Political Awareness

Note: Political Awareness’s published communication is never authorized by any candidate or their committees.

Policy roundup is a section to explain what legislation is currently being considered in Congress, the cases held by the Supreme Court, and actions taken by the Executive branch each week. The goal of this column is to break down the important legislation to help our readers better understand how current happenings in the federal government can and will affect their lives as well as what they can do to help influence their representatives’ actions. 

Bills of Note Coming to the Floor in Congress~

H.R. 3898: Promoting Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today Act or the PERMIT Act

The House Majority Leader indicated on July 2, 2025, that this bill may be considered in the week ahead.

Summary of bill: 

This bill limits the scope of the Clean Water Act by redefining navigable waters to exclude:  

(1) waste treatment systems, 

(2) ephemeral features that flow only in direct response to precipitation, 

(3) prior converted cropland, 

(4) groundwater, or 

(5) any other features determined to be excluded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The PERMIT Act bundles together several permitting reforms aimed at modernizing, speeding up, and reducing legal complexity in Clean Water Act reviews. Highlights include:

• Streamlining 404 and 402 permitting processes (including dredge/fill permits and discharge permits)
• Codifying WOTUS exclusions for clarity and consistency 
• Extending Nationwide Permit durations from 5 to 10 years 
• Setting a 60-day limit on judicial challenges to Section 404 permits 
• Restricting the EPA’s veto authority on Corps permits outside the standard permitting window 
• Charging the Corps to clear the backlog of jurisdictional determinations 
• Clarifying state and federal coordination (e.g., via FPISC dashboards) 

Who supports/opposes?

Support:

• Industry groups: U.S. Chamber of Commerce, cement, concrete, asphalt, gravel associations—argue it brings clarity and speeds up infrastructure & energy project development 
• Builders’ groups (NAHB): Praise predictability for housing and infrastructure permits
• Explosives industry (IME): Sees boost for mining, construction, energy sectors 

Opposition

• Environmental advocates: Clean Water Action, environmental groups warn it “weakens Clean Water Act protections,” nickname it the “Permission to Pollute Act.” 
• Democratic lawmakers: Argue it “puts polluters over people” and undercuts protections for streams, wetlands, and groundwater

Sponsor:

• Mike Collins: Representative for Georgia’s 10th congressional district. Republican.

H.R. 1717: Communications Security Act

The House Majority Leader indicated on July 8, 2025, that this bill may be considered in the week ahead.

Summary of bill: 

To direct the Federal Communications Commission to establish a council to make recommendations on ways to increase the security, reliability, and interoperability of communications networks, and for other purposes.

Formally Establishes a Permanent Advisory Council

• Codifies a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) advisory council focused on communications network security, reliability, and interoperability.
• Replaces the currently temporary “Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council” (CSRIC).

Defines Who Can Serve on the Council

• Requires diverse membership from:

• Communications industry (excluding “not trusted” companies).
• Public interest groups or academic institutions.
• Federal, state, local, and tribal governments (with at least one rep from each).

Excludes “Not Trusted” Entities

• Bars companies deemed national security threats (e.g., Huawei or ZTE) from participating.
• Uses the same criteria as the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 for identifying “untrusted” entities.

Requires Regular Public Reporting

• Mandates the council submit a public report every 2 years to the FCC Chair.
• Reports must be posted on the FCC’s public website for transparency.

Makes the Council Exempt from Expiration

• Overrides the Federal Advisory Committee Act’s 2-year sunset clause, meaning the council won’t automatically disband unless Congress acts to do so.
• Creates a standing body for long-term oversight and guidance.

Gives FCC Ongoing Access to Expert Security Advice

• Ensures continuity of advice to help FCC address:

• Cybersecurity risks.
• Interoperability challenges.
• Resilience of communications infrastructure.

Sponsor: 

• Robert Jacobsen Menendez: Representative for New Jersey’s 8th congressional district. Democrat.

H.R. 1618: Precision Agriculture Satellite Connectivity Act

Summary of bill: 

To require the Federal Communications Commission to review certain rules of the Commission and develop recommendations for rule changes to promote precision agriculture, and for other purposes.

What the Bill Does: 

1. Mandates FCC Review

• Directs the Federal Communications Commission to review its rules related to fixed satellite service, mobile satellite service, and earth exploration satellite service to identify opportunities to enhance precision agriculture support 

1. Consultation Requirement

• Requires the FCC to consult with the Precision Agriculture Task Force, established by the 2018 Farm Bill, to inform its review 

1. Develop Recommendations

• If the FCC identifies rule changes that promote precision ag, it must develop recommendations for implementation 

1. 15-Month Report to Congress

• FCC must submit a written report to both the House Energy & Commerce Committee and the Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee within 15 months of enactment, including recommended changes 

Support & Opposition: 

Support

• Bipartisan backing: Sponsored by Rep. Bob Latta (R‑OH) and Rep. Robin Kelly (D‑IL), advancing via voice vote in committee 
• Farm advocacy: Rep. Latta emphasized the need for 21st-century technology to maintain crop yields and efficiency.Rep. Kelly highlighted precision ag’s value for family-owned farms 

Mixed Reactions from Farmers: 

Some farmers point out that the bill is grandstanding from politicians and is just more red tape from the FCC. Others point out skepticism  on whether satellite-focused solutions really help farmers and criticize the bill as a way to hook up farm equipment to Starlink and therefore a way to make more money for Elon Musk 

Executive Actions of Note~

Trump Hosts Netanyahu, Sparks Protests in U.S. and Israel

On July 7, President Trump welcomed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for a private White House dinner. Netanyahu surprised observers by nominating Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. The meeting was officially framed around cease-fire prospects in Gaza and U.S. policy in the region, but it drew heavy backlash. Protests erupted in both Washington and Tel Aviv, with critics accusing Trump of uncritically supporting Israel’s actions in Gaza. Demonstrators outside the White House condemned the administration’s posture as morally and diplomatically reckless.

Trump Threatens Allies with Surprise Tariff Letters

On July 8, Trump sent unilateral letters to 14 countries—mostly in Asia, including Japan and South Korea—threatening up to 40% tariffs unless they met U.S. trade goals. These letters were issued without diplomatic consultation, alarming foreign governments. Japanese and South Korean officials privately expressed “shock and frustration,” calling the move disrespectful and destabilizing. Trade experts warned this could damage long-standing alliances. Critics noted that Trump’s approach signaled a preference for coercion over collaboration in foreign economic relations.

Executive Orders: Hiring Freeze, Energy Rollbacks, and New Tariffs

Also on July 7, Trump signed three major executive orders. The first imposed a new federal hiring freeze, targeting civilian agencies for budget tightening. The second eliminated several clean energy tax credits established under the Inflation Reduction Act, drawing criticism from environmental groups. The third approved a 25% tariff on imports from Japan and South Korea, aligning with Trump’s broader trade escalation strategy. White House officials claimed these actions were necessary for national economic security.

Kerr County Flooding: 

Devastating flash floods in Central Texas have led to ongoing search-and-rescue efforts as emergency teams work to locate missing individuals, particularly near Camp Mystic. The disaster exposed critical failures in the region’s warning infrastructure—no flood sirens were installed, and residents received little or no advance notice. Investigations revealed that FEMA had overlooked key flood risks in the area, and local authorities lacked sufficient forecasting tools due to underfunding.

The situation has renewed criticism of both federal and state preparedness, highlighting a broader pattern of missed opportunities to invest in flood warning systems in one of the most flood-prone regions in the country. Calls are growing for urgent improvements in emergency response coordination, infrastructure upgrades, and accountability in disaster planning. Funding opportunities for at-risk communities are becoming increasingly scarce. The Trump administration has frozen or eliminated billions of dollars previously allocated for disaster preparedness. A new executive order shifts the burden of funding these efforts to individual states, moving away from traditional federal support.

Supreme Court Rulings~

Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), et al.

Factual Background:

In February 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14210, directing a significant reduction in the federal workforce across various agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture, Education, and Veterans Affairs. The goal was to eliminate what the administration termed “waste, bloat, and insularity” within the federal government. This directive led to the planning of mass layoffs and restructuring efforts.

Labor unions, nonprofit organizations, and local governments, including the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of California, challenging the executive order. They argued that the president exceeded his constitutional authority by initiating such widespread personnel actions without congressional approval, potentially violating the separation of powers doctrine.

Legal Questions Presented:

Presidential Authority Over Federal Workforce:

• Does the President possess the constitutional authority to unilaterally initiate large-scale reductions in the federal workforce, or must such actions be authorized by Congress?

Separation of Powers:

• Does the executive order infringe upon the legislative branch’s authority over federal employment matters, thereby breaching the separation of powers principle?

Scope of Judicial Review:

• Should the judiciary intervene in matters of federal workforce reductions, or are such decisions within the exclusive purview of the executive branch?

Procedural History:

District Court: On May 9, 2025, Judge Susan Illston issued a temporary restraining order, halting the implementation of the executive order. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the president lacked authority to enact such widespread personnel changes without congressional authorization.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: On May 30, 2025, the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s decision, maintaining the injunction against the executive order.

Supreme Court: On July 8, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an emergency order lifting the lower courts’ injunctions, allowing the Trump administration to proceed with the planned federal workforce reductions.

In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration, lifting the injunctions that had blocked the implementation of the executive order. Notably, the Court’s unsigned opinion stated that the government was “likely to succeed” in its argument that the executive order and associated memoranda from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management were within the president’s constitutional authority.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing that the lower courts were better positioned to assess the factual record and determine whether the executive order constituted a significant restructuring of the federal government requiring congressional approval.

Legal Implications:

Expansion of Executive Authority: The ruling potentially broadens the scope of presidential power concerning federal workforce management, allowing for significant personnel changes without explicit congressional authorization.

Separation of Powers Considerations: 

The decision may prompt further debate on the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, particularly concerning control over federal employment matters.

Precedential Value: 

This case could serve as a precedent for future executive actions involving substantial changes to the federal workforce, influencing the extent to which such actions can be undertaken without legislative consent.

Current Status:

While the Supreme Court’s decision permits the Trump administration to proceed with the planned federal workforce reductions, the underlying legal challenges to the executive order remain ongoing. Plaintiffs, including labor unions and local governments, continue to seek judicial intervention, potentially leading to further legal proceedings in lower courts.