On June 12, 2025 the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) formally withdrew fourteen outstanding rule proposals issued by the prior administration. Although most observers doubted that the current Commission would adopt these proposals, the SEC’s action confirms that any future rulemaking on these topics must start anew with a new proposal and a fresh opportunity for public comment.[1]
Withdrawn proposals relating to the business of investment advisers, investment companies or brokers are below:
- – proposed rules addressing conflicts arising from use of predictive data analytics by broker鈥慸ealers and advisers (originally proposed August 9, 2023).
- – a proposed overhaul of the custody rule under the Advisers Act, expanding asset coverage and requirements (originally proposed March 9, 2023).
- – would have required cybersecurity policies, incident reporting, and public disclosure for a broad range of market participants (originally proposed April 5, 2023).
- – proposed comprehensive best鈥慹xecution standard and oversight framework for broker鈥慸ealers (originally proposed January 27, 2023).
- – would have required certain retail orders to be exposed in qualified auctions before internalization (originally proposed January 3, 2023).
- – would have imposed due鈥慸iligence and monitoring requirements on critical third鈥憄arty service providers (originally proposed November 16, 2022).
- – would have required detailed ESG鈥憆elated disclosures (originally proposed June 17, 2022).
- – would have mandated written cybersecurity programs and incident reporting for advisers and funds (originally proposed March 9, 2022).
Withdrawn proposals relating to public markets investors, or to public markets generally, are below:
- – would have prohibited volume鈥慴ased exchange transaction pricing for agency orders (originally proposed November 6, 2023).
- – would have required a filing by holders of large security鈥慴ased swap positions (originally proposed June 26, 2023).
- – amendments expanding the definition of “SCI entity” and updating system compliance obligations (originally proposed April 14, 2023).
- – a proposed rule that would have amended the substantive bases public companies could use to exclude shareholder proposals from their proxies (originally proposed July 27, 2022).
- – expansion of the exchange definition and additional requirements for Treasury and fixed鈥慽ncome ATSs (originally proposed March 18, 2022).
- – CAT data鈥憇ecurity enhancements (originally proposed October 16, 2020).
Notably absent from the list of withdrawn proposals was the by the SEC and the Department of the Treasury that would have required investment advisers to implement procedures to verify the identities of their customers (the “CIP Rule”). It is unclear at this stage whether this indicates an intent to actually enact this proposal, which could potentially be beneficial for the administration’s national security priorities, or simply reflects the need for coordinated action with the Department of the Treasury.
In April and October of each year, Federal agencies, including the SEC, are to publish an agenda of proposed rulemaking that they expect to have a substantial impact on the economy. Under normal circumstances, the SEC would have published the Spring 2025 edition of its agenda by now, potentially shedding light on the CIP Rule and other near-term priorities. As of this writing, however, the SEC has not released the statutorily required agenda.
Nevertheless, new rule proposals and proposed amendments remain likely during the remainder of the current administration, including on some of the topics addressed by the now-withdrawn proposals. For example, Commissioners’ have indicated an intent to revise the Custody Rule to address cryptocurrencies and other digital assets. Likewise, the rapid adoption of AI tools may eventually prompt SEC action (likely with materially different scope and compliance burdens than the withdrawn proposal).
_______________
[1] On the prior administration, the SEC forwent issuing a fresh proposal and instead simply reopened the comment period on an older, already-noticed rulemaking before proceeding directly to final adoption. Reopening the record — even if accompanied by new requests for comment — can speed the process because the Commission need not prepare a new proposing release (or, indeed, settle on the precise rule text) before soliciting input. Yet this shortcut creates uncertainty for commenters: without an updated proposal, they have little visibility into the version of the rule the SEC now favors and therefore cannot easily determine what comments would be most useful to submit.