.png)
Donald Trump returned to the presidency a year ago determined to make more of an impact than in his first term, and one year in, he has definitely delivered on that promise. Nearly every day the news cycle has included some development that was unthinkable under any of his predecessors… including in his own first term as president.
Of course, Trump didn’t just do attention-grabbing things day after day, he also presided over changes that got less attention but were still important. And let’s face it, there was too much news for any person to absorb it all.
So as we approach the anniversary of his inauguration, we asked our colleagues in the POLITICO newsroom to tell us which moves from Trump’s first year of his second presidency might have flown under the radar but are still worth noting.
Here are 25 of them:
Space
NASA fast-tracks plan to put nuclear reactor on the moon
The U.S. has long eyed nuclear power as a way to unlock future space missions. NASA awarded contracts to three companies in 2022 to begin developing small nuclear reactors capable of providing power in space.
The move: NASA, under former acting Administrator Sean Duffy, has greatly expedited plans to put a nuclear plant on the moon by calling for a reactor that could be ready to launch by 2030.
The impact: Companies, from small start-ups to aerospace giants like Lockheed Martin, are devising plans to fill NASA’s request. The space agency has issued a call to industry, asking for information and feedback on its plans to build a fission power system. The directive orders the reactors to provide at least 100 kilowatts of power — more than double what the agency had previously envisioned. And NASA still needs to find the money for the program, which could cost billions of dollars.
The upshot: NASA’s decision to speed up its nuclear reactor plans is tied to a geopolitical race with China. Both the U.S. and China are devising plans to build long-term bases on the moon, and nuclear reactors will be key to powering those outposts. China and Russia have discussed plans to jointly build a nuclear power plant on the moon by 2035, driving NASA to speed up its own plans. Officials argue that whoever does it first will write the rules of the road for space.
— Audrey Decker
Wall Street
Crypto stablecoins gain access to banking sector
Cryptocurrency evangelists have long held that digital currencies and assets, if ever given the chance, could overhaul how modern finance works. Yet from the start, the crypto world has been tarnished by frauds, wild swings and crashes and skepticism from Washington policymakers that have stymied its ability to prove its worth. Now, Trump — a digital assets skeptic-turned-champion — has set the stage for crypto to finally do exactly that, and potentially transform the systems Americans use to pay for everything from financial assets and cars to pizza.
The move: In July, Trump, surrounded by a crowd of crypto’s biggest names at the White House, signed into law the GENIUS Act— an historic, bipartisan bill that set up a new regulatory framework for a type of crypto token known as stablecoins. Pegged in value to assets like the dollar, stablecoins currently play a critical role in the trading that happens across the crypto markets. The bill’s adoption into law set the stage for the mainstream adoption of stablecoins across Wall Street, an evolution that could, ultimately, result in a world where consumers are buying their groceries with crypto.
The impact: Financial regulators may be just beginning work on implementing the GENIUS Act, but that hasn’t stopped a rush of new interest in stablecoins from legacy finance and crypto firms alike. In October, for example, some of the world’s largest banks, including Bank of America, Barclays and Goldman Sachs, said they were jointly exploring whether to issue a stablecoin tied to G7 currencies.
The upshot: Stablecoins, as their believers argue, offer a cheaper and more efficient means of transacting than the legacy payments systems that exist today. But whether American consumers are ready to adopt crypto-based payments is still an open question for both the industry and regulators.
— Declan Harty
Defense
Confederate names return to military bases
Defense Department leaders changed the names of multiple military bases and campus landmarks in 2023 as part of an effort to remove divisive imagery from service locations. The effort followed legislation from Congress, which banned base names that referred to prominent Confederate figures. But some conservatives — including President Donald Trump — objected to the moves as dishonoring the legacy of troops who served at the sites.
The move: Trump announced plans in June to undo the name changes of nine Army bases, ignoring the recommendations of an independent commission. Service officials found other soldiers with similar names to help justify the reversal and get around the legal restrictions. Fort Hood in Texas — originally named for Confederate General John Bell Hood, for example — was renamed for World War I Col. Robert Hood.
The impact: The shifts drew condemnation from civil rights groups who were upset the problematic names would persist. They have argued that requiring troops to serve at sites named for slave owners and slavery defenders undermines morale. Lawmakers have also criticized the administration for working around their desire for change. But they’ve failed to take any legislative action to halt Trump’s moves.
The upshot: Changing the base titles away from the Confederate names cost almost $40 million in 2023. Administration officials have not said how much reverting back to the controversial names has cost.
— Leo Shane III
Elections
Trump DOJ opens new front in battle over “election integrity”
Over the past year, the Justice Department has demanded that dozens of states turn over sensitive election data — namely, voter registration lists — under the banner of “election integrity.” The unprecedented request, sent to at least 43 states and Washington, D.C., according to the liberal-leaning good government advocacy organization the Brennan Center for Justice, has triggered a legal showdown with state election officials, who argue that the move violates federal privacy law. At least 23 states have refused to comply, but some Republican election officials have turned over data.
The move: The standoff has triggered a legal clash. The Justice Department has sued the predominantly Democratic-controlled states and Washington, D.C. that refused to turn over the full voter registration lists, warning that any jurisdiction that withholds the data “can expect to see us in court.” DOJ officials argue that federal law entitles the department to the information as part of a sweeping effort to ensure accurate voter lists. State officials, however, argue that complying could expose voters’ personally identifying information — including dates of birth and driver’s license numbers — and that the federal government has no right to demand that information. Many have openly defied the department’s order.
The impact: The legal back-and-forth has set up an unprecedented confrontation between the Justice Department and state election officials, who have traditionally operated largely independently from the federal government. “This is an extraordinary imposition of federal power over states’ election processes that, if it is accepted by the states in this context, will be absolutely used by Democrats in another context,” David Becker, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research, told the Washington Post in July.
The upshot: Republicans have increasingly zeroed in on voter rolls as part of broader efforts to sow doubt about the integrity of elections following 2020. Now, as the 2026 midterms come into view, the Justice Department’s bid to pressure states to turn over voter rolls has opened a new front in the election battles — one that Democrats are already pushing back against.
— Erin Doherty
Energy
Aging coal plants forcibly kept open
Trump made the revival of “beautiful, clean coal” a central part of his administration’s energy policy — a promise that dates back to his first presidential campaign. In his second term, he has so far sought to further help revitalize the long-struggling industry by modernizing aging coal plants and offering acres of federal land for new mining.
The move: Energy Secretary Chris Wright used his emergency powers to stop decades-old fossil fuel power plants from their scheduled retirements.
The impact: Wright is seeking to keep numerous units operating across the country, including coal-fired plants in Michigan and Washington state, and gas- and oil-fired units in Pennsylvania. In several cases, the Energy Department issued extensions on orders to go beyond an initial 90 days. The most recent order — issued days after halting five major offshore wind projects under construction — keeps a damaged and aging coal plant operational in Colorado. The order was issued one day before the unit was slated to close permanently.
The upshot: The administration has pitched its efforts as crucial to lowering the skyrocketing electricity prices facing Americans across the country and argued that the operation of older coal-powered plants will help ensure adequate power-generating capacity is available to meet rising demand. Critics say those plants are not economic to run and forcing them to stay open comes with a hefty price tag that forces ratepayers to pay more to keep burning dirty coal that will rack up additional environmental and climate costs in the years to come.
— Kelsey Tamborrino
Insurance
Access to health insurance erodes for legal immigrants
Conservatives, who have long argued that unauthorized immigrants are a burden on the U.S. social safety net, more recently have attempted to also purge millions of taxpaying legal immigrants from the rolls of public benefits programs, including free and subsidized health insurance. The first Trump administration, for instance, enacted a Public Charge Rule that penalized legal immigrants who enrolled in Medicaid, making it harder for them to obtain a green card. The Biden administration stopped enforcing the policy in 2021 and rescinded it in 2022.
Then in 2025, as Congress fiercely debated the rising cost of health insurance — with disagreements that triggered the longest government shutdown in U.S. history — GOP lawmakers and the Trump administration once again took multiple actions to make it harder for legal immigrants to access either Medicaid or private Obamacare plans that receive federal subsidies.
The move: In July, Congress’ GOP majority passed, as part of their One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a law stripping all Obamacare subsidies from low-income lawfully present immigrants — those authorized to work and live in the country but unable to qualify for Medicaid yet. Then, in November, the Trump administration moved to revive a version of the Public Charge Rule, giving immigration officers the authority to deny legal immigrants’ applications for permanent residency if they had used services like Medicaid.
The impact: Both policies are expected to have broad, negative effects — both for the health of immigrant families and for citizens enrolled in the same insurance programs. A 2021 study found that Trump’s original public charge rule led many low-income immigrants to avoid using health services, including more than a quarter of legal permanent residents who were not subject to the rule. The rollback of insurance subsidies, meanwhile, is predicted to cause 300,000 immigrants to lose coverage next year because they can’t afford it, according to the nonpartisan legislative scorekeepers at the Congressional Budget Office, with nearly 1 million immigrants going uninsured by 2034. That, in turn, could raise insurance prices for everyone, since immigrants tend to be younger and use fewer health services than the general population.
The upshot: As the U.S. struggles to contain outbreaks of infectious diseases like measles and bring down rates of chronic illness, health policy experts warn that policies excluding legal, taxpaying immigrants from health programs will cause a cascade of negative effects, from premiums rising for U.S. citizens who remain in the Obamacare marketplace, to difficulty controlling future pandemics, to a greater strain on the already-struggling hospitals where uninsured migrants are likely to turn for uncompensated care.
— Alice Miranda Ollstein
Money
The demise of the U.S. penny
In February 2025, President Donald Trump urged the Treasury Department to stop minting pennies, which cost more to manufacture than they were worth, about four cents each. Critics had long suggested that the one-cent coins were an anachronism, essentially existing as a token of American nostalgia, but it was Trump who finally issued the death warrant.
The move: The U.S. Mint pressed its final penny on Nov. 12, ceasing production of the 230-year-old coin that had become basically worthless — and too expensive — to produce.
The impact: Billions of pennies remain in circulation, and will remain legal tender, but over time banks and businesses will need to adapt, rounding prices to five-cent increments. Congress has yet to pass legislation to establish a standard practice for rounding up payments, complicating the transition.
The upshot: Ending the coin will save the U.S. Mint about $85 million per year, but consumers may actually be paying more. According to the Richmond Fed, as businesses round up to nickels and dimes, customers could be coughing up an extra $6 million a year. Next on the list for change could be the dollar: The U.S. Treasury is drawing up plans for a commemorative $1 coin emblazoned with with Trump’s face, for America’s 250th birthday in 2026.
— Riya Misra
Immigration
Trump consolidated government data to ease immigration enforcement
The Trump administration set a lofty target to remove a million unauthorized immigrants by the end of its first year in office. But once the administration took office, it found that it was logistically difficult to actually remove people. Simply put, the government did not have the human capital or other resources to locate, detain, and deport that many unauthorized immigrants.
The move: Trump allowed ICE and Customs and Border Protection to access and use information from the sensitive datasets of agencies including the Internal Revenue Service and the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development.
The impact: Staffers at the Department of Homeland Security are working to synthesize these data sets into a “data lake” for investigators. The data — which includes information about American citizens — compiles information on past employers, addresses, the schools children are enrolled in and other information immigration advocates say could be used to faster locate those the administration wishes to deport. The government has denied in federal court that any of the data has yet been used to deport people but instead is only being used to ensure unauthorized immigrants are not fraudulently accessing benefits, including food stamps.
The upshot: There are concerns the data could be used unconstitutionally, as different agencies have different legal standards for how federal law enforcement can access their systems. There are also worries that this could discourage unauthorized immigrants and those in “mixed-status” families from paying taxes or accessing benefits they’re eligible to use regardless of their immigration status. It’s also an unprecedented erosion of the internal government firewalls protecting all Americans’ data and privacy advocates warn this ultimately exposes millions of Americans’ data to cyberattacks.
— Eric Bazail-Eimil
Higher Ed
The Trump administration overhauls college oversight
On the campaign trail, Trump vowed to fire the “radical left” organizations that oversee U.S. colleges and universities. Schools must be recognized by these organizations, known as accreditors, to receive federal financial aid. Trump and other Republicans have accused the organizations of being too left leaning, and want to bring new accreditors onto the market.
The move: The Education Department has appointed six new people with conservative policy backgrounds to a bipartisan committee known as the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, which provides recommendations to the department about whether to revoke, renew or give recognition to accreditors.
The impact: The group, now stacked with Trump administration appointees, elected its new chair — a former senior research fellow from the Heritage Foundation, the think tank that authored Project 2025, the conservative blueprint for a second Trump presidency.
The upshot: The new members of the committee seem to be largely aligned to the Trump administration’s policy goals, which include recognizing new accreditors. But some policy experts fear new accreditors will be more focused on cutting costs than properly overseeing colleges.
— Rebecca Carballo
Drugs
Psychedelics on the fast track
When Joe Biden was president, his health agencies studied psychedelic drugs’ medical potential, but an air of doubt prevailed. Under Trump's health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., advocates see an opportunity to win Food and Drug Administration approval for psychedelic medicine as a mental health treatment. Psychedelic medicine is a natural fit for Kennedy's Make America Healthy Again movement, which has long touted “natural” medicine over traditional mental health treatments, like anti-depressants. Advocates believe FDA approval of a psychedelic therapy, such as MDMA, also known as ecstasy, combined with talk therapy, would give millions of Americans with intractable mental illnesses additional treatment options.
The move: FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, including Reps. Jack Bergman (R-Mich.) and Lou Correa (D-Calif.), are working with Kennedy to fast-track psychedelic medicine research.
Kennedy is ramping up government-run clinical studies and told Congress last summer: "We are working very hard to make sure that that happens within 12 months."
The impact: A cultural shift is underway as Republicans jump on the psychedelic medicine bandwagon. As Kennedy ally and HHS special adviser Calley Means put it: "Ten years ago, nobody expected the Republican Party as the party of healthy food, as the party of exercise, as the party of questioning pharmaceutical companies, as the party of psychedelic research — but that’s where we are.”
The upshot: Even with FDA approval, which is far from guaranteed, barriers to bringing psychedelic medicine to the clinic remain. Health systems and insurers don't have a model for paying for medicine combined with talk therapy, and psychedelic trips can last for hours, meaning health care staff would have to be monitoring patients for long shifts. There are also health risks to consider. Most psychedelics are classified as Schedule I substances by the Drug Enforcement Administration, meaning they have high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. Were the FDA to approve one, it would need to be rescheduled by the DEA before doctors could prescribe it. The FDA rejected a drugmaker’s bid for approval of an MDMA and talk therapy regimen to treat PTSD in 2024 when Biden was president, finding it neither safe nor effective.
— Erin Schumaker
Science
Moving away from animal testing in government labs
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s agencies are harnessing science and technology in an effort to do less testing on animals and speed up chronic disease research, which is central to Kennedy's Make America Healthy Again agenda.
The move: The National Institutes of Health is spending $87 million on a project to develop a standardized alternative to animal testing. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention plans to shutter its primate labs and the Food and Drug Administration has put out a roadmap for phasing out animal testing.
The impact: Trump's efforts on animal testing have already won praise from animal-rights groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and MAGA influencer Laura Loomer. But some scientists and researchers worry the health department is moving too fast. Alternative models for animal testing, such as using lab-grown 3D tissue models that mimic the structure and function of human organs, aren't a feasible replacement for animals yet. A true alternative to animal testing, especially for complex fields, like neuroscience, is far off. Politically, the administration’s moves could gain the Trump administration additional support from people who care about animal rights, a group that's historically leaned left, and an opportunity to expand the MAGA-MAHA coalition.
The upshot: While many researchers agree that less animal testing is the right move in the long run and could ultimately prove faster and more efficient, dropping it too quickly could undermine critical research for human health, they warn.
— Sophie Gardner
Elections
Justice Department refuses to defend campaign spending limitation
Republicans are hoping to land a major campaign finance win at the Supreme Court, which could open the floodgates for millions in more ad spending before the midterms. The case, which was brought by Vice President JD Vance and the National Republican Senatorial Committee when Vance was a Senate candidate, challenged a law that limits coordination between parties and candidates.
The move: The Trump administration did not defend the Federal Election Commission in court. If Republicans win the case, political parties could more freely coordinate with candidates — and would also be entitled to lower TV advertising rates, flooding the airwaves with even more ads.
The impact: By choosing not to defend the rules, Trump’s Justice Department threw its weight behind the Republican plaintiffs. “In the Department’s view, the challenged provision violates political parties’ and candidates’ core First Amendment rights under the Court’s recent precedents on campaign-finance restrictions,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in a June 2025 letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson.
The upshot: The Supreme Court hasn’t decided yet, but if it rules in favor of the GOP, it will affect how tens of millions of dollars are spent in this year’s midterms — and how many ads flood the airwaves and the Internet in the months before November.
— Andrew Howard
Africa
Trump tried to dismantle Africa-focused U.S. agency
President Donald Trump’s effort to shrink the government has included an all-out assault on the U.S. foreign aid infrastructure that goes well beyond the headline-grabbing dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development. One small, lesser-known body Trump has tried to shut down is the U.S. African Development Foundation, which Congress established in 1980. USADF’s mission includes investing in African grassroots businesses to help spur economic development on the continent. The agency had faced some accusations of waste, fraud and abuse, however.
The move: Early in its tenure, the administration sent Trump loyalist Pete Marocco and members of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency to take over USADF’s governance and management systems, cancel its grants and essentially end its activities. Marocco and DOGE also helped shut down USAID.
The impact: USADF’s leaders took the administration to court. They argued that the administration had unlawfully appointed Marocco to lead the agency and that his actions there were invalid. The case is complicated: In the summer, a judge halted Marocco’s actions, but subsequent court rulings have given Marocco room to maneuver, and he’s tried to stop agency functions, according to court filings seen by POLITICO Magazine. For now, the USADF is effectively frozen. (Marocco did not respond to requests for comment.)
The upshot: USADF appears unlikely to survive Trump except on paper. That’s because conservatives on the Supreme Court have indicated they’re sympathetic to Trump’s legal argument in similar cases that the president should have significant power to hire and fire at government agencies, even if those agencies consider themselves “independent” as USADF does. That said, USADF is a small agency that could be resurrected by future presidents. Even the Trump administration could, in theory, decide a repurposed USADF can help it promote its preferred, more market-driven aid philosophy in Africa.
— Nahal Toosi
Imports
Small-dollar shipments lose their tariff exemption
Goods that cost less than $800 have long enjoyed an exemption from U.S. tariffs. But a backlash against the exemption has been growing, driven by a spike in those so-called “de minimis” shipments, particularly from China, as Americans gobbled up direct shipments from online retailers like Shein and Temu. As those shipments increased, drug smugglers and tax cheats also attempted to take advantage of the lack of duties and screening for those packages. Congress in July passed a law to end the exemption in 2027. But President Donald Trump wanted to move faster.
The move: In an April executive order, Trump eliminated the tariff exemption on Chinese goods — which accounted for more than half of all de minimis shipments into the U.S. between 2018 and 2021 — effective on May 2. In a separate move, he ended the exemption on goods shipped from all other countries beginning in late August.
The impact: Postal services in at least 25 countries temporarily halted shipments to the U.S. as they adapted to the abrupt shift in U.S. customs rules. Major shipping companies like FedEx, UPS and DHL also struggled to implement the new policy, and noted in quarterly earnings calls that the de minimis exemption contributed to the financial blow their businesses suffered from Trump’s high-tariff regime. Consumers who had grown accustomed to purchasing directly from companies based overseas were hit with higher prices, while small businesses struggled to decide how much of the tariff costs to pass on to their customers. Some companies included warnings about tariffs directly on their websites – marking one of the first tangible ways that Trump’s tariff policy began to affect daily life. Customs and Border Protection says it has collected $1 billion in tariff revenue from the shipment of low-cost goods since May 2025.
The upshot: Trade lanes are already beginning to shift, as some companies have moved away from sending packages directly to consumers and have instead become more reliant on shipping to warehouses based in the country. The total number of de minimis packages also decreased from 2024, when more than 1.36 billion low-value packages were shipped. The U.S. policy has also set a precedent for other countries; the European Union has announced a €3 flat tax on small packages starting next July.
— Daniel Desrochers
Golf Courses
Trump seizes control of D.C. public golf courses
President Donald Trump, a golf enthusiast with a rich assortment of courses already in his real estate portfolio, has been on a tear to renovate the nation’s capital. His next target appears to be the district’s three municipal golf courses, located on federal land and run by the nonprofit National Links Trust. In particular, he is eyeing the East Potomac Golf Links, located near the National Mall in the shadow of the Washington Monument. Privately, Trump has already met with top golf architects in hopes of redesigning D.C.’s public courses.
The move: In late October, the administration issued a default notice to the National Links Trust before yanking their lease just before the New Year. The administration claims the NLT defaulted on its lease by failing to maintain renovations.
The impact: For now, the NLT is continuing its operations, but it’s unclear if — or when — that will change. Already, a renovation project on one course has halted, and the NLT has retained attorneys to possibly fight off Trump’s takeover.
The upshot: This is the latest in a series of Trump’s moves to put his fingerprint on the capital city’s landmarks. Already, he’s rebranded the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and launched an unprecedented reconstruction of the White House’s East Wing. If Trump’s takeover goes through, local golfers fear losing access to a public and affordable place to play a sport that is often limited to those who can afford access to expensive and exclusive private clubs. This is particularly true for the Langston Golf Course, which opened in 1939 as the nation’s first course built specifically to serve Black golfers.
— Riya Misra
Pardons
Jan. 6 pardons extended to unrelated crimes
Trump kicked off his presidency with one of his boldest expansions of power to date: A blanket pardon for hundreds of people who stormed the Capitol in his name on Jan. 6, 2021. The mass pardon itself was extraordinary but the subtler, more radical gambit was what came next. Trump’s Justice Department went to court to argue that the pardon wasn’t just meant to cover crimes that occurred on Jan. 6 but could also cover unrelated crimes committed by Jan. 6 defendants that were uncovered during the investigation of the riot.
The move: The Jan. 6 pardon turned out to be a template. Trump issued a similarly sweeping pardon for his allies in his failed quest to subvert the 2020 election — including several identified as co-conspirators in the criminal cases brought by special counsel Jack Smith and prosecutors in Arizona and Georgia.
The impact: The broad, all-encompassing language of the pardons stretched the boundaries of the pardon power altogether. That’s because it largely left the discretion about who was pardoned to Trump’s subordinates, in particular Pardon Attorney Ed Martin. Experts said the pardon power has virtually never been exercised this way — for good reason. When a president grants clemency, what matters is his intent at the time he signs the document. This has already forced Trump to sign an unusual second pardon for a Jan. 6 defendant who claimed his unrelated gun crimes were covered by the pardon — only for several federal judges to disagree.
The upshot: Trump’s gambit is forcing courts to once again grapple with the limits of the president’s pardon power, creating new case law that could guide pardon authority well past Trump’s term.
— Kyle Cheney
Education
Using detailed college admissions data to back Trump’s DEI purge
The Trump administration has gone to great lengths to force U.S. schools at all levels to dismantle their diversity, equity and inclusion programs. The administration is now trying a new tactic to probe whether universities are discriminating against applicants based on race.
The move: The Trump administration has asked colleges to turn over data on the race and gender of people applying for admission to their schools, plus information on the students who are admitted and enrolled, as well as for specific graduate programs, starting this school year — data that will include students’ standardized test scores, GPAs and other applicant characteristics.
The impact: College officials are pleading with the administration to stop — or at least pause — this data collection effort. They are worried that they will not be able to submit accurate data by current deadlines and would need to hire more staff to do this work.
The upshot: If the Trump administration proceeds as planned, small colleges fear they will have to spend money they don’t have to comply with the data demands. Religious schools are among the objectors, with some arguing they are struggling to keep pace with increasing federal demands at a time when they are significantly short on resources. College leaders also fear the data could be used against them, spurring investigations and heightened scrutiny of their admissions decisions from the federal government.
— Bianca Quilantan
Oil
The Trump administration took over oil pipeline oversight from California
Sable Offshore Corp. has been struggling to get the regulatory greenlight to transport oil to shore from a trio of rigs it purchased off the Santa Barbara coast in February 2024. The pipeline that would carry the oil was responsible for the 2015 Refugio oil spill, after which its operator closed it down. Numerous state and local officials have come out against reopening the pipeline, and the California Office of the State Fire Marshal, one of the facility’s key overseers, notified the company in October that repair deficiencies were preventing a restart approval.
The move: In December, the U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration notified the California Fire Marshal that it determined that Sable’s pipeline should be considered “interstate” and thus the federal agency would be taking over regulatory authority going forward.
The impact: Investors embraced the news. The value of Sable’s stock rose 56 percent the day the company announced its new path to federal instead of state fire marshal oversight.
The upshot: The Trump administration has made it clear that offshore oil drilling politics will be a primary point of antagonism between federal officials, lined up behind the “drill, baby drill” mantra, and Golden State Democrats, who staunchly oppose expanding offshore drilling. While Sable will still have to grapple with other California agencies, by taking the state fire marshal off the board, the Trump administration has given a significant boost to the oil company’s efforts to restart its pipeline.
— Noah Baustin
Immigration
Every immigrant, both legal and illegal, is subject to detention
Trump took office vowing to detain and deport what he claimed were illegal, criminal immigrants. But in July, ICE quietly adopted a policy that radically transformed the treatment of all immigrants living in the United States: Rather than the presumption that they would live freely — unless an immigration judge determined they were dangerous or likely to flee their proceedings — ICE would instead classify them as “applicants for admission,” a legal designation that requires them to be locked up without the opportunity for bond.
The move: The new policy triggered a massive wave of arrests of people who have lived in the U.S. for years — sometimes decades — without incident, many of whom had previously been released on parole by prior administrations. That, in turn, sparked a relentless deluge of lawsuits brought by immigrants who say the new detention policy, a break from decades of practice, violated the law and their due process rights.
The impact: Courts have almost exclusively agreed with the immigrants’ position. Court records in thousands of cases reviewed by POLITICO reveal that more than 275 federal judges — who have ruled in more than 1,100 cases — have found the policy is resulting in illegal detentions. Just 13 have sided with the administration’s position.
The upshot: A nationwide class action backed by a federal judge in California could eventually impede the mass detention policy but hasn’t had a broad impact yet. Federal appeals courts are just beginning to grapple with the policy and will determine whether to allow it to continue in the same sweeping fashion that it has.
— Kyle Cheney
Federal Budget
Evading Congress’ “power of the purse”
Last summer White House budget director Russ Vought started talking publicly about using “pocket rescissions” to cancel federal cash without the approval of Congress, even though the federal government’s top watchdog and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle decried the tactic as illegal. Typically, when a president sends Congress a rescission request, the House and Senate affirm or reject it. If the request is transmitted with less than 45 days to go before the end of the fiscal year, Vought and other top Trump advisers argue the president can cancel the funding in question.
The move: In late August, just before lawmakers returned to Washington after a lengthy recess, the White House sent Congress a request to rescind $4.9 billion in foreign aid and simultaneously declared the cash canceled. A month later, the Supreme Court concluded Trump could continue withholding the money.
The impact: The move has escalated the funding battle between Trump and lawmakers in both parties as the president tests the bounds of Congress’ power to dictate how federal cash is spent. The maneuver directly contributed to the political tensions that resulted in the longest government shutdown in U.S. history this fall.
The upshot: If lawmakers don’t take action to prevent the president from using the tactic again, the executive branch’s power to control federal spending will be broadened at the expense of Congress’ “power of the purse.” That expansion of the president’s reach would, in turn, make it even harder for lawmakers to reach budget deals since the president could decide not to spend money one party promised to the other, invalidating their negotiations.
— Jennifer Scholtes
Sports
Giving the White House a role in sports policy
Dozens of countries have sports ministries, and dozens more have Cabinet-level federal agencies with an explicit mandate to promote and govern athletic activity both at home and abroad. The United States has never been one of them, but this year Donald Trump went further than any of his predecessors to giving sports policy a permanent home at the federal level.
The move: In March, Trump announced the formation of a White House World Cup Task Force composed of Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and eight cabinet members that will oversee preparations for next year’s tournament. Its executive director, Andrew Giuliani, a longtime Trump aide and the son of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani — may be the most senior federal official ever to be given a full-time sports portfolio in the United States. The task force’s senior adviser, former U.S. Soccer president Carlos Cordeiro, is FIFA President Gianni Infantino’s top guide to North America.
The impact: The task force has surged consular personnel to expedite visa processing, stood up a grant program to help local jurisdictions develop anti-drone security strategies to protect World Cup stadiums, and has been a vehicle for intergovernmental cooperation with tournament co-hosts Mexico and Canada. The task force serves as the point of contact for the 11 American host cities that can apply for federal reimbursement to offset their spending on security.
The upshot: The presence of a task force sets a precedent for potentially heavier federal involvement in future international sporting events in the U.S., including Olympics in 2028 and 2034 and the Women’s World Cup in 2031.
— Sophia Cai
Immigration
‘Dreamers’ lose health care in California and 18 other states
California has gradually been expanding public and private health insurance to undocumented immigrants for almost a decade. One population that gained access in 2024 were “Dreamers,” immigrants who were brought to the country as children. That group, who gained temporary legal status in 2012 under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, became eligible to buy subsidized health insurance through California's Obamacare marketplace, Covered California, the first undocumented immigrants allowed to do that since the passage of the Affordable Care Act.
The move: In June 2025, the Trump Administration changed the definition of “lawfully present” immigrants to no longer include DACA recipients, a reversal of a Biden-era rule. That means that DACA recipients in California and 18 other states are no longer eligible for Obamacare programs.
The impact: About 2,300 Dreamers in California and thousands more in other states had their private health insurance terminated in August. The group was mostly freelancers, and self-employed people who made too much to qualify for free health insurance through the state's Medicaid program and didn’t have insurance offered through work.
The upshot: The Dreamers’ insurance terminations in August were the tip of the iceberg as Trump policies force more and more immigrants off insurance. It killed an idea of opening the marketplace to all undocumented immigrants to buy private insurance, something that had traction in the state a few years earlier. Threats of immigration enforcement have made enrolling in Medicaid riskier for undocumented Californians.
— Rachel Bluth
Housing
Permanent housing for the homeless may be cut by more than half
Recent administrations, including the first Trump administration, have generally followed an approach to homelessness called “Housing First” — people are provided permanent housing first, along with voluntary supportive services, instead of requiring them to first tackle other problems like drug addiction. Advocates argue that it’s hard for people experiencing homelessness to solve other problems in their lives without the safety that comes from permanent housing. The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Continuum of Care program has used federal dollars to partner with local organizations to connect people experiencing homelessness to housing and resources — primarily through permanent housing.
The move: For 2026, HUD has moved to shift more than half of the funding in its Continuum of Care program away from permanent housing and moved it instead to transitional housing and services. The policy change remains in limbo as litigation continues in federal court.
The impact: The funding change could put more than 170,000 people already in permanent housing at risk of homelessness as the policy change takes effect. Any cuts to permanent housing will be implemented through the grant application process.
The upshot: Depending on the outcome of the two lawsuits, the Continuum of Care program’s focus will shift dramatically by focusing a majority of its funding on transitional housing, with a two-year limit for residents, and accompanying services. Additionally, those living in permanent housing may be forced to leave if the community organizations running the units do not receive funding on time or at all.
— Katherine Hapgood
Education
Federal education grants expanded to short-term workforce programs
President Donald Trump has promised to bolster workforce programs and pathways that don’t necessarily lead to a four-year degree. In response, the GOP’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act created the Workforce Pell program, which expanded how the Pell Grant — a financial aid grant reserved for low-income students — can be used to pay for short-term workforce training programs.
The move: The Trump administration and a committee of representatives across the higher education community reached a deal in December over how to implement the new grants. Under the new provisions, Pell Grants can now be used to fund training programs that are a minimum of eight weeks but less than 15 weeks and offer certificates or credentials.
The impact: Several hundred to a few thousand programs could qualify for the new grants, depending on how community colleges and for-profit schools react and how states label high-demand industries such as health, childcare and commercial driving.
The upshot: An Education Department official said the agency would be ready to accept applications for the new grants by the July 1 deadline established by Congress. But when the money actually starts going out the door remains an open question.
— Rebecca Carballo
Health Care
Guardrails on health data removed for AI
In early January 2025, the Department of Health and Human Services published an artificial intelligence strategy that called for flexible regulation to spur AI innovation in the health care space while also putting safeguards around potential harms. It suggested using public-private partnerships to design guardrails for using AI in medical product development, health care delivery and public health initiatives like disease surveillance.
The move: The Trump administration threw out the Biden-era AI strategy, fired two people hired to implement it and rushed out AI tools across the department. Trump’s HHS says it wants providers, insurers and electronic medical record companies to share patient data— the fuel AI needs to work — with the wider health care market.
The impact: Some 400 electronic health record companies, insurers, health systems and startups promised to create AI tools to improve Americans' health, starting with giving patients access to their own health data. In the first quarter of 2026, Medicare patients will be able to access and share their medical records with a simple QR code. However, the Trump administration's AI agenda is already running into challenges. One example: The Food and Drug Administration promised to use AI to shorten the review process for drugs and devices. But the agency missed review deadlines for at least three companies so far this year.
The upshot: While doctor and hospital advocacy organizations seem to welcome looser health care compliance requirements, they also want AI that’s safe for patients. The health care industry, which is heavily regulated, isn’t convinced that a no-rules AI approach is right. Some health industry experts believe a lawless environment may make health care providers too nervous to adopt the technology.
— Ruth Reader
English (US)