Topic: Small Businesses
“The labor agencies should exercise their available discretion and duties under the Regulatory Flexibility Act to exempt small entities from regulations where possible.”
In context, he’s arguing here that small businesses should be exempt from complying with federal regulations. He’s unclear on the specifics – does he mean OSHA? Will workplaces no longer need to be safe? Does he mean that they no longer have to offer the federal minimum wage? This will reduce worker protections in the arenas of safety, wages, working conditions, and more. He goes on to argue for exempting small businesses from having to pay fines for violating safety standards:
“Congress (and DOL, in its enforcement discretion) should exempt small business, first-time, non-willful violators from fines issued by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration.” (Project 2025, Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies, Jonathan Berry, page 626, paragraph 2.)
So yes, effectively making small businesses exempt from having to maintain safety standards. Berry also recommends lifting restrictions prohibiting teenagers from working in hazardous conditions.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies here.
“The Bank does not support small businesses. Most of the Bank’s funding goes to large corporations such as Boeing—a recipient of 68 percent of EXIM’s loan guarantees and 30 percent of EXIM’s overall activities.”
It’s an absolutely outrageous lie that Ex-Im doesn’t support small businesses. 90% of their transactions are with small businesses (source below.) In terms of percent of total funding disbursed, de Rugy is correct that the bulk goes to larger corporations.
“Small business exporters need certainty and protection to tackle new markets, expand and create jobs. In FY 2014, nearly 90 percent of EXIM Bank’s transactions – more than 3,340 – directly supported American small businesses.” [Source]
Full contextual analysis of Section 4.3: Export-Import Bank here.
“Although PPP worked through private lenders and as a result experienced relatively less fraud than EIDL experienced, it is estimated “that at least 70,000 [PPP] loans were potentially fraudulent.””
Is that true? Evidence is mixed on that and still being collected, but there was definitely a ton of fraud.
PPP Stands for Paycheck Protection Program, and was credited for saving millions of jobs during COVID. For more about the fraud claims, see the analysis below.
Full contextual analysis of Section 4.5: Small Business Administration here.
“Today, initiatives aimed at “inclusivity” are in fact creating exclusivity and stringent selectivity in deciding what types of small businesses and entities can use SBA programs. For example, even though the SBA under President Donald Trump proposed a rule to remove all of the unconstitutional religious exclusions from its regulations to conform with Supreme Court decisions that have made their unconstitutionality clear, the SBA has not acted on the proposed rule and still uses religious exclusions in determining eligibility for business loans.”
In context, Kerrigan is arguing that the rules that prevent certain religious organizations or businesses with religious affiliations from benefiting from SBA programs, are exclusionary and unconstitutional. I’d argue that since the SBA is a government program and we have separation of church and state, such restrictions are precisely Constitutional.
The Supreme Court ruling she’s likely referring to here is Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer (2017), where the SCOTUS ruled that denying public benefits to an organization solely because of its religious character was unconstitutional. More about the ruling and why it was wrong in the analysis below.
Full contextual analysis of Section 4.5: Small Business Administration here.
“An end to SBA direct lending.”
Without direct SBA loans, small businesses would have to rely solely on private banks and financial institutions for funding. This shift could make it harder for small businesses – especially new, underserved, or high-risk enterprises – to access the capital they need. Banks may view these businesses as too risky without the SBA’s direct involvement.
It would also result in higher interest rates for the businesses that CAN get private funding – SBA offers lower interest rates than businesses can typically get from private lenders. This would reduce access for businesses in marginalized and underserved communities.
Kerrigan goes on to argue that neither should the SBA provide disaster relief funds to small businesses, and that no new direct lending programs be developed at the SBA.
Kerrigan then goes on to argue for making religious entities eligible for SBA loans. This raises a key question: Is the goal to end SBA lending altogether (as explicitly stated), or to expand access to religious organizations? This is a contradictory position. It’s possible that she’s arguing for ending direct SBA loans, which are loans disbursed directly by the SBA, but not other forms of SBA support like loan guarantees or R&D grants. This isn’t explicitly defined, however, so I’m left speculating in order to give Kerrigan the benefit of the doubt.
Kerrigan may also be arguing here to shift the SBA’s focus from direct lending to facilitating private lending, which would allow religious organizations to access capital via guaranteed loans rather than direct SBA funds. But again, this isn’t specified.
Full contextual analysis of Section 4.5: Small Business Administration here.