CHPS Podcast Episode 1: Mapping the Current Administrative Landscape

In this inaugural episode of ''CHPS of Insight," host Chris White of Clark Hill welcomes Bret Wacker, Clark Hill Law Member and Managing Director of Clark Hill Public Strategies. They discuss the podcast's format and the outlook for 2025 under the new administration. The conversation covers a range of topics including regulatory and policy changes, executive orders, DEI initiatives, trade and tariffs, and national security issues related to government contracts and regulatory practices. They also touch on President Trump's early actions and their potential impacts on various sectors, including energy and cryptocurrency. Join them for a deep dive into today's rapidly evolving legal and political landscapes.

This podcast is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or financial advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this podcast is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Listeners should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed in the podcast represent those of the individual speaker only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC.

Transcript

  Hello, everyone. And welcome to CHIPS of insight. I am your host Chris White. I'm an associate here with Clark Hill as well as a director with Clark Hill, public strategies. And I will be leading us through our path as we analyze various topics coming before our public strategies group. 

 This 1st episode will be introducing you to the overall episode format, as well as our vision for where chips and insight will go in 2025, including under the new administration, as well as how we see ourselves growing beyond. 

 I'd like to introduce you to our 1st guest, Brett Wacker, who is the business unit leader for our government contracts and regulatory business unit, as well as the managing director for Clark Hill public strategies.

Brett we take this to introduce yourself briefly and and welcome on a good afternoon. Chris, I'm glad to be here. Our 1st episode of chips of insight. As Chris mentioned, I am the managing director of Clark Hill public strategies or we call it chips. I am also the business unit leader of our law firms, government contract and regulatory practice.

I have been with the firm for over 15 years. And I've been practicing government contract law for I hate to say about 35 plus years. And we're excited about getting this podcast off the ground. Clark Hill Public Strategies is  a subsidiary of Clark Hill PLC, which is a firm that was founded in Detroit in 1890.

And we recently incorporated CHIPS as a separate LLC. And in through CHIPS, through the professionals in CHIPS, we provide consultancies and, and government affairs advocacy work both in Washington, D. C. as well as various state capitals across the country. We work closely with our firm's administrative law task force, which is a collection of lawyers who practice administrative and regulatory law.

And so we're very excited about this, Chris. Is that that, that help you out there? Yeah, it does. That's, that's great. I know we're, we're all excited to kick this off. And obviously it's been an exciting few days this this week so far with the new administration taking control. And it seems like the the pens are already wagging along on pieces of paper and there's a lot of changes in the regulatory landscape.

I guess that leads us into a good topic as to what sort of regulatory and policy changes we were, I guess, forecasting. And if there have been any surprises to you so far, Brett, and what's happened this week already?  Well, I think, you know, Chris, you bring up a good point that this is a very exciting time, not just for Clark Hill Public Strategies and what we're, what we are looking to provide to our clients, but also for the country.

You know, President Trump, as we all know, was. Recently inaugurated and has gotten off to a very fast start as he promised. He would. I think that regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Mr. Trump I think that we can all agree that he is a disruptor  and as a disruptor he forces all of us and our clients to pay attention to what, what is happening out there and what, what kind of, government strategies will be implemented over, over the next, over the future. As we've seen already we've seen a significant number of executive orders and presidential actions take place since the inauguration. I, I don't know what the current count is because I'm sure there's things being signed while we're recording this session, but I think we're, we're, we're fast approaching 100 presidential actions, including executive orders.

One of the ones that we find most interesting right now is the freeze, the regulatory freeze executive order the President put out, which essentially allows the President and his team to look back over the last period of time as to what regulations have been placed out there which may not have taken effect yet or about to be published.

And and allow the president's team to look at them and see whether they have changes they would like to make or whether they want to go forward with them or not. So, we think that's going to be one of the most exciting ones that we're going to be paying attention to for, for our clients who, who have to.

Deal with U. S. Federal regulations  definitely is. So do you think with that look back as his team starts looking back at those regulations under freeze that they'll open up new comment periods? Or will there be chances for public input or thoughts as to how those regulations look now versus how they may want to look under the trump admin? 

You know, that's an interesting question, Chris. I think I think you're going to see, a wide variety of reactions, depending on the regulation. So, for example, One of the things that has come up in a number of conversations I've been having with clients. Is the executive order with respect to D.

E. I. I know that the press has been focused primarily on on on the D. E. I. Initiatives that the president has talked about, but we see this is broader than just what you read in the media. One of the things that was mentioned in the executive order as well as in the following fact sheet.

Was that various agency heads were to take a look at government contract set asides. And and I, there's been a lot of paying attention to that in the media because I think that, that, you know, they have other fish to fry. But for our, our, our clients that, that depend heavily on their business relationship with the federal government, I think these are going to be important.

Important areas because what's what's happening is that  the government through because of court actions and other other items have decided that they are taking another look as to whether the way of, of,  of resolving past discriminations and supporting small businesses and diverse businesses, whether or not different strategies need to be implemented.

The courts have, as you know, Chris, from our various conversations over time, the courts are taking a different view now as to programs that have been in place since in some cases, since the 1960s. So I think these are going to be very interesting to see what, what, what happens in that area.

And I'm already getting calls from my 8A clients. and my hub zone clients and my service disabled veteran clients. I know you have a a significant interest in the service disabled in the veteran businesses. Are you hearing similar things?  Yeah, I've, I've heard a fair amount. I've been tracking it where I quite a few people seem to think that the services enabled veteran side may not be as immediately affected by, by that executive order, since that's not necessarily considered A-A-D-E-I program much like the Alaskan Native or Hawaiian as it was something that was instead a a totally separate statutory scheme versus promulgating a, you know, either a race based or.

Other characterization based a group of people, but it certainly has tossed. You know, a lot of a lot of pieces in the air and people are trying to figure out how to quickly put that puzzle back together. And so I think  the other conversation I've heard on this 1. a lot is the fact that the executive order mentions existing federal law.

And so the question becomes that. You know, in removing language relating to D. I. and removing the executive orders that seem to almost belt and suspender existing federal law. The question starts to become how much change is based on that executive order. Does it just. Change  reporting requirements and does it just change, you know additional data metrics that had to be collected or does it actually going to change the landscape over composition of federal contractors and, you know percentages of employment numbers based on the different demographics.

Okay, I think you're right. I think that's kind of what we're hearing too. And so I, my guess is that on subsequent episodes of of tips of insight. As these actually these strategies become implemented, I think we'll be talking about them in more detail. The other area that we're seeing a lot of interest from clients because of the executive orders and, and, and the rhetoric coming out of the White House it deals in the trade and tariff area.

You know, historically tariffs. Have been viewed as an economic weapon, and there's a lot of debate among economists as to whether or not, you know, tariffs are a good thing or a bad thing. But Mr. Trump seems to have you know, shifted the dialogue sort of a, you know, or the paradigm in terms of what tariffs do from a national security perspective.

You know, he sees them, he sees the economy. As a national security, um, area rather than a purely economic area. And I, and I think there's something to be said for that in terms of you know, really where global tensions are going to arise and resolve these days is, is, is with, with trade and, and, and how the president decides to do it.

I think we're, we're seeing, we're getting a lot of calls from from clients in terms of how they need to approach that. So we expect we expect that we'll have some episodes on, you know, trade and tariffs as those, you know, as though we get more detail on what the president is looking to do.  Do you think that's going to creep its way into by America or by American and, you know, areas of those cover?

Or do you think there will be Instead of origin of production or, you know labeling. And do you think it's going to focus purely on the actual import export trade tariff side?  You know, I, I, I, I think, you know, that on the buy America or the domestic content rules that are out there, the various ones that are out there I, I do see, a continued emphasis on that. I mean, this is an area where the President Biden and President Trump. Have some had some alignment maybe not being necessarily on the implementation side but certainly on the rhetorical side there, there was you know, kind of a a pro American bent to the sourcing of materials and things.

I do think, though, that this president will will probably implement a different strategy in that regard. And because again, I  think President Biden thought more as, you know, developing domestic industry and supporting small businesses and such,  where I think, again, much like trade, I think the President Trump sees this As a more of a national security issue than, than otherwise, you know, as you know, with, with, even though I think the whole Evie program, you know, the electric vehicle, the electric application of everything that President Biden's administration was pushing through.

And while we were probably going to see some dampening of that that may be understated in terms of what President Trump, you know, wants to do. But I think there isn't, there is some momentum out there that we're still going to see electrification, maybe just not at the level that maybe President Biden was pushing, but in those cases, you're seeing even with hybrids and you're going to see concerns about national security with rare earth minerals and stuff and the battery components and stuff.

You're still going to see a lot of activity in that area.  Well, that makes sense. I don't know if you've been tracking, but it seems like President Trump is making a a significant pivot on cryptocurrency establishing the U. S. as he wants it to be a hub for, for cryptocurrency. Have you have you been hearing much on that aspect? 

We have, and we've seen quite a bit of activity. And in fact, I'm looking forward to an episode. We're going to do that with some of our colleagues down in In Atlanta, who are our experts in that, in that space. I, I'm looking forward to, you know hearing how they see these, these where this goes,  I found it striking that President Trump in a very early part of the inaugural, you know, post inaugural activity.

You know, puts crypto very, very much at the top which I, I found surprising, but that may just be because I'm, I'm naive about, you know crypto, but but but my colleagues tell me that this is something we really need to watch. So I expect that we're going to be having episodes very shortly talking more in detail about that. 

Definitely. No, that makes sense. I guess going back to what you were talking on previously with the EVs and mining. It looks like President Trump, not surprisingly, is pivoting back to, you know, he said, drill, baby, drill, but also opening up more lands for mining and energy related resource I guess harvesting might be the right word.

And so it seems like, you know, I, I've read in the news and that we've seen the potential for the U. S. possibly having some of the larger mines in the world. For some of these rare earth metals that which are critical to not just Evie components, but a lot of the quantum computing and, you know higher end and advanced technology and and so you know, likewise, you have thoughts on.

On where that may be taking us, or how far you think you can be able to go to get those minds opened up?  Well, I mean, I think anybody who's been an observer of President Trump over the last, you know, eight years or so will, will, would agree that, you know, he has his own way of communicating and he has his own way of describing things.

And, and, and I think often his adversaries will, will take his, his phraseology and run with it literally. And, and, and, and and sometimes I think that's probably not the right way to approach your response to the president. But I do think, though, that if you read between the lines with what the president is trying to say is, again, national security.

He sees, you know, that we, we, we, the national security imperative that we are not caught in a situation where we, our economy is at risk. Of third parties, particularly third parties that are very likely like China who are adversary and I think that's how he's approaching this. He, he, he, you know you know, 1 of the things he's often repeated on the campaign trail and often repeated during his 1st term.

Was, you know, we were self sufficient and oil and gas production and and, and, and he would like, he would like to return to that. And again, I don't, I think he sees this again as a national security issue. So I, I do see a, a certainly a, a different level of of allowance of development of resources in the United States.

Of course, that's going to be limited by the regulatory and legal structure and how much Congress allows him to do these, you know, these things. You know, while, while it's certainly in the president's advantage to have  his party majority in both the houses those, those majorities are very thin and in order to, to be productive you know, he's going to have to, you know,  to, to manage that as well.

I think the other thing that, that  this is a little off topic a little bit, but it is something to keep in mind. This, this, this is a president has already been elected twice.  He is in a very unusual situation. He is term limited. And, and, and as a result of that, the, the pol, the politician friends of mine would tell you that, he probably, has a window that he can be affected. 

And I think that's what you're seeing. I think one of the, the drivers behind the pace that he is he's on is an understanding. That he has a window. What that window is, is hard to know. I've heard anywhere from 6 months to 2 years. And that 2 years really is ties to the midterm elections in 26. I don't know for, I'm not, I'm not a politician, so I don't know what, what the actual number is, but, but I do appreciate the point is that this president certainly understands that he has, some limitations on what how effective he can be for how long before people start thinking about 2028.  Yeah, and then I mean, that's very good point with midterms being brought up.  I have not seen it yet, but I know is anticipated whether Trump would make any changes or any efforts related to either the census or, you know, the influences on voting right acts National Voter Registration Act.

Et cetera, to affect you know, election law how states are implementing it and I know that, you know, gerrymandering and redistricting and everything is has been a hot topic, and I'm sure leading into the midterms, it'll be you know, it's not likely to cool off.  Yeah, I, I think that's right.

I mean, I think there's, you know, there's been a long, long time call for reform in, in, in, in the campaign laws and political laws. They, they, they, they tend not to get. Executed, you know, there's a lot of noise about him. It'll be interesting to see you know, what the president proposes in this area or Congress independently proposes in this area.

And whether things given the majorities or the small majorities, you know, whether things can get done. My, my guess is that the president will try to do what he can within his own  powers that he, he already has. But, you know, he has an independent commission, the Federal Election Commission that has some, some say in that.

He also, you know, obviously you have state law issues that, that are out there. So, while I, I do see some some, some changes on the edges I, I, at this point, I don't see the the stomach for some, some large changes. But I do, I do expect to hear some rhetoric though.  Yeah, no, I mean, I think that's probably probably, I mean, I imagine that he's balancing as you mentioned, how much time does he have to act how much risk does he have, because he, he doesn't need to worry about reelection but also what changes are, you know, are going to be best received by the majority of the American public.

So he's setting up you know his successors for for success rather than creating a uphill march for them. Right. And I, well, and, you know, things like the Voting Rights Act, you mentioned the Voting Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, you know, it's been around  since, you know, the mid 60s. You know, and it was,  and it, it  It has been controversial recently and, but it, but it's, it's somewhat untouchable in, in many ways.

It's a very difficult thing for Congress to, to really tinker with, with voting rights act. And it will continue to be a touchy area to work through again, I think this is an area where you're going to see some rhetoric and I think you may see some changes on the edges, but I don't think there's a large. 

Stomach for political stomach for the government for the Congress to make, you know, any any sizable changes on the act?  Yeah,  I think that's certainly I imagine that would be a very slow going and and would get a lot of a lot of attention real quick and probably a fair amount of resistance. I don't know if you've seen it on the news, but it looks like Trump's making.

Comments about FEMA, whether he wants to overhaul it or whether he wants to get rid of FEMA all together. You went back to you know, Trump and you need to pay attention to what he says, but also recognize oftentimes it's hyperbolic or, you know, it's dramatic in its flair. What, where do you think that one might go or how do you think that one might look if he starts marching down that path?

Yeah, I mean, I think, I think this is, this is one of those, those type distances, right? Where the, the president understands. That he sends a flare in the air and, and, and he gets everybody's attention. You know, he, he really cannot unilaterally get rid of FEMA. Because it's a statutorily created agency.

But he certainly can reform it. FEMA has been has been a, has been a challenge, challenging agency for some time. It I mean, it has a hard mission. Let's let's give let's give it at least that recognition. And as a hard mission, it has to react to situations that it can't necessarily plan for.

It doesn't know they're going to be these types of wildfires and in Los Angeles. It doesn't know that there's going to be 2 cat 4 cat 5 hurricanes hitting the West Coast of. Of florida and to space 2 years. It doesn't know those things. So in advance, so it does have a hard job. There's no doubt.

But, but I think you're going to see you know, through this doge effort, you know you're going to see FEMA come under some scrutiny as to whether or not it can be more efficient as to whether or not technologies, new technologies can be deployed to make it more efficient. You know, I, I think it's, I think it, you know, whether FEMA goes away or FEMA is reformed, I think it's all going to be driven by making government more responsive and more efficient.

I think that's really what, what we're going to see in the end of the day. That's my prediction. I'm, I may very well be off target here.  I think that's the part of the fun that we remember from the previous administration is, you know, it's, it's easy to get easy to get attention by that flair, but it's much tougher to figure out where he may be going with that later on.

And I'm certain something, something like removing FEMA. It's bounded to get attention so they can have a meaningful conversation. Right. One final one thoughts on US and the Asia slash Oceanic relationships, whether we're talking obviously US China is, gets a lot of highlight, but you know, US, Japan, us Mariani US and that entire region.

Where, where do you think they're, they might be heading over the next four years?  You know, I, that, that's gonna be an interesting one. I mean, I, there's, there's no doubt that, that, you know, Asia's.  Asia an economic force,  you know, and it's going to continue to be an economic you know, put China aside, you know, I mean, China obviously is China.

But India continues to be a place for tremendous economic growth. It's a place where, you know, there's a lot of technology being you know deployed and developed in, in, in the subcontinent. I, you know, I mean, there's no doubt that, that Asia is, is, as I said, an economic force that's going to continue to be, you know be on the top of everyone's minds in terms of, of, of trade policy.

So I, I, I, and I, and I expect the, the, the president to be active in this area. I mean, he's already planning a trip to to see China, to Beijing sometime in the year. We'll see if that happens. But you know, a lot of that's going to you know, depend on some of the other things that are going on in the other parts of the world, you know, in terms of.

What's happening in the Middle East right now? What's happening in Ukraine? You know, right now I think one of the things I think you're going to see it's a little off off your question, but I do think and you appreciate this as a Navy man is that I see the president making significant requests to build our naval fleet.

Which is, which has by by from what I can read is falling behind in terms of the number of ships. Certainly the aging of the ships is, is, is out there. I mean, as I say, you know, this better than anyone having actually floated around on these things. And, and I, I think that but I think this ties back into Asia, because I think what we're seeing is we're seeing growth of Asian navies in a way, you know, we're seeing the, you know, the, the 1st.

Chinese aircraft carriers, for example you know, typically we're the only country in the world that deploys a Navy around the globe. But my suspicion is that we're not going to be the only one for long.  So I do, I do, I think that's going to figure into it as well.  No, I think that's right. And I think that's being made clear where it used to be in the news.

You saw talks of Russia with naval bases in Syria, and you had a Russian fleet that would venture out  from the eastern coast of Russia, the western coast of Russia, but that's still only talking, you know, half the globe and not in all corners of the globe. But now you have, you know, talks of China operating the Panama Canal.

You have talks of Chinese bases in South America and, you know, North Africa. And so that starts to give China the opportunity to refuel, restore, restock across the globe. And that's what allowed the U. S. to do it. And the British Navy before that, the French, etc., is having somewhere in all aspects where they could repair, refuel, restock, what have you.

And without that the resources required to do it underway is tremendous and something that is very hard to set up and very costly to maintain. Right. And so I do think we see China investing a large amount of money into having the capability to do that as well, which will force us to do a similar investment.

It is and as you mentioned you know, when you when you hear the news about. Long periods of time underway for these carrier strike groups, et cetera. It's not just the fatigue on personnel. It's the fatigue on the equipment. And, you know, it's one thing to put a different crew on there. It's another thing to give that equipment, the the required time to be repaired, to be properly tested, to ensure it's functioning.

And eventually things start to break, and you need to have the right number of ships to swap them out, right number of subs to swap them out, right number of aircraft, et cetera. And so I think that's something that needs to be paid careful attention to is the the cost involved in getting the right number of vessels and aircraft and machinery out there, as well as the crew to maintain them. 

And then we, as you mentioned, in the Middle East, we saw Saudi Arabia recently committed, what, 600 billion over 4 years. To the U. S. On a call with Trump because Trump said if they want to have a I know if they want to have their voice be heard, they have to offer some money and that trade world and not just to be receiving, but to be given back. 

I think you're absolutely right.  Oh, thank you. Brett enjoyed our conversation. Like we always do. I'm looking forward to as future episodes where we can bring in some of our colleagues and talk about you know state and local politics cryptocurrency, financial regulation, as well as who knows what else is going to pop up later today or even tomorrow. 

Well, thanks for having me on and I agree with you. I'm looking forward to future episodes of tips of insight a