Compliance Is Still King for the CPSC

Despite recent political upheaval within the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the Commission’s commitment to consumer safety remains steadfast. While proposed changes to the very foundation of the CPSC may leave manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers of consumer products grappling with implications for their businesses, companies must refrain from easing off the gas pedal when it comes to compliance. Protecting consumers against unreasonable product risks should—and does—transcend both party affiliation and organizational structure. Partisan or not, the Commission still knows how to get companies to comply.

Traditionally, bipartisanship has been imprinted on the very structure of the CPSC, a historically independent federal regulatory agency. Its five Commissioners are nominated by the sitting president and confirmed by the Senate. Commissioners serve staggered seven-year terms and no more than three may belong to the same political party at any given time. The Commissioners are to be removed only for cause. These statutory guideposts were designed to shield the agency against any shakeups that may affect other executive branch agencies during administration transitions. In today’s political climate, the staying power of these guideposts is increasingly in doubt.

Though actual bipartisanship may be fading, the effectiveness of the Commission is not. No matter its make-up, the agency’s record indicates that its mission remains materially unchanged.

The CPSC has been vigorously engaged in the enforcement of laws intended to keep Americans safe. Unlike other agencies where goals may be more directly tied to the politics of the executive office, all of the Commissioners have previously indicated that their politics should not affect their mandate. Even in a politicized climate, effectiveness should not, and does not, have to be off the table.

A Fired-Up Commission

From the first days of President Trump’s second term, the White House and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have targeted government agencies through staffing cuts and deregulation techniques. One executive order required agencies to cut ten rules or regulations for every one they sought to add. Given the Commission’s historically independent nature, it ostensibly would not be bound by such executive orders. However, early policy changes announced by the Commission signaled it was likely to fall in step with the Administration’s directives.

Among other things, twenty-four CPSC employees took President Trump’s initial “deferred-resignation” offer, going on paid-administrative leave until their listed resignation date. The Trump Administration vocalized its desire for agencies—including the Commission—to make further staffing cuts. And, while some Commissioners refused to make additional reductions in force, a July 2025 ruling by the Supreme Court is likely to open the door to resume mass layoffs at federal agencies.

Some of the Commissioners challenged the Administration’s agenda in other ways, including by voting to advance a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on lithium-ion batteries, directly contradicting an executive order that required White House review of all regulatory proposals. Seemingly in response to that vote and their resistance to abide by further staffing reductions, President Trump fired the three Democratic Commissioners—Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka—on May 9, 2025. This left the CPSC in the hands of two Republican Commissioners—Acting Chairman Peter Feldman and Commissioner Douglas Dziak. There is no avoiding the reality that these events have been deeply contentious—and nail-bitingly uncomfortable. For those steeped in the Commission’s history and mission, watching its structure and norms so overtly tested has been deeply disquieting.

This political turmoil, however, does not appear to signal a death knell for the Commission’s mission. If anything, recent agency activity has underscored that consumer product safety remains very much alive and in motion. The two Republican Commissioners have led the agency to markedly step up its enforcement efforts. Over the past several months, the Commission has announced a series of high-profile, sweeping recalls and warnings, sending a clear message to those who may have had misgivings about its continued efficacy.

Post-Firings Fallout

Understanding what is happening now requires a clear look at the timeline of events that began with the termination of the three Democratic Commissioners on May 9, 2025. On May 21, 2025, the three Democratic Commissioners filed suit in the District of Maryland, challenging their removal as unlawful under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), which strictly limits the removal of Commissioners to cases of “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”

The District of Maryland initially denied the Democratic Commissioners’ request to return to work while their case was underway. This was not unexpected, given that temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions—which seek to maintain the status quo during litigation— are infrequently granted. Parties must clear a high bar to show they would otherwise suffer immediate, irreparable harm during the pendency of a case. This outcome also mirrored a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision similarly denying other former government officials’ request for reinstatement while their case was under consideration. In that matter, the justices ruled that restoring the officials on a temporary basis only to potentially remove them again risked significant disruption to agency operations.

But the matter was far from settled. Not long thereafter, the District of Maryland issued an order granting summary judgment that the terminations were unlawful, and reinstated all three Commissioners to their positions under a different procedural mechanism. The District Court found, as a matter of law, that the Commissioners’ tenure protection that stated “for-cause removal” was required did not infringe upon the President’s removal power. The Court also ruled that the Commissioners would suffer irreparable harm without reinstatement.

Though it seemed at the time as though the status quo was restored, the Commissioners’ reentry caused further tensions in the workplace. The reinstated Commissioners quickly took steps to unravel changes made during their absence.

Meanwhile, the Trump Administration promptly sought a stay of the District Court’s ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit arguing that the District Court’s decision was inconsistent with precedent and risked undermining the President’s constitutional authority. On July 1, 2025, the Fourth Circuit denied the motion to stay, allowing the reinstatement order to remain in effect while the case proceeded on appeal.

Undeterred, the Trump Administration sought emergency intervention from the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) opposing the reinstatement of the Democratic Commissioners. The filing paints a concerning picture of an “intra-agency civil war,” with “hostile members who are deliberately thwarting the President’s objectives for the agency.” This accused conduct is far from the bipartisanship that has traditionally been hailed as a Commission hallmark.

On July 23, 2025, SCOTUS sided with President Trump, blocking the permanent injunction order and once again removing the Democratic Commissioners, pending appeal. SCOTUS’s 6-3 decision noted that, although it did not resolve the underlying merits of the case, it should guide how lower courts exercise their discretion in similar cases. The decision referenced an earlier ruling as “squarely control[ing]” and noted the Court should have been afforded more deference.

While technically procedural, the ruling marks another significant moment in the evolving debate over executive authority and the independence of federal agencies, seemingly setting aside statutory “for cause” protections that have been in place for nearly a century. While the case has been sent back to the Fourth Circuit for a merits determination, an eventual return to the Supreme Court seems inevitable.

The battle did not only play out in the courts. On July 21, 2025, Acting Chairman Feldman and Commissioner Dziak released a statement alongside the announced recall of five million above-ground swimming pools—which they described as “the largest of its kind in agency history.” In what some view as a departure from prior agency communications, this press release explicitly reproached previous Commission leadership, led by Commissioner Hoehn-Saric, for a “fail[ure] to act” despite knowing about the hazard. It stated that the then-Commission was “distracted elsewhere” and cited the alleged “years of inaction” as “unacceptable.”

The accusations levied certainly do not bode well for intra-Commission collaboration. They also tend to lend themselves to anticipated arguments by the Trump Administration that the Commissioners were fired for cause.

Politics Aside, the Work Goes On

Given the extraordinary political and legal upheaval surrounding the Commission—including contested firings, judicial reversals, and escalating accusations—one might expect the agency’s work to grind to a halt. But the opposite has proven true. Despite the turbulence, the CPSC has remained operational and, at times, assertive. The July recall of five million above-ground swimming pools is just one indicator that the agency’s activity is anything but stagnant.

The swimming pool recall is far from an isolated instance. A broader look demonstrates the Commission and its employees have remained laser-focused on enforcing the statutes and regulations they are charged with carrying out. And indeed, what may come as a surprise—especially given the substantial level of CPSC activity, from enhanced border surveillance and escalated legal actions against noncompliant companies to streamlined compliance initiatives like eFiling—is how little of the agency’s internal turmoil has been visible from the outside.

For those not closely following the CPSC—or those fortunate enough to have sidestepped the 24-hour news cycle—there has been little indication of strife. For consumers, it may well appear to be business as usual. The same is true for regulated companies, which continue to operate in what, for now, remains a stable and familiar regulatory environment. The CPSC announced 101 recalls in the first quarter of 2025 and 109 in the second quarter. This makes the number of recalls at the half-year mark of 2025 the highest in more than 13 years.

As if daring people to question whether the Commission has lost its bite, on May 15, 2025, the Commission announced a new agency record of twenty-eight product safety recalls and warnings within one week. A large number of these recalls concerned products manufactured in China, underscoring one of this Administration’s primary foci—“cracking down on foreign violators.” Though Acting Chairman Feldman has expressed his desire to work with Chinese companies in advancing consumer safety, the very real difficulty in contacting, or even identifying, these foreign sellers often creates added obstacles. The July above-ground pool recall is a particularly significant accomplishment, cementing the agency’s intensified vigilance in protecting consumers—and specifically children—from product hazards.

In line with this more aggressive posture, the Commission has increasingly wielded unilateral press releases as a weapon. When a company resists participation in a voluntary product recall, the agency is empowered to act independently to alert the public of potential hazards. This can also happen when the CPSC cannot get into contact with the manufacturer, as can be the case with foreign companies.

The Commission has issued more than a dozen unilateral press releases in the first half of 2025. Remarkably, in the three weeks following the dismissals of the three Democratic Commissioners, the Commission issued almost double the number of product warnings and recalls than the three weeks preceding the dismissals.

The CPSC also has maintained its stance of continuing to enforce civil penalties. In August 2025, a portable air conditioner importer agreed to a civil penalty and restitution totaling over $16.4 million; Acting Chairman Feldman described the penalty as "a clear reminder” that the CPSC “remain[s] fully empowered and unwavering in [its] mission to protect American families.” Earlier this year, a fitness tracker company and an awning manufacturer agreed to pay $12.25 million and $9.25 million, respectively, in civil penalties for failure to immediately report serious burn hazards. The fitness tracker company had allegedly waited four years to report, while the awning maker was accused of delaying by five years. Highlighting the “business as usual” nature of these settlement agreements, both companies were required to institute stringent compliance mechanisms, which have been touted as necessary on both sides of the political aisle.

The Commission also continues to raise the stakes for noncompliance. On June 16, 2025, two Californian dehumidifier manufacturer executives were criminally sentenced for failure to report under the CPSA—a first-of-its-kind conviction. The company’s Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Executive Officer were sentenced to more than three years in prison for conspiracy to defraud the CPSC and failure to timely report under the CPSA.

The recalled Chinese-manufactured dehumidifiers were implicated in four deaths, more than 450 fires, and millions of dollars in property damage. According to the prosecution, the companies were aware of the severe defects as early as 2012 but refrained from disclosing these defects to the CPSC for at least six months. They continued to sell the defective products while forging safety certifications to deceive the public and falsifying untimely reports to the Commission assuring the safety of their products.

Acting Chairman Feldman reiterated that the “sentences are a clear message that the CPSC will take a hard line against executives who break American laws and endanger families.” This underscores the Commission’s commitment to enforcing companies’ affirmative reporting obligations.

Are Structural Changes Ahead?

While CPSC enforcement activity is at full throttle, the very foundation of the CPSC is still at risk of a full restructuring. On May 30, 2025—before the temporary reinstatement of the Democratic Commissioners—the two-member Commission submitted a 2026 Performance Budget Request, which appeared to align with the goals of DOGE and the Trump Administration. Most notably, the request sought to move the Commission under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and create a singular leadership position, the Assistant Secretary for Consumer Product Safety, to supervise the work currently delegated to the five Commissioners.

The budget request also proposed reducing associated funding by 10.5% and reducing staff by 14%. According to Acting Chairman Feldman, this restructuring request is not an effort to eliminate the Commission, but part of a plan to combine agencies under a united goal of national public health. And, on its face, the Budget Request acknowledges that any contemplated restructuring is conditioned on congressional approval.

As was likely expected, the Democratic Commissioners voted to rescind this budget request after their reinstatement. On June 25, 2025, the Commission majority submitted a new request, outwardly rejecting the proposal to restructure the Commission into HHS and instead seeking a $33 million budget increase. This newer request was similarly contingent on legislative approval. With the Supreme Court’s blessing of President Trump’s ouster of the Democratic Commissioners, the Commission is expected to revert back to its initial budget request.

Additionally, before these latest legal developments, the previously-ejected Commissioners sought to protect themselves and the agency from future changes during their temporary reinstatement by adopting a policy underlining the Commissions’ stance on Reductions in Force (RIFs). This policy “prohibits the use of any agency funds … to take any action toward RIFs of CPSC staff absent a vote of the full Commission.” The effectiveness of this rule in protecting against an aggressive Administration is increasingly uncertain and might offer too little too late, with Commission staff left feeling less protected in today’s quickly changing environment.

The Enduring Imperative: Consumer Protection Above All

This all brings us back to the core tenant underpinning any and all Commission activity—consumer protection. The CPSC’s core mission is enshrined in existing federal law, as are the reporting and compliance obligations of manufacturers, distributors, importers, and retailers. As uncertain and fast-paced as the current landscape may seem under this Administration, the old adage rings true: the more things change, the more they stay the same. While the Commission is now undoubtedly politicized—and perhaps permanently so—recent developments indicate this may reflect a shift in optics more than substance.

In practice, the Commission is pursuing enforcement with as much vigor as ever. Though we may fondly reminisce about an era when bipartisanship was at least part of the Commission’s outward posture, if not its internal operations, it would be unwise to lose the forest for the trees. No matter its make-up, the Commission’s appetite for enforcement has not waned. In fact, amidst the current political and administrative flux, the enduring regulatory force of the CPSC may offer precisely the consistency we all seem to crave.

Please save the date for a moderated Q&A with Consumer Products Safety Commission Acting Chairman Peter A. Feldman on Thursday, September 25, 2025.