The First 180 Days: An Executive Branch Action Plan

A new administration must act swiftly and decisively. The following actions should be taken by the executive branch within the first 180 days.

Executive Actions Timeline

The following executive actions will be taken within the first 180 days:

Day 1 Actions

Treasury/IRS:

Redirect IRS audit resources toward high-income taxpayers (50% audit rate for $10M+ income) and large corporations (75% audit rate)

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC):

Initiate expedited rulemaking to review stock buyback practices and their impact on workers and long-term investment

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS):

Begin design of a national public health insurance option (implementation target: 2 years)
Launch nationwide campaign to enroll eligible individuals in Medicaid and ACA marketplaces

Department of Justice (DOJ):

Announce new era of aggressive antitrust enforcement
Begin investigations into monopolistic practices in tech, pharmaceutical, and financial industries
Announce commitment to law enforcement professionalization through national training standards
Establish National Police Training and Certification Program planning task force (law enforcement professionals, civil rights attorneys, psychologists, community representatives, international experts)

Department of Labor (DOL):

Rescind all anti-union rules and regulations from previous administrations (where statutory authority allows)

Office of Management and Budget (OMB)/Chief Technology Officer (CTO):

Mandate government-wide review of all data and records with presumption of declassification and public release
Launch unified “Digital Front Door” for all government services

United States Trade Representative (USTR):

Formally withdraw from all trade agreement negotiations that lack strong, enforceable labor and environmental standards

Day 30 Actions

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS):

Use existing executive authority to begin negotiating lower prices for prescription drugs for all federal health programs

Department of Justice (DOJ):

Issue new merger guidelines presuming that mergers significantly increasing market concentration are anticompetitive
Issue guidance on minimum national standards for use-of-force policies and de-escalation training protocols for all law enforcement agencies receiving federal funds

Department of Labor (DOL):

Initiate expedited rulemaking to facilitate union organizing (electronic voting, streamlined card-check recognition)

Day 60 Actions

Office of Management and Budget (OMB)/Chief Technology Officer (CTO):

Establish “U.S. Digital Service 2.0” to modernize federal technology infrastructure

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC):

Initiate rulemaking to require shareholder approval for executive compensation packages exceeding specified thresholds

Treasury/IRS:

Initiate rulemaking to close “carried interest” loophole and other tax loopholes (where administrative authority exists)

Department of Justice (DOJ):

Launch pilot National Police Certification Program with voluntary state participation
Establish psychological screening standards and ongoing evaluation requirements
Provide federal funding and technical assistance to participating states

Day 90 Actions

Department of Justice (DOJ):

Establish task force for prosecution of corporate crime (wage theft, price-fixing, corporate abuse)
Establish National Law Enforcement Accountability Database to track officer misconduct, certification status, and training compliance across jurisdictions

Department of Labor (DOL):

Launch nationwide crackdown on wage theft and labor law violations in low-wage industries

United States Trade Representative (USTR):

Initiate comprehensive review of existing trade agreements to identify provisions harming American workers and the environment

Day 120 Actions

Treasury/IRS:

Begin comprehensive study on implementation of wealth tax and financial transaction tax (to inform Congressional legislation)

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC):

Strengthen enforcement of laws against insider trading and market manipulation

Legal Authority and Implementation Details

Each executive action is analyzed below for legal authority, implementation timeline, and anticipated challenges.

Day 1: IRS Audit Enforcement Shift (Treasury)

Action: Direct the IRS to increase the audit rate for individuals with incomes over $10 million to 50% and for large corporations to 75%. Begin immediate reallocation of enforcement resources toward high-income and large corporate taxpayers.

Legal Authority: The IRS Commissioner has broad discretion under IRC §7801 to allocate enforcement resources and administer tax laws. Increasing audit rates for high-income individuals and large corporations is within existing authority.

Implementation Timeline: Immediate (within existing authority). Subject to IRS operational capacity and current appropriations. Achieving 50-75% audit rates will require substantial resource reallocation and phased implementation.

Authority Category: Existing Statutory Authority

Anticipated Legal Challenges - MEDIUM RISK:

Likely Challenge: High-income taxpayers will claim selective enforcement violates due process and equal protection; industry groups may claim resource allocation exceeds statutory authority.

Legal Vulnerabilities:

Claims of politically motivated targeting (cf. IRS Tea Party controversy)
Due process concerns if audit procedures are not uniform
Appropriations limitations may constrain ability to reach 50-75% audit rates

Mitigation Strategy:

Develop objective, neutral criteria based on tax gap analysis (IRS estimates high-income noncompliance rate at 17% vs. 1% for wage earners)
Document audit selection using algorithmic/statistical methods, not political criteria
Ensure adequate notice, appeals processes, and taxpayer rights protections
Phase in audit increases gradually to avoid appearance of abrupt targeting
Obtain additional IRS appropriations from Congress to demonstrate capacity

Legal Defenses:

IRS Commissioner has broad discretion under IRC §7801 to administer tax laws
Audit rate disparities are justified by compliance rate disparities (rational basis review)
Cite precedent: IRS has historically varied audit rates by income bracket without constitutional issue

Expected Timeline: Individual challenges likely; systemic challenge possible; resolution 12-24 months

Day 1: SEC Stock Buyback Review

Action: Initiate expedited rulemaking to review stock buyback practices and their impact on workers and long-term investment, with interim guidance discouraging buybacks that prioritize short-term shareholder returns over capital investment and worker compensation.

Legal Authority: SEC has authority under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act to address manipulative practices. However, a blanket prohibition without notice-and-comment rulemaking would face legal challenges under the Major Questions Doctrine.

Implementation Timeline: Expedited rulemaking process. Final rules expected within 12-18 months following APA notice-and-comment procedures.

Authority Category: Regulatory Rulemaking (APA Compliance Required)

Anticipated Legal Challenges - HIGH RISK:

Likely Challenge: Industry groups will argue SEC lacks authority to restrict buybacks without explicit Congressional authorization, invoking the Major Questions Doctrine (West Virginia v. EPA, 2022).

Legal Vulnerabilities:

Supreme Court’s current “major questions” jurisprudence requires clear Congressional authorization for economically significant regulations
Stock buybacks involve trillions of dollars annually across the economy
SEC’s Section 10(b) authority (anti-manipulation) may be deemed insufficient for broad restrictions

Mitigation Strategy:

Frame as temporary review and anti-manipulation enforcement under existing Rule 10b-18 authority
Conduct comprehensive economic analysis demonstrating harm to workers and long-term investment
Propose narrow, targeted restrictions rather than blanket prohibition
Pursue parallel legislative authority (include in 21st Century Antitrust Act)
Coordinate with Congressional leadership on statutory backup

Expected Timeline: Immediate legal challenge likely; preliminary injunction possible within 60-90 days; final resolution 18-36 months

Precedent Risk: Supreme Court may use this as vehicle to further limit agency authority

Day 1: Public Health Insurance Option Design (HHS)

Action: Begin the design of a national public health insurance option, with a target of making it available to all Americans within two years.

Legal Authority: Design work can begin immediately under HHS’s general planning authority. However, implementation requires Congressional authorization and appropriations.

Implementation Timeline: Design phase (Months 1-12); Congressional authorization needed (Year 1-2); Implementation (Year 2-3 following authorization)

Authority Category: Requires Congressional Legislation (design work only within existing authority)

Anticipated Legal Challenges: No legal challenges to design work. Implementation will face challenges if/when authorized by Congress (see Section VI.A for full Public Health Insurance Option analysis including potential legal challenges to enacted program).

Day 1: Healthcare Enrollment Campaign (HHS)

Action: Launch a nationwide campaign to enroll eligible individuals in Medicaid and the ACA marketplaces.

Legal Authority: HHS has existing authority to conduct outreach and enrollment activities under the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid statute.

Implementation Timeline: Immediate

Authority Category: Existing Statutory Authority

Anticipated Legal Challenges: LOW RISK - Outreach and enrollment activities are within core HHS mission and existing statutory authority. Unlikely to face legal challenges.

Day 1: Aggressive Antitrust Enforcement Announcement (DOJ)

Action: Announce a new era of aggressive antitrust enforcement. The DOJ will immediately begin investigations into monopolistic practices in the tech, pharmaceutical, and financial industries.

Legal Authority: The Attorney General has independent authority to initiate investigations into monopolistic practices under existing antitrust statutes (Sherman Act, Clayton Act).

Implementation Timeline: Investigations begin immediately. Note: Major antitrust cases typically take 3-7 years from investigation to initial ruling, with appeals adding 2-4 years. Frame as long-term enforcement strategy, not 180-day outcome. Early wins possible with merger challenges (12-18 months).

Authority Category: Existing Statutory Authority

Anticipated Legal Challenges - LOW RISK (but long timeline):

Likely Challenge: Target companies will challenge breakup orders as exceeding statutory authority or violating due process; argue that size alone is not anticompetitive.

Legal Vulnerabilities:

Current antitrust law requires proof of consumer harm (price increases, reduced output), not just market dominance
“Breakup” remedies are disfavored by courts compared to conduct remedies
Modern tech platforms may argue they provide free services, complicating harm analysis

Mitigation Strategy:

Build strong evidentiary record of anticompetitive conduct (not just size)
Focus on Sherman Act Section 2 (monopolization) and Clayton Act Section 7 (mergers) violations
Highlight harm to innovation, workers, suppliers, and nascent competitors (not just consumers)
Pursue structural remedies (divestiture) only where conduct remedies insufficient
Coordinate with state attorneys general for parallel enforcement

Legal Defenses:

DOJ has independent authority to investigate and prosecute antitrust violations
Precedent: AT&T breakup (1982), Standard Oil breakup (1911)
Recent bipartisan support for tech antitrust enforcement

Expected Timeline: Investigations (1-2 years), litigation (3-7 years), appeals (2-4 years). Total: 6-13 years for major breakups.

Day 1: Law Enforcement Professionalization Initiative (DOJ)

Action: Announce commitment to law enforcement professionalization through national training standards and establish National Police Training and Certification Program planning task force.

Legal Authority: The Department of Justice has authority under 34 U.S.C. § 10381 (Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program) and 34 U.S.C. § 12601 (Pattern or Practice Investigations) to establish standards and provide technical assistance to state and local law enforcement. The federal government’s spending power (Art. I, § 8) allows conditioning grants on compliance with federal standards.

Implementation Timeline: Immediate. Convene task force within 30 days comprising law enforcement professionals, civil rights attorneys, psychologists, community representatives, and international experts.

Authority Category: Existing Statutory Authority (Spending Clause conditioning)

Anticipated Legal Challenges - LOW-MEDIUM RISK:

Likely Challenge: States may claim federal training standards violate 10th Amendment by commandeering state law enforcement functions; law enforcement unions may resist new requirements.

Legal Vulnerabilities:

10th Amendment prohibits federal commandeering of state governments (New York v. United States, Printz v. United States)
States cannot be forced to adopt federal police standards
However, spending conditions are constitutional if voluntary and related to federal interest (South Dakota v. Dole)

Mitigation Strategy:

Frame as voluntary program with federal funding incentives, not mandates
Condition existing federal law enforcement grants on compliance (Byrne JAG, COPS grants)
Provide substantial federal funding to help states meet standards
Allow 3-year phase-in period for compliance
Emphasize precedent: federal highway funding conditioned on state drunk driving laws (upheld)

Legal Defenses:

Spending Clause allows conditioning grants on compliance with standards (South Dakota v. Dole)
Federal interest in civil rights enforcement under 14th Amendment Section 5
DOJ has existing authority to provide technical assistance and standards under 34 U.S.C. § 10381
Voluntary state participation avoids commandeering concerns

Expected Timeline: Legal challenges possible but likely unsuccessful given voluntary participation model. Resolution: 12-18 months if challenged.

Day 1: Rescind Anti-Union Rules (DOL)

Action: Rescind all anti-union rules and regulations from previous administrations (where statutory authority allows immediate rescission).

Legal Authority: The Secretary of Labor has authority to rescind previously promulgated rules, subject to APA requirements. Some rules can be immediately stayed pending formal rescission process.

Implementation Timeline: Immediate stay of enforcement; formal rescission through expedited rulemaking (6-12 months)

Authority Category: Existing Statutory Authority (with APA compliance for formal rescission)

Anticipated Legal Challenges: LOW-MEDIUM RISK - Business groups may challenge rescissions, but agencies generally have authority to reconsider prior policy decisions. Courts typically defer to agency policy changes if adequately explained.

Day 1: Government Transparency Initiative (OMB/CTO)

Action: Mandate a government-wide review of all data and records, with a presumption of declassification and public release. Launch a new, unified “Digital Front Door” for all government services, built on open-source software and with a focus on user experience.

Legal Authority: OMB has authority to direct executive branch information management and technology policies. Subject to national security, privacy, and statutory restrictions on disclosure.

Implementation Timeline: Immediate directive; full implementation 12-24 months

Authority Category: Existing Statutory Authority

Anticipated Legal Challenges: LOW RISK - Transparency initiatives generally face minimal legal challenges. National security agencies may resist; litigation possible over specific classified materials but not overall policy.

Day 1: Trade Agreement Withdrawal (USTR)

Action: Formally withdraw from all trade agreement negotiations that do not include strong, enforceable labor and environmental standards.

Legal Authority: The President has authority to withdraw from executive agreements without Congressional approval. Congressional-executive agreements and treaties may require Congressional consultation for withdrawal.

Implementation Timeline: Immediate for executive agreements; varies for Congressional-executive agreements (requires legal analysis of each agreement)

Authority Category: Existing Statutory Authority (presidential foreign affairs power)

Anticipated Legal Challenges - MEDIUM RISK:

Likely Challenge: Congressional members and affected industries may challenge presidential authority; foreign trading partners may invoke dispute resolution mechanisms.

Legal Vulnerabilities:

Distinction between executive agreements (presidential authority) and Congressional-executive agreements (potentially requiring Congressional approval for withdrawal) is contested
Some trade agreements contain specific withdrawal provisions; others do not
Foreign trading partners may seek compensation or retaliation

Mitigation Strategy:

Conduct legal analysis of each trade agreement’s ratification method and withdrawal provisions
Prioritize withdrawal from clear executive agreements (e.g., some bilateral investment treaties)
Coordinate with Congressional leadership on agreements with unclear authority
Invoke national security or labor/environmental exceptions where available in treaty text
Provide formal notice periods specified in agreements (typically 6-12 months)

Legal Defenses:

Presidential foreign affairs authority under Article II
Precedent: Trump administration withdrew from Paris Agreement, TPP without Congressional approval
Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law supports presidential withdrawal from executive agreements

Expected Timeline: Varies by agreement; legal challenges likely in D.C. Circuit; resolution 12-36 months

Day 1: Universal Communication Infrastructure Initiative (FCC/OMB)

Action: Direct the Federal Communications Commission to expedite universal broadband grants under existing programs (BEAD, ReConnect). Begin comprehensive review of telecom license holders’ compliance with coverage obligations. Prepare implementation plan for public option internet service in areas abandoned by private sector.

Legal Authority:

FCC has authority under Communications Act of 1934 (as amended) to regulate interstate communications
OMB has authority to direct executive branch information technology policy
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (2021) appropriated $42.5B for broadband through BEAD program
Commerce Clause provides clear constitutional authority for interstate communication infrastructure

Implementation Timeline:

Immediate: Expedite existing grant programs
90 days: Complete compliance review of telecom license holders
180 days: Deliver public option implementation plan to Congress

Authority Category: Existing Statutory Authority + Congressional Legislation Required (for public option)

Anticipated Legal Challenges - LOW RISK (for grant acceleration); MEDIUM RISK (for public option if implemented):

Likely Challenge: Telecom companies will challenge any public option as unfair competition; may argue FCC overreach in coverage enforcement.

Legal Vulnerabilities:

Public option would require new statutory authority from Congress
Telecom industry will lobby heavily against any public competition
Rural service obligations historically under-enforced; companies accustomed to non-compliance

Mitigation Strategy:

Frame public option as last-resort measure (only where private sector has failed)
Model on Rural Electrification Act precedent (government filled gaps left by private companies)
Emphasize national security implications (communication infrastructure is critical infrastructure)
Build bipartisan rural support (both parties claim to support rural broadband)

Legal Defenses:

Commerce Clause clearly authorizes federal regulation of interstate communication
Precedent: Rural Electrification Act (1936), Tennessee Valley Authority (government infrastructure where private sector failed)
Universal service principle already embedded in Communications Act

Expected Timeline: Grant acceleration faces minimal legal risk. Public option would face legal challenges if implemented, but requires Congressional authorization first.

Day 1: Public Media Expansion and Local Journalism Support (OMB/NEA)

Action: Announce 10x increase in PBS/NPR funding in next budget request ($5 billion annually, up from current ~$500 million). Launch federal grant program for local investigative journalism. Create task force to review media ownership concentration and recommend antitrust enforcement actions.

Legal Authority:

Presidential budget authority allows proposing funding increases (requires Congressional appropriation)
National Endowment for the Arts has existing authority to provide grants for journalism/media projects
DOJ Antitrust Division has independent authority to investigate media mergers under Sherman Act and Clayton Act
Public media funding = government speech (constitutionally protected, not censorship)

Implementation Timeline:

Immediate: Announce budget increase proposal
30 days: Launch local journalism grant program using existing NEA authority
60 days: Establish media ownership task force
180 days: Task force delivers recommendations for antitrust enforcement

Authority Category: Existing Statutory Authority (grants, antitrust review) + Congressional Legislation Required (major funding increase)

Anticipated Legal Challenges - LOW RISK:

Likely Challenge: Media conglomerates will oppose antitrust enforcement; may challenge grants as viewpoint discrimination.

Legal Vulnerabilities:

Journalism grants must be content-neutral to avoid First Amendment issues
Media ownership limits face less constitutional scrutiny than content regulation (business structure regulation)
Public media funding has longstanding precedent and bipartisan support

Mitigation Strategy:

Design grants based on objective criteria (community need, journalism capacity, not viewpoint)
Emphasize local journalism focus (non-partisan service to communities)
Media ownership limits framed as antitrust/competition issue (not content regulation)
Public media funding presented as expanding access to information (not government control)

Legal Defenses:

Government speech doctrine: Public media is government-funded speech, constitutionally protected
Antitrust enforcement clearly constitutional (government can regulate business consolidation)
Content-neutral grant criteria survive First Amendment scrutiny
Precedent: PBS/NPR funding since 1967, never successfully challenged

Expected Timeline: Minimal legal risk. Funding increase requires Congressional approval. Antitrust enforcement may face company-specific litigation but not programmatic challenge.

Day 30: Drug Price Negotiation (HHS)

Action: Use existing executive authority to begin negotiating lower prices for prescription drugs for all federal health programs.

Legal Authority: The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 provides explicit authority for Medicare to negotiate prices for certain drugs. Expansion beyond these parameters would require new legislation.

Implementation Timeline: Immediate for drugs covered under IRA; Congressional authorization needed for broader negotiation

Authority Category: Existing Statutory Authority (IRA 2022)

Anticipated Legal Challenges: LOW RISK for IRA-authorized drugs (already litigated and upheld); HIGH RISK if expanded beyond statutory authorization without new legislation.

Day 30: Merger Guidelines (DOJ)

Action: Issue new merger guidelines that presume that any merger or acquisition that significantly increases market concentration is anticompetitive.

Legal Authority: DOJ and FTC have authority to issue merger guidelines interpreting antitrust statutes. Guidelines are not binding regulations but influence enforcement priorities and court decisions.

Implementation Timeline: Immediate (guidelines can be issued without rulemaking)

Authority Category: Existing Statutory Authority (policy guidance)

Anticipated Legal Challenges: LOW RISK for guidelines themselves (not legally binding); MEDIUM-HIGH RISK when applied in specific merger challenges (courts may disagree with guideline interpretations).

Day 30: National Use-of-Force Standards (DOJ)

Action: Issue guidance on minimum national standards for use-of-force policies and de-escalation training protocols for all law enforcement agencies receiving federal funds.

Legal Authority: Under 34 U.S.C. § 10381, DOJ can establish grant program requirements. Guidance would set baseline expectations for use-of-force policies as condition for receiving federal assistance. Similar to how Department of Transportation conditions highway funding on state compliance with federal safety standards.

Implementation Timeline: 30 days to issue initial guidance; 90 days for agencies to submit compliance plans; 180 days for full implementation.

Implementation Details:

Minimum standards for use-of-force continuum (de-escalation as first priority)
Duty to intervene when other officers use excessive force
Prohibition on neck restraints except in life-threatening situations
Mandatory reporting of all force incidents to federal database
Annual use-of-force data publication requirements

Authority Category: Existing Statutory Authority (Spending Clause conditioning)

Anticipated Legal Challenges - LOW-MEDIUM RISK:

Likely Challenge: States and law enforcement unions may claim federal use-of-force standards interfere with state police powers; claim guidance is overly prescriptive.

Legal Vulnerabilities:

10th Amendment concerns about federal intrusion into state law enforcement
Potential claim that standards are “coercive” under spending clause doctrine
Law enforcement unions may resist restrictions on officer discretion

Mitigation Strategy:

Frame as minimum baseline standards, not comprehensive rules
Allow state and local variation exceeding federal minimums
Provide technical assistance and training grants to help agencies comply
Emphasize federal interest in civil rights protection (14th Amendment)
Phase in compliance requirements over 180 days
Good-cause exceptions for resource-constrained agencies

Legal Defenses:

Spending Clause allows conditioning grants on compliance (South Dakota v. Dole)
Federal civil rights enforcement authority under 14th Amendment Section 5
Existing precedent: DOJ consent decrees with police departments include use-of-force standards
Standards address substantial federal interest in preventing civil rights violations

Expected Timeline: Challenges possible but likely unsuccessful; resolution 12-18 months.

Day 30: Union Election Rulemaking (DOL)

Action: Initiate expedited rulemaking to facilitate union organizing, including rules that allow for electronic voting in union elections and streamlined card-check recognition procedures. Final rules expected within 12-18 months.

Legal Authority: The Secretary of Labor has authority to issue rules regarding union elections under the National Labor Relations Act, subject to APA rulemaking procedures.

Implementation Timeline: Expedited rulemaking; final rules expected 12-18 months

Authority Category: Regulatory Rulemaking (APA Compliance Required)

Anticipated Legal Challenges - MEDIUM-HIGH RISK:

Likely Challenge: Business groups will challenge card-check recognition and electronic voting rules as exceeding NLRA authority or violating secret ballot principles.

Legal Vulnerabilities:

NLRA requires secret ballot elections; card-check may be challenged as circumventing this requirement
Electronic voting security concerns (hacking, coercion)
Supreme Court’s current orientation disfavors expansive agency interpretations

Mitigation Strategy:

Frame electronic voting as modernizing secret ballot process, not replacing it
Implement robust cybersecurity protocols and third-party auditing
Provide card-check as voluntary alternative where employer agrees
Cite existing NLRB precedent for card-check in remedial contexts
Phase in rules with pilot programs to demonstrate effectiveness

Legal Defenses:

NLRB has authority to adopt procedural rules under NLRA §6
Electronic voting is method of conducting secret ballot, not elimination of it
Many unions already use electronic voting for internal elections without issue

Expected Timeline: Immediate challenge likely; D.C. Circuit review; resolution 18-30 months

Day 60: U.S. Digital Service 2.0 (OMB/CTO)

Action: Establish a new “U.S. Digital Service 2.0” with a mandate to modernize the technology infrastructure of all federal agencies, from the VA to the IRS, to improve efficiency and reduce waste.

Legal Authority: OMB has authority to direct executive branch management and technology initiatives. May require additional appropriations for major modernization projects.

Implementation Timeline: Immediate establishment; implementation 2-5 years depending on appropriations

Authority Category: Existing Statutory Authority (subject to appropriations)

Anticipated Legal Challenges: LOW RISK - Technology modernization is within core OMB authority. Contracting decisions may face protests but not overall policy.

Day 60: Executive Compensation Rulemaking (SEC)

Action: Initiate rulemaking to require shareholder approval for all executive compensation packages exceeding specified thresholds.

Legal Authority: Dodd-Frank Act provides SEC authority to promulgate rules regarding executive compensation disclosure and shareholder approval.

Implementation Timeline: Standard rulemaking process; 12-24 months for final rules

Authority Category: Regulatory Rulemaking (APA Compliance Required)

Anticipated Legal Challenges: MEDIUM RISK - Industry groups will challenge scope of shareholder approval requirements. However, Dodd-Frank provides explicit authorization for say-on-pay rules, reducing legal risk compared to stock buyback restrictions.

Day 60: Tax Loophole Closure Rulemaking (Treasury)

Action: Initiate rulemaking to close the “carried interest” loophole and other tax loopholes that benefit the wealthy, where administrative authority exists. Identify loopholes requiring statutory changes for Congressional action.

Legal Authority: Treasury has authority to promulgate regulations interpreting the Internal Revenue Code where administrative discretion exists. Some loopholes (including carried interest) may require statutory changes.

Implementation Timeline: Notice-and-comment rulemaking; 12-18 months. Some loopholes will require Congressional legislation.

Authority Category: Regulatory Rulemaking (APA Compliance Required) where authority exists; Congressional Legislation Required for statutory loopholes

Anticipated Legal Challenges: MEDIUM-HIGH RISK - Tax regulations face intense scrutiny. Private equity and hedge fund industries will challenge carried interest restrictions as exceeding regulatory authority, arguing statutory change required.

Day 60: Educational Equity Assessment (Department of Education)

Action: Direct the Department of Education to conduct comprehensive analysis of K-12 funding disparities across states and districts. Prepare implementation plans for universal pre-K program, free public college proposal, and student debt relief options. Research legal authority for presidential debt cancellation.

Legal Authority:

Department of Education has authority to analyze educational systems and propose policy recommendations
Planning and research activities within core departmental mission
Implementation requires Congressional legislation (except possibly student debt cancellation)
Higher Education Act of 1965 may provide authority for debt relief (contested)

Implementation Timeline:

Immediate: Begin data collection and analysis
90 days: Preliminary findings on K-12 funding disparities
180 days: Complete implementation plans for pre-K, free college, and debt relief options
Legal analysis on presidential debt cancellation authority delivered to White House Counsel

Authority Category: Existing Statutory Authority (research and planning) + Congressional Legislation Required (implementation)

Anticipated Legal Challenges - LOW RISK (for planning); HIGH RISK (for presidential debt cancellation if attempted):

Likely Challenge: If President attempts debt cancellation without Congressional authorization, legal challenges will be immediate from Republican states, loan servicers, and potentially affected taxpayers.

Legal Vulnerabilities:

Presidential debt cancellation authority under Higher Education Act is contested
Biden administration’s attempt at broad debt cancellation was struck down by Supreme Court in Biden v. Nebraska (2023)
Court ruled President lacked authority for “major questions” economic policy without clear Congressional authorization
Any presidential action must be narrower and better grounded in statutory text

Mitigation Strategy:

Frame Day 60 action as research and planning only (no legal risk)
If presidential action pursued, must be narrowly tailored:
- Target specific categories (defrauded students, public service workers, total and permanent disability)
- Use clear statutory authority (borrower defense regulations, public service forgiveness expansion)
- Avoid “major questions” doctrine by limiting scope and economic impact
Prepare legislative proposal as primary path forward
Build Congressional support for statutory debt relief

Legal Defenses:

Planning and research clearly within Department authority
If presidential action: cite specific statutory provisions (not general COVID emergency powers)
Narrower actions (e.g., expanding existing forgiveness programs) more defensible than mass cancellation

Expected Timeline: Planning faces no legal challenges. Presidential debt cancellation (if attempted) would face immediate injunctions; Supreme Court review likely; resolution 12-24 months. Legislative path avoids legal challenges but requires Congressional votes.

Day 60: Pilot Police Certification Program (DOJ)

Action: Launch pilot National Police Certification Program with voluntary state participation, including psychological screening standards and ongoing evaluation requirements.

Legal Authority: DOJ authority under Justice Assistance Grant program (34 U.S.C. § 10381) to provide funding and technical assistance for state and local law enforcement improvements. Pilot program offers incentive grants to participating states without mandating participation (avoiding 10th Amendment concerns).

Implementation Timeline: 60 days to design pilot; launch with 5-10 volunteer states; 2-year pilot period; national rollout subject to Congressional authorization.

Implementation Details:

Federal funding for states to establish certification boards
Model psychological screening protocols (pre-certification and biennial re-evaluation)
Standardized training curriculum (minimum 6-12 months, comparable to other developed nations)
Public certification registry accessible to all law enforcement agencies
Reciprocity agreements for officers moving between participating states

Psychological Screening Components:

Comprehensive pre-certification evaluation (personality assessment, fitness for duty evaluation)
Screening for history of violence, domestic abuse, substance abuse
Assessment of emotional regulation, empathy, judgment under pressure
Biennial re-evaluation with mandatory counseling referral when needed
Automatic disqualification criteria (domestic violence conviction, pattern of complaints)

Authority Category: Existing Statutory Authority (Spending Clause incentives)

Anticipated Legal Challenges - LOW RISK:

Likely Challenge: Privacy concerns about psychological screening records; union resistance to certification requirements; states claiming federal overreach.

Legal Vulnerabilities:

Psychological screening involves sensitive medical information (HIPAA, ADA concerns)
Union collective bargaining agreements may conflict with new certification requirements
States may resist federal certification even if voluntary

Mitigation Strategy:

Strict confidentiality protections for psychological evaluations (share results only, not details)
Work with states to integrate certification into existing state licensing systems
Provide substantial federal grants to cover implementation costs
Voluntary participation eliminates commandeering concerns
Model after successful professional licensing programs (medical, legal, aviation)
Build support through law enforcement professional associations

Legal Defenses:

Voluntary state participation avoids 10th Amendment issues
Federal funding for professional standards is well-established (FAA, FDA precedents)
Psychological fitness screening common in other safety-sensitive professions
Privacy protections satisfy HIPAA/ADA requirements

Expected Timeline: Minimal legal challenges expected given voluntary nature; resolution 6-12 months if challenged.

Day 90: National Law Enforcement Accountability Database (DOJ)

Action: Establish National Law Enforcement Accountability Database to track officer misconduct, certification status, and training compliance across jurisdictions.

Legal Authority: DOJ authority under 34 U.S.C. § 10381 to collect data and provide technical assistance. Database would be maintained by DOJ and accessible to all law enforcement agencies for hiring decisions. Addresses current problem of officers fired for misconduct being rehired in other jurisdictions.

Implementation Timeline: 90 days to establish database infrastructure; 6 months for state data integration; ongoing updates.

Implementation Details:

Track officer certification status, training history, use-of-force incidents
Record complaints, investigations, disciplinary actions, terminations
Flag officers decertified or terminated for cause
Mandatory reporting by agencies receiving federal funds
Public transparency: Aggregate statistics published quarterly; individual records available to law enforcement agencies during hiring
Privacy protections: Unsubstantiated complaints removed after statutory period

Authority Category: Existing Statutory Authority (data collection under grant programs)

Anticipated Legal Challenges - MEDIUM RISK:

Likely Challenge: Law enforcement unions may claim database violates officer privacy rights; concerns about inaccurate or incomplete records damaging careers; states may resist mandatory reporting.

Legal Vulnerabilities:

Privacy concerns about personnel records in federal database
Due process concerns if officers cannot challenge inaccurate entries
Potential for database errors harming officer employability
Union resistance to transparency

Mitigation Strategy:

Provide robust due process: officers can review, challenge, and append explanatory statements to entries
Remove unsubstantiated complaints after defined period (e.g., 5 years unless pattern established)
Database access limited to law enforcement hiring personnel (not public for individual records)
Strict data quality standards and audit requirements
Appeals process for disputed entries
Emphasize benefit: protects good officers from working alongside problem officers

Legal Defenses:

DOJ has existing authority to collect data under grant programs
Conditioning grants on data reporting is constitutional under Spending Clause
Database addresses compelling federal interest in preventing civil rights violations
Privacy protections and due process satisfy constitutional requirements
Similar databases exist in other professions (medical malpractice, attorney discipline)

Expected Timeline: Challenges possible from unions; resolution 12-18 months; likely upheld given federal interest and procedural protections.

Day 90: Corporate Crime Task Force (DOJ)

Action: Establish a task force dedicated to the prosecution of corporate crime, with a focus on wage theft, price-fixing, and other forms of corporate abuse.

Legal Authority: Attorney General has authority to establish task forces and allocate prosecutorial resources to priority areas.

Implementation Timeline: Immediate

Authority Category: Existing Statutory Authority

Anticipated Legal Challenges: LOW RISK - Prosecutorial discretion and resource allocation are within core DOJ authority. Individual prosecutions will face case-specific defenses but not overall task force establishment.

Day 90: Wage Theft Enforcement Crackdown (DOL)

Action: Launch a nationwide crackdown on wage theft and other violations of labor law, with a focus on industries that employ low-wage workers.

Legal Authority: DOL has existing enforcement authority under Fair Labor Standards Act, state labor laws (where applicable), and other labor statutes.

Implementation Timeline: Immediate

Authority Category: Existing Statutory Authority

Anticipated Legal Challenges: LOW RISK - Enhanced enforcement within existing statutory authority. Individual employers may challenge specific enforcement actions but not overall policy.

Day 90: Trade Agreement Review (USTR)

Action: Initiate a comprehensive review of all existing trade agreements to identify provisions that harm American workers and the environment, with recommendations for renegotiation or withdrawal.

Legal Authority: USTR has authority to conduct reviews and make recommendations. Renegotiation or withdrawal authority varies by agreement type (see Day 1 Trade Agreement Withdrawal analysis).

Implementation Timeline: Review (6-12 months); renegotiation/withdrawal timelines vary

Authority Category: Existing Statutory Authority (review and recommendations); Mixed Authority for implementation

Anticipated Legal Challenges: LOW RISK for review itself; MEDIUM RISK for subsequent withdrawal actions (see Day 1 analysis)

Day 120: Wealth Tax and Financial Transaction Tax Study (Treasury)

Action: Begin a comprehensive study on the implementation of a wealth tax and a financial transaction tax, to be delivered to Congress within one year.

Legal Authority: Treasury has authority to conduct policy studies. Implementation of these taxes requires new statutory authority from Congress.

Implementation Timeline: Study (12 months); Congressional legislation required for implementation

Authority Category: Study within Existing Authority; Requires Congressional Legislation for implementation

Anticipated Legal Challenges:

For Wealth Tax - HIGH CONSTITUTIONAL RISK (if enacted):

Likely Challenge: Legal scholars debate whether wealth tax is a “direct tax” requiring apportionment among states by population (Article I, Section 9).

Legal Vulnerabilities:

Narrow Supreme Court precedent: Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan (1895) struck down federal income tax as unapportioned direct tax (overruled by 16th Amendment for income taxes only)
Current Supreme Court may revive direct tax limitation for wealth taxes
Apportionment requirement would make wealth tax effectively impossible (states with low wealthy populations would face confiscatory rates)

Mitigation Strategy:

Design as excise tax on “privilege” of holding extreme wealth (similar to estate tax, which has been upheld)
Alternative: Tax unrealized capital gains annually (closer to income tax under 16th Amendment)
Prepare legislative alternative: Mark-to-market taxation of tradable assets (already exists for certain securities dealers)
Build record demonstrating economic necessity and policy justification

Legal Arguments:

16th Amendment removed apportionment requirement for taxes on “incomes, from whatever source derived”
Wealth appreciation is income under Sixteenth Amendment
Modern economy renders 18th century direct/indirect tax distinction obsolete

Expected Timeline if Enacted: Constitutional challenge immediate upon enactment; Supreme Court review likely; resolution 24-48 months

Fallback Options:

Mark-to-market taxation of publicly traded assets
Extremely high estate/gift taxes with lower exemptions
Mandatory charitable contribution requirement for ultra-wealthy

For Financial Transaction Tax: MEDIUM RISK - Constitutionally permissible as excise tax, but industry will challenge economic impact and administrative feasibility.

Day 120: Insider Trading Enforcement (SEC)

Action: Strengthen the enforcement of laws against insider trading and other forms of market manipulation.

Legal Authority: SEC has existing enforcement authority under Securities Exchange Act.

Implementation Timeline: Immediate (resource reallocation and enforcement priorities)

Authority Category: Existing Statutory Authority

Anticipated Legal Challenges: LOW RISK - Enhanced enforcement within existing statutory authority. Individual cases will face fact-specific defenses but not overall enforcement policy.

Constitutional Amendments - Long-Term Goals

The following proposals require constitutional amendments and face political (not legal) obstacles requiring 2/3 Congressional vote and 3/4 state ratification:

Electoral College Abolition and Citizens United Reversal - POLITICAL CHALLENGE

Reality Check: No constitutional amendment has been ratified since 1992 (Congressional pay). Recent attempts (ERA, balanced budget, term limits) have failed despite decades of organizing.

Recommended Strategy:

Frame as long-term organizing goals (10-20 year timeline)
Pursue statutory alternatives in parallel:
- Electoral College: National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (state-level, no amendment needed; currently 209 of 270 electoral votes committed)
- Citizens United: Public financing, disclosure requirements, shareholder approval rules (via SEC rulemaking)
Build state-level support through parallel reforms
Use bully pulpit to maintain political pressure

Timeline: Generational project; focus Year 1-4 on statutory reforms and state organizing

Litigation Resource Strategy

Dedicated Legal Defense:

Establish White House Counsel working group on implementation challenges
Coordinate with Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) for advance legal review
Partner with state attorneys general for parallel enforcement/defense
Engage academic legal experts and public interest groups (amici support)

Defensive Litigation Posture:

Conduct legal sufficiency review before finalizing rules
Build robust administrative records supporting policy decisions
Prioritize actions with strongest legal foundations first (build credibility)
Prepare fallback positions and alternative approaches
Accept that some losses are inevitable; focus on winning key battles