This article is provided by Joshua Campbell, senior associate at the Washington, D.C., law and lobbying firm Williams & Jensen.

Introduction 

Washington has always been a noisy place, where headlines crackle with urgency and every policy tweak is cast as either salvation or catastrophe. Lately, the chatter around changes at the Securities and Exchange Commission feels particularly thick—new leadership, recalibrated priorities, proposals flying this way and that. For pension and employee benefits lawyers across the U.S., Canada, Europe, and the world, it can be tempting to view the U.S. regulatory scene as volatile ground shifting underfoot.

Yet upon stepping back, a more nuanced picture comes into focus. These developments reflect the familiar push and pull of policy in a complex democracy: efforts to balance investor protections with greater market access and reduced burdens, set against ongoing debates about the right mix of oversight and flexibility. Proponents say the changes underway in the broader federal landscape, although significant, are their attempt to instill the right balance in the ever-morphing body of retirement law. In the sections ahead, we will examine specific examples, each aimed at practical improvements for the markets that pension funds rely upon.

These developments arrive at a critical moment. We are now seeing the first substantial wave of retirees whose careers primarily unfolded under defined contribution plans like the 401(k), rather than traditional pensions. For many in this cohort, accumulated savings often fall short of what will be needed for a comfortable retirement. Vanguard’s How America Saves 2025 report, for instance, shows a median 401(k) balance of approximately $95,600 for participants aged 55 and up, while broader analyses indicate even lower median household retirement savings for Gen X—with many holding little or nothing at all. Compounding the challenge, the U.S. Social Security program faces its own pressures, with the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund projected to reach insolvency by the end of 2032, per the 2026 OASDI Trustee Report. These strains parallel broader demographic shifts, such as declining birth rates and an aging population, that are testing retirement systems not just in the United States but from Canada and Europe to Australia and beyond. 

Amid the DC din, discerning what truly matters for retirement plans requires cutting through the static. The developments at the SEC and across the federal landscape point toward changes that could enhance options for institutional investors and the participants they serve, provided one understands the nuances of how policy moves in Washington.

Adjustments at the SEC

Recent SEC initiatives illustrate a deliberate effort to lighten certain regulatory loads while preserving investor protections. The administration says, these moves do not signal a wholesale retreat from oversight but rather a recalibration suited to today’s market realities, where rapid innovation and long-term retirement horizons coexist with the need for reliable information.

One notable proposal, advanced in May 2026, would permit public companies to elect semiannual reporting in lieu of traditional quarterly filings. Under the framework, electing companies would file semiannual reports, potentially easing preparation costs, management time, and the risk of short-term market reactions to quarterly volatility. Proponents, including SEC leadership, argue this could encourage more thoughtful disclosure, reduce “earnings management” pressures, and free resources for strategic growth. This idea is not new. Both the EU and UK made this switch in 2013 and 2014, respectively. A 2025 report from Harvard’s Kennedy School indicates the UK’s reporting change did not have a material impact on investment but that quarterly reporting was associated with an increase in the accuracy of analyst earnings forecast. 

For institutional investors and plan fiduciaries, however, the shift carries trade-offs. Less frequent mandatory updates might delay awareness of material developments, complicating portfolio monitoring and risk assessment in fast-moving sectors. Critics worry it could widen information asymmetries, particularly for smaller or retail-influenced holders. The proposal’s optional nature offers flexibility but implementation will require careful scrutiny of how markets adapt.

A second area of activity involves changes to shareholder proposal rules under Exchange Act Rule 14a-8 and greater oversight of proxy advisory firms. The administration says that recent staff adjustments for the 2025-2026 proxy season, which reduced substantive no-action responses on most exclusion requests, and broader signals of reform seek to curb perceived overuse of the proxy process for matters better suited to company management or state law. They say these changes are intended to streamline corporate governance and reduce compliance costs. Likewise, changes for proxy advisors are being touted by the administration to improve recommendation quality and mitigate concerns about concentrated influence or misalignment with long-term investor returns.

However, pension funds and institutional stewards often rely on shareholder proposals and proxy advisors as efficient tools for engagement, oversight, and expressing views on risk factors like climate, governance, or executive compensation that could materially affect plan assets. Reduced access or heightened hurdles risk weakening minority shareholder rights (including pension funds), leading to less accountability in boardrooms and complicating fiduciaries’ efforts to fulfill stewardship mandates prevalent in many international plans. The tension here is real: reforms promise efficiency but risk tilting the balance too far toward management if not calibrated thoughtfully.

Complementary Moves at the DOL: Expanding Options for Retirement Portfolios

Parallel to SEC activity, the Department of Labor has advanced initiatives to give plan fiduciaries greater clarity and confidence when considering alternative investments in defined contribution plans. Building on an August 2025 Executive Order emphasizing “democratizing access” to assets like private equity, real estate, and infrastructure, the DOL in March 2026 proposed a process-based safe harbor under ERISA for selecting designated investment alternatives.

The proposal outlines analytical steps fiduciaries should take while providing a presumption of prudence for those who follow them diligently. This aims to lower litigation fears that have historically made many sponsors cautious about including alts, despite their potential diversification and public pension funds’ historic success in this investment class.

As with the SEC changes, nuance is essential. Alternatives often carry higher fees, valuation opacity, and illiquidity—risks that demand robust due diligence, especially for participant-directed 401(k) plans where individuals may not fully appreciate the trade-offs. The safe harbor does not alter core ERISA duties; it simply provides a clearer runway for fiduciaries exercising judgment. Success will depend on final rulemaking, market innovation in accessible vehicles, and ongoing dialogue with regulators to ensure decisions truly serve participants.

Taken together, the developments at the SEC and DOL paint a picture of an aggressive deregulatory approach. The question to be answered is whether this approach can better match the realities of modern retirement saving. 

Conclusion

In the end, the flurry of activity at the SEC and DOL may not simply fit in a refinement-versus-revolution dichotomy. Proposals to ease administrative burdens and open pathways to alternative investments exemplify an insistent deregulatory stance. Meanwhile, overhauling shareholder engagement rules and increased scrutiny of proxy advisors could have unintended consequences. Pension lawyers and fiduciaries worldwide should be prepared to carefully observe the policy developments in Washington over the next few years. The adjustments could reduce costs, expand diversification options, and refocus attention on long-term value, but must be weighed against the inherent risk of diminished shareholder input. The push and pull between efficiency and oversight remains as perennial as it is essential.

What often gets lost amid the headlines is the push and pull of how these ideas take shape. Regulatory proposals evolve through comment periods, stakeholder input, and inter-agency coordination. Legislative undercurrents and court challenges add further layers. Recent examples underscore this reality. After more than two decades of persistent advocacy, public pension stakeholders scored a major win with the repeal of Social Security penalties that affected certain public sector workers. Similarly, last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill notably steered clear of revenue-raisers that could have capped retirement contribution limits, imposed Roth-only structures, or otherwise constrained retirement plans. For plans investing across borders, the U.S. market’s gravitational pull means these domestic tweaks can ripple outward, influencing everything from asset allocation strategies to fiduciary standards in home jurisdictions.

The news sells with drama and urgency but the actual changes to retirement policy are often shaped by a protracted process. The effect of these changes can be huge, but they don’t happen overnight. Like the small, routine contributions to a retirement fund, consistently engaging lawmakers and regulators helps shape a better future for all as retirement policy evolves.

Joshua Campbell is a senior associate at the Washington, D.C., law and lobbying firm Williams & Jensen, where he works with the firm’s public pension clients on issues related to plan qualification, investments, and pending legislative proposals at the federal and state level. Prior to joining W&J, Joshua was a judicial law clerk for a circuit court judge in Maryland. Joshua has a B.S. in Business Management and Philosophy from Palm Beach Atlantic University and earned his J.D. from The Catholic University of America. He is a member of the District of Columbia bar.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed herein are my own and do not represent the views of any of the clients I represent, nor those of Williams & Jensen or any of its clients.

IPEBLA Members,

We hope this message finds you well. We are excited to share some important news regarding the future of our association.

After careful consideration and planning, we are pleased to announce that IPEBLA has partnered with Avivant Partners as our new association management firm, effective January 1, 2025. This decision marks an exciting new chapter for our association, and we are confident that this collaboration will help us better serve your needs and elevate the experience for all of our members.

About Avivant Partners
Avivant Partners is a leading association management firm known for its deep expertise in providing tailored administrative, operational, and strategic support to associations like ours. With a strong reputation for exceptional service and innovative solutions, Avivant Partners will assist in managing our day-to-day operations, organizing events, supporting member services, and helping us implement initiatives that align with our mission and goals.

We are confident that Avivant Partners’ team will bring fresh perspectives and enhanced resources to our association, improving the value and experience we provide to each of our members. They will serve as the primary point of contact for all administrative matters and association-related inquiries moving forward.

Contact Information: contact@ipebla.org or +1 201.445.7007

What This Means for You
As a member, you will notice a seamless transition with minimal disruption to your experience. The Avivant Partners team is fully committed to maintaining the high level of service, and we are confident that their support will enable us to deliver even more value to you in the future. 

We believe that this transition will position us for continued growth and success, and we look forward to what we will accomplish together in the months and years ahead.

If you have any questions or would like to learn more about the new partnership with Avivant Partners, please do not hesitate to reach out to me at 

Warm regards,

Anthony J. Roda
Chair, Steering Committee
IPEBLA

Renew your membership now to ensure continuity of the benefits of the IPEBLA community. If you have any questions or need assistance with processing your renewal, reach out to our Administrators at IPEBLA@AvivantPartners.com

Details are forthcoming for the Biennial conference taking place in Dublin, Ireland in the spring of 2026.