By: u/RealKafkaEsquire
Instagram: @RealKafkaEsquire
Twitter: @KafkaEsquire
This report is only a summary and editorial regarding the executive orders (“EOs”) signed by the Trump Administration during the last week. EOs are not legislation or court opinions. They do not carry the weight of law, and are merely statements of policy within the executive branch. That is not to say they cannot be cited in court or legal pleadings, or aren’t relevant to the application of law, only that they are almost never controlling outside of internal executive branch administration.
EOs are signed and reported on, generally, a week before they are published into the Federal Register. Until such a publication, it can be difficult to know the exact language of the signed EO. For that reason, these reports only include EOs published in the Federal Register. While this can lead to these reports feeling delayed or dated, it is to ensure precision and clarity.
While I am a licensed attorney, this is not paid legal advice. Nothing in this communication is intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Unless expressly stated otherwise, nothing contained in this article should be construed as a digital or electronic signature, nor is it intended to reflect an intention to make an agreement by electronic means.
Executive Order 14294 - Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations
Signed: May 9, 2025
Published: May 14, 2025
Summary
Section 1 lays out some rote whining about how many regulations there are in the US law code that we have seen in many other EOs from this Administration. The only real difference this time is it seems to complain specifically about enforcement of the law against criminal violations of regulations..
Section 2 states it is US policy that “criminal enforcement of criminal regulatory offenses is disfavored”, which is difficult to parse, but I believe means bringing criminal charges for the violation of regulations is disfavored. It also says that Prosecution should only happen to people that know or should have known they are violating a criminal regulation. It also talks about how strict liability is generally disfavored.
Section 3 lays out definitions for the EO.
Section 4 requires agency heads to identify the criminal regulations under their purview and the punishments that could possibly result from a violation of said regulations.
Section 5 requires all future notices of proposed rulemaking include a statement as to the criminality of the regulation proposed, and the mens rea required for the proposed regulation. It reiterates that strict liability is disfavored, and new strict liability regulations require approval by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Section 6 directs heads of each agency to try and change the mens rea of any criminal regulations to require knowledge of violation of the regulation.
Section 7 requires each agency head to publish guidance for addressing criminally liable regulatory offenses.
Section 8 states that the EO does not affect immigration or national security related regulations.
What it Means
This EO attempts to change the intent or mens rea requirement for criminal violations of regulations. In most cases, a prosecutor only needs to show that the accused intended to take the alleged action, but not that they knowingly broke the law. In some cases the act, regardless of the intention, alone is sufficient to lead to a conviction. Now this EO attempts to make it where not only does the intent of the actor matter, but their knowledge of whether they are violating the law must be proved to lead to a conviction. This is a much higher evidentiary burden, and makes it less likely that these kinds of cases will even be initiated.
Trump uses gold scissors to cut a red tape tied between two stacks of
papers representing the government regulations of the 1960s and the
regulations of today back in 2017 (Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images)
Looking Forward
While this EO tries to change the evidentiary standards for pleadings, EOs are in no way controlling for how criminal violations are litigated. Statutes and case law decide how these laws are adjudicated and the evidentiary burdens to prove guilt. The only thing this EO can directly affect is how the DOJ decides to bring cases against regulators. Now, the DOJ must plead this much higher standard in court, and is not allowed to merely show intent of the alleged action, it must show knowledge. It is similar to tying a hand behind your back before entering a fight. The DOJ will be less likely to bring a criminal regulatory case in the future, and if they do choose to bring any, they will be less likely to succeed.
Executive Order 14295 - Increasing Efficiency at the Office of the Federal Register
Signed: May 9, 2025
Published: May 14, 2025
Summary
Section 1 reiterates how important deregulation is to this Administration. It appears the Administration has been getting my letters, and published my complaints about the delay in publishing EOs and other documents submitted to the Federal Register. It also complains about the serious cost each agency faces of $151-$174 per column of text for such submissions.
Section 2 orders the Archivist to modernize computer systems and eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy and lower the publication time of submissions.
What it Means
This EO is ordering changes in the Federal Register, the organization that maintains the official records for governmental acts. Laws, EOs, memoranda, and other official written public documents are maintained in the Federal Register. As discussed in the EO, publication of such materials is often delayed by a week or so, and costs the agencies applying for publication a nominal fee. This Administration is frustrated by this for some reason, and have made an EO to change this.
Looking Forward
The Federal Register might publish things sooner and have less funding, though these might be at odds and defeat any attempted improvement at efficiency before it can be implemented.
Signed: May 9, 2025
Published: May 14, 2025
Summary
Section 1 talks about how veterans aren’t treated well in America. It also shits on the VA a bit.
Section 2 orders the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to build a shelter for homeless veterans in VA. It also reroutes funds that would be spent on helping veterans, and instead forces it be spent on this homeless vet shelter.
Section 3 wants the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to develop vouchers to help the homeless (It’s not clear what this is referencing).
Section 4 orders the VA to go after employees and individuals who have committed misconduct “and fire employees rehired in the previous administration that had been fired for misconduct and direct such savings back towards care, benefits, and services for veterans, in accordance with all applicable laws.” (I think they didn’t bother to proof this for some reason, I promise I’m trying to make this section make sense but idk man).
Section 5 orders the Secretary to increase the options for care, benefits, and services for veterans. It also orders various executive officers to make a report or strategy regarding making the VA more efficient.
What it Means
This appears to be a boondoggle wrapped up in a bunch of virtue signaling about veterans. While it makes vague language about making the VA more efficient and firing employees who have committed misconduct, it’s not clear how any of this will actually make a difference to help veterans. Meanwhile a significant amount of funds will be used in building some kind of massive facility in LA to help homeless veterans.
POV: You're watching someone explain executive orders
Looking Forward
This is likely nothing more than legacy building by trump. Building a massive facility that Trump can put his name on or at the very least use for photo ops to aggrandize himself. It is unlikely that any real progress on the issues that the VA faces will be addressed, though Trump and his supporters will be loath to acknowledge this. Meanwhile, the facility being built might possibly help homeless veterans in LA, but it does nothing to help homeless veterans in the rest of the country.
Signed: May 12, 2025
Published: May 15, 2025
Summary
Section 1 gets mad about how much the US spends on (prescription) drugs and at pharmaceutical companies.
Section 2 says that Americans shouldn’t subsidize foreign drug prices.
Section 3 orders various executive officers to ensure foreign countries aren’t taking steps to force Americans to pay for too much drugs. No real course of action or method to achieve this is discussed, just a vague order.
Section 4 the Secretary of HHS is to facilitate direct-to-consumer sales of drugs at most-favored-nation prices.
Section 5 orders various executive officers to try to negotiate (with no identified leverage) to bring down drug prices to be at most-favored-nation prices.
What it Means
This EO is the result of Trump’s obsession with equalizing prices of American pharmaceuticals with other nations’ lower prices. This EO attempts to prevent pharmaceutical companies from using regional pricing. It also only discusses the prices of medications in the terms of direct sales rather than prices within Medicaid/Medicare.
Looking Forward
This EO will do very little to help the people spend the most on pharmaceuticals. It tries to change the price of drugs for out of pocket purchases, not drugs purchased that are covered by insurance. This is important, because if it had been for the ACA it would have raised the minimum coverage required for Employer provided health insurance. This is why the IRA’s prescription drug negotiation language was so impactful under the previous Administration. The ACA increasing its coverage or lowering its prices is a tide that raises all boats, and this EO intentionally avoids doing so. This EO also does not identify any leverage or powers that the government has to enforce these price changes. While there has been much fanfare about this EO, it is not clear how it will ever actually achieve its goals of lower drug prices and helping the average American.