- DOL: Trump Accounts Generally Aren’t Employee Pension Benefit Plans
- Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee
- WHD Opinion Letters Provide FLSA Compliance Guidance
- House Bill Seeks to Cover Some Preventive Care Visits
- Tentative Settlement Reached in ‘No Beard’ Policy Lawsuit
DOL: Trump Accounts Generally Aren’t Employee Pension Benefit Plans
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) on Thursday, June 18, removed some hurdles for employers that wish to contribute to the “Trump Account” of employees who have minor children.
The agency and its Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) issued a regulatory guidance document that clarified such contributions generally aren’t be subject to Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
By exempting these contributions from standard ERISA Title I requirements — which typically govern corporate pension and 401(k) plans — the DOL hopes to encourage widespread corporate participation in the program and make childhood investment a standard workplace benefit.
President Donald Trump established the Trump Account program as part of the One Bill Beautiful Bill Act of 2025. The program’s app launched on May 28, 2026, and accounts will start officially accepting deposits and government funds on July 4.
The June 18 guidance addresses the unique legal status of Trump Accounts, which:
- Operate as individual retirement accounts (officially, a 530A IRA) for children under age 18;
- Allow for a highly diverse mix of funding sources;
- Covert to a traditional IRA when the child turns 18;
- Are managed by a parent or guardian as the custodian; and,
- Allows families, employers and charities to contribute to an account.
“This guidance should provide the clarity that employers need as the administration rolls out Trump Accounts, [which] are a strong first step toward a secure financial future,” said Acting Secretary of Labor Keith E. Sonderling.
Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee
A U.S. federal judge on June 8 struck down the Trump administration’s $100,000 H-1B visa petition fee, ruling it an unlawful tax enacted without congressional approval. The administration on June 11 appealed the ruling and requested a hold on the consequences imposed by the judge while the appeals process plays out in the courts.
Judge Leo Sorokin, representing the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, determined the fee proclamation wasn’t an immigration restriction (as the administration had claimed), but rather a tax, which the president lacked authority to impose. Additionally, the court determined the fee proclamation violated the Administrative Procedure Act, as the agency’s implementation of the fee failed to follow statutory procedures.
Trump issued Proclamation 10973 on Sept. 19, 2025, imposing hefty fees for new H-1B petitions filed for beneficiaries located outside of the U.S. The administration stated the fee was intended to address perceived visa program abuse and protect American workers, specifically those in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) occupations. The fee was activated on Sept. 21, 2025, and applied to new petitions for beneficiaries subject to consular processing.
The court’s decision, which sided with a coalition of 20 states and various business organizations that sued to block the fee, vacated the charge and restored relief for U.S. companies.
Given the pending appeals across multiple circuits, the case is likely headed for Supreme Court review.
WHD Opinion Letters Provide FLSA Compliance Guidance
The DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) on May 29 issued four opinion letters to promote clarity, consistency and transparency in applying the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to:
- Compensable time;
- Exemptions; and,
- Bonus calculations.
While the letters respond to specific factual scenarios submitted to the agency, they provide compliance guidance for employers nationwide facing similar circumstances.
The interpretations include:
- FLSA2026-5, which clarifies whether an employee exempt under FLSA paragraph 13(a)(1) can perform additional work in a secondary hourly role and outlines the resulting overtime implications.
- FLSA2026-6, which determines whether a bonus calculated by comparing an individual’s earnings to the total earnings of all eligible employees qualifies as a “percentage of total earnings” bonus under 29 CFR 778.210, allowing for simultaneous payment of any overtime due.
- FLSA2026-7, which addresses whether time spent during a voluntary meal break — where employees “traverse employer premises through controlled-access entry/exit points” — is compensable when they are allowed to remain on-site during a 30-minute period.
- FLSA2026-8, which reviews the compensability of certain preshift activities and whether an employer’s practice of rounding employees’ clock-in time to their scheduled shift start time is permissible.
House Bill Seeks to Cover Some Preventive Care Visits
Two Democratic members of Congress recently reintroduced the Primary and Behavioral Health Care Access Act, a bill designed to make healthcare more affordable by eliminating out-of-pocket costs for certain preventive services.
Under the proposed legislation, introduced in the House of Representatives by Lauren Underwood (Illinois) and Kim Schrier (Washington), private group and individual health insurance plans would be required to cover three annual primary care visits and three annual outpatient mental health or substance use disorder treatment visits without applying any copayments, coinsurance or deductible-related fees.
According to Rep. Underwood, financial barriers prevent roughly 1 in 4 Americans from seeking medical care, particularly for preventive behavioral health needs that become more difficult and expensive to treat if left unaddressed.
The bill’s full text has yet to be posted at Congress.gov, but the proposal is based on a version introduced in 2024 that used standard Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes to define the services that would be classified as primary care services.
Companion legislation was introduced in the Senate by Angus King, an Independent from Maine.
Tentative Settlement Reached in ‘No Beard’ Policy Lawsuit
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and emergency services provider Global Medical Response recently reached a tentative agreement to resolve a lawsuit over the company’s policy that restricted employees from having beards and related facial hair.
The agency’s lawsuit, which was filed in 2022 and included more than 100 of Global Medical Response’s subsidiaries, alleged:
- The companies refused to hire first responders with facial hair; and,
- The corporate policy violated federal laws by denying exemptions for religious or medical reasons.
Global Medical Response had claimed facial hair conflicted with proper personal protective equipment usage by preventing a tight seal with certain respirators. The EEOC noted, though, that prevailing safety regulations allow for alternate respirator types that accommodate beards without compromising safety.
Editor’s Note: Additional Content
For more information and resources related to this article, see the pages below, which offer quick access to all WorldatWork content on these topics:
#1 Total Rewards & Comp Newsletter
Subscribe to Workspan Weekly and always get the latest news on compensation and Total Rewards delivered directly to you. Never miss another update on the newest regulations, court decisions, state laws and trends in the field.
