Federal Update: DHS Proposes New Public Charge Regulation 

On November 19, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) revising how immigration officials determine whether an applicant is likely to become a public charge, a determination that can make noncitizens ineligible for admission to the United States or adjustment of status to lawful permanent residency. 

Under current policy, set by a 2022 final rule, DHS officers may consider prior use of cash assistance or long-term government-funded institutional care when assessing whether an individual may become a public charge. The new proposal would formally rescind that rule and move away from defining public charge through the formal rulemaking process. Instead, immigration officers will be given extremely wide latitude and discretion to consider receipt of any public benefit in their public charge determinations. 

DHS acknowledges that removing guardrails from the definition of public charge could discourage eligible individuals and family members, including U.S. citizen children, from accessing public benefit programs. The agency projects the proposal would reduce federal benefit expenditures by approximately $9 billion annually due to anticipated declines in enrollment. The proposal also explicitly acknowledges potential impacts on public health, community stability, and resilience, as well as State and local economies, businesses, and individuals. 

Public comments on the proposal are due December 19, 2025 and can be submitted through the Federal Register. 

EPA Releases New Proposal to Redefine Waters of the United States 

This week, the Trump administration released a new proposal to update the federal definition of “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS), which determines what waters and wetlands are protected under the Clean Water Act. According to the administration, the goal is to bring federal rules in line with the Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett v. EPA decision, which narrowed the types of waterways the federal government can regulate. If finalized, the proposal would replace the Biden administration’s definition and continue a long pattern of administrative re-writes of the WOTUS rule. 

The proposed rule focuses on clarifying several terms the Supreme Court used in Sackett, including “relatively permanent,” “continuous surface connection,” and “tributary.” Under the draft, a tributary would only fall under federal oversight if it connects to a traditional navigable waterway (such as a major river) either directly or through another feature that provides steady, predictable flow. Wetlands would be protected only if they directly touch those waters and share a continuous surface connection for part of the year, meaning many isolated or seasonally connected wetlands would no longer qualify. 

EPA has indicated that the latest iteration of the rule would make it clearer which waters remain federally regulated and which are excluded. As in past efforts, ditches, converted cropland, and waste treatment systems would remain outside federal jurisdiction. Moreover, the new proposal would exclude groundwater. The draft also considers seasonal conditions – such as defining a “wet season” – when determining whether waters have enough flow to count as “relatively permanent.” 

Farm, ranching, and construction groups have urged EPA to fully reflect the Sackett and earlier Rapanos decisions by excluding most ephemeral and intermittent waters and limiting wetland protections to areas that directly touch navigable waters. Environmental groups, on the other hand, warn the proposal would roll back protections for wetlands and small streams that help filter water, support wildlife, and reduce flooding. EPA noted that the rule is also intended to strengthen local and tribal control by more clearly outlining where federal oversight ends. 

The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register today and is now open for public comment. The comment period closes January 5, 2026, and EPA and administration officials have indicated they will move quickly toward a final rule. 

White House Considers Federal Preemption of State AI Laws 

The White House is circulating a draft executive order that would direct federal agencies to challenge state-level artificial intelligence (AI) regulations and condition certain federal grants on compliance with national standards. According to reports, the draft calls for establishing an AI Litigation Task Force within the Department of Justice, reviewing state AI laws that may conflict with federal priorities, and directing agencies to identify when federal law should take precedence over state requirements. 

Among other things, the order would assign a broad implementation role to the White House’s AI and crypto adviser and require several agencies to initiate rulemaking or policy reviews. Key elements include directing the Federal Communications Commission to consider national reporting and disclosure standards for AI models that could supersede conflicting state rules, and instructing the Federal Trade Commission to issue guidance on the application of federal consumer protection laws to AI. The draft also directs the Commerce Department and other agencies to evaluate whether state-level AI laws should affect their eligibility for federal grant programs, including the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program. 

Supporters of a federal approach argue that differing state requirements could create a patchwork of rules that complicate compliance and impede innovation. Others have raised concerns that the executive order may face legal challenges, noting that only Congress can formally preempt state law. The proposal also comes as congressional leaders consider whether to include language limiting state AI rules in the annual defense authorization bill, though previous efforts have stalled. 

It should be noted that the draft order remains subject to change and has not been formally announced. Its scope, timing, and legal implications are still uncertain. 

Lawmakers Call on House Leaders to Advance Secure Rural Schools Reauthorization 

A bipartisan, bicameral group of lawmakers – led in the House by Representatives Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) and Joe Neguse (D-OR) – circulated a letter this week urging House leaders to advance the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) Reauthorization Act of 2025 (S. 356) before the end of the year. The Senate unanimously approved the measure in June. 

SRS payments provide fiscal support to counties with large shares of federally managed forestland, funding services such as road maintenance, public schools, public safety, and wildfire mitigation. The program expired at the end of fiscal year 2023, and payments have since reverted to a revenue-sharing formula tied to timber receipts. This has resulted in significantly reduced funding for many rural, forested counties. In California, 28 counties collectively received more than $33.4 million under the final SRS payment issued in 2024. However, no payment was issued in 2025, and none is anticipated in 2026 without congressional action. 

It should be noted that CSAC supported the circulating letter and has urged members of the California congressional delegation to sign on. Earlier this year, CSAC also sent a letter to House and Senate leaders calling on them to advance the legislation before counties miss another round of payments. 

House Panel Approves Broadband Streamlining Legislation 

Earlier this week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Communications & Technology Subcommittee approved a number of bills aimed at streamlining broadband project permitting and deployment, including several measures that would preempt state and local oversight of telecommunications infrastructure. 

Among the streamlining measures that were folded into a larger legislative package (H.R. 2289) was the BROADBAND Leadership Act (H.R. 278). Under the bill, local governments would be required to adhere to strict timelines for approving or denying requests for telecommunications service facility placements or modifications. Specifically, the measure would impose a 90-day “shot clock” for projects on existing infrastructure and a 150-day clock for new construction. If localities fail to act within the specified timeframes, projects would be automatically approved. In addition, while the legislation would allow local governments to charge fees for reviewing applications and using public rights-of-way, the fees would need to be “actual, direct, and objectively reasonable.” H.R. 278 also would allow telecommunications companies to sue local governments if companies believe rules have been violated, with a court decision required within 30 days. 

The subcommittee also approved the Broadband Expansion and Deployment Fee Equity and Efficiency Act (H.R. 1975), which would preclude states and localities from receiving Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) funds if they charge telecommunications companies fees that are not competitive, technology-neutral, or nondiscriminatory. The legislation would require states and localities to calculate fees based on actual and direct costs, such as review, processing, and repairs related to infrastructure placement or modification. 

Additionally, the subcommittee cleared the Connecting Communities Post Disasters Act (H.R. 3960, which would provide an exemption from the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act for communications facility projects carried out in areas declared under a major disaster or emergency. Pursuant to the bill, a covered project would need to replace or improve a damaged communications facility within five years of the disaster declaration and be necessary for recovery or to prevent future emergencies. The exemption would apply to any federal authorization, including permits, certifications, or approvals, related to such projects, ensuring faster deployment of critical infrastructure during disaster recovery. 

It should be noted that the streamlining package was approved on a 16-12 partisan vote, with subcommittee Democrats vigorously opposing proposals that would undercut local authority and decision-making processes. 

Reps. LaMalfa, Garamendi Reintroduce Flood Insurance for Farmers Act 

Last week, Representatives Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) and John Garamendi (D-CA) reintroduced bipartisan legislation – the Flood Insurance for Farmers Act (H.R. 5961) – aimed at lowering flood insurance costs and reducing administrative barriers for agricultural producers located in FEMA-designated floodplains. 

Under current National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) rules, farmers must pay a separate $250 surcharge for every insured structure, such as barns, sheds, and storage buildings. H.R. 5961 would allow producers to bundle multiple structures under a single commercial NFIP policy, reducing these costs to one surcharge rather than many. 

The legislation would also give counties more flexibility to grant variances from FEMA’s minimum floodplain standards for agricultural structures when elevation or flood-proofing is impractical and when doing so does not increase flood risks. This would allow counties to remain in compliance with NFIP requirements while recognizing the operational needs of farms. 

Rep. Valadao Introduces NEPA Streamlining Bill to Speed Infrastructure Approvals 

This week, Congressman David Valadao (R-CA) introduced legislation – the Determination of NEPA Adequacy Streamlining Act (H.R. 6163) – aimed at speeding federal approval of water, transportation, energy, and flood-control projects. The bill would allow federal agencies to rely on previously completed Environmental Assessments (EAs) or Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) when authorizing new projects with similar environmental impacts, avoiding repetitive NEPA reviews that can add years to project timelines. 

The proposal comes as Congress continues bipartisan efforts to modernize federal environmental review processes. Lawmakers have pointed to growing project backlogs, agency staffing shortages, and overlapping environmental analyses as major barriers to infrastructure delivery. 

Valadao, Salinas Introduce Bipartisan Rural Development Bill 

On November 12, Representatives Valadao and Andrea Salinas (D-OR) introduced bipartisan legislation –  the Rural Partnership and Prosperity Act (H.R. 6041) – to direct more federal resources to rural communities through new grant programs focused on economic development and local capacity-building. The bill aims to address longstanding challenges rural regions face in accessing federal funding – particularly for housing, child care, workforce development, and community infrastructure – by creating a new multi-year Rural Partnership Program Grant to provide flexible funding tailored to local priorities, alongside a Rural Prosperity Technical Assistance Grant designed to help communities plan projects, write grants, and compete more effectively for federal and private investment.