Chris Fetzer

Lame Duck Session Fact Sheet

Dentons’ Public Policy team has developed a fact sheet as a quick reference guide on the lame duck session.

Click below for an overview of the 116th Lame Duck Agenda, the differences between the House’s Heroes II bill and the two bills introduced by Senate Majority Leader McConnell and legislation passed in recent lame duck sessions.

PRESIDENTIAL PREVIEW: The Battle for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave

With a weekend to go before election day, the Dentons Public Policy team looks at the political climate, the polling, the battlegrounds and how and when the nation could learn the winner in our presidential preview, “The Battle for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave Report.” We believe the outcome of the presidential election will depend, to a significant degree, on whether voters view the race as a choice between two alternatives, each with positive and negative factors, or as a referendum on the President’s leadership. Pre-pandemic, President Trump was prepared to run hard on his record. But the pandemic robbed him of his strongest argument for re-election—a booming economy—leaving him no choice but to focus on Joe Biden’s flaws. 

Whether the American people are buying this line of attack remains to be seen, but recent polls suggest it is not working.

On Wednesday morning, November 4, our Public Policy team will be issuing a detailed report on the election results that are then available. We will be updating this report later in the day, and on succeeding days as necessary, to provide not only the presidential results but a comprehensive picture of what the next US House and Senate will look like. 

Whatever the outcome of the elections, once it becomes clear who will be taking the oath of office on January 20, 2021, and who will control the Congress, we also will be releasing additional reports that profile many of the people who are expected to play key roles in the next administration and that explore the central elements of, and prospects for, the legislative agenda of the winning presidential candidate.   

House sends US$2 trillion in Economic Aid Package to the President to sign

To respond to the coronavirus health crisis and the enormous economic downturn caused by the pandemic, the House of Representatives just now passed by voice vote the CARES Act, the US$2.2 trillion stimulus package that the Senate passed late Wednesday night by a 96-0 vote. The bill now goes to President Trump who has said that he will sign it into law immediately. 

This bill, the third legislative response to the coronavirus crisis, marks the biggest economic rescue package in US history. Passage of the bill marked the end to nearly week-long negotiations between senators, House Speaker Pelosi and the Trump administration.

Among its many provisions, the bill provides US$150 billion in aid for the health care industry. US$100 billion of which will be widely hospitals and providers. It has substantial support for laid off employees, small businesses, non-profits, and numerous other industries that have been reeling from the economic impact of the virus. The wide-reaching bill includes a US$1,200 one-time check for individuals who make up to US$75,000 annually and married up to US$150,000.  It provides US$377 billion in small loan relief loan to numerous businesses, defers federal student loan payments through September 30 and provides US$260 billion in unemployment benefits. 

The bill also includes a US$500 billion infusion into the Treasury Department’s Exchange Stabilization Fund, to be used to make loans, loan guarantees, and other investments to businesses, states, and municipalities in 2020. Of that amount, it would provide as loans and loan guarantees as much as: US$25 billion in direct lending for passenger airlines, ticket agents, and aviation inspection and repair services, US$17 billion for unspecified businesses critical to national security and US$4 billion for cargo airlines.  As much as US$454 billion, and any other unused loan funds, would be available to make loans, loan guarantees, and other investments to support programs or facilities established within the Federal Reserve. Funds could be used to purchase obligations or other interests from businesses, states, or municipalities directly or in secondary markets.

Subject to returning to Washington, DC on 24 hours’ notice, the Senate has now adjourned until April 20 and the House also is not expected to return to DC for at least a comparable period.  We will continue to update you on all legislative and regulatory developments in connection with the COVID-19 crisis.

Click here to download the Senate bill.

Click here to download a section by section summary of the bill.

Chinese tech in Washington’s cross hairs

On May 29, the Trump Administration announced that the United States (US) will: (i) “impose a 25 percent tariff on $50 billion of goods imported from China containing industrially significant technology, including those related to the ‘Made in China 2025′ program,” and (ii) “implement specific investment restrictions and enhanced export controls for Chinese persons and entities related to the acquisition of industrially significant technology.”

Meanwhile, both the House and Senate versions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (NDAA), Congress’ over $700 billion annual defense policy bill, include provisions targeting Chinese technology companies.

$50 billion in tariffs on Chinese technology sector /  Investment restrictions and enhanced export controls targeting Chinese acquisition of US technology

The White House’s announcement of these measures to “defend America’s intellectual property and proprietary technology from theft and other threats” comes less than a week before a US delegation led by Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross is scheduled to return to China for another round of trade talks from June 2-4.  The final list of covered Chinese imports containing advanced technologies that will be subject to the tariffs will be announced by June 15, and the list of investment restrictions and enhanced export controls will be announced by June 30.  However, there is no guarantee that the US will implement these measures.  Today’s announcement may be viewed as an attempt to create negotiating leverage in advance of the upcoming US-China trade talks.  It may also be a response to bipartisan pressure from Capitol Hill arising from President Trump’s announcement on May 25 about a deal that would lift severe sanctions imposed on Chinese telecom company ZTE in exchange for a $1.3 billion fine, oversight by American compliance officers, and the replacement of certain members of ZTE’s executive/management team.

Of course, President Trump has established a consistent track record of following through on proposed trade and related actions.  Therefore, companies that would be impacted by the imposition of the 25 percent tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods containing advanced technologies, and the imposition of new investment restrictions and enhanced export controls related to the acquisition of US technology, should monitor all forthcoming developments related to today’s announcement closely and prepare for the Administration’s corresponding follow-up announcements on or before June 15 and June 30, respectively.

House and Senate versions of NDAA include provisions prohibiting US Government procurement of certain Chinese technologies

Capitol Hill has become an increasingly hostile environment for Chinese technology companies.  The wave of opposition in Congress against Chinese technology companies is not limited to members of one party or a select few in both parties.  Widespread, bipartisan concern exists about the real and potential threats to US national security resulting from the use by federal employees and appointees, and in particular — military and intelligence community personnel — of Chinese technology / devices.

The US House of Representatives passed its version of the NDAA by a vote of 351-66 on May 24.  The Senate’s version of the annual defense policy bill was approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) on May 23 and could be considered on the Senate floor as early as during the week of June 4.  The House-passed version of the NDAA “directs a whole-of-government strategy to confront the People’s Republic of China” and prohibits all US Government agencies from acquiring or using technology developed by Huawei or ZTE.  The House bill also includes a provision that would prohibit federal agencies from acquiring or using certain Chinese-made surveillance equipment.

Although the SASC-approved version of the NDAA that is on its way to the Senate floor has not been released by the Committee, it contains provisions that adhere to a core tenet of the US Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) National Defense Strategy, which classifies China as a “revisionist power” and “strategic competitor” that “seek[s] to shape the world toward [its] authoritarian model through destabilizing activities that threaten the security of the United States and its allies.”  The current Senate version of the NDAA contains a provision that would prohibit DOD from acquiring or using technology developed by Huawei or ZTE (as compared to the House version of the bill that prohibits all US Government agencies from such acquisition or use).  The Senate bill also includes a provision that would require all companies doing business with DOD to disclose whether they allow foreign government access to sensitive company information, including their software source code.  This provision is said to be a direct response to Russian and Chinese government contracting processes that at times require companies pursuing government business to submit to source code reviews.  Additionally, Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) reform legislation — the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA or S. 2098) — which would impose heightened restrictions on Chinese investment in the US, is included in the Senate version of the NDAA.  An effort to add FIRRMA to the House NDAA via amendment failed.  The unsuccessful action in the House and successful action in the Senate are a direct acknowledgment of Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis’ requests in separate letters on May 4 to House Armed Services Committee (HASC) and SASC leadership to include FIRRMA in this year’s NDAA.

Once the Senate has passed its version of the bill, the NDAA will be conferenced, during which time HASC and SASC staff will work to resolve the minor disparities between the two versions of the bill, HASC and SASC members and staff will resolve some of the more challenging disparities, and the Big Four (the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the two committees) will resolve the most contentious disparities.

Congress has passed the NDAA for 57 straight years.  It is one of but a few remaining must-pass annual bills on Capitol Hill.  Companies that could be impacted by these provisions in the two versions of the NDAA moving through Congress should monitor the NDAA consideration process closely in anticipation of the bill’s enactment later this year.

As Congress returns: foreign policy looms large

On July 14, 2017, the House passed, with strong bipartisan support, its version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY18 by a vote of 344–81. The Senate did not consider its version of the annual, must-pass defense policy bill before departing for August recess, and is set to dispense with the legislation this week. Thereafter, a conference committee will be formed to resolve the differences between the House-and Senate-passed versions. With top-line defense spending levels in each bill that exceed the $549 billion cap on base DOD spending for FY18 imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011, lawmakers must raise the defense spending cap for FY18, which will inevitably require Congressional Republicans to make concessions to their Democratic colleagues on a domestic spending cap increase. A deal to increase the FY18 defense and domestic spending caps will likely be struck within the broader framework of the required short-term CR. Congress has sent the NDAA to the president every year for the past 55 consecutive years, and that streak will continue this year.

North Korea

Amidst escalating rhetoric and shows of force between North Korea and the US and its East Asian allies over North Korea’s unwavering pursuit of advancements in its nuclear capabilities and corresponding missile tests, the UN Security Council unanimously imposed new sanctions on North Korea on August 5, 2017, including a prohibition on key mineral and other exports from the totalitarian state. Undaunted, the Kim Jong Un regime fired a ballistic missile over the northern tip of Japan on August 29—one of the Hermit Kingdom’s most provocative acts in the past 20 years.

State-run media described the launch as “a meaningful prelude to containing Guam,” a US territory in the Western Pacific that serves as a strategic hub for US military power projection throughout the Asia-Pacific region.

US Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joe Dunford, while continuing to emphasize that the US has a range of military options that are immediately deployable, insist that diplomatic engagement with the mercurial Kim regime remains the preferred option for mitigating tensions arising from North Korea’s nuclear ambitions.


President Trump campaigned on a promise to withdraw from military conflicts abroad, including Afghanistan. However, on August 20, 2017, he announced a new US plan for Afghanistan based on his administration’s policy review. Trump’s plan is to deploy more troops there, with primarily a training purpose for the Afghan National Army and the Afghan police. He also suggested the US will place even more pressure on Pakistan, which supports militants inside Afghanistan, to stop providing sanctuary, support and a platform to the Taliban. Under the Trump plan, the US will also continue its counter­terrorism mission with US Special Forces in Afghanistan.

Trump declined to indicate the amount of the troop increase, the benchmarks for success or how long US troops will stay. His plan is not altogether different from the last administration and can be viewed as a victory for Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, both of whom advocated for continued US commitment in Afghanistan to prevent the ascendancy of the Taliban and ISIS that would surely occur in the wake of a withdrawal.

The plan also calls for greater emphasis on diplomacy and economic development in Afghanistan, but these goals will be difficult to achieve with the proposed cuts to State Department and AID funding.


General order: Kelly quickly imposes discipline and stability on turbulent West Wing

I have never had a problem speaking truth to power, and I firmly believe that those in power deserve full candor and my honest assessment and recommendations.  I also value people that work for me speaking truth to power.

—Retired Marine Corps General John Kelly, during his January 10, 2017 confirmation hearing to be Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

A straight-talking, bright, widely respected leader with hardscrabble South Boston roots, John Kelly served for over 40 years in the Marine Corps, including as the head of US Southern Command.  On July 31, Kelly transitioned from his position as DHS Secretary to the White House, to take the reigns as President Trump’s second Chief of Staff (COS).  Although there’s limited precedent for a current or former general to serve as White House COS, Kelly is the first to do so since Alexander Haig served as COS to President Nixon (and then very briefly to President Ford).

With less than five days on the job, Kelly has moved aggressively to bring needed order and discipline to an often chaotic White House.  In his first major act as COS, Kelly fired newly-installed White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci, a longtime Trump loyalist, sending an unambiguous message to West Wing staff that a lack of discipline will not be tolerated.  Scaramucci had just committed an unforced (and unforgiveable for a communications staffer) error by unwittingly giving an on-the-record interview during which he criticized then COS Reince Priebus and current Chief Strategist Steve Bannon in profanity-laden and graphic terms.

Kelly has also limited access to the Oval Office, requiring that all West Wing personnel – including Bannon, First Daughter and Advisor Ivanka Trump, and the President’s son-in-law and Senior Advisor Jared Kushner – must report to him directly.  Reince Priebus, Kelly’s only predecessor, during his approximately six-month tenure as COS, never enjoyed the same authority Kelly now appears to command after less than one week as COS.  As has been widely reported, Bannon, Ivanka Trump, and Kushner, among many other White House personnel, would go around Priebus to carry their inputs directly to the President.  That President Trump has agreed to this new chain of command structure, at least for now, is a critical early win for Kelly as he seeks to secure control of the at-times warring factions within the staff ranks he now oversees.

Kelly, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson have been dubbed the “Axis of Adults” by members of the GOP national security and foreign policy “establishment” who believe these men and their allies are an essential stabilizing force against influential ideologues within the Trump Administration.  Kelly has already shown deference, support, and loyalty to McMaster, a friend and three-star Army general, who has weathered widespread reports in recent weeks that he and the President have an at-times strained relationship.  After pitched battles with some of the competing interests within the West Wing over National Security Council (NSC) staffing and policy matters, McMaster has prioritized a purging of NSC staff brought on by his predecessor, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn.  Not coincidentally, two days into Kelly’s tenure as COS, McMaster dismissed a member of the NSC staff that he’d been seeking to terminate for several months with no success as a result of pushback against the staffing change by Bannon and Kushner.  This was a long-sought win for McMaster and clear demonstration of the substantial authority and influence Kelly wields as COS.

Elder GOP statesman and two-time White House COS James Baker summed up the critical choice any new COS must make in choosing a leadership style, in sharing recently with The New York Times that: “You can focus on the ‘chief,’ or you can focus on the ‘of staff.’  Those who have focused on the ‘of staff’ have done pretty well.”  A leader of unquestioned character, forged by a lifetime of putting country before self, Kelly appears to be adhering to Baker’s guidance as he focuses on creating order out of chaos to empower an often dysfunctional White House to more effectively pursue and execute the President’s agenda.

Although Kelly is expected to achieve at least some success in imposing military discipline on his staff, he doesn’t believe that it’s his role to attempt to do the same with the President, in large part because, as he has shared privately, such an effort would very likely be futile.  However, Kelly demonstrated during his tenure as DHS Secretary a willingness to “speak truth to power,” including during frank conversations with the President to emphasize his staunch disagreement with the roll out and structure of the Administration’s original travel ban.  In this vein, Kelly has indicated that he plans to mitigate the flow of bad information to the President, whether from West Wing staff seeking to shape the President’s thinking (hence the restricting of access to the Oval Office), or from less than credible media outlets.  Acknowledging that wholly stanching the flow of bad information to the President isn’t possible, as an offset, Kelly has stated that he’ll serve as a provider of unassailable facts to Trump.

A combat-decorated retired general and generational peer whom Trump has sought out often for guidance during the first six months of his presidency, Kelly has a level of respect and admiration from the President that Priebus did not.  So while any pragmatist would concede that President Trump will forever be his own chief of staff, were there ever an individual with the right combination of grit, character, experience, and no-nonsense leadership acumen to bring much-needed order to an often undisciplined White House, we must look no further than the man who has just entered the building.

A Coats for all seasons: former ambassador, US senator tapped to oversee intelligence community

President-elect Trump has tapped Dan Coats, a former member of the US House of Representatives (R-IN 4th), former US Ambassador to Germany under President George W. Bush, and two-time US Senator (R-IN), to serve as Director of National Intelligence (DNI). In this role, Coats will oversee the 17 organizations that comprise the US Intelligence Community (IC), and he will be the chief advisor on intelligence matters related to national security to Trump, the National Security Council, and Homeland Security Council.

No stranger to Washington and its inner workings, Coats has also had successful stints as a lawyer-lobbyist at two prominent firms. The former member of the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees enjoys strong relationships with Republican and Democratic senators alike.  Key lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, and in both chambers, have welcomed his selection, including Senate and House Intelligence Committee Chairmen Richard Burr (R-NC) and Devin Nunes (R-CA 22nd), Senate Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Mark Warner (D-VA), senior Intelligence Committee member Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-AZ).  Coats is expected to have a smooth confirmation process.

If – and more likely when – confirmed, he may take the reins of the IC amidst uncertainty regarding the nature and scope of the DNI role.  Trump transition team officials are said to be examining the prospect of IC reform, including a restructuring of the Office of the DNI.  Nevertheless, Coats is best described as an “intelligence hawk.” He has a legislative track record of supporting robust IC authorities in the face of staunch opposition from civil liberties and privacy advocates, including on contentious policy matters such as domestic surveillance and cyberthreat data-sharing between the government and private sector. Additionally, following the damaging leaks of classified information by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, Coats became an outspoken proponent of increasing domestic counterintelligence powers to better identify insider threats and foreign spies in the US.

Unlike some of his potential future high-ranking colleagues in the Trump Administration (reportedly), and the president-elect himself, Coats is persona non grata in Moscow.  He is one of nine current and former Members of Congress, including McCain, on a list of lawmakers banned from entry into Russia. When the ban, in retaliation to US sanctions imposed on Russia for its annexation of Crimea, was announced by the Russian government in 2014, Coats dismissively stated: “While I’m disappointed that I won’t be able to go on vacation with my family in Siberia this summer, I am honored to be on this list.”  He soon followed up that response with a mocking list of “the top 10 things I won’t be able to do since Putin banned me from Russia.”

Needless to say, Coats is an intriguing pick for DNI by a president-elect perceived by many to be interested in a reset of the US-Russia relationship.  The choice is another “win” for GOP defense, intelligence, and national security establishment types.