The Trump Administration’s Recent Executive Orders: What May Lie Ahead for CPSC

As the second Trump administration unfolds, one of the key points of interest for companies affected by any federal agency is which of the regulatory projects and priorities active before the transition will continue apace, which will move up or down the to-do list, and which may fall off completely. As with other federal agencies, this is an open issue for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or the Commission), and the agency’s composition adds some extra nuance.

Frozen Rules?

On the day he re-took office, President Trump issued an executive order directing federal agencies to:

• Hold back any new rules that would otherwise have gone to the Federal Register for publication and eventual effectiveness until “a department or agency head appointed or designated by the President after noon on January 20, 2025 [i.e., a Trump appointee], reviews and approves the rule”
• Withdraw any rules that had been sent to the Federal Register but not yet published so they could be reviewed by a Trump appointee
• “[C]onsider postponing for 60 days … the effective date for any rules that have been published in the Federal Register, or any rules that have been issued in any manner but have not taken effect” to allow for the same review

This was soon followed by an executive order requiring that “whenever an agency promulgates a new rule, regulation, or guidance, it must identify at least 10 existing rules, regulations, or guidance documents to be repealed.”

CPSC has not announced if or how the agency will implement these executive orders. CPSC has previously taken the position that “independent regulatory agencies like the CPSC are not required to comply with Executive Orders,” but that CPSC may voluntarily do so “for various reasons.” (Acting Chair Peter Feldman — see more on that below — did issue a statement indicating that, “[p]ursuant to [other Trump] orders, I am taking several actions to terminate all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and activities at [CPSC].”

In the absence of a clear statement on upcoming CPSC rulemaking, if you’re looking for tea leaves, CPSC has not announced any Commission votes since January 15, prior to the Inauguration and the issuance of the regulatory freeze executive order. Four Commission actions have been published in the Federal Register since January 20, although we caution against reading too much into those actions. Of the four actions, three were related to updates to rules issued under Section 104 of the Consumer Product Safety Act of 2008 (CPSA) that were triggered by revisions to the associated voluntary standards. In two cases (concerning play yards and non-full size cribs), CPSC adopted the updated standards without substantive change, modifying them only to retain definitional exclusions to minimize confusion between the two standards, exclusions that had been present in CPSC’s adoption of the prior standards. In the third (concerning stationary activity centers), the Commission’s vote was simply to notify the public of the availability of the updated standard.) (See 15 U.S.C. § 2056a(b)(4)). The fourth action was CPSC’s proposed settlement of allegations of untimely reporting under Section 15(b) of the CPSA against Fitbit, LLC, an action that was specific to the company whose conduct was at issue and is not of general applicability.

Of the CPSC actions that were published in the waning days of 2024, arguably the most significant is the agency’s overhaul of its rules regarding e-filing and certification of regulated products. However, the e-filing rule’s enforcement is already more than a year away, scheduled to take effect on July 8, 2026 for most products (July 8, 2027, “entered from an FTZ for consumption or warehousing”). Further, Acting Chair Feldman voted in favor of that rule. While Feldman does not technically qualify as a sanctioned approver under the executive order, as he joined the Commission in 2018, he was appointed by President Trump in the president’s first administration, and, as discussed further below, he may be in line to be nominated by President Trump for the full chairmanship of the agency and a new term.

But what about the rules yet to come?

Is CPSC’s 2025 Plan Frozen in Place?

In November 2024, the Commission approved CPSC’s Operating Plan for Fiscal Year 2025. Along with laying out all of the other direction the Commission has given the agency, that plan includes a table of the mandatory standards and other rules CPSC is set to pursue in FY25, including 15 rulemaking projects the agency is scheduled to finalize in the fiscal year. These anticipated Final Rules (FRs) include:

• Six new or updated standards for durable infant and toddler products under Section 104
• Six safety standards for other products, including but not limited to Li-ion batteries in micromobility products, furnaces (CO Hazards) and Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) debris penetration hazards
• The culmination of two retrospective rule review projects, namely:
  • Rules on the disclosure of interests for persons participating in Commission proceedings
  • Rules governing the agency’s disclosure of manufacturer-identifying information under Section 6 of the CPSA
• Final action on a public petition to establish standards to address hazards associated with inhalation of fumes from aerosol dusters

However, given the executive orders and budget uncertainty, among other issues, more changes in CPSC’s priorities may develop over the coming weeks and months.

Commission Changes

In November, the five-member Commission consisted of:

• Chair Alexander Hoehn-Saric (D, term through October 2027)
• Peter Feldman (R, term through October 2026)
• Richard Trumka, Jr. (D, term through October 2028)
• Mary Boyle (D, term through October 2025)
• Douglas Dziak (R, term ended October 2024 but can “holdover” in office until October 2025 or a replacement is confirmed)

On January 21, 2025, Hoehn-Saric stepped down as Chair (remaining on the Commission) and, by virtue of a previous Commission vote that had made Commissioner Feldman the Vice Chair, Feldman became the Acting Chair.

Thus far, a few weeks into his tenure as Acting Chair, Feldman has not signaled major changes in policy direction. Consistent with previous statements made during his tenure at CPSC, voicing concerns about e-commerce platforms and the influx of products made in China that are sold direct to consumers, Feldman praised another Trump executive order which initially removed the de minimis import privilege for products coming from China (an action that was later paused). Feldman wrote that “[i]n addition to avoiding tariffs, shipments under this provision also skirt paperwork filings and safety assurances that CPSC relies on for targeting and screening.”

The Commission’s Future State

To date, President Trump has not nominated anyone to chair the Commission, nor has he nominated anyone for Dziak’s lapsed seat. Further, with Boyle’s term ending this October and Feldman’s in October 2026, additional nominations will be necessary to keep the top level of the agency fully staffed. President Trump will thus have opportunities to put his own stamp on CPSC in how he fills these looming vacancies, particularly Boyle’s, as her departure would allow President Trump to shift the Commission’s party majority from Democratic to Republican (by statute, “[n]ot more than three of the Commissioners shall be affiliated with the same political party,” and the president can remove a commissioner only for cause).

If two or more new faces appear on the Commission dais, that turnover may result in a more significant shift in Commission policy.

For questions about notification requirements under Section 15(b) of the CPSA, CPSC enforcement practices, or other product safety matters, please reach out to the authors of this post, who are part of Arnold & Porter’s leading Consumer Product Safety team.

© Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 2025 All Rights Reserved. This Blog post is intended to be a general summary of the law and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.