Federal Regulatory Agencies
Federal Regulatory Agencies
Here's a look at documents from federal regulatory agencies
Featured Stories
FCC Public Safety & Homeland Security Bureau Issues Public Notice Announcing 7th Meeting of Ninth Communications Security, Reliability, Interoperability Council on March 24, 2026
WASHINGTON, March 11 -- The Federal Communications Commission Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issued the following public notice (Docket No. DA 26-231) on March 10, 2026:* * *
This Public Notice serves as an announcement that, consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act,/1 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) will hold the seventh and final meeting of the Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council IX (CSRIC IX or Council) on March 24, 2026, beginning at 1:00 pm EDT, at FCC headquarters, 45 L Street, N.E., Washington, D.C., and via ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 11 -- The Federal Communications Commission Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issued the following public notice (Docket No. DA 26-231) on March 10, 2026: * * * This Public Notice serves as an announcement that, consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act,/1 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) will hold the seventh and final meeting of the Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council IX (CSRIC IX or Council) on March 24, 2026, beginning at 1:00 pm EDT, at FCC headquarters, 45 L Street, N.E., Washington, D.C., and viavideo conference call. Notice of this meeting was published in the Federal Register on March 4, 2026./2
At the seventh meeting, three reports will be presented for deliberation and a vote: Report on Best Practices for the Use of Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning Systems Specifically Intended for Public Safety Network; Report on Recommendations for Preventing Adverse Impacts on PSAPs and NG911 from 911 Calls Made Through Alternative Network Options; and Report on Potential Security and Reliability Risks in 6G and Recommendations for Mitigation. The CSRIC IX meeting is open to the public, but all guests must check-in with and be screened by FCC security at the main entrance on L Street NE. Attendees will not be required to have an appointment but must otherwise comply with protocols outlined at: https://www.fcc.gov/visit. Members of the news media are welcome to attend the meeting.
The CSRIC IX meeting will also be streamed via live feed at https://www.fcc.gov/live. Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice). Such requests should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed. In addition, please include a way for the FCC to contact the requester if more information is required to fulfill the request. Please allow at least five days' advance notice for accommodation requests; last-minute requests will be accepted but may not be possible to accommodate.
More information about CSRIC can be found at https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/advisorycommittees/communications-security-reliability-and-interoperability-council-0. You may also contact Suzon Cameron, Designated Federal Official (DFO) for CSRIC IX, at (202) 418-1916, Kurian Jacob, Deputy DFO, at (202) 418-2040, or Logan Bennett, Deputy DFO, at (202) 418-7790 and via the CSRIC e-mail account CSRIC@fcc.gov.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ 5 U.S.C. Sec.Sec. 1001-1014.
2/ FCC, Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council, Notice of Public Meeting, 91 FR 10605 (March 4, 2026).
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-231A1.pdf
SEC Obtains Partial Consent Judgments Against Legacy Cares Defendants
WASHINGTON, March 10 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 1:26-cv-01738, 1:25-cv-02702; S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 3, 2026, S.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 1, 2025):* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jeffrey Puzzullo, No. 1:26-cv-01738 (S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 3, 2026)
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Randall J. Miller, Chad J. Miller, and Jeffrey De Laveaga, No. 1:25-cv-02702 (S.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 1, 2025)
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that, on March 5, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 10 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 1:26-cv-01738, 1:25-cv-02702; S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 3, 2026, S.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 1, 2025): * * * Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jeffrey Puzzullo, No. 1:26-cv-01738 (S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 3, 2026) Securities and Exchange Commission v. Randall J. Miller, Chad J. Miller, and Jeffrey De Laveaga, No. 1:25-cv-02702 (S.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 1, 2025) The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that, on March 5, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entereda partial judgment by consent against Jeffrey Puzzullo, in an alleged municipal bond offering fraud. Additionally, the Court entered partial judgments by consent against Randall ("Randy") J. Miller, Chad J. Miller, and Jeffrey De Laveaga on July 16, 2025, in connection with previously filed fraud charges.
According to the SEC's complaints, in August 2020 and June 2021, Randy Miller's nonprofit company, Legacy Cares, issued approximately $284 million in municipal bonds through an Arizona state entity to finance the construction of a multi-sports park and family entertainment center in Mesa, Arizona. Limited offering memoranda for the 2020 and 2021 offerings indicated that investors were to be paid from revenue generated by the sports complex, and included revenue projections that were multiple times the amount needed to cover payments to investors, according to the complaints. The complaints allege, however, that the defendants fabricated or materially altered documents, including letters of intent and pre-contracts with sports clubs, leagues, and other entities to use the sports complex, forming the basis for those revenue projections. As alleged, the sports complex opened in January 2022 with far fewer events and much lower attendance than expected under the offering memoranda's false projections, and the bonds defaulted in October 2022.
The SEC's complaints charged Randy Miller, Chad Miller, De Laveaga, and Puzzullo with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. All four defendants agreed to bifurcated settlements, including judgments that permanently enjoin them from violating the charged provisions of the federal securities laws and from directly or indirectly participating in the issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of any security except for purchases or sales for their own personal accounts. Under the terms of the bifurcated settlements, disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties will be determined by the court upon motion by the Commission.
In a parallel criminal proceeding, United States v. Randy Miller and Chad Miller, 25 Cr. 138 (S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 31, 2025), Randy Miller and Chad Miller pleaded guilty and were sentenced on September 9, 2025 to six and five years in prison, respectively, for securities fraud and aggravated identity theft. In addition to their prison terms, Randy Miller and Chad Miller were sentenced to three years of supervised release, and ordered to forfeit $7,289,134.89 and $4,798,980.19, respectively. On February 2, 2026, Randy Miller and Chad Miller were ordered to pay restitution, on a joint and several basis with each other and with Puzzullo and De Laveaga, of $228,260,356.19. De Laveaga and Puzzullo have each also pleaded guilty in separate parallel criminal proceedings--United States v. Jeffrey De Laveaga, 25 Cr. 127 (S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 25, 2025), and United States v. Jeffrey Puzzullo, 25 Cr. 188 (S.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 24, 2025). On January 28, 2026, Puzzullo was sentenced to time served and one year of supervised release, with restitution to be determined by the Court. De Laveaga is awaiting sentencing.
The SEC's litigation is being led by Jonathan Grant and William Salzmann of the Enforcement Division's Public Finance Abuse Unit under the supervision of Jason Bussey of the SEC's San Francisco Regional Office. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
* * *
Resources
* Final Judgment - Jeffrey Puzzullo (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26498-puzzullo.pdf)
* Final Judgment - Jeffrey De Laveaga (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26498-jeffrey-de-laveaga.pdf)
* Final Judgment - Chad J. Miller (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26498-chad-miller.pdf)
* Final Judgment - Randall J. Miller (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26498-randy-miller.pdf)
* SEC Complaint - Jeffrey Puzzullo (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2026/comp26498-puzzullo.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26498
SEC Commissioner Peirce Issues Founders, Funders, and Forty-Five Forums: Remarks at the 45th Annual Small Business Forum
WASHINGTON, March 10 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on March 9, 2026, by Commissioner Hester M. Peirce at the 45th Annual Small Business Forum:* * *
Good afternoon and welcome everyone to the 45th Annual Small Business Forum. Today's event is a wonderful opportunity to hear from a wide range of folks with a shared passion for the entrepreneurial spirit of America. Essential to our nation's prosperity is the willingness of founders and the investors who fund them to take on the risk of building and growing new businesses. As SEC Commissioner Barbara Thomas ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 10 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on March 9, 2026, by Commissioner Hester M. Peirce at the 45th Annual Small Business Forum: * * * Good afternoon and welcome everyone to the 45th Annual Small Business Forum. Today's event is a wonderful opportunity to hear from a wide range of folks with a shared passion for the entrepreneurial spirit of America. Essential to our nation's prosperity is the willingness of founders and the investors who fund them to take on the risk of building and growing new businesses. As SEC Commissioner Barbara Thomasexplained 45 years ago, "We at the Securities and Exchange Commission must help foster the kind of environment which will encourage people to accept, rather than avoid, the opportunity to take a risk in search of reward."[1] I look forward to hearing your thoughts on how the SEC can foster such an environment.
Today's panels cover capital formation challenges across all stages of the corporate cycle. We will hear about problems that are a universal experience as well as those that are unique to a particular stage of development.
Fittingly, the first panel starts at the start, funding founders. Founders' paths to raising money for their promising idea are riddled with regulatory landmines--a source of deep dismay and consternation for well-intentioned founders. The first thing they may encounter is the much-discussed concept of "Accredited Investor." But simply knowing what makes an investor "accredited" does not solve a founder's problems. Rather, it is just the beginning of a list of questions without neat answers. Can you sell only to accredited investors? It depends. What do you need to do to make sure that your investors are accredited? It depends. What information do you need to give to investors? It depends. Founders can find some help in wading through these questions on the SEC's website.[2] Today's discussions could help to shape substantive steps by the SEC to make life easier for founders. Among the topics you might want to consider are a micro-offering exemption that would simplify early-stage fundraising: under such an approach, as long as an issuer stays below a set offering amount, it would be able to sell shares of its company to investors without any strings other than avoidance of fraud.[3] A regulatory structure for finders, an idea under consideration by the Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee, also might help founders find funders.
The second panel takes on the next step in a company's development--the growth stage. Business development companies, venture capital funds, and small private funds provide much needed capital to growth-stage companies, which are engines of innovation. Broadening access to these smaller funds would increase the capital available for investment in growth-stage companies.
Ideas for increasing capital for growth-stage companies include an idea embodied in the INVEST Act, which passed the House and would amend section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 to enable a qualifying venture capital fund to have 500 investors and $50 million, up from 250 and $10 million, respectively. Additional changes could include increasing the limit for issuers that are not qualifying venture capital funds and expanding the definition of "Qualified Purchaser" under the Investment Company Act. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on these and other ideas for helping growth-stage companies.
Today's final panel will discuss the IPO process and key considerations for smaller public companies. Last year at this forum we heard from the CFO of a smaller reporting company who explained how, with limited personnel in-house, the quarterly reporting process can be a continuous year-round activity.[4] Moving away from mandatory quarterly reporting could allow smaller companies to more effectively allocate their limited resources. More generally, the Commission's ongoing initiative to streamline Regulation S-K could benefit small public companies. An important part of that initiative is listening to feedback from issuers that are already public or are considering becoming public. [5] We already have heard that executive compensation disclosures, having ballooned over the years, rankle issuers of all sizes, particularly because investors show a complete disinterest in much of the information our rules require. Similarly, because some disclosure obligations are based on dollar thresholds that have not been updated in years, disclosure burdens have increased over time. What disclosure obligations are the most onerous, and how could the SEC lower the burden on small public companies while still protecting investors?
The Small Business Forum convenes people who care deeply about creating a healthy environment for entrepreneurship. I would like to thank all the offices and teams that worked together to make this event possible. Thank you especially to today's panelists, moderators, and participants who have volunteered their time to provide the Commission with ideas about how best to help small businesses find the capital they need to serve the communities in which they operate.
* * *
[1] Barbara Thomas, Commissioner, Risk Taking and Capital Formation: Remarks before the Town Hall of California (July 7, 1981), https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/1981/070781thomas.pdf.
[2] Securities and Exchange Commission, Resources for Small Businesses, https://www.sec.gov/resources-small-businesses.
[3] See e.g. Hester Peirce, Commissioner, Bridging the Gap: Remarks before the Northwest Securities Institute (May 30, 2025), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-remarks-northwest-securities-institute-053025.
[4] 44th Annual Small Business Forum (April 10, 2025), pg. 137, https://www.sec.gov/files/2025-SBF-508-Transcript.pdf.
[5] https://www.sec.gov/comments/cll-15/regulation-s-k#no-back.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-founders-funders-forty-five-forums-remarks-45th-annual-small-business-forum-030926
NCUA Announces Seventh Round of Deregulation Proposals
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, March 10 -- The National Credit Union Administration issued the following news release:* * *
NCUA Announces Seventh Round of Deregulation Proposals
*
Stakeholders Are Encouraged to Review Notice of Proposed Rulemakings and Submit Comments
Alexandria, VA (March 10, 2026) - The National Credit Union Administration today announced the seventh round of proposed regulatory changes associated with NCUA's Deregulation Project. The project is an ongoing review of NCUA's regulations to ensure regulations are focused on credit unions' safety, soundness, and resilience.
With ... Show Full Article ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, March 10 -- The National Credit Union Administration issued the following news release: * * * NCUA Announces Seventh Round of Deregulation Proposals * Stakeholders Are Encouraged to Review Notice of Proposed Rulemakings and Submit Comments Alexandria, VA (March 10, 2026) - The National Credit Union Administration today announced the seventh round of proposed regulatory changes associated with NCUA's Deregulation Project. The project is an ongoing review of NCUA's regulations to ensure regulations are focused on credit unions' safety, soundness, and resilience. Withtoday's announcement, NCUA is requesting comments on one proposal that would clarify agency guidance or eliminate unduly burdensome or duplicative requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations.
The proposal includes:
This is an external link to a website belonging to another federal agency, private organization, or commercial entity. Records Preservation Program and Appendices - Record Retention Guidelines; Catastrophic Act Preparedness Guidelines - 12 CFR 749 (Opens new window)
* Proposed Change 1: The Board proposes to remove Appendix A.
* Impact on credit unions : Removing this section will give credit union boards of directors more discretion and flexibility to determine the process for records destruction.
* Proposed Change 2: The Board proposes to remove Appendix B because it's meant as guidance. Having guidance within the regulation leads to potential misinterpretation about what is required.
* Impact on credit unions : This change will provide clarity on what is required by regulation and what is meant to be guidance.
* Proposed Change 3: Define vital member services and vital records. (749.1)
* The proposed rule provides definitions for the terms vital member services and vital records because the current rule only explains them through examples.
* Impact on credit unions : Providing these definitions will give credit unions a better understanding of what is considered vital in their records preservation programs.
* Proposed Change 4: The Board proposes to add the term vital to the heading of 12 CFR 749 so that it will read: Vital Records Preservation Program. The Board also proposes adding the term vital to 749.0 to further clarify the scope of part 749, which is vital records.
* Impact on credit unions : This change will make it clear to credit unions that the scope of 12 CFR 749 is limited to vital records.
* Proposed Change 5: The Board proposes to make clear that a records preservation log may be in electronic format.
* Impact on credit unions : This change will create more flexibility for credit unions to manage and store vital records.
* Proposed Change 6: The Board proposes to permit destruction of older versions of records unless required by other law or regulation.
* Impact on credit unions : This change will allow credit unions to get rid of and no longer be responsible for unnecessary records.
* Proposed Change 7: The Board proposes to state clearly the NCUA's expectation that, if a credit union contracts with a third-party service provider to maintain its vital records, the credit union must maintain effective oversight of the third-party service provider to ensure the credit union meets its obligations under part 749.
* Impact on credit unions: This change would provide clarity about the meaning of the regulation in a way that makes the regulation less burdensome for credit unions.
Proposed Regulation Change Obsolete Regulations Overly Burdensome Requirements Duplicative Guidance
Proposed Regulation Change
12 CFR 749 Records Preservation Program and Appendices - Record Retention Guidelines; Catastrophic Act Preparedness Guidelines
Obsolete Regulations
Yes
Overly Burdensome Requirements
Yes
Duplicative
Guidance
Yes
To submit comments, type or paste the docket numbers into the search on the This is an external link to a website belonging to another federal agency, private organization, or commercial entity. Federal Rulemaking Portal (Opens new window).
For more information about the NCUA Deregulation Project, visit: https://ncua.gov/news/deregulation-project
***
Original text here: https://ncua.gov/newsroom/press-release/2026/ncua-announces-seventh-round-deregulation-proposals
FCC Wireline Competition Bureau Issues Public Notice: Comments Invited on CenturyLink's Section 214 Application to Discontinue Domestic Legacy Voice Service as Part of a Technology Transition
WASHINGTON, March 10 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 26-55) on March 9, 2026:* * *
Unless otherwise specified, the following procedures and dates apply to the application(s) (the Section 214 Discontinuance Application(s)) listed in the Appendix.
The Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau), upon initial review, has found the Section 214 Discontinuance Application(s) listed herein to be acceptable for filing and subject to the procedures set forth in Section 63.71 of the Commission's rules./1 The application(s) ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 10 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 26-55) on March 9, 2026: * * * Unless otherwise specified, the following procedures and dates apply to the application(s) (the Section 214 Discontinuance Application(s)) listed in the Appendix. The Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau), upon initial review, has found the Section 214 Discontinuance Application(s) listed herein to be acceptable for filing and subject to the procedures set forth in Section 63.71 of the Commission's rules./1 The application(s)request authority, under section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,/2 and section 63.71 of the Commission's rules,/3 to discontinue, reduce, or impair certain domestic telecommunications service(s) (Affected Service(s)) in specified geographic areas (Service Area(s)) as applicable and as fully described in each application.
In accordance with section 63.71(f) of the Commission's rules, the Section 214 Discontinuance Application(s) listed in the Appendix will be deemed granted automatically on April 9, 2026, the 31st day after the release date of this public notice, unless the Commission notifies any applicant(s) that their grant will not be automatically effective./4 We note that the date on which an application for Commission authorization is deemed granted may be different from the date on which applicants are authorized to discontinue service ("Authorized Date"). Any applicant whose application has been deemed granted may discontinue their Affected Service(s) in their Service Area(s) on or after the authorized discontinuance date(s) specified in the Appendix, in accordance with their filed representations. Accordingly, pursuant to section 63.71(f), and the terms outlined in each application, absent further Commission action, each applicant may discontinue the Affected Service(s) in the Service Area(s) described in their application on or after the authorized discontinuance date(s) listed in the Appendix for that application. For purposes of computation of time when filing a petition for reconsideration, application for review, or petition for judicial review of the Commission's decision(s), the date of "public notice" shall be the later of the auto grant date stated above in this Public Notice, or the release date(s) of any further public notice(s) or order(s) announcing final Commission action, as applicable. Should no petitions for reconsideration, applications for review, or petitions for judicial review be timely filed, the proceeding(s) listed in this Public Notice shall be terminated, and the docket(s) will be closed.
Comments objecting to the application listed in the Appendix must be filed with the Commission on or before March 24, 2026. Comments should refer to the specific WC Docket No. and Comp. Pol. File No. listed in the Appendix for the Section 214 Discontinuance Application. Comments should include specific information about the impact of the proposed discontinuance on the commenter, including any inability to acquire reasonable substitute service. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket number.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
This proceeding shall be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules./5 Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.
For further information, please see the contact(s) for the specific discontinuance proceeding you are interested in as listed in the Appendix. For further information on procedures regarding section 214 please visit https://www.fcc.gov/general/domestic-section-214-discontinuance-service.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ 47 CFR Sec. 63.71.
2/ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 214.
3/ 47 CFR Sec. 63.71.
4/ See 47 CFR Sec. 63.71(f)(1) (stating, in relevant part, that an application filed by a non-dominant carrier "shall be automatically granted on the 31st day... unless the Commission has notified the applicant that the grant will not be automatically effective"); see also 47 CFR Sec. 63.71(f)(2)(i) (stating that "[a]n application to discontinue, reduce, or impair an existing retail service as part of a technology transition, as defined in Sec. 63.60(i), may be automatically granted... if: The applicant provides affected customers with the notice required under paragraph (a)(6) of this section, and the application contains the showing or certification described in Sec. 63.602(b)"); Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WC Docket No. 17-84, Order, DA 25248, para. 6 (WCB Mar. 20, 2025) (waiving the Adequate Replacement Test's "single replacement service" requirement for a period of two years when a carrier seeks to discontinue a legacy voice service pursuant to section 214(a), thereby allowing carriers to satisfy all three prongs of the Adequate Replacement Test with a bundled service); Technology Transitions, GN Docket No. 13-5, Order on Clarification, DA 25-250, para. 6 (WCB Mar. 20, 2025) (clarifying the applicability of the testing methodology and parameters required for meeting the streamlining criteria when a carrier submits a technology transition discontinuance application relying on the "totality of the circumstances" under the Adequate Replacement Test)).
5/ 47 CFR Sec. 1.1200 et seq.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-227A1.pdf
EEOC Sues Diamond Jim's and Mrs. Donna's for Disability Discrimination
WASHINGTON, March 10 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:* * *
EEOC Sues Diamond Jim's and Mrs. Donna's for Disability Discrimination
*
Federal lawsuit claims Mississippi steakhouse fired worker for seizure condition
JACKSON, Miss. - Diamond Jim's and Mrs. Donna's Ole Farm Beef LLC, a Mississippi steakhouse, violated federal law when it fired a worker because of a seizure condition, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit announced today.
According to the lawsuit, the worker disclosed her condition to the ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 10 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release: * * * EEOC Sues Diamond Jim's and Mrs. Donna's for Disability Discrimination * Federal lawsuit claims Mississippi steakhouse fired worker for seizure condition JACKSON, Miss. - Diamond Jim's and Mrs. Donna's Ole Farm Beef LLC, a Mississippi steakhouse, violated federal law when it fired a worker because of a seizure condition, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit announced today. According to the lawsuit, the worker disclosed her condition to therestaurant when she started work and told the company that she had not had a seizure in years. The suit stated that she had a seizure months after she began work, and the restaurant fired her in February 2023, shortly after learning of her seizure, telling her that she should focus on her health.
"The ADA has prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of disability for more than three decades," said EEOC Birmingham District Director Bradley Anderson. "The EEOC remains committed to enforcing the law and fulfilling the statute's promise of equal employment opportunity for individuals with disabilities."
This alleged conduct violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which guarantees equal employment opportunity for qualified individuals with disabilities. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Diamond Jim's and Mrs. Donna's Ole Farm Beef House, LLC and Diamond Jim's & Mrs. Donna's of Northport, LLC, Case No. No. 3:26-cv-00151-TSL-RPM) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process.
"The ADA protects qualified individuals from employment discrimination on the basis disability," said EEOC Birmingham District Regional Attorney Marsha Rucker. "When an employer violates this protection, the EEOC stands ready to enforce it through litigation."
For more information on disability discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination.
The EEOC's Birmingham District Office has jurisdiction over Alabama, Mississippi (except for 17 northern counties) and the Florida Panhandle.
The EEOC is the sole federal agency authorized to investigate and litigate against businesses and other private sector employers for violations of federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. For public sector employers, the EEOC shares jurisdiction with the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. The EEOC also is responsible for coordinating the federal government's employment antidiscrimination effort. More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov.
***
Original text here: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-diamond-jims-and-mrs-donnas-disability-discrimination
CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig, Chairman: FIA Global Cleared Markets Conference
BOCA RATON, Florida, March 10 -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued the following remarks on March 9, 2026, by Chairman Michael S. Selig at the Futures Industry Association Global Cleared Markets Conference:* * *
The Next Era of American Markets Leadership
Prepared Remarks for Delivery
Good afternoon, everyone. Before I begin, as is customary, I must note that the views I share today are my own as Chairman and do not necessarily reflect those of the Commission.
It's a privilege and an honor to be here--especially in my home state of Florida, to talk to you about the next era ... Show Full Article BOCA RATON, Florida, March 10 -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued the following remarks on March 9, 2026, by Chairman Michael S. Selig at the Futures Industry Association Global Cleared Markets Conference: * * * The Next Era of American Markets Leadership Prepared Remarks for Delivery Good afternoon, everyone. Before I begin, as is customary, I must note that the views I share today are my own as Chairman and do not necessarily reflect those of the Commission. It's a privilege and an honor to be here--especially in my home state of Florida, to talk to you about the next eraof American market leadership.
Thank you, Walt, for the invitation to attend this great event at the historic Boca Raton Hotel and to speak with an audience that understands what is at stake. And thank you to the Futures Industry Association (FIA) for being a constant leader in this space for the past half-century.
In December, I was honored to be confirmed as the 16th Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, an institution that has been dear to me since I first interned there during law school many years ago.
I want to thank President Trump for the trust and confidence he has placed in me to guide this vital institution at such a pivotal moment in our nation's history.
In less than four months, our nation will be celebrating its 250th anniversary. This milestone is an opportunity to reflect on where we have been as a nation, and where we wish to go.
The Founding generation of Americans lived very different lives from the ones we live today. They spent as much time working with their hands each day as we spend looking at our screens.
What we can glean from their writings is that they knew the decision to fight for independence against the British Empire was consequential; that it would reverberate across the years.
James Madison, the primary architect of the U.S. Constitution, wrote in its preamble that a key goal was to secure "the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" in order to protect the freedom of future generations.[1]
As significant as the Founders' innovations in politics were, the century following independence saw a flood of inventions remake the physical world. By some measures, no earlier age had ever witnessed such a transformation.
The liberty that Americans granted to themselves was channeled into this innovation. The telegraph, the railroad, the telephone, and the first electric grid created a national market where none had existed before.
This is what Americans do: we innovate, we invent, we build. It's in our blood.
We created our nation from scratch and have been updating ourselves every day since. We are at the beginning of another great wave of innovation, as markets continue to digitize and crypto assets become mainstream.
In a letter to Thomas Jefferson in 1790, Madison wrote that stable government required a "fiduciary obligation" to the future.[2] My team and take this sentiment to heart because we must look to the future in every decision we make.
Needless to say, I have thought deeply about the proper role of regulation in our markets for a long time. Given the rate of technological change that we are seeing today, the CFTC must do everything it can to ensure we don't smother innovators with rules and regulations designed for a different era.
We all know that at their core, American commodity and derivatives markets perform a vital, timeless function.
My regulating philosophy is simple. Like the practice of medicine, our focus should be on finding and then administering the minimum effective dose.
Regulate too little--and markets lose integrity. Regulate too much, markets atrophy; innovation is exiled offshore.
What I propose over the next several years is a focus on "future-proofing" derivatives markets oversight via the minimum effective dose of principles-based regulation.
We at the CFTC support innovation in American financial markets. We understand that these technologies deserve smart, clear regulations.
It is our hope that innovation in new derivatives products can increase liquidity by unlocking more collateral while making products more programmable and global.
By looking at history, we can see cultures reach new heights, both economically and socially, when a vein of new liquidity is discovered and brought into the open.
The Renaissance of the Italian city-states springs to mind, as does the Dutch Golden Era, and more recently, the Reagan-era expansion that helped end the Cold War.
All these examples involved new independence from centralizing authority, deregulatory pressures, and reduced systemic risk. These examples are not dissimilar from the environment we live in today.
If we do this, if we future-proof properly, we will reclaim American leadership in these markets, return to principles-based regulation, ensure innovation-forward oversight, and drive American prosperity for decades more to come.
This can be the beginning of a new Golden Age of American Markets, as we think of future generations and learn from past mistakes.
From Trading Pits to 2008
Stepping back a bit, the first organized futures exchange in the United States, the Chicago Board of Trade, began on the second floor of a flour store in Chicago on April 3, 1848.
It is no coincidence that, only three days later, Chicago was linked by telegraph to the East Coast for the first time.
The Board of Trade was created at a time when members knew a radical new technology had arrived, allowing new suppliers and customers to access commodity prices in real time across the country.
They took action, organized, and once connected to eastern demand, their arbitrage costs collapsed, making the Chicago Board of Trade the central hub for agricultural commerce in the United States.
By the end of the 19th century, innovations advanced with the emergence of dozens of standardized "exchange-traded" forward contracts. Commodities were now traded in "pits" filled with yelling and gesturing traders, demonstrating a kind of transparency and price discovery that had not been practiced before.
Later, in the wake of the Great Depression, the modern regulatory framework was born with the creation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), followed in the 1970s by the CFTC.
Fast forward to 2008.
It's important to remember that at its root, the 2008 Global Financial Crisis was a government failure, not a market failure.
This government failure began with overly aggressive federal mandates that pushed banks to acquire massive amounts of risky, low-quality mortgages, which created a housing bubble that finally burst.
This bust, in turn, caused the U.S. bankruptcy rate to double between 2007 and 2010, pushing more than 2 million people into bankruptcy who otherwise would not have had to do so.[3]
Milton Friedman, a Nobel laureate and renowned economist, once said that "most of the energy of political work is devoted to correcting the effects of mismanagement by government."[4]
In the case of 2008, I believe he was right.
This crisis in confidence in our financial system left a permanent mark on the American public.
In response, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act--a sweeping reform intended to restore stability and introduce transparency to the swaps market.[5]
In some ways, the effort succeeded.
It promoted clearing and exchange trading, and it reinforced the plumbing of the financial system.
But we must also be honest. Dodd-Frank became, in many respects, an autoimmune response that, over time, began to do more harm to our country's economic health than good.
The implementation phase of the law brought a substantial volume of new rules, definitions, and compliance obligations, creating a complex web of new requirements.
Complexity carries real-world consequence: After the passage of Dodd-Frank, severe regulatory burdens were put on futures commission merchants (FCMs) and swap dealers.
The number of FCMs, the intermediaries that handle trades and hold customer funds, consolidated dramatically, falling from roughly 90 merchants in 2007 to less than 50 today.[6]
Many of us in this room can easily list most of the eight banks that have been tagged as "too big to fail" under Dodd-Frank, many of which have their own FCMs, due to concentration in the industry.
Elevated capital requirements meant that farmers who had been able to open a $25,000 hedging account found that the remaining FCMs required minimum capital requirements of $1 million to $5 million.
And increased regulations made the onboarding process for a family farm as complex as that of a multinational corporation.
The result? After the consolidation cycle ended, brokers no longer served smaller agricultural producers because the accounts were so "compliance-heavy."
Smaller firms experienced reduced access to hedging tools, as intermediaries focused on larger clients, leading to our farmers and producers paying larger fees just to hedge their risk.
And over time, the compounding effect has been profound.
Today, the cost and complexity of accessing our markets are increasingly too much to bear for the small and medium-sized businesses.
The farmer. The trucker. The energy wholesaler. The entrepreneur--the Americans who sustain our economy and institutions.
The Biden administration's onerous regulations did not help the situation--but burdened producers more.
This certainly is not a system that the Founders had in mind. We recognize this--and help is coming.
I have a big agenda for improving traditional commodity markets for our farmers, ranchers, and energy producers.
To improve the current system, I have directed staff to:
Revive the Agricultural Advisory Committee to ensure that traditional market participants have a seat at the table.[7]
Reduce duplicative compliance burdens for entities registered with both the CFTC and the SEC.
Consider amending capital, margin, and reporting rules where they exceed what is necessary for risk management.
Support efforts by prudential regulators to reduce the past burdens of the Basel III and Global Systemic Important Bank capital surcharge framework, making it easier for market participants to access clearing.
Explore the potential to enhance cross-margining, which would allow agriculture and energy participants to manage margins across their futures and options positions.
And explore the value of publishing the Commission's Commitment of Traders report more frequently.
With these changes and more to come, I hope to see improvements in market conditions for end-users.
Additionally, we will continue to listen to the needs of the agriculture and energy communities, and we recognize that certain asset classes may not be suitable for 24/7 trading and perpetual contracts.
Innovation in our markets is certainly not a "one size fits all" approach.
American Leadership at Stake
For over a century, the United States has been the center of global markets because we have balanced regulation with freedom.
And thanks to the leadership of President Trump, a new technological revolution is underway in the United States--and these technologies are a response to government overreach.
But given the governance mistakes of the past, we now have to be laser-focused on ways to future-proof our rules and regulations to withstand the test of time.
We shouldn't forget that, in the recent past, regulatory agencies were weaponized against these innovative industries.
It is no secret that under the prior administration, Gary Gensler's SEC regulated through enforcement and drove the crypto industry offshore, while the prudential regulators debanked law-abiding businesses with any nexus to politically disfavored industries.
The Biden CFTC attempted to ban political prediction markets ahead of the 2024 elections.[8]
The Federal Reserve, the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation published the burdensome Basel III endgame proposal,[9] which would have significantly increased the cost of clearing and the capital required to hedge risk.
And software developers were encouraged to hardcode DEI and "woke" ideologies into their AI models to force ideological conformity, censorship, and historical revisionism.
Everyday Americans paid the price for these regulatory failures.
We lost faith in many of the institutions that were previously the trusted, established gatekeepers of conventional wisdom.
And we can only begin to rebuild this faith if we are seen making progress toward our goal of writing regulations that protect customers, prevent fraud, ensure transparency, and enable broad participation.
Because liquidity is the lifeblood of markets.
Recent efforts, including interagency harmonization with the SEC and the formation of advisory bodies like the Innovation Advisory Committee, reflect this direction.[10]
Harmonization initiatives began years ago but stalled in the wilderness for a while, as interagency competition and turf battles got in the way.
But SEC Chairman Atkins and I have put an end to the days of CFTC-SEC infighting by partnering on the Project Crypto Initiative.[11]
This historic harmonization initiative will increase coordination between our agencies, lead to a partnership on substituted compliance, and deliver clarity for market participants.
And harmonization is already well underway.
The Chairman and I meet on a regular basis and look forward to partnering with industry in ways that haven't been possible in the past, when our agencies were not in sync.
Harmonization is not a side-show; it is integral to opening up new avenues for entrepreneurs. Once innovators know that regulators are paying attention to their own core mandates, these risk-takers are more likely to move forward.
We are also witnessing a fascinating new market develop here in the United States around AI compute. America is home to some of the largest data centers in the world, and companies across the country are harnessing AI in their workflows.
The White House's AI Action Plan directed the CFTC and other agencies to ensure access to large-scale compute for startups and academics by improving the financial market for compute.[12]
I believe a robust compute market could further this policy, and I am glad to say that the CFTC is hard at work making the U.S. a global leader in the market for this new digital commodity, which is critical to America winning the AI race.
We are also focused on bringing other markets, such as critical minerals, back to the U.S. to decrease reliance on foreign nations and diversify reference pricing.
And we want to make America the world leader for on-delivery minerals. We'll be working with the White House, our registrants, and market participants to make this a reality.
American leadership here is so important.
We can't allow the algorithms that connect traders across markets for compute, critical minerals, and other essential commodities to be based on technology developed in an adversarial nation--this is a national security issue.
The Promise of Digital Markets
And--through the Project Crypto partnership--the U.S. is leading again. America is now the crypto capital of the world.[13]
This means the CFTC has a generational opportunity to build on its historical role as a forward-looking regulator that applies principles-based oversight. We cannot and will not shy away from this opportunity.
Today, the adoption of blockchain technologies, crypto assets, and smart contracts is introducing new methods for trading, clearing, settling, and collateralizing commodity price exposure.
Artificial intelligence and autonomous systems are streamlining processes and evolving systems that execute orders at speeds and volumes far beyond human capacity.
To build a predictable, American-led digital finance infrastructure that takes advantage of the current conditions, we must protect and unleash innovation.
The U.S. economy was built on this principle. Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Edison didn't fear prosecution from Washington, D.C., neither did the Wright Brothers or Henry Ford.
That spirit of building--without fear of prosecution--is part of our national DNA. We need to reclaim it. And Project Crypto is an important part of that reclamation.
By now, the message to innovators should be clear: build in the U.S.A.
While these words sound nice, let me give you a preview of how we're putting this into practice.
First, we will advance a clear crypto asset taxonomy so that market participants can understand whether their products fall within CFTC jurisdiction, SEC jurisdiction, both, or neither.
Next, some of you may be pleased to hear that I have directed staff to provide guidance concerning the application of the CFTC's intermediary registration requirements to developers of non-custodial software systems, like digital wallets and decentralized finance applications.
For too long, there has been an open question as to whether software providers trigger the CFTC's registration requirements. We intend to address this question head-on.
Indeed, clarity must extend across the full market stack. Not only do we want clear rules of the road for software developers, but we must also ensure that our traditional participants benefit from crypto clarity as well.
In this vein, CFTC staff is giving considerable thought to new rules that could clarify when leveraged, margined, or financed retail commodity transactions in crypto may be offered off-exchange under an "actual delivery" exception and establish purpose-fit standards for margined spot trading on exchanges.[14]
I would also be remiss not to mention that I have directed the CFTC staff to consider how to clarify their views on the classification of true crypto-perpetuals.
These things don't happen quickly or easily in Washington, and thankfully, President Trump is in the White House, and it is he who deserves all the credit for pushing the U.S. marketplace to finally fully commit to a financial future with crypto playing a central role.
If we don't do this now, we drive innovation elsewhere as regulators have done in the past.
Today, capital is borderless. Entrepreneurs are borderless. Technology is borderless.
Future-Proofing the CFTC
Under my leadership, the agency is taking steps to future-proof its rules and regulations so that future administrations cannot govern through enforcement and staff discretion.
To make this happen, we must get back to basics. And there are a lot of basics to cover, so please bear with me as I go through this list of actions.
For starters, through a recently established pilot program, the CFTC is considering removing Energy Commodity End-User Swaps[15] from the swap dealer de minimis threshold calculation.[16]
We anticipate this exclusion will provide commercial end-users in the energy commodity markets with a significant number of additional counterparties. This will deliver cost savings to those users in energy commodity markets.
We are considering extending this regulatory relief to certain agricultural and critical minerals swaps as well.
America's producers deserve access to additional swap counterparties, and if we can reduce regulatory burdens and provide cost savings to the energy and agricultural community and critical minerals markets, we will do so.
We will also consider whether any other types of transactions should be excluded from the swap dealer de minimis calculation.
And we will use the CFTC's substituted compliance framework as another tool to reduce unnecessary burdens.
For example, the Commission is currently considering issuing comparability determinations for the European Union and the United Kingdom regarding swap dealer capital and financial reporting requirements.[17]
A comparability determination is an effective tool for decreasing regulatory burdens on registrants and breaking through the regulatory maze that would otherwise be created by different governments imposing multiple similar, but not identical, requirements.
We will work with our allies who have similar views on the role of regulators in markets to extend this benefit to jurisdictions that share our values.
I have also asked the staff to undertake a rulemaking to address the increasingly common model of derivatives clearing organizations (DCOs) and designated contract markets (DCMs) that allow retail participants to get market access without intermediation by an FCM.
The Commission will consider what requirements should apply to a DCO and a DCM when no intermediary is present.
I think about this with two objectives in mind. First, how do we protect customers?
We must consider which customer protections are missing when there is no FCM present in the chain and how we can maintain the protection inherent in the intermediated model.
Second, how do we maintain a level playing field? It is unfair to permit an entity to provide fewer customer protections (from advertising to customer segregation) based on its choice of registration category.
I know that this audience has, for years, raised concerns about the increasingly common practice of one corporate family, and sometimes one corporate entity, owning a DCM, a DCO, an FCM, and sometimes a market maker--all at the same time. The Commission will consider whether any new guardrails should be present in such a structure.
Since 2017, CFTC staff have issued more than a dozen no-action letters providing relief from certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements. This has essentially created a new framework for binary options.[18]
To clarify this issue, the Commission is drafting a rulemaking to address how certain swaps traded in a manner similar to futures are reported, while taking into account the unique aspects of these markets.
If you couldn't tell by now, I'm not pleased with the way Dodd-Frank has been implemented.
To this day, almost 16 years after the passage of Dodd-Frank, we have a patchwork of no-action letters serving as band-aids to compensate for unworkable regulations.
I have directed CFTC staff to draft rules to address these well-known issues, and we will no longer rely on no-action letter extensions when we should be working to get the rules right.
Our responsibility is to provide clear, workable regulations. Your job is to comply with them. When we find that the rules have created complexity, we will fix them through notice-and-comment rulemaking.
For example, there are several no-action letters surrounding reporting requirements that need to be addressed with certainty and finality through rulemaking.
These include swap data error correction notifications, filing certain ownership and control reports, and reporting requirements for swaps cleared through an exempt DCO.
In the swaps trading space, we must finally decide whether and how the trade execution requirement applies to a package transaction in which at least one individual component is subject to the trade execution requirement, and all of the other components are futures contracts.
I also plan to review what kind of trading functionality a swap execution facility (SEF) must provide for swaps that aren't subject to the trade execution mandate--also known as "permitted transactions."
More than ten years of real-world experience with SEFs shows that people almost never use order books for permitted transactions.
We've been told that the rule forcing SEFs to provide an order book for permitted transactions wastes time and money while failing to achieve the goals the Commission had in mind when it created the rule.[19]
That's not the kind of outcome I want to leave behind.
I have recently directed staff to work on a rulemaking that would reinstate what is known as "the QEP Exemption."[20]
Before 2012, this exemption reduced the level of regulatory burdens placed on investment advisers who offered pool investments only to sophisticated investors.
Unfortunately, the Commission eliminated this exemption while implementing Dodd-Frank.
We look forward to soon remedying this error in judgment.
Another overzealous implementation of Dodd-Frank takes the shape of Form PF.[21]
The CFTC and the SEC are working together on a proposal to revise Form PF and recalibrate the data collection to align with its original statutory purpose.
We have an opportunity to streamline data reporting and eliminate redundancies, thereby reducing the costs of compliance and vulnerability to inadvertent disclosure.
I believe firmly that both Commissions should not be collecting more data than necessary to fulfil their statutory obligations. Like I said before, the minimum effective dose.
In this case, that means the information necessary to monitor for systemic risk rather than information that would be nice to have for government pet projects.
As we have seen, the federal government is not immune to cyberattacks. Any mandate to disclose data to the federal government asks market participants to put sensitive information at risk of disclosure. We must not impose that risk any more than is absolutely necessary.
Finally, I'm future-proofing the agency by redirecting it towards its core mandate and away from rabbit holes like climate. The CFTC's statutory mandate is market integrity, customer protection, and price discovery--not environmental or climate policy.
Today, the Commission is formally disavowing the Market Risk Advisory Committee's (MRAC) 2020 Climate Risk report, which contained 53 recommendations on alleged risks to the financial system posed by climate change.[22]
The CFTC never formally adopted the report, so we're announcing today that the Commission does not adopt, endorse, or rely on the findings or recommendations of the MRAC's Climate Change Subcommittee Report dated September 9, 2020.
Climate-related financial risk is not a distinct regulatory category under the Commodity Exchange Act. Climate risk is fully addressed through existing authorities. We do not need a special regime.
We are also eliminating the MRAC's Climate-Related Market Risk Subcommittee. And we are dismantling the CFTC's Climate Risk Unit.
Finally, the Commission is withdrawing the Request for Information on Climate-Related Financial Risk published on June 2, 2022. The Commission does not intend to pursue any initiatives in response to this request.
We remain focused on our core mission, not political pet projects.
Also, a short word on enforcement.
The CFTC is not a merit-based regulator--we do not decide what people should be able to trade. Nor are we going to regulate through enforcement.
I have directed the Division of Enforcement to focus on its core purpose of policing fraud, abuse, and manipulation rather than setting policy.
What we will do is ensure that there are purpose-built rules of the road that protect customers and catch fraudsters who would otherwise cheat the system.
Markets as Information Engines
In a similar fashion to the Constitution's use of checks and balances to prevent overreach and tyranny, markets can be a check and balance against dishonesty and abuse, so I would like to take the opportunity to talk about prediction markets--or event contracts as we refer to them--and the role the agency plays in their regulation.
A properly functioning financial market enables legitimate price discovery, ensuring transactions are fair and orderly.
The CFTC has regulated prediction markets for decades. The agency first recognized the University of Iowa's political prediction markets through a no-action letter in 1992 that was then expanded into a full-fledged policy under the Clinton administration.[23]
I would also remind folks that the CFTC's authority over a broad definition of the term "commodity" has been upheld repeatedly in the federal courts. That is why the onslaught of lawsuits by states attempting to undermine our authority to regulate these markets is not going to work and, candidly, surprising.[24]
These markets are comfortably within the CFTC's regulatory authority.
I do admit, however, that we need to make up for lost time as prior administrations ignored these critical markets.
As I suspect most of you are aware, the agency filed an amicus brief in a state-led lawsuit against one of our registrants a few weeks back.[25]
The CFTC has the responsibility to defend its exclusive jurisdiction over commodity derivatives. And we will continue to assess litigation strategies to make sure the agency's voice is heard.
I am also pleased to announce that I have directed staff to draft guidance addressing how event contracts may be listed and traded consistent with the CFTC's statutory framework. Market participants deserve clarity. And--once that clarity is provided--the CFTC will be an active and vigilant overseer of these markets.
While clarity is helpful, we must do more.
And in this spirit, I have asked staff to prepare an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking so that the agency can solicit critical feedback on important issues permeating throughout this market. Make no mistake--the CFTC is no longer going to sit idly while these markets develop within our framework.
The reality is that prediction market platforms are now viewed by the public as more accurate than political polls, which have been shown to be weighted against certain opponents, especially in the past 10-15 years.
This type of weaponized disinformation reminds us of earlier days in our country's history, when newspapers published "yellow journalism," or sensationalized, inaccurate reporting, to push unverified partisan claims that contributed to political instability and potentially pushed the country into foreign wars.[26]
You must look no further than the 2024 presidential election when these prediction markets captured the scale of President Trump's victory in ways that pollsters either could not capture or refused to capture.
When participants express views on future events--and back those views with capital--they create accountability, transparency and information. These markets, when properly regulated, are as valuable as any stock or commodity price movement.
An ever-increasing number of Americans are checking prediction markets to learn about everything from the projected amount of snowfall in their hometowns to the likelihood of a government shutdown.
They don't trust the news media or so-called "experts" anymore and are looking to social media, podcasts, and prediction markets for reliable information.
Markets that work well are truth machines.
Additionally, highly liquid prediction markets better inform Americans about the likelihood and underlying nature of political elections and global events.
Prices then aggregate dispersed information. Money disciplines those who take losing positions.
It's my hope that, by marrying prediction markets with blockchains, we can see how decentralized trust and truth can act as a check on disinformation, outright falsity, and the threat of debanking.
Conclusion
Our charge, as regulators, is not to pick winners and losers.
The CFTC's job is to be vigilant against fraud and manipulation, but we must also be vigilant against unnecessary barriers that diminish prosperity.
Regulators must relentlessly modernize, harmonize, and future-proof their approach to regulation, without forgetting the age-old principles of investor protection, anti-fraud, anti-manipulation, and market integrity.
And speaking of the CFTC's job, if you look at the USAJOBS website right now you will find that we are hiring. There are about a dozen openings currently, with more to come. If you're interested in our vision, please join us.
We have published a new, updated logo that was just released on Friday, and there will be more of these types of housekeeping and branding announcements to come, so stay tuned.
We need people--both at the CFTC and in markets--who can operate in a future that is both analog and digital, both centralized and decentralized, both global and domestic, but built in America, with American values and American leadership.
Thanks in large part to the wisdom of men like Madison, who wrote that "if men were angels, no government would be necessary," our Republic has found ways to successfully renew itself for 250 years, making America the world's most consequential nation-state.[27]
Under President Trump's leadership, we should expect nothing less.
I want to thank the FIA for this opportunity to speak before you today.
I hope everyone can support our work as we continue to deliver on American leadership in commodity and derivatives markets for many years to come.
Thank you.
* * *
[1] U.S. Const. pmbl.
[2] Letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson (Feb. 4, 1790), https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-13-02-0020.
[3] Admin. Off. of the U.S. Courts, Just the Facts: Consumer Bankruptcy Filings, 2006-2017 (Mar. 7, 2018).
[4] Friedman, Milton, Capitalism and Freedom (1962).
[5] Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
[6] CFTC, Agency Financial Report: Fiscal Year 2014, at 11 (2014).
[7] Press Release, CFTC, Chairman Selig to Sponsor the CFTC's Agricultural Advisory Committee (Jan. 23, 2026), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9171-26.
[8] Event Contracts, 89 Fed. Reg. 48,968 (proposed June 10, 2024). Event Contracts; Withdrawal of Proposed Regulatory Action, 91 Fed. Reg. 5386 (Feb. 6, 2026) (withdrawing proposal published at 89 Fed. Reg. 48,968).
[9] Regulatory Capital Rule: Large Banking Organizations and Banking Organizations with Significant Trading Activity, 88 Fed. Reg. 64028 (Sept. 18, 2023).
[10] Press Release, CFTC, Chairman Selig Launches the CFTC Innovation Advisory Committee (Jan.12, 2026), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9167-26.
[11] See Speech of SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins, Opening Remarks at Joint SEC-CFTC Harmonization Event - Project Crypto (Jan. 29, 2026); see also SEC-CFTC Joint Staff Statement (Project Crypto-Crypto Sprint) (Sept. 2, 2025).
[12] America's AI Action Plan (White House July 23, 2025), https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Americas-AI-Action-Plan.pdf.
[13] Public Statement, CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig, The Next Phase of Project Crypto: Unleashing Innovation for the New Frontier of Finance (Jan. 29, 2026).
[14] Withdrawal of Interpretive Guidance: Retail Commodity Transactions Involving Certain Digital Assets, 90 Fed. Reg. 58,149 (Dec. 16, 2025).
[15] As defined in CFTC Letter No. 25-51 (Dec. 19, 2025), https://www.cftc.gov/csl/25-51/download.
[16] CFTC Staff No-Action Letter No. 25-51(Dec. 19, 2025).
[17] 17 C.F.R. Sec. 23.106 (2025).
[18] See CFTC Letter No. 17-31 (June 30, 2017), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/17-31/download;
CFTC Letter No. 17-32 (June 30, 2017), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/17-32/download;
CFTC Letter No. 21-11 (Apr. 22, 2021), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/21-11/download;
CFTC Letter No. 24-09 (July 12, 2024), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/24-09/download;
CFTC Letter No. 24-12 (Sept. 3, 2024), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/24-12/download;
CFTC Letter No. 24-15 (Oct. 4, 2024), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/24-15/download;
CFTC Letter No. 25-02 (Jan. 31, 2025), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/25-02/download;
CFTC Letter No. 25-23 (Jul. 22, 2025), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/25-23/download;
CFTC Letter No. 25-26 (Aug. 7, 2025), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/25-26/download;
CFTC Letter No. 25-28 (Sept. 3, 2025), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/25-28/download;
CFTC Letter No. 25-35 (Sept. 30, 2025), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/25-35/download;
CFTC Letter No. 25-44 (Dec. 11, 2025), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/25-44/download;
CFTC Letter No. 25-45 (Dec. 11, 2025), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/25-45/download;
CFTC Letter No. 25-47 (Dec. 11, 2025), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/25-47/download;
and CFTC Letter No. 25-48 (Dec. 11, 2025), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/25-48/download.
[19] See 17 C.F.R. Sec. 37.3(a)(2) (mandating that a Swap Execution Facility (SEF) must provide an "order book").
[20] See 17 C.F.R. Sec. 4.13(a)(4)(allowing CPOs to avoid registration if they only solicit funds from QEPs, such as sophisticated institutional investors). It was rescinded in 2012 but since 2026 staff has issued no-action positions in this regard to registered investment advisors. See No-Action Letter 25-50.
[21] Form PF is a confidential reporting form for certain SEC-registered investment advisers to private funds, including those that also are registered with the CFTC as a commodity pool operator (a "CPO") or a commodity trading adviser (a "CTA") with at least $150 million in AUM, to report systemic risk data. https://www.sec.gov/files/formpf.pdf.
[22] Climate-Related Market Risk Subcommittee, Market Risk Advisory Committee, CFTC, Managing Climate Risk in the U.S. Financial System (2020).
[23] CFTC Letter No. 93-66, [1992-1994 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH)
25,658 (Feb. 5, 1992).
[24] See, e.g., State ex rel. Nevada Gaming Control Board v. Blockratize, Inc. et. al, Case No. 26-OC-00012 1B (Nev. 1st Jud. Dist. Ct. Jan. 16, 2026); Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc. v. Raoul, et al., No. 1:25-cv-15406 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 18, 2025); Robinhood Derivatives, LLC v. Dreitzer, et al., No. 25-7831 (9th Cir. Dec.12, 2025); KalshiEX LLC v. Hendrick, et al., No. 25-7516 (9th Cir. Nov. 28, 2025); N. Am. Deriv. Exch., Inc. v. State of Nevada et al., No. 25-7187 (9th Cir. Nov. 14, 2025); KalshiEX LLC v. Martin, No. 25-01892 (4th Cir. Aug. 6, 2025); KalshiEX LLC v. Flaherty, No. 25-01922 (3d Cir. May 15, 2025).
[25] Brief for the CFTC as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellant and Reversal, N. Am. Derivatives Exch., Inc. v. Nevada, No. 25-7187 (9th Cir. Feb. 17, 2026).
[26] Office of the Historian, U.S. Diplomacy and Yellow Journalism, 1895-1898, available at https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/yellow-journalism.
[27] The Federalist No. 51 (James Madison).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opaselig2