Troy M. Keller

Earlier this month, we hosted a roundtable optimistically titled, "Bringing IPOs Back to Utah." It was largely a local affair, with a mix of executives, trade association representatives, policymakers and investors. A main street crowd, but a savvy one.  Dorsey, KPMG, and Zions Bank provided perspectives from the legal, finance and accounting side. We were also quite fortunate to host SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce virtually for the second half of the discussion. For more detail on the event and Commissioner Peirce's comments, see this article  from Utah Tech Buzz. The discussion centered on two questions. Below we've noted those questions and some interesting takeaways. Question 1: Are IPOs Valuable for Communities? The first question was the easier one. From the community perspective, it seems obvious that having more public companies headquartered in a state is a good thing. Studies have shown a direct relationship between the presence of public companies and increased entrepreneurship and job growth. Also, going public rather than exiting through M&A increases the odds that a firm’s management team stays local. Keeping headquarters in-state is typically an economic development priority for a state for good reasons. It attracts more talent and increases the likelihood that future capital from those firms is deployed in the state where the decision-makers sit. Question 2: What Can a Local Community do to Increase its Number of Public Companies? The answer unfortunately is not a whole lot by itself—at least not when it comes to addressing some of the broader economic and regulatory trends that have discouraged the public company route in recent years. Smoothing the regulatory path, particularly for small and mid-sized companies, is work that the SEC and potentially Congress need to undertake, and as we’ve commented previously, there are initiatives underway. However, our discussion did cover a few ideas of things communities can do to foster a favorable environment for IPOs, so as to at least make the choice more viable, particularly for the smaller and medium-sized companies. These ideas included things like making changes to the state’s corporate code to provide a more convenient and less expensive forum, particularly for smaller public companies, to adjudicate shareholder litigation. Another thought was tweaking existing economic development incentives to align better with companies on the IPO path. Several companies in our roundtable identified sparse analyst coverage for mid- and small-caps as a major challenge.  Without coverage, stock prices are depressed once the attention of an IPO is past. Finding ways to recruit or foster analyst attention would be a game changer, but just how to actually do that is a harder question. Some countries, such as Singapore, have in fact created incentives for institutions to provide coverage for their public companies. It could be worth exploring at the state level. Ironically, perhaps the best thing a community can do is to simply talk about IPOs more. Industry conferences these days will regularly include discussions on M&A exits and access to private capital. But IPO discussions are increasingly rare. It is almost as if the pessimism about being public has become axiomatic, such that few growth-stage companies even consider it an option. Increased dialogue should, if nothing else, shed light on the choice so that companies make informed decisions and policymakers are more aware of what is at stake and what is holding companies back.

On May 19, the White House released a unique executive order outlining the Administration’s plan to promote fintech innovation. Given the complexity of existing financial regulatory frameworks, there is reason to be skeptical that this effort results in major changes in the short term. But in light of the broad directives, the banking and fintech communities should stay close to the process. Alongside the domestic regulatory focus, the executive order is framed as important to America’s leadership in the world. So is fintech strategic geopolitically? Groundbreaking Directives The order directs the six Federal financial regulators (CFPB, SEC, NCUA, CFTC, FDIC, and OCC) to review their regulations, guidance, and no-action letters within 90 days and to take steps to encourage fintech innovation within 180 days. This is a lot to undertake over a short period of time, and much could come of it. While we wait to see those results, a more specific and ground-breaking request is to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB) to undertake a comprehensive evaluation to explore expanded access to "Reserve Bank payment accounts and payment services by uninsured depository institutions and non-bank financial companies, including those engaged in digital assets and other novel financial activities (collectively, covered firms) . . ." If this request has the intended results, we could see a major expansion of financial services in the U.S. as fintechs and other types of "covered firms" rush in to have direct access to the Fed's payment rails. That might propel innovation and additional players, as fintechs are motivated to capture margin currently shared with sponsor banks, leading to more and more entrants. Of note: the day after the EO, the Federal Reserve announced a proposal to create a special purpose payment account that would allow eligible financial institutions, including non-traditional depository institutions, to apply for Fed accounts through which to process payments. It does not technically change the scope of who is legally eligible for an account; however, it proposes a stripped-down account type. Uninsured depository institutions (such as some state chartered crypto organizations) have had limited success receiving approval to access payment accounts in the past. This proposes to change that. What Does this Mean for Banks' Regulatory Moat While it is a bold EO, I am skeptical of material regulatory changes coming out of this EO, at least in the short-term. Here is why. For a very long time, banks have been utilized as quasi-regulators in the financial system. Banks are required to run KYC checks, screen sanctions lists, flag suspicious activity and much more. That relationship won't change anytime soon. Asking a 3-person fintech dashboard startup to take these on is impractical, and so the regulatory moat is a deep and wide one. The Fed’s own proposal underscores this point: payment-account holders would be expected to police illicit-finance risks themselves, so direct access shifts the compliance burden onto the fintech rather than removing it. (I read an interesting article from a fintech founder this week making some of these points with respect to the entry of AI into financial services). In short, this executive order is pushing financial regulators to bridge that regulatory moat and open access for fintechs into financial systems that historically have been left to banks. I don't know how much is possible in the near future. However, I expect the agencies will come back with proposals, partial work-arounds, exceptions and sandbox opportunities that could certainly accumulate into meaningful expansions of opportunity for fintechs. Fintech Geopolitics? I may be reading too much into it, but the EO's fact sheet comments repeatedly on the importance of ensuring U.S. leadership in fintech, in digital assets and "other cutting-edge technologies." Is this just generic we-ought-to-lead-the-world-in-everything sentiment or is it part of the concern that our leadership in AI and other frontier technologies could be existential? I suppose it is somewhere in the middle. The position of the dollar as the world's reserve currency has long been a structural advantage, and in many ways it relies on the strength of the U.S.' financial system. Leadership on innovative financial technologies is a growingly significant component.

My colleagues published an excellent eUpdate on a number of trade developments this week. It's been a lot, with USTR coming out with a slate of new 301 Tariffs following its investigation into forced labor related policies and practices, opening a new 301 investigation on intellectual property protection in Vietnam, adjustments to 232 duties and more. Here is a link to the eUpdate.  Also, here is a link to an X post from USTR with Jamieson Greer speaking to unfair trade practices in defense of the new tariffs. Coming out of all this, and an opportunity importers from China should seriously consider, is the chance to comment on "non-sensitive" goods that could be subject to tariff modifications. Here is an excerpt from the eUpdate: On June 2, 2026, USTR solicited public comments on a new Board of Trade that is intended to manage the U.S.-China bilateral trade relations, which the Trump Administration previewed after the meeting between Presidents Trump and Xi in May 2026. USTR seeks comments on non-sensitive goods that could be subject to tariff modifications on each side. The comments window closes on July 10, 2026, and any rebuttals or responses could be submitted by July 27, 2026. A link to this announcement can be found here.

Like many, I've found myself experimenting with AI to see if it would enable me to take on projects that are otherwise out of reach. I've had success in some narrow cases, but other times I've ended up in a rabbit hole to nowhere. My most recent project has landed somewhere in the middle. When USTR opened two Section 301 tariff comment dockets in March, I had aspirations of creating an AI-powered process that would allow me to effectively harvest insights and trends from the large amount of commentary that was sure to follow. I imagined how useful it would be to create a database using automated tools and then slice and dice the information to provide new perspectives. Now, after a few weeks of iterating, I've got a tool that provides much of that functionality though with some drawbacks. You can see it for yourself here. Background on 301 Tariff Dockets As we discussed in an earlier blog post, USTR initiated a suite of 301 investigations on March 11, 2026 and then again on March 12 into the trade practices of sixty foreign economies. The investigations were a necessary procedural step for the USTR prior to determining whether new schedules of 301 tariffs can be applied in those jurisdictions. While the prospect of renewed or even potentially increased tariffs was an unwelcome development for many, the ability to comment in the investigations was an opportunity many organizations seized. In the end, hundreds of comment letters were filed by the deadline of mid-April. After hearings in early May, USTR extended the comment period to allow for post-hearing submissions; that window closes later this week. My Process For this exercise, I downloaded 633 comment letter pdfs that had been filed at the time the dockets originally closed in mid-April. I have not included letters filed since they re-opened, nor have I included data from the transcripts of hearings earlier this month. Those may come in a phase 2. To keep the dataset manageable and to focus on the more substantive comments, I also did not include comments that were not accompanied with a filed letter. This information was then aggregated in a datasheet and displayed on the dynamic dashboard linked to above. The dashboard includes summary information that can be filtered by industry, type of commentator, type of relief requested, targeted country and other factors. Each comment summary links to a stored copy of the commentator's pdf letter. AI Tools I Used The first step was to download 633 letters into a folder. I relied on an openclaw bot to manually download them one at a time (as they weren't available for bulk download on the Federal Register). As usual, getting the bot permissioned was most of the battle. A couple of times, I thought the process was moving along only to discover later that it had basically hallucinated most of the letters (which was impressive in itself, as these were real-looking pdfs from known companies--they just hadn't actually filed letters). I also relied on the openclaw bot to make updates to a database in Google Sheets where I stored extracted information from the letters. The bot's ability to write to the database so that I didn't have to continually cut and paste corrections from various chats was where it shone. While the bot was useful for moving files around and editing the database, I used Gemini and Claude for the thinking and analysis. They were more accurate and less likely to generalize or hallucinate. Still, because of the number of letters, these tools had to be prompted in small batches to read and pull summary data from them. More than 20 letters at a time would result in them hitting limits and either stopping mid-analysis or returning extrapolations that were useless. Running the prompts over and over was one thing, but re-explaining the whole project every time they lost context due to compaction was painful. I also used Claude to develop the dynamic dashboard to display the results and allow users to filter and sort them. The dashboard was published using Google Sites. Limitations and Caveats Every step involved accuracy challenges and more effort than I would want to repeat to catch them. At this moment, bugs still remain, mostly in the categorizations. As a result, the data is good enough for spotting trends, but probably not good enough for citation. Other limitations are by design. The categories we ended up with for industry sectors we more or less evolved into while trying to organize the letters into manageable groupings. In hindsight, a better route probably would have been to apply NAICS codes from the outset--though that might have led to dozens of single-entry categories, which I was hoping to avoid. Some Findings The main value from this exercise is the ability to go to the dashboard and filter results in a variety of ways to see what types of groups are commenting and what they are asking for. To give you a flavor, here are a few observations for each filter. Comment Letter Asks. No surprise, a significant number of the letters (261) sought tariff exclusions as their primary request to enable them as importers to better compete. However, there were more letters than I would have guessed going the other direction—114 in total. Generally, these were organizations pushing for tariffs that would be beneficial to their U.S. operations. A number of commentators used the opportunity to highlight non-tariff trade barriers or other trade affecting dynamics. We categorized most of these asks as "nuanced" given they covered concerns that did not fit cleanly into the for-or-against tariff framing. Who Filed. Individual corporations filed the bulk (305) of the submissions, followed by trade associations (200). NGOs and think tanks accounted for 60. Submissions also came from foreign governmental entities (11) and labor unions (7), with 50 falling into an "other" bucket. Targeted Countries. In terms of countries that were the subject of the comment letters, China came up the most (in 235 letters). Outside of China, the EU and India were the only economies to feature in over 100 letters. Mexico (80), Vietnam (73), Japan (48) and Taiwan (45) round out the rest of most-mentioned jurisdictions. Most Represented Industries. As expected, heavy manufacturing interests (industrial equipment, automotive, chemicals) represent the bulk of the comment letters. However, other sectors were also quite active. Our transportation/logistics category included 35 letters, and semiconductors and electronics category involved 24 letters. We counted 23 medical and pharmaceuticals related letters and 21 for textiles & apparel.  Interestingly, 13 letters landed in our arts & antiques category, 15 in dairy & cheese and 12 in bicycles, motorcycles & e-bikes. These are high numbers for niche areas and demonstrate more sophisticated supply chain dynamics than might be expected. Parting Thoughts Overall, I'm pleased with the results and the capability of the dynamic dashboard. The lack of full confidence in the accuracy is not a small drawback. However, it's not so large a database that flaws are hidden, which means there is still good utility for those who are a little forgiving when they notice some mis-categorizations.

Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Paul Atkins has been vocal about his desire to make IPOs great again. It would take a serious amount of rulemaking and potentially even statutory changes to reshuffle the mix of incentives and burdens that have inclined companies against going public in recent years. But if he is successful, even in part, there could be meaningful benefits. First, Some History The depressing statistics on public company trends are well publicized at this point--but here they are again. In the mid-1990s, we had roughly 8,000 public companies in the United States. We have about half that many today, as the number of public companies going private, consolidating, or failing has outpaced new listings. And even though 2026 is expected to be a landmark year with a handful of massive, AI-related IPOs in queue, it remains unlikely the number of listed companies will see a net increase. How IPOs Became the Road Less Traveled There is room for debate as to the cause of the decline in IPOs. It coincided with the rise of private equity, but whether more companies choose to stay private because of the comparatively higher compliance burden and associated legal exposure of being publicly traded or because private capital is a better model (more nimble and more, well, private) is hard to say. Chair Atkins at least is firmly in the camp of those who see regulatory burden as the culprit, noting most recently how "decades of accretive rulemakings and regulatory adventurism have made the path to becoming a public company narrower—and the experience of remaining one encumbered with rules that can introduce more friction than benefit." He may not be wrong. I started practicing law in the late 1990s. The $40-100 million IPO was a common occurrence in those days. But after the one-two regulatory punch of Sarbanes-Oxley in 2002 and Dodd-Frank in 2010, small and mid-sized IPOs have largely fallen out of favor. Companies wait longer before going public, if they do at all, implying the need for a certain scale to justify taking on public company costs. Impact on Investors The lack of smaller, SME-sized IPOs almost certainly has negative consequences. As Atkins said in an address in December 2025: Raising capital through an IPO should not be a privilege reserved for those few “unicorns.” More and more, public investments are concentrated in a handful of companies that are generally in the same one or two industries. Our regulatory framework should provide companies in all stages of their growth and from all industries with the opportunity for an IPO. Most commentary has focused on this timing point, how the average investor is excluded from participating in the early growth that happens before a company goes public. This disparity in opportunity (as between the main street investor and high net worth and institutional investors) is a concern both political parties have flagged over the years. For example, in no small part, the Obama era JOBS Act of 2012 was motivated by this issue alongside its headline goal of bringing more capital to small businesses. Its creation of the emerging growth company category in public offerings was significant, though it has not been enough to reverse IPO trends. Further policy changes that encourage companies to choose the IPO route, and to choose it earlier in their life cycle, would do much to close the opportunity gap. Impact on Innovation Chair Atkins' point about IPOs being limited to "one or two industries" in my view merits as much attention as the timing issue. Innovation in traditional sectors like manufacturing, health care, chemicals, food & ag, consumer products, etc., could benefit greatly from another accessible path to capital for developing companies. As things stand, non-Silicon Valley-type SMEs have limited access to equity capital unless they choose to be consolidated into a conglomerate or rolled up into a PE backed initiative. But those are exit events rather than capital raising opportunities. Having a realistic option to go public would offer another path that could lengthen the window for innovators in these sectors to experiment with new products and business models. Impact on Communities The benefits of more small and mid-cap IPOs could also accrue to local communities, particularly non-financial or tech center geographies that rely heavily on SME enterprises. When companies exit through M&A rather than an IPO, more often than not the community loses a number of "headquarters" jobs.  Not only does that lead to brain drain in the affected community, it could also lead to decreased investment. For instance, when decision-makers sit locally, they would seem more inclined (all else being equal) to direct future capital investment into the same locality. Ultimately, bringing IPOs back to the peak of the 1990s is probably not realistic. Even if the regulatory burden were massively reduced, the private capital markets have become large and powerful, and that dynamic isn't going away. But even incremental shifts could provide important benefits. Follow us for more law and policy updates.

The concept of a regulatory sandbox is becoming a familiar one. When a recent White House executive order laid out a comprehensive legislative framework for artificial intelligence, it included a call for Congress to establish federal regulatory sandboxes, without any further explanation. Just a few years ago, such a request might have been met with a confused stare. Now, the idea of a regulatory sandbox is a recognized policy making tool. I serve on the advisory committee for Utah's General Regulatory Sandbox and am excited about the potential for sandboxes, both at the state and federal levels. Given recent developments and momentum, I decided to put together a quick post on the innovative policymaking approach, to be followed hopefully soon with a more fulsome guide for businesses. What is a Regulatory Sandbox? While you've heard the term and likely have a general sense for what is involved, here is a quick explanation. The term itself (sandbox) is borrowed from the world of software engineering, where new code is sometimes tested in an isolated environment for safety reasons before being released. Extending that concept to the policy world, a regulatory sandbox generally refers to a program run by a regulatory body where new products and solutions are allowed to be tested in the marketplace under temporary waivers or "no action letter" interpretations of regulatory restrictions. This is typically done over a limited period of time (1-2 years is typical) and in a controlled fashion, including regular check-ins with the regulator. If the test yields positive results, long-term regulatory changes might then be proposed and rolled out. How Long have Regulatory Sandboxes been a Thing? The sandbox approach originated in the heavily regulated fintech space. The first one was an initiative in the U.K. in 2015 to support fintech startups. The approach has steadily gained traction since then, with sandboxes proliferating across the U.S., Europe and Asia. Arizona gets credit for adopting the first one in the U.S., a fintech sandbox launched in 2018, followed shortly by Utah. Utah took the concept a step further in 2021 by offering a comprehensive regulatory sandbox that is not limited to financial technologies. The state also offers legal and AI sandbox programs. At the federal level, the history is more start and stop. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau launched a fintech sandbox in 2019, which had a short life when it was shuttered under the Biden Administration. A few months ago, the SEC and CFTC launched Project Crypto, which includes as a feature a sandbox-styled initiative where companies can trial tokenized products, particularly those with DeFi applications. As mentioned, there is momentum in DC around the concept of an integrated AI sandbox across agencies. Last year, Senator Cruz proposed a bill (S.2750 - SANDBOX Act) providing for just this approach. What Sandbox Opportunities Exist Right Now? While the AI sandbox vision contemplated by Senator Cruz’s bill and the White House executive order remain policy proposals for now, regulatory sandbox opportunities already exist in various forms across the United States, both at the federal and state levels. States with sandboxes of one kind or another include Arizona, Utah, Texas, Florida, Nevada, Kansas, North Carolina, Ohio, Kentucky, Vermont, South Dakota and West Virginia. Most of these sandboxes target highly regulated sectors, such as fintech, AI or even insurtech. However, some, such as Utah's, are technology-and-sector-agnostic and are potentially open to any business. This list changes regularly. What does it Take to Participate in a Sandbox? Requirements vary, but the spirit of the sandbox concept is to promote both innovation and regulatory reform where it makes sense to do so. As such, typically a proposal needs to bring a new solution to the market. Simply saying you want to do the same thing you've always done but with less regulatory restriction generally is not a winning proposal. That said, such an approach is not necessarily out of the question if a good case can be made that a public benefit could be achieved (such as addressing housing affordability). Is participating in a Sandbox a Good Idea for My Company? Maybe! It is certainly wise to look at a sandbox approach if you have a new business product or service that would be restricted by existing rules. Otherwise, to roll out your innovation you would need to challenge the law in some fashion or await formal policy change. However, given that sandbox options at the federal level are limited and state regulatory sandboxes only provide relief from state rules, the current sandbox opportunities are likely to be helpful only if the restrictions you are focused on are state level ones. For example, state sandboxes are particularly useful for navigating licensing requirements and consumer protection statutes--but they won't help when it comes to federal permitting requirements. Another limitation of a state sandbox is that you would need to operate within the geographic limitations of the state(s) where you are granted the regulatory relief. Despite these limitations, a sandbox approach can be powerful in pioneering new products and showcasing their efficacy in the real world, providing compelling evidence both of the utility of the innovation and the appropriateness of a specific policy change. Looking Ahead Sandboxes have the potential to address significant policymaking challenges. As use of frontier technologies like artificial intelligence proliferates, we will need new regulatory frameworks that are fit for purpose to both empower customers and promote competition. Also, affordability and global competitiveness concerns have raised questions around the benefit of some legacy regulatory systems. Process-based approaches like sandboxes are appealing in both cases because they provide flexibility to move with the pace of technology, and they allow efficient ways to test existing rules. However, until we have more sandbox options at the federal level, their utility will be limited. Follow us for more law and policy updates.

This article was written in collaboration with Dolly Chitta Ph.D. Dolly is founder of Curie Quantum and is Science and Innovation Advisor to the Nucleus Institute. In January, we made our first post on Quantum related policy. In a relatively short article, we summarized the totality of U.S. policy relating to Quantum initiatives and support over the last several years. Now, just two months later there is significantly more in the way of updates to share, reflecting momentum and increasing attention to the technology. What's Happening in Congress? Continued funding for the National Quantum Initiative (NQI) was included as part of the appropriations contained in the  Commerce, Justice, Science; Energy and Water Development; and Interior and Environment Appropriations Act, 2026, signed into law on January 23. Quantum was just one in a long list of priorities supported by the bill, but it received special attention, including a hearing in the House Science, Space and Technology Committee titled "Assessing U.S. Leadership in Quantum Science and Technology". Committee Chairman Brian Babin (R-TX) commented: "We are no longer just funding science experiments. We are building the infrastructure for the next century’s economy. If we don’t own the quantum supply chain today, we will be importing our security tomorrow." Congress appears interested in going beyond maintenance funding for existing Quantum projects. In our earlier post, we had noted the introduction of The National Quantum Initiative Reauthorization Act of 2026, which would meaningfully expand the scope and resources of the NQI. On March 6, Representatives Haley Stevens (D-MI) and Randy Feenstra (R-IA) also introduced the Quantum in Practice Act that would include applied science in areas such as agriculture, healthcare, energy and materials as a focus of the NQI. These initiatives may not be game changers, but they are more than incremental steps.  What's Happening in the White House? Arguably, the White House is even more focused on ways to promote Quantum development. In February, it was reported that a draft executive order called "Ushering In The Next Frontier Of Quantum Innovation" was close to being released. The executive order is expected to chart the next stage of the White House's strategy surrounding quantum by directing the Office of Science and Technology Policy to take actions such as lowering commercial barriers, partnering with foreign markets, scaling infrastructure and strengthening supply chains. It is expected to be a sweeping order, prioritizing an all-hands-on-deck approach to promoting the technology and protecting national security from the risks it presents. A Quantum-specific executive order will fit nicely within prior announcements around AI--as AI and Quantum have the potential to work hand in hand to bring viability to Quantum computing.  For example, the Genesis Mission is a White House and Department of Energy initiative that seeks to develop "an integrated AI platform to harness Federal scientific datasets — the world’s largest collection of such datasets, developed over decades of Federal investments." The mission explicitly identifies Quantum information science among the national technology domains that could benefit from this platform-based approach to scientific discovery. Efforts like these reflect a view that technological leadership will require a coordination of resources across the governmental, academic and private sectors. For heavy resource technologies like Quantum this type of integrated research environment could play an important role in accelerating progress toward practical applications. Public-Private Initiatives On March 6, the formation of a national "Commission on U.S. Quantum Primacy" (CUSP) was announced. It was reported that: "CUSP will be led by co-chairs Ylli Bajraktari, U.S. Sen. Todd Young (R-IN) and U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM). They are joined by a distinguished group of experts and policymakers at the intersection of technology and security." CUSP will "evaluate the current state of the U.S. quantum ecosystem and deliver a final report featuring actionable policy recommendations to ensure that the United States does not merely participate in the quantum age, but defines it." This particular effort feels less like tactics and more like strategy, a review of where we are. It is an interesting collaboration of legislative policymakers and private sector experts. We also note the ongoing DARPA Quantum Benchmarking Initiative (QBI) as important to monitor. QBI is exploring (through grants and academic and industry proposals) whether it is possible to build an industrially useful quantum computer by 2033, which it defines as "any quantum computing approach [that] can achieve utility-scale operation — meaning its computational value exceeds its cost."  Unlike many earlier research initiatives, the QBI is structured around specific technical milestones intended to assess whether quantum systems can achieve the levels of reliability and scalability required for practical use. Similar to the White House initiatives discussed above, public private Initiatives such as CUSP and QBI reflect an understanding that the Quantum conversation requires an all-hands-on-deck approach. Where do These Steps Leave Us? Individually and spaced over time, any of the above developments might not appear material. But taken together, over the course of less than three months, the initiatives demonstrate momentum and growing awareness of the incoming importance of Quantum. We should expect to see more policy steps, especially as the rapid pace of AI reminds policymakers of the importance of staying ahead of transformational technologies. Follow us for more law and policy updates.

In the wake of the Supreme Court's February 20 decision striking down the authority of the United States Trade Representative to impose tariffs under IEEPA, USTR has been exploring other tariff authorities, including an immediate use of Section 122. It is now turning to its more traditional, investigative authorities, though to an unprecedented degree. On March 11, 2026 and then again on March 12, the USTR initiated a suite of Section 301 investigations into the trade practices of sixty economies. The investigations constitute a necessary procedural step for the USTR prior to determining whether new schedules of 301 tariffs can be applied in those jurisdictions. The March 11 announcement relates to sixteen major economies. Asia: China, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan, India, Bangladesh. Europe: European Union, Switzerland, Norway. North America: Mexico. The investigations of these jurisdictions are broad and relate to "structural excess capacity and production in manufacturing sectors."  The March 11 press release further explains: "The investigations will determine whether those acts, policies, and practices are unreasonable or discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S. commerce." The investigations announced on March 12 cover those sixteen, plus 44 additional jurisdictions and appear to have a narrower scope. They are to "determine whether acts, policies, and practices of each of these economies related to the failure to impose and effectively enforce a ban on the importation of goods produced with forced labor are unreasonable or discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S. commerce." While the prospect of renewed or even potentially increased tariffs is an unwelcome development for many companies, the ability to comment in the investigations should be recognized as an opportunity. For instance, companies can demonstrate how specific imports are essential to U.S. competitiveness or that no viable domestic alternative exists. Providing data-backed arguments now can prevent specific products needed for a company's supply chain from being swept into the initial tariff schedules. The USTR also tends to use these comments as leverage in bilateral negotiations. As such, companies should consider whether it could be beneficial to highlight the specific challenges or "structural" imbalances they may face in a particular jurisdiction. This gives the USTR the background it may need to address these issues through diplomatic or regulatory channels. Commenting as industry groups or coalitions of companies can be particularly effective. Finally, we note that companies may worry about risks of retaliation in foreign jurisdictions as a result of issues they raise in their comments. They are often right to do so. However, the USTR comment process does allow for particularly sensitive portions of comment letters to be submitted confidentially, and this option, while not perfect, can be utilized effectively. Here are the key dates for the comment process: Comment Docket Opens:    March 17, 2026 Submission Deadline:         April 15, 2026 Public Hearings Begin:       April 28, 2026 (for the investigations regarding forced labor) and May 5, 2026 (for the investigations relating to excess production)

My colleagues have released an excellent update on the DOJ's recently announced corporate enforcement and voluntary self-disclosure policy.  For a long time, the Department of Justice has encouraged self-disclosure, at times suggesting companies will be treated better if they do, but no guarantees. For the first time, they've formalized a policy, and companies should take note and be ready to seriously consider the self-disclosure option when reviewing compliance challenges. In their update, my colleagues comment: The new Policy is a marked shift in tone even from DOJ’s prior corporate compliance guidelines. Just two years ago, DOJ initiated a pilot disclosure program meant to incentive corporate disclosure. This goes much further, offering the potential of a “public” declination in the event of disclosure absent aggravating circumstances. In the “carrot versus stick” analogy, DOJ is strongly emphasizing “carrot”-based incentives for self-disclosure, cooperation, and remediation. Given DOJ’s focus on self-disclosure, companies should consider proactively reviewing and assessing their internal compliance programs—particularly whistleblower ethics hotlines. The Policy encourages self-disclosure at the “earliest possible time,” which may potentially include disclosure before an issue has been fully investigated. The sooner a company can learn about an issue, the sooner it can alert DOJ to any potential wrongdoing. If a company must self-disclose an issue, it should also be prepared to fully cooperate with the DOJ during the investigative or prosecutorial phases of a DOJ matter. The DOJ has indicated that it will likewise cooperate with companies to remediate wrongful conduct. Indeed, the head of the Criminal Division at DOJ, Matthew R. Galeotti has noted, “[w]e want to hear from you… Now is the time to report, remediate, and strengthen compliance to ensure American prosperity.”

On February 26, 2026, the Department of Labor (DOL) announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding worker classification. It may feel like another policy swing from administration to administration. However, this proposal is the latest development in long-running debate with consequences for the gig economy and the employer-worker relationship. It is a debate that could be existential for some businesses. The DOL History In 2021, the DOL introduced a rule that prioritized core factors of "control" and "opportunity for profit or loss" on the part of the worker. This was a welcome development for businesses by giving them a simpler test that was consistent with many state common law approaches. In 2024, the Biden Administration rescinded the 2021 rule and replaced it with a "totality-of-the-circumstances" test that looked at six different factors, with none weighted more heavily than another. This was perceived as creating risk around most independent contractor relationships, as it gave regulators the ability to emphasize any factor if they saw a situation they didn't like. In May of last year, the Trump administration indicated they would largely not follow the 2024 rule when conducting investigations. This newest DOL rule proposal would rescind the 2024 rule and return to the more streamlined framework previously seen in 2021. This signals a return to the economic reality test used by courts over the years to determine if a worker is independent or is economically dependent on an employer. Other Arenas The back and forth at the DOL is just one front where the worker classification battle is playing out. The policy debate has also been active among legislative bodies, both state and federal. For many years, the PRO Act (Protecting the Right to Organize Act) has been promoted by labor advocates seeking to codify the ABC test adopted by some states. That test would presume a worker is an employee unless certain criteria can be shown. From the other direction, Utah Senator Mike Lee introduced the 21st Century Worker Act in 2023, which would create a national standard for independent contractors in line with the economic realities test. More recently, in September 2025, the House Committee on Education & the Workforce passed the Direct Seller and Real Estate Harmonization Act to align federal law with tax rules that have historically recognized direct sellers and real estate agents as independent contractors. In a creative step, states like Utah, Alabama and Tennessee have adopted legislation that would allow companies to contribute to portable benefit plans for contractors without those contributions being used against them as evidence of an employment relationship. This has inspired similar safe harbor proposals in Congress in both the House and the Senate. Real World Impacts The lack of clear rules regarding worker classification questions, not to mention the patchwork of standards, has led to real pain points for businesses. We see it in the surge of plaintiff litigation in recent years surrounding worker classification and wages and earnings claims. We also see it regularly in corporate transactions where any historical use of independent contractors is closely scrutinized during due diligence, frequently materializing as contingent liabilities that can spook acquirers, underwriters, or R&W insurance providers. This can lead to friction in the deal-making process as the parties seek to quantify exposure and negotiate protections. These issues are ongoing and in many cases an unnecessary burden on business. However, for industries that are heavily reliant on independent contractor classification, such as direct selling, real estate brokerages, or rideshare platforms, the debate can be existential. Gig economy business models that were built around independent contractors likely do not survive if the classification requirements become overly restrictive. What Next Even though the new DOL rulemaking proposal is just part of a larger debate, the open comment period (closing April 28, 2026) will draw arguments and feedback from a range of interested parties. It will be an important debate for businesses to monitor. Companies and industry groups may also consider the opportunity to comment on the rulemaking in order to share the effects on the ecosystems they participate in. Follow us for more law and policy updates.

February 20, 2026 started off with arguably the most economically significant Supreme Court ruling in living memory when the Court struck down the White House's use of IEEPA authority for tariffs representing roughly half of collected tariff revenue over the last year. The day ended with executive orders from an undeterred White House laying out a course for its continued tariffs strategy. What remains most uncertain is the question of refunds for IEEPA tariffs paid. The Administration's Pathway Forward Reuters reported a quote from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent that summarizes the Administration's plans well enough: The Supreme Court has taken away the President's leverage, but in a way, they have made the leverage that he has more draconian because they agreed he does have the right to a full embargo. . . We will get back to the same tariff level for the countries. It will just be in a less direct and slightly more convoluted manner. Later in the day, in two different executive actions (here and here), the White House responded to the Supreme Court's decision by announcing specific actions: Immediate 10% tariff replacing in part the IEEPA tariffs: rescinding prior executive orders implementing the tariffs based on IEEPA but using Section 122 authority to enact a temporary 10% import duty for 150 days on most imported goods, with specific exemptions for items otherwise covered or in relation to certain trade partners. (Note: as we are writing this, President Trump reportedly  announced that the 10% will immediately be increased to 15% on most goods.) Continuing the De Minimis Exemption. Although IEEPA authority had also been used to remove the de minimis exemption for low-value shipments, the suspension of de minimis continues under IEEPA. New 301 Investigations to Come. The Administration directs the United States Trade Representative to launch unspecified Section 301 investigations into unreasonable or discriminatory foreign trade practices that restrict American commerce. It appears that Section 122 tariffs will act as a bridge between today and when the 301 tariffs can be implemented. The timeline for the new 301 tariffs is unclear, but there is a 150-day limit on the Section 122 tariffs. This could, in short, create a temporary situation where the effective tariff rate dips for several months or even most of 2026 while the 301 tariffs are completed. We also expect new 232 duties and perhaps other (as-of-today) unknown duties that will be imposed to bridge the gap. Refunds Dorsey's client update on the Supreme Court's decision explains the (hopefully temporary) uncertainty regarding a pathway to refunds. The Court’s majority opinion vindicates the plaintiffs in these cases substantively, but there remains ambiguity whether U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) will stop collecting the IEEPA tariffs before the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) reconsiders its grant of a nationwide injunction. It is also uncertain whether CBP will issue tariff refunds to importers who have not filed their own tariff lawsuits in the CIT to challenge these tariff actions. All eyes will turn to the lower court proceedings, the Trump Administration, and CBP to see how they interpret the scope and impact of the Court’s judgment. On the assumption that importers will ultimately be able to obtain refunds of IEEPA tariffs paid, we will be providing updated advice and strategies as things develop with the CIT and CBP. For some, the pathway may be more expensive and time consuming than makes sense to pursue. In the short term, companies should be gathering data and documentation regarding tariffs paid so that they are in a strong position to make a refund claim. Follow us for more law and policy updates.

"Memetics" was a theory launched by Richard Dawkins in the 1970s positing that cultural trends and ideas emerge from base components (he called memes) in much the same way that biological organisms do from genes. As the theory goes, compelling ideas survive while less effective ones drop away, with variations and combinations succeeding or failing in a survival of the fittest. Sadly, memetics found limited success as a theory of everything, though it did inspire internet meme terminology for what that is worth. Still, I find it a useful framework for narrower observations, such as when looking at the evolution of public policy ideas. Diffusion of policy initiatives can often be traced back to some basic component, or meme, that is applied with varying levels of complexity in different situations and by different policymakers. Think of the concept of a "sin tax," historically popular because it punishes undesired behavior and generates revenue at the same time. This basic policy meme has been the through-line for countless laws going back millennia (as far back as Egyptian Pharaohs taxing beer to help build the pyramids). Birth of a Housing Policy Meme In response to the very topical question of housing affordability, we are seeing a relatively new policy meme getting uptake. This is in short the proposal to restrict institutional ownership of homes. And over the last few years, it has been the center of several proposals at the state and federal level, including "The End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act" and "Stop Predator Investing Act." What counts as institutional ownership and what form the restriction takes varies, as would-be policymakers seek a winning formula, but the core concept seems to be gaining traction. The most recent iteration was a White House executive order on January 20, 2026 titled Stopping Wall Street from Competing with Main Street Homebuyers. There is much still to be rolled out, but the executive order does several things: Definition of Large Institutional Investors. It directs Treasury to create a formal definition for large institutional investors (LLIs) within 30 days. This definition will be the heart of the policy. Who gets picked up by it and who doesn't will shape the market. Note: This could be released any day. Agency Roll-out. The executive order then directs agencies (HUD, USDA, VA, FHFA) to stop approving, insuring, or securitizing single-family home sales to LIIs, cutting off their access to the federal financing "oxygen" that supports the housing market. Note: They are allowed to provide narrow exceptions, such as for build-to-rent properties. Antitrust Enforcement. The order also instructs the DOJ and FTC to prioritize enforcement against large rental portfolios for using strategies like "coordinated vacancy" and algorithmic pricing. A lot comes down to who is being restricted. If the LII definition is drafted broadly, it risks going too far and displacing or restricting needed market players. If drafted narrowly, its impact could be nominal. Prior legislative proposals have looked at size of institutions and/or numbers of units they hold as thresholds for applying restrictions and penalties. Expect Treasury's proposed definition to include both these factors. It could also include variables such as neighborhood density, where restrictions kick in depending on how many units an investor holds in a particular geography. However, it seems likely Treasury will look to cast a broad net, anticipating that the agencies will apply exceptions or situational accommodations when they roll out the financial restrictions. Future of the Policy Some commentators have argued the role of large institutional investors in the housing market is small, and so this policy will have little in the way of impact. The Economist magazine reports LIIs account for just 5% of home purchases in recent years, and currently have 1% of overall ownership. Regardless, the concept seems to resonate, meme-like. The executive order is just the latest in a number of proposals and initiatives in recent years. As such, it will be wise to pay attention to how things play out in coming months. Will the EO affect businesses that fix and flip homes? Could the policy ultimately expand to pick up smaller investors, like owners of short term rentals? Will it inadvertently affect financial institutions that support liquidity, such as those that offer rent to own financing approaches or those that serve as buyers of last resort in foreclosures? One argument goes that without massive capital pools to absorb mortgage debt, private lenders may demand higher yields to offset the increased risk of holding less liquid assets. Ultimately, whether this policy meme will gain traction, defeat legal challenges that are sure to arise, or even become codified through one of the Congressional proposals, are open questions. Its life as a policy meme could be short-lived as a result of administrative procedures act challenges (though the White House has spread the risk here by involving multiple agencies and a number of initiatives). Overall, there will be lots to watch over the next few months, and participants in the housing sector (both public and private) are advised to do what they can to be at the table in the evolving housing policy discussion. Follow us for more law and policy updates.

The legal world has always played fast and loose with the concept of time. Judges of course regularly rewrite history when rendering opinions about what a law means and then applying the consequences retroactively, sometimes unwinding acts that already occurred. (Many businesses are hopeful this very thing happens when SCOTUS delivers its opinion on IEEPA and tariffs.) Another example is the legal principle of ratification, which allows for post hoc authorization of actions in a corporate setting.  So with the swipe of a pen we make the present reality become the past reality. And yes, we have a Latin phrase for it. Nunc pro tunc, or  "now for then." But the legal world has nothing on the financial one. Eight hundred years ago the knights templar built possibly the world's first complex banking system, allowing travelers to spend wealth on one side of the continent that physically sat thousands of miles away.  These transactions could take months or years to settle. With a little bit of paper and a lot of trust, time and space were imagined away. The modern banking system is not a whole lot different; it's just that settlements happens within days rather than months. But we are still playing with time and fudging the difference to make modern life work. Last week I attended the fintechXchange conference in Salt Lake City, and challenges associated with time, and fintech’s hopeful solutions, were a key theme. Crypto technology has for a while offered the potential to shrink to virtually nothing the space between transactions and settlement, as distributed ledgers are instantly updated, no need for an intermediary. A crippling obstacle has been the lack of a clear regulatory framework. Last year, the Genius Act was passed, providing a legal structure for stablecoins that could bring them into the mainstream, particularly useful when it comes to payments. There is plenty of spadework to be done before we see consumer take-up, but at least there’s a pathway. But tokenization and the broader crypto space still needs additional regulatory clarity before these tools can reach their potential. More on this later. I had a mentor who would use the expression “fat moment in time” when referring to the practice of closing a complex deal with a series of related transactions occurring in a particular order yet at the same time. If a "moment" is really a 1:1 transaction between time and space, it shouldn't physically for multiple, related and causal things to happen together. But we make it happen anyway in these projects, particularly when a deal needs to close at the end of a fiscal year, in that moment where a full fiscal year has passed but the next one has not yet started. We can do it because these steps, while reflecting real world consequences, are legal ones, and so assuming all the formalities are ready to go, and the money is sitting safely in escrow, we can deem it so. Right now, to build a fat moment like this takes teams of lawyers, bankers and accountants and weeks of planning. The promise of fintech, powered by the blockchain and AI, could enable complicated steps like these to take place in ordinary consumer transactions, opening up the possibility of bringing significant flexibility for consumers. For example, decentralized finance is are already offering ways for consumers to both invest and spend the same dollars by using assets as collateral for micro loans. If DeFi reaches its potential, imagine how consumers (with a little compute help from AI) could look at their phones and pay for their coffee using the most optimal financial choice in that moment, whether cash, earned wage access, third-party-credit, asset-backed micro-loans or even hedges, with the necessary transactional steps all happening on crypto ledgers in the right order, right then. The technology is on its way, but this future requires another dose of legal structure. Many are hopeful something like the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act will provide the framework that will enable fintechs to innovate in this direction. At the moment, a tussle in the financial industry over the ability for crypto providers to offer rewards that banks aren't in a position to do is likely to keep it from progressing in Congress. If resolved, maybe we will see the long promise of crypto realized. Follow us for more law and policy updates.

The axiom that legislators legislate and regulators regulate is typically applied to centers of government, like Washington D.C. or Brussels, where there can be a default instinct to create guardrails and restrictions whenever a new societal challenge is identified. But in a perceived accountability vacuum around artificial intelligence, states are seriously considering policies to get ahead of potential risks. California, Texas and New York have already passed legislation that would provide regulatory frameworks applicable to large AI developers. Now, legislators in Utah are swiftly progressing a bill that would provide a comparable level of oversight. H.B. 286 Artificial Intelligence Transparency Amendments Stepping carefully in light of White House directives for states not to impede AI progress and Utah's own pro-business reputation, the sponsors of H.B. 286 (Representative Doug Fiefia and Senator Mike McKell) are proposing a framework intended to mitigate child safety and large-scale, catastrophic risks through registration and reporting requirements. Specifically, the bill creates a new AI Transparency Act, which would apply to a category of  "large frontier developers,” defined as AI companies that have foundation level computational power of 10²⁶ FLOPs (a threshold used in other contexts that captures the largest AI companies) and over $500 million in revenues. For companies falling into this category, the bill has the following key features: Mandatory Safety & Child Protection Plans: Developers must write, implement, and host public safety plans (to address catastrophic risks like cyberattacks or chemical weapons assistance) and child protection plans (detailing how they mitigate harms to minors and incorporate national safety standards). Risk Assessment & Incident Reporting: Companies are required to publish summaries of their internal risk assessments and must report "critical safety incidents"—such as the unauthorized release of model weights or AI-driven bodily harm—to Utah's new Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy. Whistleblower Protections: The bill establishes legal safeguards for employees of AI companies who report safety concerns or violations, prohibiting retaliatory "adverse actions" by the developer. Truth in Safety Labeling: It explicitly prohibits developers from making "materially false or misleading statements" regarding their safety plans or the risks posed by their models, allowing for civil penalties if a company claims to have safety measures that don't actually exist. Enforcement Mechanisms: Violations are subject to civil penalties, and the bill creates an enforcement fund to ensure the state has the resources to oversee these large entities. Disclosure Framework It's worth emphasizing that the bill would only regulate the largest of AI companies (i.e., not start-ups or companies in other spaces building out AI applications). And even at that level, it doesn’t restrict development but rather requires a level of “check in” and reporting with the state. Presumably, much would need to be worked out over time through rulemaking by the Office of AI Policy to provide specifics regarding the details of both what an adequate safety plan would entail and what results should they report to the state their model’s ability to cause harm. How the Bill fits into Utah’s Approach to AI In December, Utah held an AI summit, hosted by Governor Cox. State leaders were vocal about their desire to get ahead of emerging technologies that pose threats to mental health and to minors. As an alternative, they proposed a Pro Human AI initiative that would incentivize development that promotes human flourishing while being watchful. Last year, the State implemented an AI sandbox which has already authorized novel applications like an AI tool empowered to issue prescriptions for chronic illnesses. H.B. 286 would fit into the protective side of the equation. Follow us for more law and policy updates.

Way back on January 9, I logged into a SCOTUSblog chat group to hear that excellent team live-blog the announcement and delivery of Supreme Court opinions for the day. From the comments of other visitors, I wasn't the only one joining to see if a decision on tariffs was forthcoming. Not by a long shot. Journalists, trade professionals, executives, and others were waiting breathlessly for the news. But the news turned out to be no news. An opinion on the IEEPA case, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, would not be delivered that day. A similar experience was repeated on January 14 and January 20. Still no decision. The next Supreme Court opinion release date won't be until later in February. So it looks like a few more weeks of waiting, at a minimum. Why were Supreme Court tourists like me so anxious about this decision that they couldn't wait the additional 15–30 minutes it would take for the broader media to digest the news and put out a headline? I don't know. I knew I would be speaking with clients immediately after the release. Getting a head start on the actual opinion—and seeing the initial reaction from the SCOTUSblog team—I felt would give me better perspective than distilled journalism. Plus, I just wanted to know as soon as possible! But the waiting, and the speculation, continues. A popular line of thinking is that the timing now suggests the Court is in no hurry because they are going to uphold IEEPA and the status quo. Any truth to that? Probably not. This article takes a deep dive into the question. The consensus view seems to be that it's impossible to know what the passage of time means in this case. All that can be taken from the delay (if it can be called that) is that the case is complicated. That makes sense. Another comment in the article is that the Court may not be anxious because of the White House's commentary that it will move to other tariff authorities if necessary, i.e., taking the pressure of the Court to act quickly. This is also good for businesses to keep in mind. While other authorities aren't as flexible as IEEPA, there are a number of options the White House has to implement tariffs without going to Congress for additional authority. I like this summary table Dorsey's trade team put together: Some of these (like Section 301 and 232) are more or less tried and true at this point. Others, like Section 338 less so. Altogether, it means this case is more about the tariffs paid over the past year than the future and whether importers can anticipate a return of some or all the IEEPA based tariffs.  More to come on that front. Follow us for more law and policy updates.

Was it only twelve months ago? Last year, dental health featured prominently in Utah’s 2025 legislative session, with the passage of a state-wide ban on the addition of fluoride in Utah’s drinking water. This decision garnered national attention and sparked some entertaining debates. The 2026 session probably won’t bring as much attention to Utah’s dental sector. However, there are already some initiatives to pay attention to. The Big One: HB 270 The most significant so far is HB 270 Healthcare Worker Post Employment Amendments.  This bill proposes to ban non-competes and non-solicits on licensed healthcare workers, including dentists. Note: The definition of "healthcare worker" in the current text specifically includes dentists, but notably, dental hygienists are not currently listed. While the bill targets the healthcare industry broadly, the dental industry will want to monitor it closely. Most practices, whether independent or those affiliated with Dental Support Organizations (DSOs) and Dental Partnership Organizations (DPOs), rely on non-competes and non-solicits. These restrictions are often the primary tool used to protect the practice's goodwill against an associate leaving and taking the patient base they built up to a practice across the street. The non-solicit ban is a strict one. Here is the core part: (1) On or after May 6, 2026, a person and a healthcare worker may not enter into nonsolicitation agreement that prevents a healthcare worker from informing a former patient of any of the following: (a) the healthcare worker's current place of employment; or (b) the healthcare worker's future place of employment. (2) A nonsolicitation agreement that violates Subsection (1) is void. The bill does provide exceptions in the cases of a severance agreement that is reached with a dentist and/or in connection with a sale of a business. Pediatric Initiative? While no bill file has been opened as of yet, at the Utah Chamber’s legislative preview last week, it was mentioned that legislative leadership is looking at measures to address oral health in children. We wonder if that might come in the form of additional fluoride resources or expanded Medicaid coverage or some other policy. We will update this post if we see a specific proposal.

During 2025, lawmakers across the 50 states opened over 1,000 AI-related bills. Congress became justifiably worried that local lawmakers would go overboard, and came very close to passing an AI regulatory moratorium that would preclude states from weighing in. Many states pushed back firmly on this. On Dec. 11, the White House took matters into its own hands with an executive order laying out a plan for discouraging state laws that regulate AI in ways that are imprudent. The order does several things, such as instructing the DOJ to create a litigation task force to challenge state laws under preemption and/or interstate commerce clause principles wherever possible. It also threatens to withhold federal money (broadband and other federal grants) to states that enforce onerous AI laws. The Department of Commerce will publish its evaluation of such state laws within 90 days. It also directs the FTC to issue a policy statement on how laws that force AI to change its outputs (bias mitigation rules) could qualify as deceptive practices under federal law, allowing the FTC to override them. The FCC is given a job too. It is directed to work through whether its existing authority to regulate telecommunications systems (on which the internet and AI models run) would give it the ability to preempt certain state laws on AI. The EO explicitly does not target state laws regarding child safety, infrastructure (e.g., data center zoning) or state government procurement of AI technologies. The real test will come over the course of the year as states move ahead to roll out AI related laws or regulations anyway. The EO is not directly binding on the states. Rather, it is a framework of action the agencies might take, so expect there to be some test cases if federal agencies take action under the new policy.

We think of AI as the most exciting and transformative technology of our time, and I wouldn't argue with that. However, one of the less talked about aspects is the potential it has to bring viability to Quantum computing by (as I've been told) quickly finding and controlling for the random calculation errors that are inherent in the powerful technology. As a Quantum future becomes more and more possible, governmental policy is also developing around it. The first meaningful Quantum policy initiative in the U.S. actually came in 2018 in the form of the National Quantum Initiative (NQI) Act. This provided funding for Department of Energy (DOE) and National Science Foundation (NSF) research centers at national labs and universities across the country. It also directed NIST (National Institute of Standards & Technology) to forge industry connections through economic consortia. These were investments and grants that promoted the deep tech R&D that needed to happen if the U.S. wanted to be in a competitive position for this frontier technology. Late last year, a White House memo called out the need to prioritize Quantum development, noting the growing commercial viability of the technology: "As quantum technologies mature and become increasingly available on the commercial market, bolstering U.S. leadership will require advancing fundamental science while also tackling emerging engineering challenges and strengthening the critical technologies enabling the quantum ecosystem." It goes on to calls on federal agencies to prioritize practical R&D that looks at end user applications. Pre-competitive consortia are to be promoted. Then, earlier this month, Senators Todd Young (R-IN) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) introduced the National Quantum Initiative Reauthorization Act of 2026. The bill would extend the National Quantum Initiative by five years to December 2034. That's of course good. But the bill also does something else that is noteworthy by expanding focus to commercial applications. It's an important shift in emphasis, reflecting the White House memo in part but going even further. Here are a few ways the bill proposes to do this: It would establish a number of new academic and private-public initiatives including three NIST Quantum Centers, five NSF Multi-disciplinary Centers for Quantum Research and Education, a quantum workforce coordination hub and quantum testbeds. This would significantly expand the touch points for the technology both to additional locations across the U.S. but also in some cases beyond the science centers and into the commercial arena. It would bring NASA to the table by authorizing it to pursue R&D in satellite communications and other areas. Again, real world applications. It also focuses on the Quantum supply chain, pushing for the creation of Quantum foundries that would make the technology more accessible. Funding for these initiatives may be squeezed between efforts by the House to find budgetary savings and pressure from the White House to dramatically increase defense spending. However, given the ample defense applications of Quantum tech, it is always possible the momentum takes Quantum funding the other way. It's worth keeping tabs on. The next Quantum Center, foundry or business consortium could be coming to your city soon! Follow us for more law and policy updates.