Attorneys inundated with questions from businesses, nonprofits about Trump’s policy moves

In late January, a little more than a week into President Donald Trump’s second term, the Office of Management and Budget sent out a memo to all federal agencies calling on them to freeze any federal funding that could be at odds with the president’s agenda.

That plan is now paused in federal court, even after OMB fully withdrew the memo.

But from the moment Trump’s directive was issued, Jarrod Loadholt was flooded with questions from clients in Indiana and elsewhere.

“I’ve never received as many calls in a day from anything originating in Washington,” Loadholt, a partner in Ice Miller’s government affairs and regulatory law group, said of the aftermath of the funding freeze announcement.

Quick attempts to shift federal policy like the OMB memo, interspersed with an unprecedented flurry of executive orders Trump issued in his first few weeks in office, have resulted in many attorneys fielding a cascade of calls from concerned businesses and nonprofit organizations.

Those calls involve subject areas ranging from funding-related questions to tariff or immigration-related inquiries.

“We’ve gotten everything from full blown panic to ‘what does this mean, what should we do,’” Loadholt said.

Possible funding freezes

Confusion about the announced federal funding freeze, which was later rescinded, generated a lot of concerns for companies that do business with the federal government, Loadholt said.

He said companies may have already made significant financial investments on projects and are waiting for federal reimbursements.

That can cause payroll issues, Loadholt noted.

The Ice Miller attorney said nonprofit groups, universities, research organizations and local governments are also keeping an eye on what happens with OMB.

The National Council of Nonprofits, joined by several other advocacy groups, filed a lawsuit asking for a temporary restraining order against the OMB plan in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

In granting the motion, U.S. District Judge Loren Alikhan wrote that the potential scope of the freeze “is as great as $3 trillion and its effects are difficult to fully grasp.”

“Plaintiffs point to news reports detailing far-reaching effects: preschools could not pay their staff; Los Angeles and North Carolina were denied disaster relief aid; and elderly Americans who relied on subsidized programs for food did not know if their next meal would come,” Alikhan wrote.

Courtney Lynch, a business law partner with Quarles & Brady LLP, represents clients that include an array of nonprofits.

Lynch said the proposed federal funding freeze had generated the most inquiries, with the attorney describing her clients as “concerned.”

She said a lot of nonprofits rely on federal grant funding, especially in areas such as affordable housing, and many didn’t anticipate that a pause in federal funding would be a priority for the president.

“I don’t think, especially the funding freeze, was on anybody’s radar,” Lynch said.

Tariff/trade policies

Proposed tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico were included in the long list of executive orders issued by Trump.

Trump signed an order Feb. 1 and declared an economic emergency in order to place duties of 10% on all imports from China and 25% on imports from Mexico and Canada.

The Associated Press reported energy imported from Canada, including oil, natural gas and electricity, would be taxed at a 10% rate, with Trump’s order including a mechanism to escalate the rates charged by the U.S. against retaliation by the other countries.

In response, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that his country would put matching 25% tariffs on up to $155 billion in U.S. imports, including alcohol and fruit.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum also ordered retaliatory tariffs.

After meeting with Trudeau and Sheinbaum, Trump issued new executive orders pausing tariffs on Mexico and Canada until March 4.

China announced retaliatory tariffs on certain American imports, with a 15% tariff on coal and liquefied natural gas products as well as a 10% tariff on crude oil, agricultural machinery and large-engine cars imported from the U.S.

Andrew Berger, president and CEO of the Indiana Manufacturers Association, issued a lengthy statement to Indiana Lawyer in response to the announced tariffs.

Berger said Canada is Indiana’s biggest trading partner, with $14.9 billion in goods exported to Canada in 2023, representing 27 percent of the state’s total goods exports.

He noted that $11.1 billion in goods was imported from Canada, adding that for state exports, Canada was followed by Mexico ($7.5 billion) and China ($5.0 billion).

“Indiana is the fourth largest manufacturing economy in the US and higher tariffs will impact this critical industry. With so many variables and individual business decisions to be made, the only sure thing at the moment is uncertainty,” Berger said.

The association president said Indiana is a global center for auto manufacturing and there is a huge percentage of US, Canada, and Mexico trade centered on the auto industry.

He cautioned that not only could tariffs impact consumers as the cost filters through the supply change, but production facilities that use imported components or raw materials could now have more costly operations, which would hurt manufacturing competitiveness in Indiana.

Kyle Anderson, an economist at the IU Kelley School of Business in Indianapolis, said if the proposed tariffs against Canada and Mexico go into effect, it could have a huge impact on all households.

Anderson cited manufacturing and the auto industry as two business areas that could see the biggest blows from those tariffs, with a lot of auto assembly facilities importing their parts from the two North American countries.

“I think the price of vehicles will go up enough that it will put a significant damper on the demand side,” Anderson said.

Possible retaliatory tariffs from those countries could also hurt demand for goods produced in Indiana.

Anderson said the use of executive orders by any president doesn’t allow for an orderly planning process for businesses.

The country hasn’t seen the kind of broad-based tariffs like those proposed by Trump since the 1920s and ‘30s, Anderson said.

Given Trump’s embrace of executive orders and use of tariffs to alter trade policy, Anderson pointed out that other countries may see tariffs imposed on them by the U.S. as well.

“We don’t have any closer allies than Canada. If the president is targeting Canada for tariffs, clearly nobody is off the board,” Anderson said.

There could be a window of opportunity for domestic growth, Berger said.

He said many IMA members are undoubtedly looking to grow, and now Canadian, Mexican and Chinese competitors could have less of a cost advantage.

“Others will look to see if Canada and Mexico stop allowing unfair trade practices that are targeted at the US economy. There is real motivation in the industry to use the opportunities afforded by a better tax and regulatory climate brought by a Trump administration to expand,” Berger said.

He acknowledged that growth will be difficult with a manufacturing workforce in Indiana that has seemingly stagnated and with manufacturers already dealing with big cost increases for labor and goods.

Immigration crackdown

Immigration has taken center stage since Inauguration Day, with Trump issuing 10 executive orders on his first day in office that seek to change the country’s policy, according to the American Immigration Council.

Trump reversed several immigration orders from Biden’s presidency, including one that narrowed deportation priorities to people who commit serious crimes, are deemed national security threats or were stopped at the border.

The president issued orders declaring a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border and announced plans to send U.S. troops to help support immigration agents and restrict refugees and asylum.

His attempt to end birthright citizenship through executive order triggered multiple lawsuits, as 22 states, as well as other organizations, have sued to try to stop the executive action.

That order is on hold in federal court, with U.S. District Judge John Coughenour calling the order “blatantly unconstitutional.”

The judge issued a 14-day temporary restraining order blocking its implementation.

U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman followed that up with an injunction keeping it on hold long-term, until the merits of the case are resolved, barring a successful appeal by the Trump administration, according to the Associated Press.

The Trump administration also announced it would be ending protections that shielded roughly 350,000 Venezuelans from deportation, leaving them with two months before they lose their right to work in the U.S.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s order affects 348,202 Venezuelans living in the U.S. with Temporary Protected Status slated to expire in April. That’s about half of the approximately 600,000 who have the protection. The remaining protections are set to expire at the end of September.

Trump also announced refugee resettlement programs would be suspended.

The president’s executive order instructs the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State to advise within 90 days whether the refugee resettlement program funding should be resumed.

In response to fallout from state and federal immigration-related orders, Indianapolis-based Exodus Refugee Immigration Inc. announced it had locked its doors and moved all client appointments, English classes and cultural orientation classes to off-site or virtual locations.

“We remain open and committed to serving our clients and will also be protecting them from being illegally or unjustly detained by ICE or by anyone cooperating with ICE,” Exodus posted on social media. “Our clients shouldn’t be afraid to walk down the street, to take their children to school, or to go the bus stop. They shouldn’t be afraid just to exist—and neither should anyone else.”

The Indianapolis group also requested donations and support as resettlement funding had been halted as a result of Trump’s executive order.

Lynch said probably all nonprofit groups with ties to federal funding hold concerns about the president’s orders, including organizations that help immigrants.

“Nonprofits that are assisting in the immigration space have multiple issues to think of,” Lynch said.

What are attorneys telling clients?

Loadholt said schools and churches represented by his firm have also expressed concerns about ICE enforcement activity at their locations.

Ice Miller is telling those clients to plan ahead and be prepared in case federal law enforcement agents do show up for immigration-related matters.

Trump’s executive orders cover a wide range of other domestic issues as well, including controversial actions that would place bans on federal funds from educational programs that allow transgender women and girls to participate in female sports, end all diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility programs, policies and mandates across the federal government and establish the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency.

Democratic attorneys general in several states have vowed to file a lawsuit to stop Musk’s DOGE from accessing federal payment systems containing Americans’ sensitive personal information.

With several legal challenges awaiting most of the president’s orders and plans, Lynch said she is telling clients to stay patient.

She said organizations shouldn’t be making rash decisions and should instead watch, listen and let colleagues, attorneys and Congressional representatives know if there’s an order or policy shift that could adversely impact their operations.

“My attitude and advice to clients is to continually be vigilant and be attentive and if something is affecting you to reach out,” Lynch said.

Loadholt said he advises clients not to overreact and make sure they have the right help to navigate what will likely be an eventful four years under Trump’s leadership.•