broc Romanek