• President Donald Trump has issued a wave of executive orders targeting high-profile law firms.
• Trump has restricted clearances — ultimately limiting the way they do business — for firms that have clashed with his administration.
• While some firms have agreed to Trump's demands, others have sued the administration.

As Donald Trump has taken aim at Big Law law firms in recent weeks, some firms have made deals with the president, while others are refusing to throw in the towel.

The president's wide-reaching orders have prompted reviews of each firm's government contracts, canceling security clearances for some firm employees and, in some cases, blocking them from entering federal buildings — including courthouses.

Trump has accused the Big Law firms — including Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, and Covington & Burling, among others — of weaponizing the judicial system. His orders have, in turn, made it harder for the firms to continue conducting business as usual. Several firms have alleged in lawsuits that the executive orders intended to chill free speech and deter clients from doing business with them. Others have agreed to work with the administration to avoid punitive executive actions against them.

The president has singled out a string of law firms that he says have wronged him in some capacity, have worked with his political opponents, or have had diversity initiatives that are counter to his anti-DEI efforts.

What's more, Trump instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi to identify firms with "frivolous" cases against the administration so that they could be targeted for further executive action.

Whether they're on the ropes or down for the count, here are the firms Trump is taking on, how they've responded, and where the legal process stands for those who have challenged him in court.

Paul Weiss

On March 14, Trump issued an executive order directed at the prominent New York City-based law firm Paul Weiss, where he railed against the attorney Mark Pomerantz and decried what he said was "unlawful discrimination" from diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives at the firm.

Pomerantz previously left Paul Weiss to aid the Manhattan District Attorney's office as it probed Trump's finances. When Pomerantz resigned as special district attorney in February 2022, he wrote in a departing letter that he believed Trump was "guilty of numerous felony violations."

In the order, Trump sought to revoke security clearances and bar access to government buildings for attorneys of the firm. Such a sweeping directive could also include federal courthouses, a scenario that would be detrimental to the firm's work.

However, Trump just days later rescinded the executive order and announced an agreement with Paul Weiss chairman Brad Karp. Trump said the firm would provide $40 million in pro bono work for causes that the administration supports and end its DEI policies.

Karp received a heap of criticism, with many questioning why Paul Weiss didn't challenge Trump's order. In an email to the firm's attorneys, he said there was a desire from the outset to challenge the directive. In the same email, though, Karp argued that even if Paul Weiss won in court, it would become "persona non grata" with the Trump White House, which could prompt a wave of clients to switch to other firms and subsequently threaten the viability of the firm.

"It was very likely that our firm would not be able to survive a protracted dispute with the administration," Karp wrote in the email.

Perkins Coie

On March 6, Trump targeted the law firm Perkins Coie, issuing an executive order to suspend the security clearances of the firm's attorneys and criticizing its diversity and inclusion policies.

In the order, Trump called out what he said was the firm's "dishonest and dangerous activity."

The president, in his order, highlighted the firm's representation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — his rival in the 2016 presidential election — during that year's tumultuous campaign.

However, Perkins Coie struck back, filing a lawsuit against the administration for actions that it said "violates core constitutional rights, including the rights to free speech and due process."

"At the heart of the order is an unlawful attack on the freedom of all Americans to select counsel of their choice without fear of retribution or punishment from the government," Perkins Coie managing director Bill Malley said in a statement in March. "We were compelled to take this action to protect our firm and our clients."

The day after Perkins Coie filed its suit, a federal judge agreed to temporarily block part of the president's executive order.

Perkins Coie, in a statement, said the ruling was "an important first step in ensuring this unconstitutional Executive Order is never enforced."

Covington & Burling LLP

Trump on February 25 signed a memorandum to evaluate federal contracts and direct the suspension of security clearances for some employees at Covington & Burling, a DC-based law firm known for its antitrust work.

The president in the memo said he was suspending the clearances of individuals who advised former special counsel Jack Smith.

Smith brought two federal cases against Trump — one for election interference in the 2020 presidential election and the other for retaining classified documents — but both were dropped after the president won reelection to a second term in November 2024.

In the memo, Trump went after individuals whom he said were "involved in the weaponization of government" and named Peter Koski, a lawyer at Covington representing Smith.

A Covington spokesperson in March said it was representing Smith in an "individual" capacity.

"We recently agreed to represent Jack Smith when it became apparent that he would become a subject of a government investigation," the spokesperson said in a statement. "We look forward to defending Mr. Smith's interests and appreciate the trust he has placed in us to do so."

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Skadden made a deal with Trump, acting before it was singled out in any executive orders. The firm promised to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services "to causes that the President and Skadden both support," Trump announced on March 28.

Skadden also affirmed its commitment to merit-based hiring and employee retention, Trump said. The firm also agreed that it would refrain from engaging in "illegal DEI discrimination," according to a copy of the agreement that Trump shared on Truth Social.

In a statement, Jeremy London, Skadden's executive partner, said the firm "engaged proactively" with the administration to reach the agreement.

"We firmly believe that this outcome is in the best interests of our clients, our people, and our Firm," London said.

Speaking from the White House, Trump referred to the deal as "essentially a settlement."

Within the firm, some associates and employees expressed frustration about the deal, calling it the beginning of the end for Skadden.

In the weeks leading up to the agreement, Skadden associate Rachel Cohen publicly resigned and circulated an open letter among associates at top firms calling out their employers for what she has described as inaction in the face of the administration's attacks.

After the deal was announced, another employee, Brenna Frey, also resigned publicly in an announcement on LinkedIn.

Elias Law Group

The chair of Elias Law Group took a different approach after it was targeted by the administration.

Trump named the Elias Law Group in his "frivolous" lawsuits memo, formally titled "Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court."

It claimed that the law firm was "deeply involved in the creation of a false 'dossier' by a foreign national designed to provide a fraudulent basis for Federal law enforcement to investigate a Presidential candidate in order to alter the outcome of the Presidential election."

The memo went on to say that the firm "intentionally sought to conceal the role of his client — failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton — in the dossier."

Marc Elias, the Democratic election lawyer who founded and chairs the group, released a statement swinging back at Trump, whose actions target "every attorney and law firm who dares to challenge his assault on the rule of law," he said.

"President Trump's goal is clear," Elias said in the statement. "He wants lawyers and law firms to capitulate and cower until there is no one left to oppose his Administration in court."

Adding that American democracy is in a state of "peril," Elias said his law firm would not cower.

"Elias Law Group will not be deterred from fighting for democracy in court," he said. "There will be no negotiation with this White House about the clients we represent or the lawsuits we bring on their behalf."

Jenner & Block

Trump signed an order naming Jenner & Block on March 25 that revoked security clearances from the firm's attorneys and ordered a review of the firm's contracts with the federal government.

Trump's order singled out Andrew Weissmann, a former Jenner attorney who Trump accused of building his career around "weaponized government and abuse of power." Weissmann was a lead prosecutor in Robert Mueller's Special Counsel's Office, which investigated Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and its ties to Russia.

Jenner issued a statement calling the order an "unconstitutional executive order that has already been declared unlawful by a federal court."

"We remain focused on serving and safeguarding our clients' interests with the dedication, integrity, and expertise that has defined our firm for more than one hundred years and will pursue all appropriate remedies," the statement from Jenner said.

Jenner also fought back with a lawsuit. The firm is represented by Cooley LLP, a liberal-leaning firm that has hired lawyers from Democratic administrations.

On March 28, Judge John D. Bates of the US District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary restraining order that keeps the Trump administration from taking action against Jenner. On April 1, Bates extended this order until a final judgement has been made. Both the Justice Department and Jenner consented to the extension.

Following the ruling, Jenner said in a statement that the order holds "no legal weight."

"We will continue to do what we have always done, our job as lawyers and fearless advocates for our clients," the firm said.

WilmerHale

The Trump administration has also targeted WilmerHale, which employed Mueller and other lawyers who worked with the Justice Department to investigate ties between Russia and Trump's 2016 campaign.

On March 27, Trump signed an executive order that suspended security clearances for WilmerHale employees and limited their access to federal buildings. The order also revoked WilmerHale's government contracts for engaging in "partisan representations to achieve political ends" and "efforts to discriminate on the basis of race."

In contrast with other firms that have inked deals with the president, WilmerHale filed a lawsuit.

The firm hired Paul Clement, the conservative legal superstar of the firm Clement & Murphy, to fight back against the Trump administration.

"This lawsuit is absolutely critical to vindicating the First Amendment, our adversarial system of justice, and the rule of law," Clement told Business Insider in a statement.

On the afternoon of March 28, Judge Richard J. Leon of the US District Court for the District of Columbia approved a motion for a temporary restraining order to halt executive actions against WilmerHale.

"There is no doubt this retaliatory action chills speech and legal advocacy, or that it qualifies as a constitutional harm," Leon wrote.

A spokesperson for WilmerHale called the executive order unconstitutional and praised the court's "swift action."

Milbank

On April 2, Trump announced on Truth Social that he had struck a preemptive deal with Milbank without targeting the firm for executive action.

The terms of the deal, according to the president's announcement, include the firm's agreement to end any DEI-based hiring practices, and to perform at least $100 million worth of pro bono legal work to advance causes supported by the Trump administration, such as "assisting veterans" and "combatting antisemitism."

In addition, Milbank's pro bono committee will ensure the firm takes on cases representing "the full political spectrum, including Conservative ideals," and commits that it "will not deny representation to clients" based on the personal political views of individual lawyers, per Trump's announcement.

"Milbank LLP approached President Donald J. Trump and his Administration, stating their resolve to help end the Weaponization of the Justice System and the Legal Profession," reads a statement from the White House included in Trump's post. "The President continues to build an unrivaled network of Lawyers, who will put a stop to Partisan Lawfare in America, and restore Liberty and Justice FOR ALL."

Milbank's chairman, Scott Edelman, said in a statement posted by Trump that, after a "constructive dialogue," the firm was "pleased we were so quickly able to find common ground" with the administration.

When reached by Business Insider, a spokesperson for the firm provided a letter sent by Edelman to Milbank's staff in which he said the agreement "is very much in Milbank's interest."

"The Administration's expressed concerns about big law firms, and in some cases its entry of Executive Orders against particular firms, have created uncertainty for law firms like ours," Edelman's letter to staff reads. "With this agreement, we believe we have gone a long way to putting these issues behind us. But we have done so in a way that allows us to continue to focus on the Firm's values and missions, including with respect to pro bono and our hope to foster an inclusive, non-discriminatory community where all of our members have an equal opportunity to succeed."

Edelman added: "Having now reached an agreement with the Administration, we can continue to do what we do best — focus on providing the best possible advice, counseling and service to our clients."

Susman Godfrey

On April 9, Trump signed an executive memorandum targeting Susman Godfrey, a specialized litigation firm.

In a fact sheet, the White House accused Susman of spearheading "efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections."

Trump's order immediately suspends any Susman security clearances held by the firm's employees. The federal government will also terminate any contracts with the firm.

The firm's hiring practices will also be reviewed "to ensure compliance with civil rights laws against racial bias."

A Susman representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment from BI.

Willkie Farr & Gallagher

Willkie Farr & Gallagher, which employs Doug Emhoff, husband of former Vice President Kamala Harris, struck a deal with the administration, pledging at least $100 million in pro bono legal work for conservative causes, Trump said in an April 1 social media post.

"Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP proactively reached out to President Trump and his Administration, offering their decisive commitment to ending the Weaponization of the Justice System and the Legal Profession," the White House said, according to Trump's post on Truth Social.

The firm's ties to Trump go to the 1990s when it represented the then real estate developer in a bankruptcy case.

In 2023, Willkie brought Tim Heaphy as partner. Heaphy was the former chief investigative counsel for the congressional committee that investigated the January 6, 2021, attacks on the Capitol.

The firm also represents X, Elon Musk's social media platform.

Trump said that Willkie Farr & Gallagher also committed to "Merit-Based Hiring, Promotion, and Retention," which touches on the Trump's efforts to dismantle DEI initiatives.

A representative for Willkie Farr & Gallagher did not respond to a request for comment.

• Donald Trump on Tuesday signed his latest executive order targeting a Big Law firm, Jenner & Block.
• The order is similar to one against Perkins Coie, which a federal judge blocked as unconstitutional.
• Jenner & Block, in a statement, said the firm remains focused on serving its clients despite the order.

Jenner & Block on Tuesday became the latest target in President Donald Trump's war on Big Law after he issued an executive order revoking its attorneys' security clearances and ordering a review of the firm's government contracts. But Jenner signaled it doesn't plan to back down without a fight.

The firm, headquartered in Chicago, employs over 400 attorneys across six offices nationwide and is the fourth major law firm targeted by the Trump administration with similar executive actions. Each of the firms — Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, and Covington & Burling — has had ties to Trump's political opponents.

In the Tuesday order, Trump specifically singled out attorney Andrew Weissmann, a Jenner employee who served as a lead prosecutor in Robert Mueller's Special Counsel's Office, which investigated Trump's ties to Russia in 2016. The order described Weissmann's career as "rooted in weaponized government and abuse of power."

"Jenner & Block has had a long history representing clients, paid and pro bono, in their most difficult matters since 1914," Jenner & Block said in a statement released after the order was issued. "Today, we have been named in an Executive Order similar to one which has already been declared unconstitutional by a federal court. We remain focused on serving and safeguarding our clients' interests with the dedication, integrity, and expertise that has defined our firm for more than one hundred years and will pursue all appropriate remedies."

US District Judge Beryl Howell on March 12 partially blocked Trump's order against Perkins Coie. Politico reported that during an emergency hearing, the judge said that the "retaliatory animus" of Trump's order against the firm was "clear on its face" and "runs head-on into the wall of First Amendment protections."

On Friday, the Justice Department filed a motion to disqualify Howell from overseeing the lawsuit, arguing the judge is "insufficiently impartial" to rule on the case.

While Perkins Coie fights the executive order in court, another targeted firm has taken a contrasting approach to handling Trump's actions against it.

Instead of challenging the order's legality, Paul Weiss agreed to reevaluate its hiring practices in alignment with Trump's anti-DEI initiatives and provide $40 million in pro bono legal work to further causes identified by the Trump administration, such as combating antisemitism and assisting veterans. Trump rescinded the order against Paul Weiss after the agreement was struck, though Business Insider previously reported the language in Paul Weiss' copy of the agreement did not include references to DEI that were in Trump's announcement.

Rachel Cohen, a now-former associate from the high-profile firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, last Friday publicly resigned over what she said was her firm's resistance to challenging the president's orders.

Also on Friday, the president sent a memo to Attorney General Pam Bondi ordering her to identify "frivolous" lawsuits against his administration and flag the law firms associated with the cases so they can be targeted for punitive actions like those levied against Paul Weiss and Perkins Coie.

In an email to his staff on Sunday, Paul Weiss Chairman Brad Karp called Trump's order "unprecedented" in the firm's 150-year history and an "existential threat."

"The executive order could easily have destroyed our firm," Karp wrote. "It brought the full weight of the government down on our firm, our people, and our clients."

The assault on Big Law — and each firm's disparate handling of the orders against them — has made waves across the legal industry, with legal scholars warning Business Insider the unprecedented attacks from the sitting president are a threat to the rule of law that have implications far beyond damaging the businesses of the targeted firms.

"Something like this has never happened, or maybe hasn't happened since the time of Andrew Jackson. I mean, this is really a kind of a constitutional crisis," Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, previously told BI. "I think our legal system is under attack, and it's a question of who's going to step up and defend it."

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at ktangalakislippert@businessinsider.com or Signal at byktl.50. Use a personal email address and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• The head of the law firm Paul Weiss defended a deal they struck with the Trump administration.
• Brad Karp said the best option was to do $40 million in pro bono work for the administration.
• Yet it's unclear how effective the email sent Sunday will prove in winning over some staffers.

A lengthy email from the chair of the law firm Paul Weiss to staffers on Sunday contains rhetorical snippets that could be plucked from a courtroom procedural.

Yet Brad Karp wasn't trying to convince a judge. He was trying to show some 2,500 employees that a deal the firm cut with the Trump administration to escape a punishing executive order didn't represent a capitulation.

It's not clear he made the case.

The email, at more than 1,600 words, appears to offer a muddled apology, said David Clementson, an associate professor of public relations at the University of Georgia's Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication.

"Either apologize if you did something wrong, or don't apologize," he told Business Insider, saying that the email contains "gradations of both."

President Donald Trump's March 14 executive order targeted Paul Weiss, which is known for its ties to Democrats, over the firm's diversity, equity, and inclusion policies and promised a review of its government contracts. The president also took aim in the order at a former attorney with the firm, Mark Pomerantz, who worked on a Manhattan district attorney inquiry into Trump's finances.

The pressure from the White House resulted in an Oval Office meeting involving Karp and Trump. Those talks yielded an agreement for the firm to provide $40 million worth of pro bono work to the government.

'Hyberbolic langugage'

In his memo, Karp wrote that the period has been "profoundly unsettling" to the firm's employees and that many people at Paul Weiss were understandably "uncomfortable" about the decision to strike an agreement with the White House.

He also said the executive order was unprecedented in the firm's 150-year history and that it "could easily have destroyed our firm."

Clementson, who studies crisis communications, said the memo's references to an "existential crisis" and "impossibly challenging circumstances" could have gone too far.

"You've got this high-intensity, hyperbolic language, which tends to backfire," he said.

Research shows people often doubt the truthfulness of a statement when it invokes emotional language, he said. In addition, one of the essential actions in a crisis is to project calm.

Clementson added that phrases conveying that "we're breaking the glass, pulling the fire alarm" aren't what an audience wants to hear.

Paul Weiss didn't respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

Clementson said that the situation would have appeared more like a victory for the firm had it gone to staffers sooner with a more fulsome defense of its negotiations with Trump.

The Sunday memo, which followed one sent to staffers not long after the White House issued a subsequent executive order involving the deal, is likely an indication that at least some of the firm's staffers were unswayed, Kevin Donahue, a 30-year veteran of crisis management work who is managing director and head of the crisis practice at Falls & Co., told BI.

Clementson said the firm needed to be ready to unleash a fusillade of communications — starting internally.

"If your business already knows that something could be hitting the fan, you need to get out in front of it yourself," he said.

A bet-the-company moment

In the email, Karp wrote the money the pro bono work the firm agreed to do on behalf of the Trump administration was in areas in which "we are already doing significant work." These include helping veterans, fighting antisemitism, and "promoting the fairness of the justice system."

Clementson said it would have been better for the firm to underscore that rather than fighting Trump's bottomless legal resources, it chose to direct $40 million worth of its resources to support causes with which it is already aligned.

The firm's revenue topped more than $2.6 billion in 2024, The New York Times has reported.

The additional spending on pro bono work might represent only a fraction of the revenue at risk, said Gina Rubel, CEO at Furia Rubel Communications, which advises law firms and their clients on crisis communications and public relations.

"They didn't want to have to capitulate," she said. Yet, the legal profession is under attack, Rubel said, and the situation Paul Weiss faces is indeed a "bet-the-company" moment, as Karp indicated.

Rubel, a lawyer though she no longer practices, said attorneys often tell clients it's better to settle than to litigate. Given the amount of Paul Weiss business that could have been at risk, Karp appeared to have reached that conclusion, she said.

She said Karp also has a fiduciary duty to the firm to keep it going.

Rubel said he made that point in the memo, which, she said, also addresses so many of the things that people have been saying and speaks directly to the court of public opinion.

Donahue said Karp might have succeeded in gaining some workers' trust because it made clear Paul Weiss considered fighting the executive order in court, as at least one other firm has done. Yet, ultimately, Donahue said, Paul Weiss concluded too many clients would have perceived the firm as persona non grata, as Karp wrote.

Donahue said it's likely the legal fight would have exacted a further toll on the firm's reputation.

Donahue said the effectiveness of Karp's Sunday message will likely become clearer in the coming weeks and months. But ultimately, he said, the firm had to do something.

"This is a significant threat," Donahue said. "Had they let it percolate, they may not have ever come back from that."

• On Monday morning, screens at HUD briefly displayed a fake video of Trump sucking Elon Musk's feet.
• Later that day, the monitors began displaying soundless videos of Trump signing executive orders instead.
• As of Tuesday morning, HUD monitors were still showing Trump signing executives orders.

It's a toe-tal switch-up over at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, where monitors are no longer showing fake videos of President Donald Trump sucking Elon Musk's feet.

Instead, TV screens throughout the agency on Tuesday displayed clips of Trump signing executive orders on a loop, a HUD worker said and union officials confirmed.

A worker at HUD said that the screens began showing videos of Trump's signings last night. The worker noticed the videos showing as they left the office for the night, and as of this morning, the clips were still playing. Business Insider viewed recordings showing the videos being played on at least two monitors; both appeared to be playing without sound or closed captions.

"It's making people uncomfortable," the worker said. "It's like state propaganda."

Two HUD workers said that the monitors are generally used to convey information, not broadcast videos. Both said the toe video was the first time they'd seen the monitors used to show video.

On Monday night, the press office for HUD Secretary Scott Turner released a statement on the day's excitement.

"The monitors at HUD are now showcasing the wins of the Trump administration, including action to lower the cost and expand the supply of affordable housing," the statement said. "We expect the media to cover these historic achievements with the same level of detail and immediacy as other frivolous stories."

The White House and Turner's office did not immediately respond to Business Insider's request for comment on the executive order videos.

HUD spokesperson Kasey Lovett said in a statement Monday that the Trump-Musk video was "another waste of taxpayer dollars and resources."

The toe-sucking video hit the monitors inside the agency as bargaining unit employees at HUD officially returned to office on Monday morning. The agency is facing potential cuts amid the Musk and Trump push to efficiently slash the federal workforce, with the Associated Press reporting that half of the agency could be on the chopping block.

Federal workers this week have also been asked to account for what they've been doing on the clock. The Office of Personnel Management sent out a weekend email asking workers to reply with five bullet points on what they had worked on in the past week. However, some agencies later said that a response was voluntary or that they'd reply on behalf of their workers.

Are you a federal worker with a story or tip? Contact this reporter on Signal at julianakaplan.33 or via email at jkaplan@businessinsider.com.

The Trump administration is rescinding a Biden-era directive protecting hospitals from investigations and signaled that beefed-up protections for medical whistleblowers would be forthcoming.

The Health and Human Services Department (HHS) announced Friday it would be rescinding an executive order issued by former President Joe Biden in March 2022, which, among other things, gave hospitals the right not to comply with state-level investigations related to their provision of transgender medical treatments to minors. 
Trump's directive eliminates these protections, and the rescission notice indicates that further safeguards for medical whistleblowers are anticipated in the future.

"Under the Biden regime, the door for whistleblowers was closed," said Dr. Eithan Haim, who was prosecuted by the Biden administration after he leaked documents to the media that revealed Texas Children's Hospital in Houston was performing transgender medical procedures on minors, even after it said it had stopped. "It was a complete inversion of the role of HHS, the role of our legal framework, because the criminal entities were being protected and the individuals exposing criminal entities were now the ones being targeted."

RILEY GAINES FEATURED IN TRUMP HHS WEBSITE THAT BUILDS ON ‘TWO SEXES’ EXECUTIVE ORDER

Haim was indicted last year by Biden's Department of Justice for blowing the whistle on Texas Children's Hospital, after it continued to provide transgender medical treatments to minors even though the hospital had publicly indicated it had stopped such services in order to comply with new state guidance. Several days after President Donald Trump was sworn in, the charges against Haim were dropped. 

Under Biden's March 2022 directive, titled, "HHS Notice and Guidance on Gender Affirming Care, Civil Rights and Patient Privacy," hospitals were permitted, but not required, to comply with investigations seeking information on their provision of transgender treatments. But, according to HHS's rescission notice, such guidance lacked "adequate legal basis under federal privacy laws." The notice added that, "by its own terms," Biden's March 2022 directive "permits" the release of personal health information tied to transgender procedures when it is needed to comply with other laws. 

TRANS STAR OF HIT HBO SERIES SAYS RENEWED PASSPORT NOW SAYS MALE AFTER TRUMP ORDER

"Covered entities should no longer rely on the rescinded 2022 OCR Notice and Guidance," stated HHS' rescission notice. It added that "in consultation with the Attorney General" the agency will also be "expeditiously" issuing new guidance to protect whistleblowers who take action in accordance with Trump's efforts to protect children "from chemical and surgical mutilation." 

Haim said that under Trump's new leadership, the U.S. legal system is being restored "to a place of equal protection under law, particularly as it relates to people who are trying to follow [Trump's] executive order, or any other federal laws."

"The key thing with this new directive is that, as a healthcare provider, if a hospital or other doctors are participating in misconduct, if they're lying about something, if they are intervening on patients in a way that is harmful to those patients – especially kids – as a doctor, it's not only something you should do, it's something you have to do," Haim pointed out.

In addition to compelling hospitals and gender clinics to begin rigorous compliance with investigations, the Trump administration's Friday directive also removed gender dysphoria from being considered a disability under the federal Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. It also rescinded orders from the Biden administration indicating it was discrimination for federally funded health programs to refuse to treat someone on the basis of their gender identity.

Fox News Digital reached out to HHS for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

• Debra D'Agostino, a DC lawyer, has represented federal employees for over 20 years.
• She said federal workers should comply with RTO mandates, DEIA rollbacks, and hiring freezes.
• She also shared three ways for federal workers to challenge the executive orders while on the job.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Debra D'Agostino, a 48-year-old attorney from Washington DC who represents federal employees. It's been edited for length and clarity.

As a founding partner of the Federal Practice Group in Washington DC, I've represented federal employees for over 20 years.

Since President Donald Trump's first batch of executive orders, I've observed an incredible sense of fear among government employees about whether they'll be reclassified or have their rights stripped away. Regardless, I hope all federal employees use their resources and see quitting as a last resort.

Here's what every federal government worker should know as more executive orders are rolled out and what I predict may happen next.

RTO mandates will include most federal employees, but there are exemptions

The United States Office of Personal Management (OPM) issued guidance that targets both remote and teleworkers in the return-to-office mandates.

Remote workers are people who live outside of the commuting area, and teleworkers are folks who are based in the commuting area but still work from home.

Those exempted from the return-to-office mandates are people with reasonable accommodations or people with a qualifying disability. Those with a qualifying disability are presumably disabled people who had been working from home but never needed to formalize it into reasonable accommodation until now.

There's also an exemption for those with a "compelling reason." We don't know exactly what that covers yet, but agencies will certainly have some discretion over what that means. The most recent guidance referenced an exemption for military spouses.

Federal DEIA workers might be assigned to new roles with some similar tasks

Employees working in DEIA groups were placed on paid administrative leave. Also, "reduction in force" notices, which are essentially 60-day layoff notices, were issued to some folks.

The reduction in force process is governed by very complex regulations, so we'll have to see how much the Trump administration cares to abide by those regulations.

So far, they haven't been terribly concerned with complying. What's murky is that some of the DEIA employees are reasonable accommodation coordinators, a function that still needs to be performed. I predict some folks will be reassigned to different roles but still tasked with performing that function.

The hiring freeze is messier than it should be and might last for a while

The OPM guidance says that any federal government job offer signed after January 20 at noon is invalid, and those positions will remain vacant.

I've heard from folks who say they thought they secured a federal agency job months ago but still got their offers rescinded. This may be because, a lot of times, the government issues tentative job offers months before making firm offers.

I always advise people not to give notice to their current employer until they have signed the firm final offer. I predict the hiring freeze may continue for a while.

It's best to comply now and complain later

Unless ordered to do something unsafe, my golden rule for federal employees is "comply now, complain later." Even if you think you're being ordered to do something that violates agency policy or goes against your belief system, there may be consequences for failing to comply.

For example, if you refuse a reassignment, the government may just fire you. If you're fired, it's incredibly difficult to get rehired or file a complaint. You'll be fighting an uphill battle.

Being employed by the government is what gives you leverage to challenge an order you don't agree with.

I'd recommend that the same employee take the reassignment and then file a grievance, Equal Opportunity complaint, or Merit Systems Protection Board appeal, depending on the situation. There are several avenues to complain through, and because those resources were set up by federal law, they're not going anywhere.

If you're a federal employee whose job has been impacted by the Trump administration's executive orders and would like to share your story, please email mlogan@businessinsider.com.

• President Donald Trump froze USAID spending to put "American interests" first.
• The decision has left at least 12,700 Americans jobless, a number that's expected to grow.
• In North Carolina, home to some of the largest USAID contractors, hundreds have been furloughed.

They have chosen to delay discretionary spending for new furniture and subscription services. They worry about being able to afford groceries for their families. And they have been left to wonder whether they will get paid for work already performed.

President Donald Trump's January 20 executive order placed a 90-day freeze on foreign aid in the name of putting "American interests" first. That order and other actions, which halted work on hundreds of projects funded by the US Agency for International Development, have had profound ripple effects on American lives.

Intended to reduce wasteful spending and limit the money the US sends overseas, the actions have impacted thousands of American workers whose jobs are funded by USAID. The funding freeze has been acutely felt in North Carolina, one of the top state recipients of USAID dollars, according to interviews with USAID contractors who have been furloughed or fired with little information about whether invoices for past work will be paid.

The decision has implications for US farmers, furniture makers, airline carriers, and hundreds of other US organizations that sell products or services to the government agency. In fact, USAID rules require a range of purchases — including food, vehicles, pharmaceuticals, and plane tickets — to prioritize US vendors.

"Foreign aid, with a few exceptions for close allies such as Egypt, Israel, and Jordan, is not transferred into the treasuries of aid recipient governments," Andrew Natsios, a former administrator of USAID, said in a February 13 testimony before Congress. "Instead, it is spent through international and local non-governmental organizations, US and local universities, for-profit development contractors, and civil society organizations."

Until now, USAID had maintained a staff of about 10,000, according to the Congressional Research Service, relying on contractors to do the bulk of its work.

The administration's decision to defund USAID — Elon Musk said this month that he'd "spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper" — has led to the layoff or termination of thousands of US employees at companies that contract with USAID, according to a USAID tracker set up by Molloy Consultants, a global health consulting group.

The White House and the State Department didn't immediately respond to requests for comment about the impact on US workers. "We're not trying to be disruptive to people's personal lives," Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on February 7. "We're not being punitive here."

Pete Marocco, the deputy administrator for USAID, said in a February 10 affidavit that the pause was necessary in order to enable "a thorough review of USAID's operations."

North Carolina takes a hit

The impact of the funding freeze was immediate in North Carolina, one of the top state recipients of USAID dollars. The state is home to organizations that received more than $2.2 billion from USAID, according to Molloy Consultants, placing it fifth among US states.

"I will be very blunt. The freeze has been devastating," Brianna Clarke-Schwelm, the executive director of the North Carolina Global Health Alliance, told Business Insider. "Already we are seeing mass furloughs and mass layoffs. Hundreds of people have already lost their jobs."

The impact "will reach people in every corner of our state," she said.

North Carolina is Trump country; the president won the state in 2016, 2020, and 2024, and he visited it at least 11 times during last year's campaign, more than almost any other state.

Sens. Thom Tillis and Ted Budd, both Republicans, didn't immediately respond to requests for comment for this story. Both senators have fielded calls and emails from constituents, often responding with impersonal emails, according to some recipients who spoke with BI.

"Your government has a responsibility to review every taxpayer dollar and ensure that it is spent wisely and in the best interest of the American people," one of Budd's emails read.

Rep. Valerie Foushee, a Democrat whose district includes Durham, said she'd heard from hundreds of constituents concerned about the funding freeze.

"I am deeply concerned regarding the illegal actions taken by the Trump Administration to dismantle our leading foreign aid agency," Foushee said by email. "Trump's detrimental Stop Work Order will have widespread repercussions across our state, affecting farmers, local businesses, researchers, medical professionals, biotech companies, and many others. In my district alone, thousands of workers across numerous international development organizations will be affected."

North Carolina's Raleigh-Durham metro area is home to two of the six largest global recipients of USAID funds between 2013 and 2022, according to a report from the Congressional Research Service. FHI 360, a Durham-based nonprofit focused on health, nutrition, and economic opportunity, received $3.79 billion during those years, and RTI International, a research institution based in Research Triangle Park, took in $2.31 billion.

On February 6, FHI 360 said it would furlough 36% of its US staff, including 200 in North Carolina. The spokesperson Jennifer Garcia declined to elaborate on the announcement.

A week later, RTI disclosed temporary layoffs for 226 of its staff, including 61 in North Carolina. "RTI deeply values every staff member," CEO Tim Gabel said in a press release. "The projects our international development staff implement provide essential contributions that support America's leadership in creating a more prosperous, safe, secure and resilient world."

Two others among the top organizations receiving USAID funds, Chemonics and DAI, also employ workers in the state. Chemonics has furloughed 600 staff and placed another 300 on limited work hours, a spokesperson told CNN. DAI furloughed about 380 staff, 60 to 70% of their workforce, a spokesperson told the network.

As of Monday, at least 12,700 contractors who relied on USAID funding had been furloughed or put on leave, according to numbers compiled by Molloy Consultants from impacted organizations.

The global health industry is a significant driver of North Carolina's economy. The industry accounted for roughly 170,000 jobs in the state and added almost $32 billion in value to the state's economy, according to a 2022 report commissioned by NCGHA. That's about 4% of the state's GDP, per data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

For those who have lost their jobs or been furloughed, the past few weeks have been traumatic. Many told BI they were applying for unemployment benefits. One person decided to cancel plans to buy a new North Carolina-made couch after being put on furlough.

"I don't think folks realize how big of an industry this is for America," said one person who asked not to be named to avoid professional repercussions. "Just in the Triangle you have two of the largest implementers in the world, and then countless NGOs impacted. Multiply that by 49 states. How many jobs are we talking about here?"

Last April, the US Department of Agriculture said it would spend $1 billion to buy US commodities for USAID to ship overseas. A USAID fact sheet says the agency partnered with at least 27 North Carolina farmers.

Small businesses have also been impacted. In December, a government official said the agency sent $1 billion to US small businesses in the last fiscal year.

Support for small firms has included State Department purchases of at least $7.5 million in furniture over the past eight years from North Carolina manufacturers to fill embassies, missions, residences, and USAID facilities, according to data from usaspending.gov.

"If this continues, 90% of the NGO and contractor community will cease to exist within another month," Natsio said in his testimony last week. "NGOs, many of them faith-based, Christian organizations, will be forced to shut down programs, lay off staff (which many have already been forced to do), and ultimately close their doors."

The USAID spending freeze has also affected the state's universities, as the University of North Carolina system, North Carolina State University, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, and Duke University had all received USAID funding.

In 2023, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Carolina Population Center received a $90 million grant from USAID to monitor global health. Between 2003 and 2015, the center's Measure Evaluation program received an additional $500 million from USAID to handle data collection.

UNC Chapel Hill has 10 stop work orders from USAID, including three in which the university is a direct recipient and another seven in which it is a subrecipient, the spokesperson Cat Long said by email. The university had received $18.3 million in research awards this fiscal year and $17.5 million in the previous year.

"The University is awaiting more information from federal agencies to determine the long-term impact on these programs and their staff," she said. 

NC State "is working with various partners to gauge potential impacts of any changes to federally funded sponsored programs," the university spokesperson Mick Kulikowski said by email.

Chemonics, DAI, and the Small Business Association for International Companies, a Raleigh-based trade association with more than 150 members, were among eight plaintiffs who filed suit on February 11 to challenge the administration's freeze. Two days later, a federal judge in Washington, DC, issued a temporary restraining order, giving the administration five days to restart funding.

Organizations representing USAID workers have also filed suit.

Meanwhile, uncertainty reigns.

A senior staff member at one of the major North Carolina organizations funded by USAID said organizations still didn't know whether invoices for work performed in November, December, and January would be paid. Another said organizations were furloughing staff simply because they didn't have any cash on hand to pay them.

Multiple furloughed employees of USAID contractors said their projects were heavily audited, and they pushed back on the idea that there was widespread wasteful spending.

"We are one of the most successfully audited organizations," said one person who'd been furloughed. "Monitoring and evaluation is such a big part of every project."

If you work for USAID, a USAID contractor, or another government agency affected by furloughs, please contact Dakin Campbell at dcampbell@insider.com or text him securely at dakin.11 on the Signal app.

• President Donald Trump's executive orders have faced a slew of legal roadblocks.
• Judges have blocked orders on birthright citizenship, transgender inmate rehousing, and spending.
• Trump's tariff plans for Canada and Mexico were paused after negotiations.

Some of President Donald Trump's boldest moves during his new administration's seismic first three weeks have been grounded before ever taking flight.

The administration and its Department of Governmental Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, the world's richest man, promised a list of swift-moving changes to the US government's operations. While some of those plans have progressed, others were put on hold, either in the courts or by the administration itself.

The White House says this is all part of a long game that Trump, ultimately, will win.

"Each executive order will hold up in court because every action of the Trump-Vance administration is completely lawful," Harrison Fields, the principal White House deputy press secretary, told BI on Friday.

And as for Trump's walked-back plans to hit our closest neighbors with tariffs — that was an all-out victory, said another White House spokesman, Kush Desai, who said Trump changed course on Mexico and Canada after "critical concessions" from both countries.

Still, much of Trump 2.0 remains on ice for now.

For those who haven't been able to keep up with the firehouse of actions announced by the White House and DOGE, here are the key ones that have been held up — for now.

A 'fork in the road' resignation offer

A federal judge in Massachusetts delayed Trump's plan to root out federal employees with buyout offers.

On January 28, the Trump administration gave just over two million government workers the chance to resign and maintain full pay and benefits until September 30. The so-called "fork in the road" resignation offer was a strategy straight out of Musk's playbook.

US District Judge George O'Toole Jr. on Thursday extended the buyout deadline until at least Monday, just hours before the actual deadline. The order came in response to a lawsuit brought by labor union groups. A Trump administration official told BI that over 40,000 federal workers had taken the buyout as of Wednesday.

Musk's DOGE and the Treasury

The White House launched another fiscal bombshell on February 3 when Trump told reporters he had given Treasury data access to Musk, whose DOGE is tasked with cutting government spending.

The idea that DOGE would have access to the personal information of millions of Americans — including anyone who had ever paid taxes, taken a federal loan, or collected Social Security — resulted in another legal challenge.

On Thursday, a federal judge in California set strict interim limits on the Treasury data, banning DOGE from accessing it directly.

Then, Saturday morning, another federal judge temporarily blocked a slew of people — including special government employees (like Musk), political appointees, and government employees not assigned by the Treasury — from accessing the Treasury's payment systems. The judge also ordered those who had gained new access to the systems to destroy all copies they may have made of materials and records they downloaded.

In the order, US District Judge Paul Engelmayer cited the risk of "disclosure of sensitive and confidential information" and the "heightened risk that the systems in question will be more vulnerable than before to hacking."

A freeze on federal spending

On January 27 — the first full Monday of Trump 2.0 — Trump budget officials dropped a bombshell memo ordering the temporary freezing of "all federal financial assistance" beginning 5 p.m. the following day, so that the spending could be reviewed. In an instant, the future of billions of dollars in federal funding was thrown into question.

The shockwaves were just as swift, even in the hours before the freeze was to take place. Medicaid portals used by states to access federal reimbursement quickly shut down across the country. Head Start funds were frozen in some states. Officials in California wondered if FEMA wildfire assistance was at risk.

Judges presiding over two hastily-drafted lawsuits issued separate injunctions blocking the freeze, including a federal judge in DC whose order came down minutes before the 5 p.m deadline.

The next day, Matthew Vaeth, director of the Office of Management and Budget, sent out a second memo. It said that the first memo is no longer in effect.

Backing off from tariff threats

Trump touted his plans to impose new 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico, and they were set to go into effect on Tuesday.

The announcements were met with retaliatory plans from both countries, where leaders said they'd enforce their own tariffs on American products.

The expected trade war rattled the markets. On Monday, stocks and crypto tumbled, while the US dollar and oil climbed.

In the end, though, these tariffs that left American investors scrambling were put on hold.

Trump and Mexico's president, Claudia Sheinbaum, struck a deal on border policy, delaying the expected tariff on Mexican imports for 30 days. Similarly, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau negotiated a pause until March for that set of tariffs.

A similar threat of 25% tariffs on goods from Colombia was put on hold after the country agreed to accept all deportation flights from the US.

An additional 10% tariff on imports from China did go into effect Tuesday, and was quickly matched by retaliatory tariffs on US exports to that country.

Bid to end birthright citizenship

Trump's executive order seeking to abolish the constitutional right of birthright citizenship has been indefinitely blocked by two separate federal judges.

A judge in Washington state issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against the order on Thursday, just a day after a Maryland judge did the same. The order — one of the first signed by Trump after he was sworn into office — has been challenged in the courts by more than 20 Democratic-run states and immigrant rights advocates who have argued it violates the 14th Amendment.

Judge John Coughenour of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington temporarily halted the order on January 23, calling the move to end automatic citizenship to US-born children of parents who are in the country illegally "blatantly unconstitutional."

Coughenour issued his Thursday ruling following the decision by Maryland US District Judge Deborah Boardman. Boardman wrote that Trump's order "conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment, contradicts 125-year-old binding Supreme Court precedent, and runs counter to our nation's 250-year history of citizenship by birth."

Dropping USAID into the 'wood chipper'

A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from placing 2,200 USAID employees on paid leave.

The workers, some of whom are overseas, were set to go on leave just before midnight Friday.

Musk said in an X post on Monday that he had "spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper."

The American Federation of Government Employees and the American Foreign Service Association, however, filed a lawsuit against the administration's USAID cuts on Thursday, arguing that the moves to dismantle it were made without congressional authorization.

Constitutional law experts told Business Insider that dismantling the agency without congressional approval is indisputably illegal.

Forcing transgender women inmates into men's prisons

Trump's Day One order to house transgender women into men's men's facilities at federal prisons has also been blocked in the courts.

The order says the attorney general and Homeland Security secretary shall "ensure that males are not detained in women's prisons" and calls to end gender-affirming care for transgender inmates. It was challenged in two lawsuits brought by a handful of transgender women in prison.

US District Judge Royce Lamberth in Washington, DC, granted the plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order on Tuesday. In his order, Lamberth wrote that the plaintiffs "have straightforwardly demonstrated that irreparable harm will follow" if the restraining order request was denied.

Lamberth's order followed a separate ruling by US District Judge George O'Toole in Massachusetts, who also issued a temporary restraining order on January 26.

• Since President Donald Trump's first day in office, he has ramped up his mass deportation plans.
• Jazmin, who was brought to the US when she was 6, shares how receiving DACA allowed her to become a nurse.
• She reflects on the fear and uncertainty she now feels for her loved ones and herself.

Since entering office on January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump has pushed forward with his plans for the mass deportation of immigrants, something that could be a boon to private prison companies and a hit to Social Security tax revenue.

During his first term as president in 2017, Trump announced that his administration would be terminating the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. DACA is a policy introduced by the Obama administration in 2012 that grants relief from deportation to undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children.

The program's legality continues to be debated in court; as of the time of publication, DACA recipients are still eligible to renew their protected status every two years, but new DACA applications are no longer being accepted. According to USCIS data, there were 537,730 DACA recipients, also known as "Dreamers," as of September 2024.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Jazmin, a 26-year-old travel nurse and DACA recipient, about her experience as a Dreamer and how she has navigated the weeks since Trump took office. Jazmin's last name has been withheld for privacy reasons, but her identity and DACA status have been verified by Business Insider. The following has been edited for length and clarity.

I was six when I came here. I remember living in Mexico and my parents telling me we were going on a trip, which became a very long trip. I think it was really hard for them to tell a 6-year-old what was actually happening.

When I got older, my mom explained that we had left because they wanted to protect my siblings and me from violence and poverty. She had lived her whole life starving and she didn't want her kids to live the same life as her.

My mom always told me, "Education will lead you places, so just make sure you stay educated."

Receiving DACA was the best thing that ever happened to me. I worked 10 times harder because I felt like I needed to prove to this country that I was a good, educated person trying to do good. Today, I'm a travel nurse and am sent to different hospitals to help out wherever there is a shortage.

My family might not have come the "right" way, but ever since we set foot in this country, we've tried to do things the right way.

DACA was my ticket to a better future

In the US, we settled in New Jersey and adjusted pretty well. My parents told me not to tell people where I was from and to just go to school, do everything right, and learn English, and I did.

When I was a teenager, I saw other kids having opportunities to work and my mom told me I might not be able to. That's when I learned that I was undocumented. I wondered, Why am I not considered to be here legally? Why am I not welcome here?

Then, President Obama launched DACA. My mom said, "This is our ticket for you." At first, I thought DACA meant I'd be able to get my residency and become a citizen. But then I found out that it was just a work permit and wouldn't lead to citizenship.

I was happy regardless — I was going to be able to work while in high school and go to college.

DACA recipients are in limbo

Even though I received DACA, that doesn't mean that I'm safe. Every two years, I have to pay for and submit a new application to renew my DACA status. With Trump's administration, he could do anything — he could cancel it or even give us citizenship. We're in such limbo between a potential pathway to citizenship and being completely deported.

I've seen people online say we're just stealing jobs and taking benefits. But we don't receive financial aid and we pay taxes and Social Security that we will never touch unless we become citizens. And people say we're criminals, but in order to receive DACA, we have to have a clean criminal record.

In my DACA applications, there's an answer that has always been the same — I always say I want to do something to give back to this country. I started by saying I wanted to become a nurse. Then, I was able to say that I was in nursing school thanks to DACA. And then I was able to write, "I'm finally a nurse, thanks to DACA."

We DACA recipients have to keep advocating for ourselves. I feel that if we contribute to this country, then we should get some kind of pathway to citizenship.

I have two homes and I love them both, but I want to stay here

People say, "Just go back to your own country," but I have two homes. The US is my home, and I love it.

I love Mexico too and am proud that I'm Mexican — that's my culture and it's in my blood. I've never been ashamed of where I came from.

I was granted permission to travel through what's called "advance parole" and had the chance to go back last year for the first time since coming here 20 years ago. It was a beautiful experience, and I pray to God that he gives me the opportunity to visit again someday. But being there also felt so foreign because I'd been away for so long after not being able to visit.

I also saw what my life would've been like if I hadn't come to America. We're from a very rural part of Mexico; the closest city and hospital is two hours away and most people don't have cars, and there isn't proper running water. It's a hard life — not knowing if you're going to have food on the table. And many people don't graduate middle school or high school because of the costs involved with getting an education.

What my parents did for me and my siblings was worth it. I see so many opportunities in America that I don't see in Mexico. I know some people criticize America, but America has given me so much. My family is here in America, and I want to stay here.

We're trying to do things the right way

A lot of people say, "Just go apply for your citizenship." Or, "Why come here illegally? Why didn't you wait?"

We couldn't wait because some of us might not have seen tomorrow if we hadn't crossed the border. And the process of gaining citizenship can take many years.

People say that illegal immigrants are bringing in criminals. My family brought in their dreams, they brought in their kids. Sure, there might be some bad apples out there, but I believe that with any population, there are always more good people than bad.

My mom's a restaurant manager, and for as long as I can remember, she's worked day and night. Recently, after 20 years, she was finally able to get a work permit. We know there's a process to doing things the right way, and we're always working with our immigration lawyer to figure out how to do so.

I'm scared but I can't let them win

The last couple of weeks since Trump took office have been overwhelming. I check in with my family and they're OK. They're still going to work and praying to God that everything works out.

What hurts is thinking about what would happen if they were deported. My sister, for example, doesn't have documentation because she didn't get to apply for DACA; she was too young to be eligible before USCIS stopped accepting new DACA applications.

If she does get deported, what would happen to us? We're so close. We wouldn't be able to see each other for 20 years?

I asked my mom and aunt how they dealt with the fear of knowing that this kind of thing could happen. They said, "The fear that we have here doesn't compare to the fear that we had in Mexico — the fear of cartels taking my kids, raping my children, killing my family in front of me. That's real fear. God has given us the privilege to live here for this long. We just have to keep going day by day, working hard, and caring for our families."

I tell myself that it's OK to be sad and feel the emotions we're feeling, but we just have to keep showing up and getting up every day. We can't let them win.

If you have been impacted by President Trump's deportation orders or any other executive orders and would like to share your story, contact Jane Zhang at janezhang@businessinsider.com or on Signal at janezhang.01 using a non-work device.

• Military units pause training amid compliance reviews with Trump's directives.
• The pause is also affecting some courses that train troops to help victims of assault.
• Military sexual assault rates persist, though some services report a decline.

President Donald Trump's executive orders targeting government diversity, equity, and inclusion activities and "gender ideology" appear to be throwing a wrench into some military sexual assault prevention education programs.

Some units have paused their sexual assault prevention and response, known as SAPR, training efforts amid ongoing reviews of program compliance with Trump's orders.

In response to the orders, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) sent out memos on implementing the president's orders, each referencing relevant training.

Destiny Sibert, a Navy spokeswoman, told Business Insider Thursday that "in compliance with OPM guidance, Commander, Navy Installations Command (CNIC), which oversees the Navy SAPR program, has temporarily paused training for SAPR staff." A review of the curriculum is underway to "ensure compliance with recent executive orders," she said.

Sibert added that the "necessary revisions will be completed and updated materials will be provided to the sexual assault response workforce soonest."

The SAPR training pause does not extend to support services provided to sexual assault victims, Sibert said. "CNIC and the Navy SAPR program are committed to providing quality care, advocacy and support to the Navy community."

A spokesperson for the Marine Corps, which falls under the Department of the Navy, told Business Insider that "as of February 4, SAPR-related training was temporarily paused to review and ensure compliance with Executive Orders and directives." Training is expected to resume this week.

Neither the White House nor the Army and the Air Force responded to Business Insider's request for comment by time of publication.

What is SAPR?

Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) was created in 2005 to be "DoD's single point of accountability for sexual assault prevention and response policy and program oversight," according to the program's website. The mission is to prevent assault by educating troops, and to provide support to victims.

US military personnel are required to receive sexual assault prevention training every year. The training is geared toward various rank blocks— for example, junior enlisted troops receive different education than senior enlisted troops or officers. These annual sexual assault prevention trainings normally last around one hour.

US military sexual consent education is often the first time that junior service members receive formal instruction on what constitutes consent, as most states lack consent education in K-12 grade school curricula, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a sexual health and reproductive rights research and policy organization.

The people who teach service members about consent are usually other uniformed personnel who have attended a short course to become a "uniformed victim advocate." The UVA position is most often a collateral duty for troops who are also expected to assist victims of sexual assault in the wake of an assault.

Such assistance can include liaising with commanders, mental health professionals, and legal services to advocate on behalf of the victim.

Military sexual assault rates have remained a persistent problem within the armed forces, though reports last year indicated that rates may be on the decline for the first time in years for some, but not all, military services. Many military assaults are never reported.

• Donald Trump's executive orders could stop cheap shipping for e-commerce orders direct from China.
• That would be bad news for Temu and Shein.
• The biggest question: What will happen to the $2.74 mousepad I ordered from Temu last week?!

A few days ago, I noticed I needed a new mousepad. The cloth covering was starting to peel away from the rubber. So I went to Temu — more on that in a minute.

Mousepads are some of those things that — in theory — you should never buy; they just come into your life like cheap umbrellas or Mason jars.

But due to decades of repetitive motion from typing, my weary wrists need the kind of mousepad with the ergonomic padded blob at the end, not the plain, flat ones you accumulate for free.

So, spend my own money I must.

Now, I personally have conflicted feelings about shopping on Temu, but a mousepad is kind of a perfect Temu item: quality doesn't really matter, and a $3 one is the same as a $10 one — at least to the human eye. As a price-sensitive shopper, I went for it.

I found a plain, gray mousepad with a wrist rest on Temu for $2.74 and ordered it.

Well, it wasn't quite that simple — Temu requires a $15 minimum for an order to ship, so I threw in a few other items — a squishy elbow rest pad, a new phone case, some hair scrunchies.

Then, disaster struck. Shortly after my order was placed, President Trump declared an end to the "de minimis" exemption. There's still some discussion as to exactly what his executive order will mean, but de minimis is the law that allows orders under $800 to ship directly from China to US customers without encountering duty and tax. It's a big part of how Temu and Shein have operated in the US so successfully.

Then, things went apocalyptic for my mousepad: Tuesday evening, the USPS stopped taking inbound parcels from China to the US. By Wednesday morning, the USPS had reversed that decision, resuming service.

What all of this means for Temu and similar sellers like Shein isn't exactly clear, but let's just assume it's not good. (Temu didn't respond to a request for comment.)

Still, both e-commerce platforms have advanced beyond only shipping direct from mainland China, and now many of their sellers have warehouses in the US to ship orders domestically.

On the homepage of Temu, the top promoted section is for "local warehouse stores" — sellers from warehouses in the US.

Shein's website has a less prominent tab for "QuickShip" items that ship from the US, which isn't visible at all on its mobile app.

While relations with one of our largest trade partners are up in the air, I have great news about my mousepad (which I'm sure you were worried about).

My Temu order appears to be still moving along in processing to be shipped.

It's hard to know where to look in the flurry of activity from the opening days of President Donald Trump's second administration. There's Elon Musk at DOGE, a potential trade war with Colombia, a sweeping pardon of Capitol riot participants, and the chaotic back-and-forth of the funding freeze. On immigration, the president is moving swiftly, cracking down on immigrants who entered the United States illegally. While all these moves have attracted copious attention, flying under the radar so far is one industry that stands to see a major windfall as Trump's plans fall into place: private prisons.

The president signed a barrage of executive orders and actions on his first day in office. Among them: the revocation of an executive order signed by President Joe Biden directing the Department of Justice not to renew contracts with private, for-profit prison companies to house people convicted of federal crimes. By late 2022, the Bureau of Prisons had ended all its contracts with private prisons, per Biden's order. Now, under Trump, the flip has been switched back on again. The move isn't surprising — for a decade, private prisons have been in a bit of an on-again, off-again situation with the DOJ. The Obama administration moved to phase them out, Trump 1.0 reversed it, Biden phased them out again, and Trump has once again reversed that decision. The industry anticipated as much. George Zoley, the executive chairman of the GEO Group, a for-profit prison company, said on an earnings call in November that he expected Trump to reverse all of Biden's orders on "day one."

While private prison companies won't mind getting business back from the BOP, that's really not where the opportunity is. CoreCivic, another major US private prison operator, acknowledged in an investor call in 2021 that the bureau didn't really have much of a need for private facilities anymore since the federal inmate population had declined — and less than 10% of those inmates were in private prisons. The opportunity is Trump's plans for the mass detention and deportation of immigrants. Both Democratic and Republican administrations kept up work with for-profit prisons on immigration — the Biden administration, for example, deported more people than Trump's first administration did and often detained those people in private prison facilities. But Trump says he plans to really ramp things up now, moving hundreds of thousands of migrants through the system in a way that would be a huge boon for the companies.

"This is, to us, an unprecedented opportunity to assist the federal government and the incoming Trump administration towards achieving a much more aggressive immigration policy," Zoley said on the earnings call.

Despite going relatively unnoticed in the opening days of the administration, private prison companies are a secret weapon for the president in his war on immigrants, and they stand to reap some major profits in the process.

While the average American may not be aware of how good Trump's immigration plans might be for private prisons, Wall Street certainly is. The stock prices of GEO and CoreCivic have soared by 105% and 50% since the 2024 election.

"The thing that really has driven the stock price since the election basically is Trump's stance that he's going to deport millions of people," said Joe Gomes, a managing director of equity research at Noble Capital Markets.

There are three main areas in which the private prison companies stand to make money on Trump's deportation plans, said Bianca Tylek, the founder and executive director of Worth Rises, a group that advocates against the commercialization of the criminal legal system. One is detention, as in holding migrants in facilities until their court hearings or until they're expelled from the country. The second is surveillance of migrants who aren't detained, and the third is transportation around, and possibly out of, the US.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement has funding to maintain 41,500 beds for detained migrants, but the president's border czar, Tom Homan, has suggested he needs at least 100,000 beds to carry out Trump's deportation plans. The recently enacted Laken Riley Act that requires the detention of migrants accused of crimes such as theft could necessitate 60,000 more beds. Private prison operators will be key to helping this expansion, though they won't be the only ones — Trump has said he also plans to use space at Guantánamo Bay to house detainees.

GEO, the largest contractor for ICE, has about 13,500 beds for migrants, but executives said it was well positioned to scale up to more than 31,000 beds in the near future. Similarly, CoreCivic told The Wall Street Journal it could get its capacity to 25,000 beds by reopening facilities it recently closed. It has also looked into sites for detaining families, and its CEO told the Journal that the company was "very willing" to discuss detaining unaccompanied children, too.

GEO also operates ICE's Intensive Supervision Appearance Program, which monitors migrants as they go through legal proceedings as an alternative to detention. GEO says that about 182,500 people participate in that program daily, but that number could grow significantly. On the company's earnings call, Zoley said GEO believes it has the technology and resources to scale up the ISAP contract to "several hundreds of thousands and upward to several millions of participants."

About 11 million people are thought to be living in the US illegally. Gomes said that if the government were to monitor a certain percentage of those people, it would be a "huge positive" for GEO and could bring in others, too. "If that contract got extremely big, there would potentially be other players like CoreCivic that could potentially also benefit from that," he said.

On the transportation end, private prison companies contract with ICE to move migrants on the ground and in the air. GEO said on its earnings call that it expects its air subcontracting services to generate $25 million in annualized revenue and that it believes it could scale if need be, too.

In a statement to Business Insider, a GEO spokesperson said the company was investing $70 million toward "increased housing, transportation, and monitoring capabilities and services to meet the anticipated requirements of the federal government's immigration law enforcement priorities." A CoreCivic spokesperson said the company "stays in regular contact with ICE and all our government partners to understand their changing needs, and we work within their established procurement processes."

It's not an accident that the private prison companies wound up in this situation. For years they've been hard at work buttering up public officials, lobbying, and making campaign donations, especially to Trump and other Republicans. While many corporate executives have come around to the idea of wooing Trump in his second term, the private prisons were there all along.

In the 2016 election, GEO donated $225,000 to the pro-Trump super PAC Rebuilding America Now through a subsidiary. (The advocacy group the Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, saying the money violated a ban on political contributions by federal contractors, but that was dismissed because of a deadlock on the FEC.) GEO and CoreCivic each gave $250,000 to Trump's 2016 inauguration. GEO held its annual conference in 2017 at the Trump National Doral Golf Club in Miami, and one GEO executive who lobbied the Trump administration stayed at Trump's hotel in Washington, DC. Pam Bondi, Trump's new attorney general, lobbied for GEO as recently as 2019.

Early in 2024, GEO maxed out its donation to Trump's campaign and gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Trump-affiliated super PAC Make America Great Again Inc. Individual executives at GEO and CoreCivic have made large donations to Trump and affiliated PACs as well. An ABC News analysis found that private prison companies donated more than $1 million to Trump's reelection, and now they're hoping all their efforts pay off.

"We can assume, given their exuberance after the election, that they are really excited about the possibilities for making money and expanding the 'demand' that will be going up for them and their services right now," said Setareh Ghandehari, the advocacy director at the Detention Watch Network, an advocacy group that opposes immigration detention. She added, however, that expanding detention capacity isn't something the administration can achieve overnight. "It's going to take time to build the infrastructure," she said.

Trump's plans won't just take time — they'll also take a whole lot of money. Companies such as GEO and CoreCivic are hoping to get a cut of that cash, but it's unclear where exactly it would come from. Even before the president took office, ICE was facing a $230 million budget shortfall, NBC News reported, citing two US officials. To execute Trump's immigration plans, the administration could move money around within the Department of Homeland Security from places such as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the Coast Guard, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It may also pull in other agencies for assistance. But ultimately it would need Congress to appropriate more money toward its project.

"That's also a huge tax on taxpayers," Tylek said. "Their entire business is reliant on the government paying for more people to be incarcerated."

PJ Lechleitner, who served as the ICE director under Biden and spent 20 years at DHS, said that adding 10,000 to 15,000 beds in a few months was feasible, "perhaps twice that many." But the numbers the Trump administration is floating, he said, would require "years of infrastructure for the high-end estimate."

"If they're going to aggressively continue to pursue this, which I have every indication that they are, they're going to need a lot more money and find places to put these people," Lechleitner told me.

Even if every dollar is approved, building new facilities takes time. That may force the Trump administration to employ the practice known as "catch and release," Rick Su, a law professor at the University of North Carolina, told me. While it may not be exactly what Trump had in mind, it's a good deal for private prison companies, which will be eager and able to help with migrant monitoring.

Whatever your position on immigration, the idea of criminal detention being a commercial enterprise is uncomfortable. "What's best for my shareholders" does not always align with what's best for the community or country or public safety. Also uncomfortable is the way the stocks of private prison companies seem to ping-pong based on which party is in the White House. Back in 2016, private prison stocks crashed when Hillary Clinton had a good debate performance. Though, for what it's worth, these companies have fared quite well under administrations of both political stripes — both Democrats and Republicans have employed them for various immigration-related reasons.

"Both the Obama administration's and the Biden administration's relationships to private prisons set some guardrails," said Matt Nelson, the executive director of Presente, a national civil and human rights organization, but neither addressed the federal government's biggest use of private operators, which was immigration and ICE. "If you look at even what Trump did, he didn't have to roll back very much," he said.

Now companies such as GEO and CoreCivic find themselves at the center of what's likely to be a very lucrative storm for them. Their executives may not have been seated behind Trump at the inauguration, but they didn't need to be — they might prefer to fly under the radar anyway, and they're already on track to get what they've wanted. They need Trump, but Trump also needs them, and everyone knows it.

Emily Stewart is a senior correspondent at Business Insider, writing about business and the economy.

• President Donald Trump signed an executive order ending DEI programs in the federal government.
• Given the spotlight on DEI, lawyers say private sector companies should asses their own policies.
• It's "almost certain to create a chilling effect on corporate DEI initiatives," one lawyer said.

Corporate America's DEI practices are facing scrutiny like never before.

And thanks to President Donald Trump's executive order ending diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in the federal government, the private sector's DEI efforts have come under heightened legal risk.

Trump's order encourages the private sector to end "illegal DEI discrimination and preferences." As part of that plan, the order tasks each federal agency to "identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations" of enterprises including publicly traded corporations and large nonprofits.

Given the current spotlight on DEI initiatives and Trump's executive actions targeting them, employment attorneys told Business Insider that companies would be wise to assess their own diversity-related programs with legal counsel to make sure they are ironclad in the face of potential federal investigations or workplace lawsuits.

"The main thing that employers should be doing right now is conducting what we call either a DEI audit or a vulnerability assessment," said Michael Thomas, a California-based attorney specializing in corporate diversity practices at the law firm Jackson Lewis.

Under this type of assessment, companies would work with outside counsel to review their policies and practices related to DEI and equal employment opportunity.

DEI initiatives that focus on the requirements of federal equal employment opportunity laws are most likely to be legally compliant, Thomas said.

Hiring quotas or preferential treatment to certain groups of people were already illegal and now pose a higher legal risk, Thomas said.

"The law hasn't changed," Thomas said, explaining, however, "Your scrutiny has increased, the attention has increased, and you face potential legal, reputational, and brand risk from both your majority, for lack of a better phrase, and also your underrepresented groups."

Jon Solorzano, a partner at the law firm Vinson & Elkins, told BI the legal grounds involving diversity initiatives haven't really changed, "but the risks have."

"DEI initiatives are not, in and of themselves, problematic," said Solorzano, who advises public and private companies on areas related to ESG (environmental, social, and governance) and risk management.

"It's just that there is more scrutiny on the acronym and now the full force of the federal government has squarely taken aim at this concept," Solorzano said of DEI.

Solorzano said that he has already spoken with numerous companies that have inquired about whether their DEI policies are compliant with the law, and what, if anything, they should do to change their practices to minimize their risks of being a target of an investigation.

"This executive order is almost certain to create a chilling effect on corporate DEI initiatives," said Solorzano, who added that he expects to see even more companies roll back their DEI efforts.

Though, companies "need to be careful about clumsily nixing all initiatives," Solorzano said. "Pulling out of initiatives, just because it is politically disfavored at the moment, may not be the right thing for a business over the long term. But careful calibration of the risks and values of pursuing these initiatives remain critical."

Domenique Camacho Moran, a partner at the law firm Farrell Fritz in New York, also called it "critical" that every organization continues to evaluate its DEI-related policies to ensure they are not "in the interest of doing something good, inadvertently crossing the line."

DEI programs, which many companies have adopted in recent years, "often talked about commitment to equal opportunity" and about "educating the workforce," Camacho Moran said. "They rarely included numbers or targets for specific diversity initiatives."

Those programs, however, "were not scrutinized closely by a variety of government agencies, and so some of those programs were outlined and articulated programming and opportunities that emphasized a particular minority group or particular protected class," Camacho Moran said.

Attorneys told BI they now expect, due to the current political climate, employers to face an uptick of lawsuits alleging discrimination and so-called reverse discrimination.

Peter Woo, also an attorney at the firm Jackson Lewis, said it is likely employers will see a rise in internal complaints from employees who are for and against DEI initiatives, which will likely translate to more lawsuits.

"Companies should have a heightened sense of awareness now in terms of how to approach these because of the fact there will be more inquiries, more complaints internally," Woo said.

Thomas said there had been legal challenges to DEI programs since the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling ending affirmative action in college admissions, and expects those challenges to increase post Trump's executive actions taking aim at DEI initiatives.

Ron Zambrano, the employment litigation chairman at the California law firm West Coast Trial Lawyers, told BI he also expects to see a rise in lawsuits related to companies' DEI efforts.

The potential complaints may even cite Trump's executive order targeting DEI initiatives "as a form of legitimacy," Zambrano said.

Those possible lawsuits would succeed only "if they would have succeeded regardless of Trump or Trump's executive order," Zambrano said.

"It does happen. There is reverse discrimination. It absolutely does exist, but it's not as pervasive as just, like, well, the existence of DEI means that only minorities are going to have the advantage," said Zambrano. "That's the implication, right? That's the fear. That's the messaging."

• JD Vance said it would take some time for grocery prices to drop.
• "Rome wasn't built in a day," he told CBS News in his first sit-down interview as vice president.
• Vance said that increased capital investment would be a key part of lowering costs.

Vice President JD Vance said the Trump administration's efforts to lower grocery prices would take some time.

"We have done a lot," Vance told CBS' "Face the Nation" moderator Margaret Brennan when asked about the executive actions signed by President Donald Trump. "There have been a number of executive orders that have caused, already, jobs to start coming back into our country, which is a core part of lowering prices."

"Prices are going to come down, but it's going to take a little bit of time, right?" he continued. "The president has been president for all of five days."

During the 2024 US presidential race, inflation was a top issue for voters, many of whom backed the GOP ticket because they believed it could improve the economy. Vance said increased capital investment would be one area that the administration would focus on as it looks to steer the economy with its conservative policies.

"We're going to work with Congress … the way that you lower prices is that you encourage more capital investment into our country," he said.

"Rome wasn't built in a day," he added.

Brennan asked Vance when consumers would actually notice a shift in prices, which prompted him to say that the administration's energy policies would also help.

"How does bacon get to the grocery store? It comes on trucks that are fueled by diesel fuel," he said. "If the diesel is way too expensive, the bacon is going to become more expensive."

"How do we grow the bacon? Our farmers need energy to produce it," he continued. "So if we lower energy prices, we are going to see lower prices for consumers, and that is what we're trying to fight for."

Last Monday, Trump signed an executive order instructing departments and agencies to "deliver emergency price relief, consistent with applicable law, to the American people." Pursuant to the order, Trump directed the government to find ways to lower housing costs and boost the housing supply, generate employment opportunities for Americans, and eliminate policies that he believes have driven up the costs of food and gas.

Trump also signed an executive order declaring a national energy emergency. The president's action came even as oil and gas production flourished under former President Joe Biden.

• Government agencies have been scrambling to comply with President Donald Trump's executive orders.
• Since he took office, some agencies have updated websites to remove language on DEI and remote work.
• Here are some changes already rolled out across federal agencies and departments.

In the days since Donald Trump took office, federal agencies have scrambled to make changes to DEI and remote-work-related language on their websites. In some cases, entire webpages have been removed.

As part of his flurry of executive orders, Trump has targeted both DEI initiatives and remote-work policies for federal employees.

On Monday, he signed an order to end diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in the federal government, giving agencies and departments 60 days to end DEI-related practices and just two days to put federal DEI staff on paid leave.

He eliminated Executive Order 11246, a Lyndon B. Johnson-era policy that mandated anti-discriminatory policies for federal contractors, and, during his inaugural address, said it was official US policy that "there are only two genders: male and female."

Any agency that doesn't comply with Trump's new DEI orders could face "adverse consequences," a memo issued by the US Office of Personnel Management said.

Also on Monday, Trump ordered all federal employees to return to the office full time.

Now, agencies are clambering to respond to Trump's edicts by changing their internal policies and websites, scrubbing DEI titles, mentions of inclusivity, and explanations of remote-work policies.

Take the biography page of the United States Postal Service's deputy inspector general. Comparing the current version with an archived one shows that her "chief diversity officer" title has been removed.

The General Service Administration's Technology Transformation Services handbook changed its Conduct and Norms page to remove mentions of an "open and inclusive community" that were present in an archived version before the inauguration. The new page also eliminated references to remote work and guidelines instructing employees to "treat everyone as a remote worker."

In other cases, full webpages have vanished. The US Department of Agriculture, for example, used to have an entire page dedicated to its diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility efforts. That page is no longer active.

An FAQ webpage from the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs — which enforced antidiscrimination policies — is no longer live. An archived version of the page answered questions about discrimination and Executive Order 11246, which Trump ended.

The Social Security Administration's LGBTQI+ webpage, which used to offer "self-attestation" of a person's sex, now seems to reflect Trump's policy that "there are only two genders: male and female."

None of the agencies or departments mentioned in this story responded to requests for comments about the changes from Business Insider.

The director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has resigned from her position, while a Biden-era executive order that sought to phase out the use of private prisons has been repealed amid President Donald Trump's efforts to implement drastic reforms to the Justice Department.

Colette Peters, who has led the BOP since August 2022, is out as director of the beleaguered agency, and she has been replaced by William Lothrop, who had been serving as deputy director of the BOP.

Peters was appointed by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland in 2022 and touted as a reform-minded outsider tasked with rebuilding an agency plagued for years by staff shortages, widespread corruption, misconduct and abuse.

DOJ TO INVESTIGATE STATE OR LOCAL OFFICIALS WHO OBSTRUCT IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT: MEMO

The agency has nearly 36,000 employees and is responsible for more than 155,000 federal inmates. 

Lothrop, who says he has more than 30 years’ experience working in the BOP, announced the change via a statement on Tuesday, the day after President Trump was sworn into office. The BOP director is not subject to confirmation by the Senate, per the legal news service Law 360.

"On Jan. 20, 2025, Director Peters separated from the Federal Bureau of Prisons and I will be serving as the Acting Director," Lothrop said. "As we face ongoing challenges, including staffing shortages and operational issues, I am committed to working alongside you to find real solutions that strengthen our facilities. We will continue collaborating with our law enforcement partners and stakeholders to maintain robust programming and support services for inmates."

"Our mission remains clear: to provide a safe, secure and humane environment, ensure public safety, and prepare those in our custody for successful reentry into society," his statement added.

CAREER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS REASSIGNED TO DIFFERENT POSITIONS: REPORTS

Soon after Trump was elected, Peters announced the closure of six male federal prison camps and one female facility, including the scandal-hit Federal Correctional Institution in Dublin, California, per Forbes.  

FCI Dublin had garnered the nickname "rape club" after the Justice Department in December was ordered to pay almost $116 million to 103 women who say they were abused there. 

The prison's former warden, Ray Garcia, and at least seven other employees are now in prison themselves for sexually abusing inmates.

During her tenure, Peters appeared before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees and spoke about the challenges the BOP faced, but she had trouble getting results. 

In September 2023, Peters was scolded by Sens. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Mike Lee, R-Utah, who said Peters forced them to wait more than a year for answers to written follow-up questions they sent her after she first appeared before the committee in September 2022, leaving them without information critical to fully understanding how the agency runs.

Peters also irked senators by claiming she couldn’t answer even the most basic questions about agency operations — like how many correctional officers are on staff — and by referring to notes and talking points on a tablet computer in front of her.

In 2024, then President Biden signed the Federal Prison Oversight Law, which allowed the Office of Inspector General to conduct more unannounced prison inspections, per Forbes. 

Of the inspections OIG has done over the years, it found significant shortages of staff, poor medical care for prisoners, rotten food and dirty living conditions. Peters said she welcomed the law, but that it had not yet been funded.

Trump reversed Executive Order 14006, which had eliminated Justice Department contracts with private prisons. The reversal now allows for new contracts between private prison corporations and the U.S. Marshals Service.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Two Chinese spies and a Chinese national who was charged for disseminating child pornography were part of a White House prisoner swap as Biden's presidency nears the end.

On Nov. 22, Biden granted clemency to Yanjun Xu, Ji Chaoqun and Shanlin Jin. 

Their releases were part of a prisoner swap that returned three wrongfully detained Americans from Chinese custody: Mark Swidan, Kai Li, and John Leung. 

The three Americans returned to the U.S. before Thanksgiving.

CHINA DENIES NEW REPORRT LINKING CCP TO FOUR SITES IN CUBA ALLEGEDLY USED TO SPY ON THE US

Xu and Chaoqun were both Chinese nationals who were convicted of espionage in the U.S. 

Xu, according to a release from the Department of Justice, was the first Chinese government intelligence officer ever to be extradited to the United States to stand trial and was sentenced to 20 years.

According to court documents, Xu targeted American aviation companies, recruited employees to travel to China, and solicited their proprietary information, all on behalf of the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

BIDEN LEAVING OFFICE WITH LOWEST APPROVAL IN 16 YEARS, FOX NEWS POLLING SHOWS

In one example, noted in court documents, Xu attempted to steal technology related to GE Aviation’s exclusive composite aircraft engine fan module – which no other company in the world has been able to duplicate – to benefit the Chinese state.

The Department of Justice said that Xu openly discussed his effort to steal U.S. military information in addition to commercial aviation trade secrets.

Chaoqun was arrested and convicted after working with Xu on behalf of the CCP.

The federal agency said that Xu recruited and "handled" Chaoqun, who was stationed in Chicago during the duration of the scheme.

The DOJ said that Xu directed Chaoqun to collect "biographical information on people to potentially recruit to work with them."

"Xu’s handling and placement of a spy within the United States to obtain information regarding aviation technology and employees is yet another facet of Xu’s egregious crimes towards the United States and further justifies the significant sentence of imprisonment he received today," said U.S. Attorney Parker at the time of the pair's conviction.

Jin was serving his sentence after being convicted of possessing more than 47,000 images of child pornography while a doctoral student at Southern Methodist University in Dallas in 2021.

Biden commuted on Thursday the sentences of 1,499 people. He is also pardoning 39 individuals who were convicted of non-violent crimes.

President-elect Trump is set to take office in a little over a month, on January 20. He has said that he will immediately pardon people convicted of participating in the January 6, 2021, riot in the U.S. Capitol.

• Trump has promised to do a variety of different things on "Day One" of his second term.
• Much of his agenda will take time to implement, but there are things he could start immediately.
• Among the first items could be pardons for January 6-related offenses.

President-elect Donald Trump has outlined clear plans on how he plans to spend his first day back in the White House.

He plans to spend his first few hours signing executive orders rolling back some of President Biden's policies, considering pardons for a number of people convicted of January 6-related offenses, and launch his mass deportation program.

Some of the early items on Trump's list are already crossed off. Trump no longer has to fire special counsel Jack Smith, who has moved to dismiss his criminal cases against Trump. Speculation that the president-elect might fire FBI Director Christopher Wray is also moot. Wray announced he would resign before Trump is sworn in.

Other aspects of Trump's agenda, particularly his promises to eliminate taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security benefits, will require Congress to act.

Trump has also conceded that some of his pledges, like "ending inflation," may be difficult to fulfill. Fellow Republicans are also pressuring the president-elect to expand his agenda to include items like nixing the IRS' free direct tax-filing tool.

Tariffs: Trade wars are likely to return

The president-elect made clear just before Thanksgiving that he intends to use tariffs much like he did during his first term.

In a series of posts, Trump pledged to levy a 25% tariff on all products coming into the US from Mexico and Canada. Chinese imports would get an additional 10%.

He said the tariffs would be among his first actions after being sworn in — meaning he'll likely return to his reliance on a law that allows a president wide discretion to impose tariffs in the event of a national emergency.

Trump said the tariffs are needed to take migration and fentanyl more seriously. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum quickly retorted that her nation may be forced to impose its own retaliatory tariffs.

During his first term, Trump repeatedly threatened to use tariffs as a cudgel, though he did not always follow through.

Executive orders: Immigration and likely legal challenges

Some of Trump's most readily achievable promises are related to immigration, an area where the White House and Executive Branch have a significant say. In the closing days of the campaign, Trump underlined his commitment to getting to work right away on building "the largest deportation force" in the nation's history. The American Civil Liberties Union and other organizations have said they would challenge Trump's actions in court, meaning that anything begun on Day One will only be the beginning of a potentially long legal fight.

Trump also repeatedly promised to curtail parole, which allows immigrants to temporarily live in the US, often for humanitarian reasons. He also pushed debunked claims about secret "migrant flights," which he also promised to ban on day one.

Trump has promised to issue several executive orders when he takes office, though some of them are likely to be challenged in court.

For example, Trump has pledged to sign an executive order revoking birthright citizenship, which is enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

During the Republican primary, he pledged to take executive action "banning schools from promoting critical race theory or transgender insanity."

It's likely that such an action could mirror an executive order President Joe Biden revoked after taking office, which at the time prohibited the federal government and federal contractors from conducting workplace trainings on "divisive concepts." A federal judge later blocked prohibitions on certain trainings.

Pardons and personnel decisions: January 6 rioters could get immediate pardons

Trump said he could take action on January 6-related pardons "within the first nine minutes."

He has long maintained that some people arrested or convicted of offenses related to the Capitol riot were overcharged. Trump is likely to avoid any personal legal consequences at the federal level for his efforts to overturn the election. Smith's 2020-charges against Trump were dismissed in a way that would allow them to be refiled once the president-elect leaves office in 2029.

In an interview with Time Magazine, Trump said his focus is on non-violent offenders and that he will weigh potential pardons on a "case-by-case" basis.

"We're going to look at each individual case, and we're going to do it very quickly, and it's going to start in the first hour that I get into office," Trump said to the publication during a wide ranging interview. "And a vast majority of them should not be in jail. A vast majority should not be in jail, and they've suffered gravely."

Some of Trump's promises are more simple and involve firing government officials he does not like.

At a Bitcoin conference in July, Trump also pledged to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, on "day one" and appoint a replacement. Gensler has angered many in the cryptocurrency community, which Trump and his campaigned courted ahead of the 2024 election. Gensler, too, has headed off a potential showdown by announcing he will resign before Trump's inauguration

Trump has also pledged to pardon January 6 rioters "if they're innocent," which he would be able to do as soon as his first day in office.

"Day One" promises that Trump may not be able to fulfill

Some "day one" commitments are simply not possible.

At times during the campaign, Trump pledged to "end inflation" just hours after taking office. No one, including the president, can single-handedly lower broad price levels set across the entire US economy.

Prices reached record highs earlier in the Biden administration, but since then inflation has continued to cool. Many economists are concerned that Trump's protectionist trade policies could exacerbate inflation. He has repeatedly rejected this view, but conceded lowering grocery prices will be difficult.

"Look, they got them up," Trump said to Time. "I'd like to bring them down. It's hard to bring things down once they're up. You know, it's very hard. But I think that they will. I think that energy is going to bring them down. I think a better supply chain is going to bring them down."

The federal judge overseeing Hunter Biden’s tax case issued a sharp rebuke of President Biden's claim that his son was unfairly treated as well as the president's delivery method following the president's last-minute pardon.

U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi, who is based in the Central District of California and was nominated by President-elect Trump, accused President Biden in a scathing five-page order of "rewriting history" with the pardon and suggested that the breadth of the pardon granted to his son is unconstitutional.

"The Constitution provides the President with broad authority to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, but nowhere does the Constitution give the President the authority to rewrite history," he wrote.

BIDEN PARDONS SON HUNTER BIDEN AHEAD OF EXIT FROM OVAL OFFICE

The judge voiced his displeasure that the president alerted the judicial system of his order to pardon his son via a White House press release.

"Rather than providing a true and correct copy of the pardon with the notice, Mr. Biden provided a hyperlink to a White House press release presenting a statement by the President regarding the pardon and the purported text of the pardon," he wrote.

"In short, a press release is not a pardon," he continued.

READ – APP USERS CLICK HERE:

Scarsi continued, reacting to the president's statement on his son's tax case: "the President asserts that Mr. Biden ‘was treated differently’ from others ‘who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions,’ implying that Mr. Biden was among those individuals who untimely paid taxes due to addiction. But he is not."

"According to the President, ‘[n]o reasonable person who looks at the facts of [Mr. Biden’s] cases can reach any other conclusion than [Mr. Biden] was singled out only because he is [the President’s] son.’ But two federal judges expressly rejected Biden’s arguments that the Government prosecuted Mr. Biden because of his familial relation to the President. And the President’s own Attorney General and Department of Justice personnel oversaw the investigation leading to the charges," Scarsi wrote.

2 TIMES BIDEN SAID HE WOULD NOT PARDON SON HUNTER BIDEN 

"In the President’s estimation, this legion of federal civil servants, the undersigned included, are unreasonable people," he said.

The judge said he would dispose of the case once he receives the official pardon from "the appropriate executive agency." 

He also vacated Hunter Biden’s sentencing, which was scheduled for Dec. 16.  The charges carried up to 17 years behind bars, but the first son would likely have faced a much shorter sentence under federal sentencing guidelines.

TRUMP PREVIOUSLY PREDICTED BIDEN WOULD PARDON SON HUNTER

"Subject to the following discussion, the Court assumes the pardon is effective and will dispose of the case. The Supreme Court long has recognized that, notwithstanding its nearly unlimited nature, the pardon power extends only to past offenses," he wrote.

Hunter Biden, 54, has had a busy year in court, kicking off his first trial in Delaware in June, when he faced three felony firearm offenses, before he pleaded guilty in a separate felony tax case in September. 

President Biden pardoning his son is a departure from his previous remarks to the media over the summer when he insisted he would not pardon the first son.

"Yes," President Biden told ABC News when asked if he would rule out pardoning Hunter ahead of his guilty verdict in the gun case. 

Days later, following a jury of Hunter’s peers finding him guilty of three felony firearm offenses, the president again said he would not pardon his son. 

"I am not going to do anything," Biden said after Hunter was convicted. "I will abide by the jury’s decision."

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment. 

Fox News Digital's Emma Colton and Andrea Margolis contributed to this report.