Educational

Making retirement planning errors at any time, but especially when there’s economic uncertainty
and market volatility, can create difficulties in achieving your long-term goals. Here are five
common, and potentially costly, mistakes you’ll want to avoid.

1. Getting out of the market after a downturn
   When the market takes a big hit, you may be tempted to sell investments in your retirement
   portfolio and hold the proceeds in cash. If you do, you may miss the gains if the market suddenly
   turns around.
   
   Consider taking a long-term approach by keeping a strategic mix of asset classes in your
   portfolio: stocks, bonds, and cash alternatives. The combination that’s right for you will depend
   on a variety of factors, including how comfortable you are with market volatility (risk tolerance),
   what you’re investing for (objectives), and how long before you’ll need to tap into your accounts
   (time horizon).
   
   And think about periodically rebalancing by checking your accounts to see if market activity has
   shifted your investments away from your desired asset allocation. If it has, you may want to buy
   and sell investments to bring your accounts back into alignment.

2. Not taking full advantage of retirement accounts
   Consider contributing up to the maximum allowable amount into your qualified employer-
   sponsored retirement plan (QRP), such as a 401(k), 403(b), or governmental 457(b) plan. This
   can help fund your retirement as well as reduce your taxable income.
   
   If you are unable to contribute the maximum amount and your employer offers a matching
   contribution, try to contribute at least as much as the match — otherwise, you are leaving free
   money on the table.

3. Buying too much of your company’s stock
   If your employer’s stock is an investment choice in your 401(k), you might want to consider
   limiting the amount you own. With your salary already tied to your company’s fortunes, you
   may not want a sizable part of your retirement savings to be similarly dependent.

4. Borrowing from your retirement plan
   Many QRPs offer loans to participants. Unless you need the money for an emergency, try not to
   use this option. Borrowing can be an expensive choice in two ways:

In addition, cashing out of your 401(k) when you move to a new employer might be costly.
Know your distribution options when changing jobs.

5. Underestimating the cost and length of retirement
   Some crucial factors to take into account:

• Longevity: If you retire around age 65, you could spend 25 years in retirement. As a result, you may need to save enough to last that long, or longer.
• Health care: Even with Medicare, you could have expenses for supplemental insurance, some prescription drugs, and nursing home care.
• Lifestyle sticker shock: Retirees may need approximately 80% of their preretirement income each year.

A financial advisor can help educate you regarding your options so you can decide which ones
make the most sense for your specific situation.

This advertisement was written by Wells Fargo and provided to you by John Nelson.

This article has been prepared for informational purposes only and is not a solicitation or an offer to buy any security or
instrument or to participate in any trading strategy. Investing involves risk including the possible loss of principle. Asset
allocation cannot eliminate the risk of fluctuating prices and uncertain returns. The accuracy and completeness of this information
is not guaranteed and is subject to change. Since each investor’s situation is unique you need to review your specific investment
objectives, risk tolerance, and liquidity needs with your financial professional(s) before an appropriate investment strategy can be
selected. Also, since our firm does not provide tax or legal advice, investors need to consult with their own tax and legal advisors
before taking any action that may have tax or legal consequences.

Educational

Dear MBEs,

As we look ahead to the coming year, the landscape for Minority Business Enterprises (MBEs) is shifting in ways that require both vigilance and proactive adaptation. Recent developments at the federal level have introduced new challenges that we must address head-on.

On January 22, 2025, President Donald Trump’s administration directed all federal employees involved in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs to be placed on paid administrative leave, with plans to eliminate these positions by the end of the month.

This directive mandates the closure of all DEI offices and the termination of related initiatives across federal agencies.

This action is part of a broader effort to dismantle DEI programs within the federal government, which the administration has criticized as discriminatory and wasteful. The executive order also aims to end affirmative action in federal contracting, emphasizing a return to “merit-based” hiring practices.

These federal changes mirror recent trends in the private sector, where several major corporations, including Ford, Walmart, and Lowe’s, have scaled back or eliminated their DEI initiatives. This convergence of public and private sector shifts underscores a significant transformation in the support systems that have aimed to benefit MBEs in recent years.

The message we’ve received is clear: we cannot afford to depend solely on programs or government policies to ensure our success.

At the Council, we understand the frustration and concern these developments may cause. It’s natural to feel uncertain when support systems evolve or diminish. However, it is precisely in these moments that MBEs must rise to the challenge.

The reality is that certification as a Minority Business Enterprise has never guaranteed success. A certification might open doors, but it is the quality of your product or service that keeps those doors open. It is your work ethic, innovation, and ability to deliver exceptional value that will sustain and grow your business in any environment. As we reflect on the lessons of the past and face the realities of the present, this truth has never been more critical.

For the year ahead, I urge MBEs to focus on the following:

• Excellence in Delivery: Ensure your products and services meet and exceed the expectations of your clients. Quality will always be your most reliable advocate.
• Adaptability: Markets evolve, and customer needs change. Stay attuned to these shifts and position your business to address emerging opportunities.
• Building Relationships: Cultivate strong relationships with clients, partners, and stakeholders. Trust and credibility are earned through consistency and results.
• Strategic Investment: Invest in your business—whether it’s through technology, training, or expanding your network. Be prepared to compete and excel in any economic climate.
• Advocacy and Unity: While individual effort is essential, collective action remains powerful. Engage with organizations like the NY & NJ Minority Supplier Development Council to ensure your voice is heard and your interests are represented.

The political and economic landscape may shift, but the principles of good business remain constant. Let’s commit to building enterprises that are not only minority-owned but also universally respected for their excellence and impact. By focusing on what we can control—the quality of our work and the strength of our business practices—we will not only survive but thrive, regardless of external challenges.

Educational

Standing Together: Applauding Costco’s Leadership in DEI

In a time when Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) are facing unprecedented challenges, Costco has shown us what real leadership looks like. While many companies are scaling back their commitments under pressure, Costco has stood firm, showing the world that staying true to your values isn’t just about business, it’s about people, communities, and doing what’s right.

Across the country, we’ve seen over 80 anti-DEI bills introduced, with many becoming law. This political climate has made it easier for organizations to retreat and abandon the progress we’ve worked so hard to achieve but Costco is proving that integrity is non-negotiable. By keeping DEI at the heart of its mission, Costco is showing all of us that inclusion drives not only better outcomes for communities but also stronger, more sustainable businesses.

As the regional affiliate minority supplier development councils, we see firsthand the impact that corporate commitments to equity have on minority businesses and the communities they serve. That’s why we celebrate Costco’s courage and leadership. Their stance is a reminder that progress takes persistence and that standing up for what’s right isn’t always easy, but it’s always worth it.

Educational

Did You Know?

“The 2025 Presidential Transition Project is the conservative movement’s unified effort to be ready for the next conservative Administration to govern at 12:00 noon, January 20, 2025.”

Chapter 22 of Project 2025, which begins on page 691, focuses on the specific recommendations to reorganize and refocus the Department of Treasury. Chapter 15, beginning on page 503, proposes significant reorganization of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Who Wrote It?
Project 2025 is more than just a policy blueprint. It includes robust recruiting, vetting, and staffing components designed to fill roles to begin implementing the policy initiatives on “day 1.” It is important to identify the authors of the agency chapters, as they are the people likely positioned to take leadership roles at the same Federal agencies they are writing about, and to intentionally implement these recommendations as part of the upcoming administration.

William L. Walton, host of The Bill Walton Show, is the former Chairman of the Board and CEO of the private investment firm, Allied Capital Corporation; and is the immediate past President of the Council for National Policy.

Stephen Moore is a senior economist at FreedomWorks, the libertarian policy group that recently shut down after an ideological split with the Trump campaign. He is also a Distinguished Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, and a Fox News analyst.

David R. Burton is the Senior Fellow in Economic Policy at The Heritage Foundation. Previously, Burton was General Counsel at the National Small Business Association; and manager of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Tax Policy Center.

Benjamin S. Carson, Sr., MD, is the Founder and Chairman of the American Cornerstone Institute and previously served as the 17th Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Department of Treasury:
Anti-Money Laundering Reporting (AML): The document recommends reforming the AML and beneficial ownership reporting systems to “reduce compliance burdens. This new rule went into effect at the beginning of this year which requires businesses to file a report identifying a “beneficial owner” as an individual who owns or controls at least 25 percent of a company or has substantial control over the company, and a “company applicant report” which names the person who files the document that creates or registers the company. The intent of this filing, which was a part of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), is designed to fight the illicit use of shell companies created by Russian, Chinese, Cartels, and others to launder money. To do so, a whole range of small businesses (totaling approx. 35 million) now must register with FinCEN who their “beneficial owner” is (i.e., people who own 25% or more of the company or substantially control its decisions). While Project 2025 claims that the recommendations are aimed to make it easier for small enterprises to manage regulatory requirements without undue administrative costs, for most small businesses this would only be a one-time filing with FinCEN.

Tax Reform for Small Business Growth: Treasury’s role in tax reform includes ensuring that small businesses benefit from lower taxes and simplified filing processes. The proposal includes a number of provisions that would be significantly advantageous to small and minority business owners who are able to effectively utilize the new structures:

• Two-Rate Individual Tax System (15% and 30%) – Simplifies the tax code into two rates making it easier for business owners that are sole proprietors (e.g. S-corporations; individually owned LLCs, etc.) or are taxed at the individual rate.
• Reduced Deductions, Credits, and Exclusions: The proposal eliminating most deductions, credits, and exclusions may negatively affect small businesses that rely on certain deductions to offset costs. Minority-owned businesses that depend on specific tax credits, such as those for hiring in disadvantaged areas, may face increased tax liabilities.
• Corporate Income Tax Rate Reduced to 18% – A significant benefit for larger firms, the proposal would lower the corporate income tax rate to 18%, generating significant benefit to small businesses structured as corporations by reducing the overall tax burden on profits, thus creating opportunities to expand operations, hire employees, and enhancing business sustainability and creating new opportunities. However, in exchange, the proposal would eliminate most deductions, credits, and exclusions which may negatively affect small businesses that rely on certain deductions to offset costs. Minority-owned businesses that depend on specific tax credits, such as those for hiring in disadvantaged areas, may face increased tax liabilities.
• Immediate Expensing for Capital Expenditures – Currently set to expire in 2025, this would allow the immediate expensing of capital expenditures, incentivizing companies to invest in new equipment and technology. Immediate expensing has been a useful tool, particularly for small firms aiming to improve cash flow by providing deductions upfront.
• Universal Savings Accounts (USAs) – Similar to Roth IRA’s, these accounts would allow business owners to save and invest their post-tax earnings with tax advantages where gains from these accounts would be non-taxable;
• Increased Business Loss Limitation – Provides an opportunity to write off higher losses, up to $500,000, which would benefit small businesses that are in the early stages of growth and may incur losses.
• Net Operating Loss Carry Forward – Allows businesses to fully carry forward net operating losses, enabling them to offset future profits and reduce tax burdens in better-performing years; and
• Repeal of Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) Taxes – Repeals taxes such as the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax, which requires corporations with over $1B pay a minimum 15% tax rate, and the stock buyback excise tax, which applies a 1% tax on corporate stock buybacks to encourage reinvesting profits in productive activities versus simply increasing shareholder returns.

Capital Access and Investment Programs. Treasury would refocus programs, such as the Small Business Investment Company (SBIC), to support small businesses across various sectors, not just technology startups. While this is intended to ensure small businesses in manufacturing and capital intensive industries have improved access to funding, it would significantly reduce the amount of capital available to promote the growth of small and minority owned businesses in the industries of the future that are heavily technology-driven.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD):

The proposed reforms to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) outlined in Project 2025 claim to focus on reducing bureaucratic overreach and promote self-sufficiency. Yet, they also promote conservative social-design methodologies that carry risks of exacerbating housing instability, increasing inequality, weakening fair housing protections, and overburdening local governments. Provisions, such as privatizing public housing or shifting housing decision-making from the federal government to the states, could have lasting negative consequences for vulnerable populations, local economies, and housing markets.

Shifting Housing Program Functions transfer many HUD functions to other federal agencies, states, or localities, reducing HUD’s role in administering housing programs. While the “decentralized” model allows state and local governments more flexibility in designing and implementing housing policies based on local needs, this could result in a significant decline in affordable housing and inequitable enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. This devolution could weaken federal oversight and standardization of housing assistance, leaving it to state and local authorities to determine eligibility, funding, and implementation strategies for housing programs.

Privatization of Public Housing recommends the potential sale of public housing stock, shifting ownership and management from the public sector to private entities. It also shifts from federally-owned public housing units to voucher-based systems like the Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) program, thereby reducing the direct role of HUD in managing public housing while increasing reliance on private landlords and market-based solutions for low-income housing needs.

Limiting the Scope of HUD’s Role in Housing Development: Limits HUD’s involvement in constructing new affordable housing or managing public housing portfolios and relies more on private sector development and management of housing units.

Encouraging Localized Solutions for Housing Assistance: Allows local governments to pursue housing policies that reflect their own priorities, without interference from federal programs or mandates – including prohibitions on discrimination against minorities, people with disabilities, or other protected classes.

Eliminating or Scaling Back Specific Federal Housing Programs: Project 2025 proposes to repeal programs like the Housing Supply Fund and reducing the use of federal mandates such as Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) and other civil rights protections. This could reduce oversight of discriminatory housing practices, reduce federal ability to increase housing supplies, and further shift decision-making to the private sector.

Roll back equity-driven policies: The weakening of fair housing enforcement and the rollback of regulations aimed at promoting diversity and equity in housing and development projects could further exacerbate existing inequalities in the contracting process. As a result, minority-owned businesses, particularly those in construction, maintenance, and housing services, may struggle to maintain their foothold in the market under the proposed reforms.

Conclusion
Overall, Project 2025’s proposed policies could lead to reduced support, increased competition, and greater economic challenges for minority-owned businesses. The elimination of affirmative action and minority-focused programs, combined with broader deregulation and changes to labor laws, may potentially create a more challenging environment for these businesses to thrive and compete. The proposal includes plans to abandon affirmative action and minority contracting programs that have historically provided critical opportunities for minority-owned businesses to compete for and secure government contracts. The attack on regulatory protections for minority businesses would remove protections that help ensure fair competition and prevent discriminatory practices.

Specifically, the proposals to reform the Department of Treasury and HUD could have profound negative impacts on minority communities and minority-owned businesses by reducing federal oversight, reducing the corporate tax rate which disproportionately benefits large firms, weakening fair housing enforcement, rolling back regulations aimed at promoting equity, and exacerbating existing economic and social inequalities. Minority communities would face increased housing instability, diminished upward mobility, and greater exposure to discriminatory practices. For minority-owned businesses, particularly those in construction, housing services, and other industries tied to federal contracts, the shift toward privatization, reduced government support, and the elimination of affirmative action programs could lead to fewer opportunities, increased competition from larger firms, and greater economic vulnerability. Overall, the proposed changes will unfortunately deepen disparities and hinder the economic progress of minority groups across the country.

Educational

Did You Know?

“The 2025 Presidential Transition Project is the conservative movement’s unified effort to be ready for the next conservative Administration to govern at 12:00 noon, January 20, 2025.”

Chapter 21 of Project 2025, beginning on page 663, focuses on the strategies to transform the Department of Commerce and Chapter 23, beginning on page 717, discusses the plans for the Export Import Bank. These sections continue the structural changes and policy initiatives that redirects agency initiatives and resources towards conservative philosophical objectives.

Who Wrote It?
Project 2025 is more than just a policy blueprint. It is also includes robust recruiting, vetting, and staffing components designed to fill roles and begin implementing the policy initiatives on “day 1.” It is important to identify the authors of the agency chapters, as they are the people likely positioned to take leadership roles in an upcoming Administration, at the same Federal agencies they are writing about, to implement these recommendations.

Thomas F. Gilman served as Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Administration and Chief Financial Officer of the U.S. Department of Commerce in the Trump Administration and former CEO of Chrysler Financial. Currently, he is a Director of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) and Chairman of Torngat Metals.

Veronique de Rugy is the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. She is the author of a weekly opinion column for the Creators Syndicate, writes regular columns for Reason magazine, and blogs about economics at National Review’s The Corner.

Department of Commerce:
In Project 2025: A Mandate for Leadership, significant changes are recommended for the U.S. Department of Commerce, focusing on reducing its size, shifting priorities, and countering perceived inefficiencies. The overarching goal of these recommendations is to align the Department of Commerce with a conservative agenda, streamline its functions, and focus more on supporting American businesses and national security concerns. While some of these goals are positive, such as a refocused effort around competitiveness with China, many of the proposals would politicize the department and reduce the effectiveness or completely eliminate many offices focused on environmental protection and economic development for underserved communities.

Abolishing the Economic Development Administration (EDA)

The EDA is charged with investing in communities to encourage and enable growth and innovation in the private sector, with particular focus on distressed or underserved areas. Their investment priorities provide an overarching framework to ensure its competitive grant investment portfolio – ranging from planning to infrastructure construction — contributes to local efforts to build, improve, or better leverage economic assets that allow businesses to succeed and regional economies to prosper and become more
resilient.

The plan suggests eliminating the EDA, which the author considered “wasteful,” and distributing many of its services to the private sector. This is consistent with the agenda that has been driven by the Heritage Foundation since its inception, which strongly opposes many of the principles that drive EDA’s investment decisions, including:

1. Equity: Economic development planning or implementation projects that advance equity across America through investments that directly benefit one or more traditionally underserved populations, including but not limited to women, Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders or underserved communities within geographies that have been systemically and/or systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic prosperity such as Tribal Lands, Persistent Poverty Counties, and rural areas with demonstrated, historical under service.
2. Environmentally-Sustainable Development: Economic development planning or implementation projects that help address the climate crisis including through the development and implementation of green products, green processes, including green infrastructure, green buildings, and green places, including an emphasis on density in the vicinity of the development.

Dismantling the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

One of the most substantial recommendations is to break up NOAA with its functions being privatized, eliminated, or transferred to other agencies or to the states. Intending to pessimistically disclaim climate science and attack what the authors describe as the “climate change alarm industry,” this would undermine critical climate and weather-related services. This is particularly dangerous given the recent destruction realized by millions of Americans affected by hurricane Helene and many other storms strengthened by climate change. The Biden Administration’s acknowledgement of the disproportionate impact climate change has on underserved communities and has utilized NOAA to implement twelve (12) of the Department of Commerce’s thirteen (13) Justice 40 Initiative programs.

Export/Import Bank
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM) facilitates international trade for businesses of all sizes across the nation, offering a range of tailored financing solutions and export credit insurance programs designed to mitigate risks and enhance competitiveness. Through its working capital loan guarantees, EXIM assists businesses to secure financing from lenders, using their export-related accounts receivable and inventory as collateral. This access to working capital empowers businesses to fulfill large export orders, expand their international presence, and take advantage of growth opportunities abroad. EXIM also offers export credit insurance to protect businesses against nonpayment by foreign buyers, giving businesses the confidence to explore new markets and extend credit terms to international customers, without the fear of financial loss due to default.

EXIM has dedicated programs specifically designed to increase participation among minority- and women-owned businesses, ensuring they can access international markets. For example, on April 19, 2024 EXIM Bank announced the launch of an innovative new product, developed with the Bank’s Minority and Women-Owned Business Division (MWOB), to support and empower MWOB companies to grow their export business: Equity Express Select: Grow Revenues Through Exports with EXIM. Equity Express Select’s (EQS) in-house customer service team will guide companies through every step of the process, from explaining policy benefits and reviewing qualifications to streamlining the application and addressing any concerns you may have along the way. Some of the benefits of the new program/ include:

• 95% coverage of invoices
• Whole-turnover, insures any buyers getting credit from exporter
• EXIM reviews and approves all buyers
• No deductible
• No application or policy issuance fees
• Dedicated in-house servicing team
• Pay-as-you-ship premiums

If Project 2025’s proposal to abolish the Export-Import Bank (EXIM) were implemented, it would remove this key source of financing and risk mitigation that supports the international expansion of small and minority-owned firms. that rely on these loan guarantees and export credit insurance to compete globally, especially when traditional financing is unavailable. Without EXIM, minority-owned businesses might struggle to access the necessary capital to explore overseas markets, reducing their ability to grow and diversify their revenue streams.

Conclusion
Overall, Project 2025’s proposed policies could lead to reduced support, increased competition, and greater economic challenges for minority-owned businesses. The elimination of affirmative action and minority-focused programs, combined with broader deregulation and changes to labor laws, could create a more challenging environment for these businesses to thrive and compete. The proposal includes plans to abandon affirmative action and minority contracting programs that have historically provided critical opportunities for minority-owned businesses to compete for and secure government contracts.

The attack of regulatory protections for minority businesses would remove protections that help ensure fair competition and prevent discriminatory practices. Finally, small and minority-owned businesses, already more financially vulnerable, are likely to face greater challenges in a market increasingly dominated by larger corporations with more resources.​

Educational

Did You Know?

“The 2025 Presidential Transition Project is the conservative movement’s unified effort to be ready for the next conservative Administration to govern at 12:00 noon, January 20, 2025.”

This document, coordinated by the Heritage Foundation is not simply a “wish list of ideas”
Chapter 25 of Project 25, beginning on page 745, focuses on the strategies to transform the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) into the vision of conservative thought leaders and former government officials, outlining specific policy initiatives that the SBA should refocus their efforts and resources around under the incoming President.

Who Wrote It?
Just as it was structured in 1980, each section of this iteration of “Mandate for Leadership” is written by leaders in trade associations, think tanks, privately funded entities at universities, and nonprofit organizations that play an instrumental role in developing and promoting these ultra-conservative ideologies. It is important to note the organizations listed in the “Acknowledgements,” many of which have innocuous sounding names but drive policies that could be detrimental to your businesses and communities.

Project 2025 is more than just a policy blueprint. It is also includes robust recruiting, vetting, and staffing components designed to fill roles and begin implementing the policy initiatives on “day 1.” It is important to identify the authors of the agency chapters, as they are the people likely being positioned to take leadership roles in an upcoming Administration, at the same Federal agencies they are writing about, to implement these recommendations.

Karen Kerrigan is President and CEO of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council and has advocated for entrepreneurship and global business growth for 28 years. She has been appointed to numerous federal advisory boards, including the National Women’s Business Council, and serves as Chair of the Small Business Roundtable.

If implemented, what would it do?
There are a number of proposed changes and improvements to SBA governance and management that are long overdue and have been hamstrung by the inconsistent funding and repeated attempts to reorganize the agency, as described in the document. Adopting procedures to reliably capture programmatic data, and greater transparency and accountability around IT investments, systems development, and security controls are all good governance models that should be applied at SBA and throughout the Federal government. Creating a “medium-sized business” category has been a goal of business advocates for decades, as it would foster business growth in size and capacity of firms and address the arbitrary limits to program eligibility created by the current “small vs other-than-small” structure. Further, proposals such as expanding the SBIR/STTR programs and developing strategies to increase domestic manufacturing would foster technological innovation and drive US global competitiveness.

However, there are also a number of proposals that will have a direct adverse impact on the small and diverse business community currently being served by the SBA. One of the primary overarching themes throughout Project 2025, in addition to gutting the federal workforce, is eliminating any program, initiative or office that promotes DEI from all federal operations including federal rules, agency regulations, contracts, grants, and legislation. This includes abandoning efforts to advance and legally defend affirmative action and DEI policies within military academies and federal minority contracting programs. This specifically applies to the programs and initiatives at the SBA that aimed at creating opportunities for contracting and capital access for minority-owned companies.

Eliminate the Community Navigator Pilot Program:
The Community Navigator program was created in 2021 to reduce the barriers faced by underserved communities in accessing SBA programs. The program provides $100M to 51 organizations and over 400 community groups across the nation to connecting small businesses to Federal, state and local resources by leveraging the networks and relationships within deeply trusted community-based organizations. The Project 2025 plan states that the creation of these “duplicative channels” for the delivering business training rather than working through existing counseling partners. Plan further states that the program is “largely duplicative of private, state and local government, and educational system offerings” even though these existing programs were not reaching the underserved and underrepresented communities targeted by Community Navigators and received significant
support from the Tri-Caucus, Members on the House and Senate Small Business Committees, and national business and advocacy organizations when it was announced.

End SBA direct lending and consider moving the disaster loan program to another agency:
While the SBA only makes low-cost direct loans in the case of businesses and homeowners recovering from a federally declared disaster, the proposal directs Congress to move the program to another agency and transition loan management to the private sector where the cost to the borrower is likely to significantly increase. The SBA EIDL direct loan program, administered by SBA’s Office of Disaster Assistance (ODA), offers long-term, low-interest loans to eligible small businesses, private non-profit organizations, and agricultural businesses that have suffered substantial economic injury because of a declared disaster. The proposal justified restructuring the program by highlighting challenges in the COVID-19 related loans despite the fact that it delivered almost $800B in 11.5 million loans to keep businesses afloat during the pandemic.

Expand the role and utilization of the Office of Advocacy:
The SBA Office of Advocacy (Advocacy) is an independent office within the SBA that serves as a repository of extensive research data, advances the interests of small businesses before Congress and throughout the Federal government, and is the primary body responsible for enforcing the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), which requires agencies to consider alternative ways to reduce the economic impact of their regulations on small entities. The Project 2025 proposal would double the budget of the Office of Advocacy and significantly increase its authority, turning from simply an advocate on behalf of small business and into a bottleneck and watchdog of regulations being proposed by all other Federal agencies.

The Project would “amend the RFA so that all agencies are required to provide a copy of any proposed rule along with initial regulatory flexibility analysis to the Office of Advocacy at least 60 days before a notice of proposed rulemaking is submitted for publication in the Federal Register.” While Advocacy was created to limit the burdensome and disproportionate economic impact some regulations have on small businesses, such a change could essentially weaponize the office as a tool against the protections and rules instituted by Federal agencies (e.g. food safety, worker protections, workplace safety, environmental regulations, etc.).

Another recommendation would increase the budget for Advocacy by approximately 50%, adding $4.6M to the current $10.2M budget in 2023, to hire 25 additional attorneys. This is a noteworthy goal but should not come at the expense of other programs within the already underfunded agency. The proposal recommends freezing or cutting SBA’s budget while, at the same time increasing the Advocacy budget, robbing Peter to pay Paul and undermine the ability for the SBA to meet the needs of the nation’s small businesses.

Conclusion:
Overall, Project 2025’s proposed policies could lead to reduced support, increased competition, and greater economic challenges for minority-owned businesses. The elimination of affirmative action and minority-focused programs, combined with broader deregulation and changes to labor laws, could create a more challenging environment for these businesses to thrive and compete. The proposal includes plans to abandon affirmative action and minority contracting programs that have historically provided critical opportunities for minority-owned businesses to compete for and secure government contracts. The attack of regulatory protections for minority businesses would remove protections that help ensure fair competition and prevent discriminatory practices. Finally, small and minority-owned businesses, already more financially vulnerable, are likely to face greater challenges in a market increasingly dominated by larger corporations with more resources.

Educational

Did You Know?

On March 11, 2024, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s (CISA) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the Secure Software Development Attestation Form (SSDF), a common form that will help ensure the software producers who partner with the federal government leverage minimum secure development techniques and toolsets. The SSFDF is a document that software producers must complete to attest to the security measures and practices implemented in their software development processes. This form is part of the broader effort to ensure the security of software used by federal agencies.

Software vendors use this form to certify that they have taken specific steps to secure their software, including:

• Developing Software in Secure Environments: Ensuring the use of separate development environments, multifactor authentication, encryption, and continuous monitoring.
• Maintaining Trusted Source Code Supply Chains: Using automated tools or comparable processes to secure both internal and third-party code.
• Provenance of Code: Keeping a record of the origins of internal and third-party code.
• Vulnerability Management: Implementing automated tools or processes to detect and address security vulnerabilities continuously.

Alternatively, software producers can use a third-party assessment to demonstrate compliance. This
assessment must be conducted by a certified Third-Party Assessor Organization (3PAO) following
relevant NIST guidelines

This requirement applies to:

• Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) Providers: Companies that deliver software through continuous
  delivery or deployment models
• Commercial Software Producers: Vendors offering software products or services that are used
  by federal agencies.
• Software Developed by Contractors: Organizations contracted to develop software for federal use.
• Software Containing Third-Party Components: Vendors whose products rely on third-party or open-source software components must attest to securing these components.

If a vendor cannot attest to all the required practices, they must submit a Plan of Action and Milestones
(POA&M) detailing how they plan to address the gaps and the timeline for doing so. Failure to comply
with the attestation requirements can result in severe penalties, including loss of federal contracts and
legal consequences under the False Claims Act.

How could this impact your firm?
Small businesses that provide software and software support services will need to invest additional
time and resources into understanding and completing this form. This includes documenting their
software development practices, ensuring compliance with security standards, and potentially creating
new policies and procedures if they do not already exist. This could be particularly burdensome if the
company lacks dedicated cybersecurity staff. Compliance may require investing in new tools,
technologies (e.g. automated tools for vulnerability management or maintaining secure development
environments), training for in-house staff, or hiring certified third-party assessors.

A copy of the SSDF form can be found here.
A copy of the federal Register explanation of the form and rules governing its implementation can be
found here.
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) over the SSDF can be found here.

Educational

Did You Know?

The Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act of 2022 (CIRCIA) requires the
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to implement rules governing cyber
incident and ransom payment reporting requirements for “covered entities.” The rules, aimed
at improving transparency and information sharing about major cyber incidents affecting U.S.
critical infrastructure would require that covered entities report major cyber incidents to CISA
within 72 hours and report ransom payments within 24 hours.

The Notice of proposed Rule (NPR) identifies 316,244 “covered entities” that will be required to report under the cyber incident reporting law (CIRCIA) that span various critical infrastructure sectors, reflecting the broad scope of the rule’s applicability to enhance national cybersecurity resilience. Of these “covered entities, the vast majority – approximately 310,000 – are considered “small entities” by CISA. The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small businesses, not-for- profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of fewer than 50,000.

CISA estimated that the average cost per covered entity experiencing a single covered cyber incident
would be $4,139.60

Sector-Based Criteria
The NPR outlines specific “sector-based” criteria for determining which entities within critical
infrastructure sectors are considered “covered entities” under the CIRCIA, including:

• Communications: Entities providing communications services by wire or radio to the public,
  businesses, or government, including telecommunications carriers and internet service
  providers.
• Critical Manufacturing: Entities engaged in key manufacturing industries critical to national
  security and economic stability.
• Defense Industrial Base: Contractors and subcontractors who handle Controlled Unclassified
  Information (CUI) for the Department of Defense (DoD).
• Emergency Services: Entities providing emergency services to populations of 50,000 or more.
• Energy: Entities required to report incidents under NERC’s CIP Reliability Standards or the
  Electric Emergency Incident and Disturbance Report (OE-417).
• Financial Services: Entities with significant potential impact on the nation’s economic security.
• Government Facilities: Entities meeting criteria related to government operations, education, or
  election processes.
• Healthcare and Public Health: Entities involved in patient services, and drug and device
  manufacturers.
• Information Technology: Entities providing IT hardware, software, or services to the federal
  government, or involved in the development and maintenance of critical software.
• Nuclear Reactors, Materials, and Waste: Operators of commercial nuclear power reactors or
  fuel cycle facilities.
• Transportation Systems: Entities involved in non-maritime transportation, or operators of
  vessels and facilities related to the outer continental shelf.
• Water and Wastewater Systems: Owners and operators of community water systems or publicly
  owned treatment works.

There are several levels (some quite significant) of penalties aimed at ensuring compliance and
maintain the integrity of critical infrastructure cybersecurity incident reporting system, including:

• Request for Information (RFI): CISA can issue an RFI to obtain more information from the entity
  that failed to report a covered cyber incident or ransom payment.
• Subpoena: If the response to an RFI is inadequate, CISA can issue a subpoena to compel the
  disclosure of necessary information.
• Civil Court Action: CISA can refer the case to the Attorney General, who can pursue a civil action
  in District Court to enforce a subpoena or address potential contempt of court.
• Suspension and Debarment: CISA can initiate procedures to suspend or debar the entity from
  federal contracts.
• Criminal Penalties: False or fraudulent statements in reports to CISA can result in penalties
  under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which is a criminal statute.

Additionally, entities are required to preserve relevant data and records for two years from the submission date of their report. This includes communications with threat actors, log entries, forensic images, and any data related to ransom payments.

If you believe this proposed rule would affect your business, have questions concerning its provisions
or options for compliance, CISA has provided contact information to assist small entities in
understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate
in the rulemaking.

The Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rule can be found here.
The press release regarding the CISA Notice of Proposed Rule can be found here.
Visit cisa.gov/CIRCIA to learn more.

Educational

Did You Know?

“The 2025 Presidential Transition Project is the conservative movement’s unified effort to be ready for the next conservative Administration to govern at 12:00 noon, January 20, 2025.”

This is the opening statement and clarion call from “Project 2025,” a conservative manifesto and blueprint for the policies that will dramatically shrink the infrastructure of the Federal government, drive deregulation, cut taxes to targeted communities, rollback social welfare programs, and implement judicial reforms to advance ultra-conservative values. This 900-page document is a rebranding of the original “Mandate for Leadership” that was presented to then President-elect Ronald Reagan in 1980 and served as the foundation for what was known as “Reaganomics.” It follows a similar format of the original document, serving as a collection of individual articles by conservative thought leaders and former government officials, outlining specific policy initiatives, agency-by-agency for the incoming President.

Just as it was structured in 1980, each section of this iteration of “Mandate for Leadership” is written by leaders in trade associations, think tanks, privately funded entities at universities, and nonprofit organizations that play an instrumental role in developing and promoting these ultra-conservative ideologies. It is important to note the organizations listed in the “Acknowledgements,” many of which have innocuous sounding names but drive policies that could be detrimental to your businesses and communities. Further, it is important to identify the authors of the agency chapters, as they are the people likely positioned to take leadership roles in an upcoming Administration, at the same Federal agencies they are writing about, to implement these recommendations.

The Heritage Foundation’s 1980 “Mandate for Leadership” and the “Project 2025” version of the “Mandate for Leadership” reflect the Heritage Foundation’s consistent commitment to conservative principles, advocating for limited government, free-market economics, strong national defense, judicial reform, “traditional values,” and deregulation across the Federal government. While many of the recommendations in the “Project 2025” update is intended to build on these longstanding conservative goals, implementing the recommendations in the document would have a significantly deleterious, and possibly existential impact on small and minority businesses given our current political, economic, and judicial climate.

Limited Government

• 1980: Emphasizes reducing the size and scope of the federal government by cutting federal spending, reducing regulations, and promoting privatization of government services.
• Project 2025: Continues to advocate for limiting government intervention (e.g. eliminating agencies or reducing the authority of anti-trust agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission, with regulatory oversight of corporations and consumer protections), significantly reduce the power and influence of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), promoting “decentralization of power” to states and local governments (e.g. eliminating the Department of Education), and reducing the size of the Federal workforce (e.g. career civil servants) by 50% within the first year and 75% over four years.

Economic Policies

• 1980: Advocates for significant tax cuts, deregulation, and free-market policies to stimulate economic growth and reduce government intervention in the economy.
• Project 2025: Maintains the focus on tax reductions (e.g. extends 2017 tax cuts), deregulation, and support certain free-market capitalism policies that would give a disproportionate advantage to large businesses over small businesses (market dominance, capital access, reduced regulatory oversight).

Judicial and Legal Reform

• 1980: Promotion of conservative judicial appointments and an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, along with tort reform to reduce litigation costs.
• Project 2025: Continues to advocate for the appointment of conservative judges, judicial reform to align with originalist principles, and reducing the influence of progressive legal interpretations. This has even greater implications given the recent Supreme Court decisions that eliminate racial considerations in higher education (Students for Fair Admission v Harvard; North Carolina), student loan relief, Clean Water Act, Presidential immunity, reproductive rights, etc.

Social and Cultural Policies

• 1980: Opposition to affirmative action and welfare reform and promotes “traditional family values.”
• Project 2025: Maintains a stance against affirmative action and other progressive social policies, while advocating for policies that support traditional values and reforming welfare programs. The proposal would eliminate any mandate that promotes DEI or makes references to sexual orientation and gender identity from all federal operations including federal rules, agency regulations, contracts, grants, and legislation. This includes abandoning efforts to advance and legally defend affirmative action and DEI policies within military academies and federal minority contracting programs.

Education

• 1980: Advocacy for school choice, including support for vouchers and charter schools, to introduce competition and improve educational outcomes.
• Project 2025: Eliminates the Department of Education and continues to promote school choice and policies that reduce federal control over education, especially regarding DEI policies, emphasizing local and parental control over educational decisions.

Environmental and Energy Policies

• 1980: Support for deregulating environmental protections to reduce compliance costs for businesses and promote energy independence through increased domestic production.
• Project 2025: Continues to advocate for reducing environmental regulations, promoting energy independence, and utilizing market-based solutions for environmental challenges. This would essentially overturn the Justice 40 Initiative as well as the policies and contracts implemented through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Further, this would have additional implications given the recent Supreme Court ruling to overturn the 50-year Chevron doctrine, eliminating the presumptive deference to Federal subject matter experts’ interpretation of legal statute.

Labor and Employment Policies

• 1980: Efforts to weaken labor unions, promote right-to-work laws, and reduce workplace regulations.
• Project 2025: Continues to support reducing the power of labor unions, promoting labor market flexibility, and reducing regulatory burdens on businesses. This includes outlawing public sector unions, elimination of prevailing wage laws and project labor agreements on federal projects, abolish federal overtime pay laws, and eliminating the federal minimum wage.

Overall, Project 2025’s proposed policies could lead to reduced support, increased competition, and greater economic challenges for minority-owned businesses. The elimination of affirmative action and minority-focused programs, combined with broader deregulation and changes to labor laws, could create a more challenging environment for these businesses to thrive and compete. The proposal includes plans to abandon affirmative action and minority contracting programs that have historically provided critical opportunities for minority-owned businesses to compete for and secure government contracts. The attack of regulatory protections for minority businesses would remove protections that help ensure fair competition and prevent discriminatory practices. Finally, small and minority-owned businesses, already more financially vulnerable, are likely to face greater challenges in a market increasingly dominated by larger corporations with more resources.​

Educational

Did You Know?

On June 28, the US Supreme Court decided a case that overturned 40 years of precedent that has been in place since 1984. This precedent, referred to as the “Chevron Doctrine,” gave the power to interpret laws to subject matter experts in federal agencies who wrote the regulations to implement the law. As a result of this recent decision, Courts are no longer obligated to follow that Agency’s interpretation and can now give their own interpretation of the law or send the law back to Congress to rewrite.

This opens the door for legal challenges to any program implemented through regulation (including small business programs) that are not explicitly authorized in legislation. It also puts a wide array of health, environmental, and pollution standards, food and drug safety, workplace safety standards, financial services regulations, and education standards at risk of legal challenges if the specific standards were determined through regulation instead of explicitly outlined in statute.

This ruling essentially removes regulatory power from subject matter experts in Federal agencies that previously wrote regulations based on their interpretation of legislative language passed by Congress and places it in the hands of the Courts. The decision states that courts are better suited to determine what ambiguities in federal law may mean, even when those ambiguities involve technical or scientific questions that fall within an agency’s area of expertise. Further, the responsibility is now placed in the hands of Congress to draft legislation with very significant details and clarity, intended to avoid any ambiguity that could trigger a judicial review.

Reversal of the Chevron doctrine opens the doors for a significant increase in challenges to agency rule-making in wide-ranging policies regulating everything from energy, banking, and tax to healthcare, environment, workplace safety, etc. This shift in the agency interpretation and enforcement structure, with Congress being filled with elected officials who may not necessarily be technical or scientific, further empowers K Street lobbyists, who are subject matter experts, to play a more direct role in drafting legislation.

Key Points of this Decision:

1. Reevaluation of Deference: The Court emphasized that deference to agencies should not be automatic. It underscored the judiciary’s role in independently interpreting statutory language, especially when the language is clear and unambiguous.
2. Statutory Clarity: The decision reinforced the principle that if a statute’s language is clear, courts must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.
3. Limits on Agency Power: By limiting Chevron deference, the Court aimed to curtail what it perceived as overreach by federal agencies in interpreting laws beyond their expertise and statutory mandate.

Implications

1. Judicial Oversight: This decision reasserts the importance of judicial oversight over federal agencies. Courts are now expected to engage more deeply in statutory interpretation rather than deferring to agencies.
2. Impact on Agencies: Federal agencies are expected to face increased challenges in defending their interpretations of statutes, leading to a more rigorous scrutiny of agency rules and regulations, potentially slowing down the regulatory process.
3. Legislative Precision: The decision places greater responsibility on Congress to draft clear and precise legislation. Ambiguities in statutes are less likely to be resolved by agency interpretation, pushing Congress to provide detailed guidance within the legislative text.
4. Legal Uncertainty: The narrowing of Chevron’s deference is expected to lead to increased litigation as parties challenge agency interpretations more frequently, seeking judicial clarification.
   

Conclusion

The decision is likely to have a severe impact on the federal government’s ability to protect the public from all kinds of harm – environmental, economic, financial, social, etc. While some of the immediate impacts are clearer for agencies that have faced significant corporate push-back against their regulatory oversight, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), this decision will likely have far-reaching implications for agency interpretation of laws and application of regulations throughout the federal government.