Insights

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (the Act), signed on July 4, 2025, allows a deduction from an individual’s personal tax return on Form 1040 for “qualified overtime compensation” as defined in new Code § 225. The amount that can be deducted from the employee’s return is capped at $12,500 with the maximum then adjusted down if the employee’s AGI exceeds certain limits. This deduction is permitted in 2025.

On August 14, 2025, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) and the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) issued draft revisions to FAR Part 8 and FAR Part 12 (as well as to FAR Parts 4 and 40). These are the latest rewrites under the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) initiative pursuant to Executive Order 14275, “Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement,” which we previously reported on here.

On August 18, 2025, the Small Business Administration (SBA) published a notice of tribal consultation to be held in Michigan on September 17, 2025. In addition to seeking input from the Native American community on the management and operation of SBA’s Capital Access and Government Contracting and Business Development programs, SBA is focusing on the nonmanufacturer rule (NMR).

Automated vehicles (AVs) have received heightened attention from the automotive industry and regulators this summer when it comes to improving and expanding AV technology in the US. Here are some developments:

On August 11, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that it had unsealed an indictment against two Mexican businessmen for alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”). DOJ asserts that the defendants, both Mexican nationals living in Texas, paid bribes to officials at Petróleos Mexicanos (“PEMEX”), and its subsidiary, PEMEX Exploración y Producción (“PEP”) to secure contracts worth an estimated $2.5 million. These charges come amidst a period of uncertainty regarding FCPA enforcement following the Trump administration’s temporary pause on FCPA enforcement and the subsequent issuance of new investigation and enforcement guidelines.

GAO’s recent sustain of the protest filed by emissary LLC provides valuable lessons for potential offerors with respect to organizational conflict of interest (OCI) mitigation plans (and their impact on technical approach), as well as their descriptions of key personnel qualifications.

In an effort to update and modernize the FDA’s regulation of sunscreen, Representative John Joyce (R-Ohio) and a group of bipartisan members of Congress introduced in June the Supporting Accessible, Flexible, and Effective Sunscreen (SAFE) Standards Act.  If enacted, the bill would establish a more flexible regulatory scheme at the FDA, decrease the cost in the approval process and expand the array of sunscreen available for purchase.

Earlier this year, we highlighted a notable Court of Federal Claims (CFC) decision recognizing that an energy savings performance contract (ESPC) contractor may be able to recover proposal preparation costs under the CFC’s bid protest jurisdiction. Now, in Siemens Government Technologies, Inc. v. United States, another CFC decision has reaches a similar conclusion and goes even further — also highlighting the potential to recover under the Court’s Contract Disputes Act (CDA) jurisdiction.  

On July 23, 2025, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) issued interim guidance for Large Business & International Division (“LB&I”) audit procedure. The IRS announced three major changes: (1) the Acknowledgement of Facts Information Document Request (“AOF IDR”) will be eliminated; (2) Accelerated Issue Resolution (“AIR”) applies to Large Corporate Compliance (“LCC”) cases; and (3) the IRS must conduct additional review before denying a taxpayer’s request to participate in the Fast Track Settlement (“FTS”). These changes reflect the IRS’s continued push to make its examinations “more efficient and current.”

On August 5, 2025, Royal Sovereign International Inc. (Royal Sovereign), a defunct New Jersey importer of portable air conditioners, pled guilty to one count of willfully violating the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) for its failure to report dangerous defects in portable air conditioners that had been linked to multiple fires and one death. The company also agreed to a civil settlement with the Department of Justice and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) that included $395,786.48 in restitution to victims and a $16,025,000 civil penalty, which was suspended to $100,000 for inability to pay.

On August 7, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) titled, “Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking,” setting out the framework for sweeping changes to the grantmaking process.  The order purports to address the Administration’s concerns about federal grants supporting controversial or ineffective programs and incurring excessive administrative costs.  The EO implements three key changes to federal grant requirements. 

On July 28, 2025, Cadence Design Systems Inc. (“Cadence” or “the Company”), a global electronic design automation (“EDA”) technology company based in San Jose, California, agreed to plead guilty in a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Security Division (“NSD”) and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California. Through its guilty plea, Cadence agreed to resolve charges that it committed criminal violations of export controls by selling EDA hardware, software, and semiconductor design intellectual property (“IP”) technology to the National University of Defense Technology (“NUDT”), a Chinese military university on the U.S. Entity List since 2015 due to its involvement in military and nuclear simulation activities. In addition, Cadence simultaneously resolved a civil enforcement action brought by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) related to the same underlying conduct.

On August 7, 2025, the FAR Council issued a final rule amending FAR 52.204-7 to clarify that, effective immediately, an offeror’s failure to maintain continuous System for Award Management (SAM) registration between proposal submission and contract award does not render the offeror ineligible for award, so long as the offeror was registered in SAM at the time of proposal submission and is registered at the time of contract award. The final rule should address situations like TLS Joint Venture, LLC, B-422275, Apr. 1, 2024, 2024 CPD ¶ 74, where an offeror’s SAM registration lapsed for a single day between the proposal submission and award dates, and GAO found the offeror ineligible for award.

On July 24, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Saving College Sports” (the “Order”). The White House also released an accompanying Fact Sheet regarding the Order.

On July 25, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in United States ex. rel. Sedona Partners LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc. et al., holding that a district court cannot ignore new factual allegations included in an amended complaint filed by a False Claims Act qui tam relator based on the fact that those additional facts were learned in discovery, even while a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the heightened pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) is pending.  Under Rule 9(b), allegations of fraud typically must include factual support showing the who, what, where, why, and how of the fraud to survive a defendant’s motion to dismiss.  And while that standard has not changed, Sedona gives room for a relator to file first and seek out discovery in order to amend an otherwise deficient complaint and survive a motion to dismiss, at least in the Eleventh Circuit.  Importantly, however, the Eleventh Circuit clarified that a district court retains the discretion to dismiss a relator’s complaint before or after discovery has begun, meaning that district courts are not required to permit discovery at the pleading stage.  Nevertheless, the Sedona decision is an about-face from precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, and many other circuits, where, historically, facts learned during discovery could not be used to circumvent Rule 9(b) by bolstering a relator’s factual allegations while a motion to dismiss was pending.  While the long-term effects of the decision remain to be seen, in the short term the decision may encourage relators to engage in early discovery in hopes of learning facts that they can use to survive otherwise meritorious motions to dismiss.

Historically, SEC-registered investment advisers have not been subject to comprehensive AML regulation under the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) unless they also qualify as a broker-dealer or other BSA-regulated financial institution. Notwithstanding the absence of a formal requirement to date, many SEC-registered investment advisers have voluntarily adopted AML programs in line with industry expectations and investor demands. However, on August 28, 2024, FinCEN issued its Final Rule, establishing anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism (“AML/CFT”) requirements for Covered Advisers similar to those that apply to broker-dealers. The Final Rule, which was scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2026, required Covered Advisers to maintain written AML programs, perform customer due diligence, file Suspicious Activity Reports (“SARs”) and other reports required of BSA-regulated financial institutions, and retain standard AML records.  

Threat actors have targeted insurance companies in a recent string of cyber-attacks, exposing patients’ personal information, including Social Security numbers, claims information, and health reports.

On July 29, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued new guidance to all federal agencies entitled “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination” (“Guidance”). The Guidance purports to “clarif[y] the application of federal antidiscrimination laws to programs or initiatives that may involve discriminatory practices, including those labeled as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (‘DEI’) programs.” It declares that “[e]ntities receiving federal funds . . . must ensure that their programs and activities comply with federal law and do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, or other protected characteristics,” and identifies a series of “‘Best Practices’ as non-binding suggestions to help entities comply with federal antidiscrimination laws and avoid legal pitfalls.” The Guidance is the most comprehensive articulation of the Administration’s view of what constitutes unlawful DEI released since President Trump’s Executive Order, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, issued on January 21, 2025.

This news bulletin is provided by the International Trade Group of Crowell & Moring. If you have questions or need assistance on trade law matters, please contact Anand Sithian or Simeon Yerokun or any member of the International Trade Group.

On Monday, July 21, 2025, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued draft guidance entitled “E21 Inclusion of Pregnant and Breastfeeding Women in Clinical Trials” from the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). The guidance is currently in Step 2 of the ICH process and open for public comment until September 19, 2025.