backFEATURED ARTICLES
King & Spalding Client Alert: DOJ Continues Cybersecurity False Claims Act Enforcement in New Administration
The DOJ recently announced an $11.3 million settlement of False Claims Act allegations against a Department of Defense (DOD) contractor administering its TRICARE health insurance program that allegedly falsely certified compliance with DOD cybersecurity contract requirements between 2015 and 2018. The settlement underscores the government’s continued focus on using the False Claims Act (FCA) to enforce cybersecurity-related requirements against companies that contract with the federal government. King & Spalding’s full Client Alert with additional information and insight is available here.
White House Issues a Broad Executive Order Targeting the “Administrative State”
On February 19, 2025, The White House issued an Executive Order titled “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing The President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Deregulatory Initiative” (the Order). The stated purpose of the Order is to “commence the deconstruction of the overbearing and burdensome administrative state” and end “[f]ederal overreach.”
The Order instructs agencies, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(1) (executive and military departments, government corporations, and independent regulatory agencies), to carry out several duties. First, within 60 days of the Order, agency heads shall work with Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team leads and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review all regulations and identify whether they are:
- Unconstitutional, such as those exceeding the scope of power granted by the Constitution;
- Unlawful delegations of legislative power;
- Regulations that are not based on the “best reading of the underlying statutory authority or prohibition;”
- Implicating social, political, or economic matters not authorized by statute;
- Imposing significant costs and burdens on private parties and small business; or
- Harming the national interest by slowing down technology innovation and research, infrastructure, disaster response, inflation reduction, economic development, and other similar issues.
Second, agencies are to prioritize review of regulations that “satisfy the definition of ‘significant regulatory action’” as defined in Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review issued on September 30, 1993 by the Clinton Administration. There, “significant regulatory action” was defined as a regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) effect the economy by $100 million or more, or adversely affect the economy as well as public health or safety among others areas; (2) “create a serious inconsistency . . . with an action taken or planned by another agency”; (3) materially alter the budget of entitlements and grants, among others; or (4) “raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”
The Order also instructs agencies to “de-prioritiz[e] actions to enforce regulations that are based on anything other than the best reading of a statute . . . and that go beyond the powers vested in the Federal Government by the Constitution.” After agency heads consult with OMB on the regulations outlined above, they are required to terminate all enforcement proceedings that do not comply with the “Constitution, laws, or Administration policy.” Further, agency heads are also to consult with DOGE team leads on implementing potential new regulations as soon as possible. The Order does not address what types of new regulations should be created or prioritized.
The Order does not apply to actions taken by the military. The Order also does not concern actions that relate to national security, homeland security, foreign affairs, immigration, or “any matter pertaining to the executive branch’s management of its employees.”
Reporter, Brittni Hamilton, Los Angeles, +1 213 218 4083, bhamilton@kslaw.com.