Speaker 1: The Trump administration is being sued again over another delay
Speaker 1: and likely reversal of an Obama rule. This one would
Speaker 1: encourage foreign entrepreneurs to build businesses in the US. The
Speaker 1: initiative is appropriately entitled the International Entrepreneur Rule. It was
Speaker 1: designed to give foreign entrepreneurs who don't qualify for existing
Speaker 1: visa programs the opportunity to stay in the US temporarily
Speaker 1: to grow their startups. The National Venture Capital Association has
Speaker 1: sued the Trump administration over its decision to delay the
Speaker 1: rule until at least March fifteen and likely eliminated joining
Speaker 1: US is Andrew Harris, Bloomberg News legal reporter Andrew the
Speaker 1: initiative had broad support in the tech industry. Tell us
Speaker 1: a little more about it, well, June, I think you
Speaker 1: summed it up pretty well. The idea was that if
Speaker 1: there's going to be a startup tech business in the world,
Speaker 1: why not have it here. So the Obama administration had
Speaker 1: set up a rule that went into effect or at
Speaker 1: least hit the books right for President o Bottom left
Speaker 1: office in January that would have allowed foreign entrepreneurs who
Speaker 1: had sufficient backing a quarter of a million dollars in
Speaker 1: venture capital or a hundred thousand dollars in government grants
Speaker 1: to come here for a renewable thirty months term called parole,
Speaker 1: during which time they could stay and grow their businesses.
Speaker 1: And the Trump administration, just days before it was to
Speaker 1: officially take effect in July, said we're going to punt
Speaker 1: it into next year with an eye toward rescinding it. Andrew,
Speaker 1: what is the Trump administration's rationale for rescinding this rule?
Speaker 1: You know, that's a really good question. The official explanation
Speaker 1: was that back in January, the President issued an executive order,
Speaker 1: not the immigration order that we know, but two days
Speaker 1: before that, and order addressed to securing the nation's borders
Speaker 1: and enforcing laws where it comes to this non resident
Speaker 1: status called parole. And at least that was a sidded
Speaker 1: reason for reconsidering the Obama administration's initiative here. And what's
Speaker 1: the lawsuit based on, Well, the lawsuit is based on
Speaker 1: the notion that they just dropped in July. They dropped
Speaker 1: this delay without any prior public notice or consultation, uh
Speaker 1: and said that they're doing it with an eye tour
Speaker 1: taking public comment about killing the rule. And the National
Speaker 1: Venture Capital Association says, hey, you can't know, effectively kill
Speaker 1: it without getting public comment. First, Andrew, this notion of
Speaker 1: parole is a little different than some of the other
Speaker 1: immigration issues we've been talking about with refugees and um
Speaker 1: and you know, the DOCU program. What what exactly does
Speaker 1: parole mean in terms of the status that these entrepreneurs
Speaker 1: would get if the rule had does go into effect,
Speaker 1: well did go into effect, these bar and entrepreneurs would
Speaker 1: be able to stay here for thirty months, renewable to
Speaker 1: up to sixty amounts or five years under certain circumstances.
Speaker 1: They could even have families here during that time, during
Speaker 1: which they could develop their businesses. It's not a path
Speaker 1: to residency or citizenship, but it was a way to
Speaker 1: make it feasible for them to see the idea through
Speaker 1: whatever it was. And there a lot of Trump's reversals
Speaker 1: of Obama era rules seem to be bumping up against
Speaker 1: the Administrative Procedure Act. Have any of the courts ruled
Speaker 1: on that yet, Well, there have been prior rulings, particularly
Speaker 1: with respect to one environmental rule, where the courts said, hey,
Speaker 1: you can't just do this arbitrarily. The thing with the
Speaker 1: Administrative Procedure Act is rules and regulations that could add
Speaker 1: it to the books have to have notice in comment
Speaker 1: through it after their first announced and then ostensibly the
Speaker 1: final rule is supposed to reflect that process. Now, if
Speaker 1: you want to take something off the books, you have
Speaker 1: to follow the same process, basically in reverse. You have
Speaker 1: to retrace your steps. So something that shortcuts that process
Speaker 1: is sometimes frowned upon by the courts. Well, Andrew, when
Speaker 1: you have the National Venture Capital Association suing, presumably they
Speaker 1: have some money to actually litigate this. Well, how strong
Speaker 1: a case is there against what the Trump administration did here? Well,
Speaker 1: you think they'd have money or at least they know
Speaker 1: where to get it, right. Um, I think they have
Speaker 1: a reasonably good case because what the court, what the
Speaker 1: administration functionally did here was killed this thing before it
Speaker 1: took effect. And it's a little bit of a puzzlement
Speaker 1: because you have Trump, the pro business president versus Trump
Speaker 1: the anti administration, anti immigration president. Uh And this is
Speaker 1: a policy that would have seemed to have straddled vote
Speaker 1: camps and it looks like the anti immigration mindset one
Speaker 1: out Andrew in the plaintiffs are some of the plaintiffs
Speaker 1: are actually entrepreneurs who were here and had to move
Speaker 1: to a different country to set to set up there
Speaker 1: keep up their business. Tell me about one of them. Uh,
Speaker 1: they were a pair of Indian brothers who were trying
Speaker 1: to set up something similar to pay Pal. It was
Speaker 1: a way to uh do electronic credit card processing, particularly
Speaker 1: for recurrent payments. And they had set up a corporation
Speaker 1: in Delaware and they were all set to go here,
Speaker 1: except now they're not. And there's also someone who went
Speaker 1: to who had to go to Canada. So there are
Speaker 1: just waiting to see what happens with this lawsuit at
Speaker 1: this point. Yes, the guys that we have is eventually
Speaker 1: the nbc AS attorneys are going to file for injunctive
Speaker 1: relief to um prevent this indefinite delay or or delay
Speaker 1: followed by execution from going forward. All right, well, we
Speaker 1: will keep into into touch with you so you can
Speaker 1: keep us in tune and what's going on with this
Speaker 1: rule which has attracted a lot of attention. That's Andrew Harris.
Speaker 1: He's a Bloomberg News legal reporter.