As the Biden administration nears its conclusion, it leaves behind a legacy of significant consumer protections, many of which directly impact Americans’ daily lives. While Democrats lost power in Washington in part due to rising costs and discontent, the administration has implemented a series of new rules aimed at easing the financial burden on consumers.

One of the most notable changes includes a cap on insulin costs for Medicare recipients. Under a law passed by Democrats, Americans enrolled in Medicare will pay no more than $35 per month for insulin. Additionally, some pharmaceutical companies are expanding this price cap to benefit even more individuals. A new rule from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) also caps overdraft fees at $5, offering relief to bank customers.

In addition to price caps, the Biden administration has made strides to enhance transparency and eliminate hidden costs. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has cracked down on “junk fees” for concert tickets and imposed new rules for short-term rental companies, requiring clearer cost disclosures. Online review manipulation is also being scrutinized, with fines now possible for businesses caught posting fake reviews.

Travelers have also seen increased protections, as the Department of Transportation now mandates airline refunds for certain cancellations. A new government website also helps passengers compare airline policies. Additionally, the Federal Aviation Administration has proposed a rule to help families with children sit together without extra charges.

Cable and internet customers are benefiting from new transparency measures, with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) implementing clearer billing guidelines. A “nutrition label” for internet bills is set to make pricing easier to understand. The FCC is also working to combat scam texts, requiring mobile service providers to block suspicious messages.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is also addressing subscription services, requiring that all online subscriptions include an easy “click-to-cancel” option. Meanwhile, the CFPB is working to remove medical debt from most credit reports, although that rule faces legal challenges.

Consumer advocates have praised these changes, noting that they reflect an ongoing trend toward increased transparency and fairness. Teresa Murray, director of the Public Interest Research Group, remarked that consumer protection in the U.S. is “becoming more transparent,” while Susan Weinstock, CEO of the Consumer Federation of America, called Biden the “strongest consumer protection president” in U.S. history.

Despite these efforts, the incoming Trump administration may seek to dismantle some of these regulations. Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, a key figure in Trump’s government efficiency push, has expressed support for eliminating the CFPB, an agency established after the 2008 financial crisis.

As the political landscape shifts, consumer protections remain a central issue, with bipartisan support for measures that ensure transparency and fairness in the marketplace. These rules are expected to have lasting impacts on both businesses and consumers alike.

President-elect Donald Trump is preparing to invoke several centuries-old laws to implement key parts of his first-year agenda, focusing primarily on immigration policy and birthright citizenship. Trump plans to leverage laws with deep historical roots, dating back to the late 18th century, in an attempt to fulfill his campaign promises. However, his use of these laws could lead to significant legal challenges, potentially reaching the Supreme Court.

One of the laws Trump intends to use is the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a controversial statute dating back to the Adams administration. This law allows the federal government to expedite the deportation of citizens from “hostile nations” in times of war or national emergency. Trump has suggested that he may use the law to target undocumented migrants, describing their arrival as an “invasion” and asserting that such powers are necessary to confront this “enemy from within.”

Although the law was last used during World War II to imprison Japanese nationals, legal experts warn that invoking it during peacetime would be a significant legal overreach. Katherine Yon Ebright, a counsel with the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, argues that the law’s historical use in wartime makes its application outside of such a context highly questionable. Despite this, Trump’s strategy appears to be rooted in a belief that older, stronger laws could be his ticket to success.

In addition to the Alien Enemies Act, Trump has also expressed interest in enforcing the 1873 Comstock Act, which bans the mailing of “lewd” or “indecent” materials. Some of his allies, including Vice President-elect JD Vance, have suggested that this law could be used to block the mailing of abortion medication. Although Trump has signaled that he would not prioritize the enforcement of the law regarding abortion drugs, pressure from anti-abortion advocates may push his administration to take action on this issue.

Trump’s stance on using military forces for domestic purposes also echoes past legal theories, such as the Insurrection Act of 1807. The act gives the president broad authority to deploy the military in domestic situations, including for immigration enforcement. Though the act has been used sparingly throughout history, including by President George H.W. Bush during the 1992 Los Angeles riots, its potential invocation could face legal scrutiny due to the general prohibition on using the military for civilian law enforcement.

Finally, Trump remains focused on challenging birthright citizenship, a principle enshrined in the 14th Amendment. Legal experts believe that any attempt to restrict birthright citizenship would be met with strong opposition in the courts, as the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the right of those born on U.S. soil to citizenship.

As Trump prepares to push forward with these historic legal challenges, the Supreme Court may soon be called upon to weigh in on the constitutionality of his ambitious agenda.