The European Commission has moved to allocate the supervision of crypto companies and their activities under the sole jurisdiction of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). This move will end the application of different regulatory styles in several member states operating under the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation (MiCA).
ESMA’s Single Crypto Authority To Boost Competitiveness, Innovation – EC
In a Thursday announcement, the European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union (EU), rolled out a series of regulatory measures aimed at creating a singular financial service market. This initiative centers around creating a competitive, innovative, and efficient financial system that offers EU citizens better options for wealth growth and business financing.
A statement from the announcement read:
Deeper integration of financial markets is not an end, but a means to create a single market for financial services greater than the sum of its national parts. Simplified access to capital markets reduces costs and makes the markets more appealing for investors and companies across all Member States, irrespective of size.
In particular, the EC’s new regulatory package will move the oversight of Crypto-Asset Service Providers (CASPs), among other groups of businesses to under the sole authority of the ESMA. Interestingly, the EC’s recent move comes just three months after the French, Austrian, and Italian market authorities pushed for a stronger European framework for cryptocurrencies, citing major differences in each national implementation of the MiCA regulations.
Presently, crypto regulation across the 27 EU member states operates under MiCA, resulting in a patchwork of national approaches which the EC claims is hindering competition and effective cross-border operations. The ESMA’s singular regime aims to eliminate these discrepancies in order to provide a better integrated EU financial market.
The EC said:
Improvements to the supervisory framework are closely linked to the removal of regulatory barriers. The package aims to address inconsistencies and complexities from fragmented national supervisory approaches, making supervision more effective and conducive to cross-border activities, while being responsive to emerging risks.
Alongside the new singular regime, the European Commission has also expressed plans to create a friendly environment for the adoption of distributed ledger technology, e.g, blockchains, to spur innovations in the financial sector. However, all these regulatory changes still remain subject to negotiation and approval by the European Parliament and European Council.
Crypto Market Overview
At the time of writing, the total crypto market cap is valued at $3.04 trillion, following a slight 0.25% loss in the past day. Meanwhile, total trading volume is valued at $135.47 billion.
Mahri Stainnak got the call the day after President Donald Trump took office: the Office of Personnel Management’s human resources office was putting them on administrative leave “effective immediately,” while the agency “investigates your radical and wasteful DEI activity.”
Stainnak was surprised by the news. Before the Trump administration, they served as OPM’s deputy director of the governmentwide Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility. But now they worked as the director of OPM’s talent innovation group, a human resources job focused on recruiting and retaining talent across the federal government.
“I said, ‘Wait a minute, I’m not in diversity, equity and inclusion.’ I started a new role in a job that has nothing to do with diversity, equity and inclusion.’ So I felt incredibly shocked and confused,” Stainnak said.
The second call came 48 hours later: Stainnak, a nonbinary person who had worked in the federal government for more than 16 years, received a reduction in force notice, as part of the Trump administration’s plan to root out DEI programs across the federal government.
Stainnak is now part of a class-action lawsuit filed this week in the D.C. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The lawsuit, led by the American Civil Liberties Union of D.C., claims the Trump administration unlawfully targeted and fired federal employees perceived to be associated with DEI work — even if their current jobs had nothing to do with it.
Mary Kuntz, an attorney at the law firm Kalijarvi, Chuzi, Newman & Fitch, P.C. who is representing the former employees, said the administration’s actions “clearly” violate the Civil Service Reform Act, because employees like Stainnak were fired for previous work in DEI positions.
“You can’t RIF somebody from a position they’re not in,” Kuntz said. “They sought to punish Mahri [Stainnak] for previous DEI work. That’s a violation of the First Amendment.”
Kuntz said the lawsuit claims that the administration’s push to “eviscerate” DEI programs also had a disproportionate impact on people of color, women, non-binary individuals, and violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
“The DEI folks were working on behalf of people with disabilities, people who are non-native speakers of English. They were advocating for protected groups,” she said.
On the campaign trail last year, President Donald Trump pledged to “eliminate all diversity, equity, and inclusion programs across the entire federal government,” and characterized these programs as promoting “un-American” ideology.
On his first days in office, Trump signed executiveorders that directed agencies to create lists of employees associated with DEI going back to Nov. 5, 2024 — the date of the presidential election. The complaint says agencies were directed to remove those employees, “regardless of their current roles or duties.”
“President Trump’s directives did not merely represent a change in presidential priorities — a normal occurrence when presidential administrations change. Rather, they were targeted actions intended to punish perceived political enemies, as well as to eliminate from the federal workforce women, people of color, and those, like plaintiffs, who advocated for or were perceived as advocating for protected racial or gender groups,” the complaint states.
The complaint says agencies set competitive levels for the RIFs so narrowly that federal employees were unable to compete for retention, and that those impacted by RIFs were not considered for reassignment to other jobs.
“I absolutely feel targeted on the basis of what the Trump administration believes my beliefs are, because I was not working in a diversity, equity and inclusion role in any way at the time when the new administration came in, or at the time I was placed on administrative leave,” Stainnak said.
For all the Trump administration’s actions to strip DEI out of the federal workforce, Kuntz said the president’s executive orders don’t go into any detail to define DEI.
“He characterizes them as illegal and discriminatory and various other things … but does doesn’t define them,” Kuntz said. “You can’t decide that somebody is a different party than the party in the White House and decide to fire them on that basis.”
The lawsuit states that the total number of federal employees impacted by the DEI rollback fis unknown, but says news reports suggest it could be “potentially in the thousands.”
The complaint states that at least 40 women or non-binary individuals, and more than 40 people of color received layoffs in connection with the Trump administration’s directives.
Stainnak and their colleagues filed an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board in March, but Kuntz said that appeal and similar cases brought before the Office of Special Counsel and agencies’ Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) offices, have stalled.
In their last role, Stainnak helped agencies recruit top talent into the federal workforce. But they said the Trump administration’s purge of DEI workers has pushed out individuals who worked on bipartisan projects.
Former federal employees leading the lawsuit include a former operations manager at the Department of Veterans Affairs who “helped ensure that veterans were not inhibited from accessing earned benefits due to cultural or socioeconomic barriers,” a Department of Homeland Security Employee who led language competency efforts at the border to advance intelligence gathering and the safety of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.
“By illegally targeting people based on the Trump administration’s assumptions about our political beliefs, or by targeting us based on who we are, this administration actually is hurting the people who work and live in this country, because now these dedicated, hardworking federal servants are not in their jobs providing the critical services that they do, whether it’s responding to emergencies like hurricanes and making sure folks have drinking water and shelter, or making sure our transportation systems are safe and timely. This action is really hurting the people who live in this country,” Stainnak said.
President Donald Trump walks out of the Cabinet Room following a Cabinet meeting at the White House, Tuesday, Dec. 2, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)
The National Treasury Employees Union is suing the Trump administration in an attempt to gain records of career federal employee positions that may be targeted for removal of job protections.
NTEU’s lawsuit, filed last week against the Office of Personnel Management, alleged that OPM violated the Freedom of Information Act by not responding to the union’s FOIA request from August. The union had requested documentation of employees who will be potentially impacted by the Trump administration’s “Schedule Policy/Career” order, which seeks to make tens of thousands of career federal employees at-will workers and easier for agencies to fire.
“The government cannot hide information that is critical to safeguarding workplace rights and protections for frontline federal employees in multiple agencies across the country,” NTEU National President Doreen Greenwald said in a statement. “We expect OPM and the administration to identify as soon as possible which federal jobs are being targeted so we can do everything we can to stop the reclassifications.”
Under federal statute, agencies are required to respond to FOIA requests within 20 days. In “unusual circumstances,” that timeframe can be extended for an additional 10 days.
But NTEU said in its lawsuit that OPM has not responded to the FOIA request at all, and that the time period for responding has lapsed. NTEU submitted its initial FOIA request on Aug. 20.
“There is no legal basis for OPM’s failure to respond to NTEU’s request or for its failure to produce the requested records within the statutory time period,” NTEU wrote.
The federal union is arguing that OPM’s failure to respond to the FOIA request is unlawful, and calling for a release of the requested records.
An OPM spokesperson did not immediately respond to Federal News Network’s request for comment.
NTEU’s push for information comes after President Donald Trump in January signed an executive order to revive the federal employment classification previously known as “Schedule F.” Though it is now called “Schedule Policy/Career,” the effort mirrors a former executive order from Trump’s first term that sought to remove job protections from broad swaths of the career federal workforce.
OPM proposed regulations for implementing the new employment classification in April. Although the regulations are not yet finalized, they have been moved into the “final rule stage,” and are slated for possible publication by the end of November, according to the White House’s regulatory agenda.
The White House website states that the final rule will impact “policy-influencing positions” and that the rule’s implementation will “increase career employee accountability.”
All federal positions that are reclassified as “Schedule Policy/Career” will become at-will, and employees will no longer be able to appeal adverse actions against them.
“This will allow agencies to quickly remove employees from critical positions who engage in misconduct, perform poorly, or obstruct the democratic process by intentionally subverting Presidential directives,” OPM states in the regulatory agenda item.
The Trump administration has generally argued that the reclassifications will hold federal employees more accountable and provide more flexibility to agencies. But federal unions, as well as many lawmakers and workforce experts, have said reclassifying employees in this way will lead to politically motivated firings, and an erosion of the apolitical nature of the career civil service.
Earlier this year, OPM also published guidance to set initial expectations for agencies to implement the Schedule Policy/Career employment classification. The guidance targets a wide range of federal positions that may be subject to reclassification.
OPM has estimated that about 50,000 career federal employees in “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, and policy-advocating” positions will be reclassified as a result of Trump’s order. But OPM’s latest estimate is on the lower end of the scale: Documents from Trump’s first term showed that around 200,000 career federal positions could have their job protections stripped.
NTEU previously sued the Trump administration in January after the initial Schedule Policy/Career executive order was released. The first lawsuit alleges that Trump’s order violates established federal hiring principles and the due process rights of federal employees.
Combined, Greenwald said the two lawsuits from NTEU “are about making sure that the American people have their government services delivered by federal employees who were hired based on merit and skill, not partisan affiliation.”
Alexis Goldstein, a member of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s chapter of the National Treasury Employees Union, speaks at a press conference outside the Supreme Court on Monday. Goldstein, in her personal capacity, joined several federal colleagues in urging Democrats to “say no to the bully.” The event, organized by the Civil Servants Coalition, criticized the Trump administration’s federal workforce overhauls this year.
A bipartisan bill that would end the Trump administration’s rollback of collective bargaining rights for most federal employees is guaranteed to get a full House vote, now that a majority of lawmakers support it.
As of Monday, 218 House lawmakers signed onto a discharge petition, forcing the House to vote on the Protect America’s Workforce Act.
The bill, led by Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Jared Golden (D-Maine) would restore collective bargaining rights for tens of thousands of federal employees, if approved by Congress.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order in March that barred unions from bargaining on behalf of federal employees at many agencies, on the grounds that those agencies work primarily in national security. In August, he signed another executive order that expanded the list of agencies barred from negotiations with federal employee unions.
Lawmakers estimate the executive order impacts about 67% of the federal workforce. The Trump administration’s policy has barred unions from representing employees at the departments of Defense, State, Veterans Affairs, Justice and Energy.
A federal judge blocked the administration from enforcing the executive order in April, but an appeals court stayed that decision this summer and allowed agencies to keep canceling collective bargaining agreements that cover broad swaths of the federal workforce. Since the appeals court’s ruling, several agencies have rescinded their collective bargaining rights with unions.
Reps. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) and Nick Lalota (R-N.Y.) contributed the last two signatures for the discharge petition on Monday. Lawler said in a statement that “restoring collective bargaining rights strengthens our federal workforce and helps deliver more effective, accountable service to the American people.”
“Every American deserves the right to have a voice in the workplace, including those who serve their country every single day. Supporting workers and ensuring good government are not opposing ideas. They go hand in hand,” Lawler said.
Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, applauded Republican lawmakers for supporting the bill, and called on the House to quickly vote on it.
“Collective bargaining gives employees a fundamental voice in making the government work better for the American people, and we thank Congressman Lawler for recognizing that America functions best when labor and management cooperate toward common goals,” Kelley said.
AFGE’s National VA Council recently filed a lawsuit challenging the VA’s selective enforcement of the administration’s executive order. The complaint states that VA Secretary Doug Collins scrapped collective bargaining agreements with unions opposed to the Trump administration’s federal workforce polices, but spared labor contracts for unions that represent VA police, security guards and firefighters.
Meanwhile, another bipartisan group of lawmakers is also leading a bill that would restore collective bargaining rights for VA employees. Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) are leading that bill.
The Capitol is seen at dusk as Democrats and Republicans in Congress are angrily blaming each other and refusing to budge from their positions on funding the government, in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 30, 2025. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Login
