I recently did a roundup of some of the most significant retirement-related events of 2025. Then Jack VanDerhei, PhD fed that column through ChatGPT applying the style that famed humorist Dave Barry takes with HIS annual Year-in-Review. The result follows... Enjoy!
The Year in Retirement Plans: 2025
By someone who survived it and would like credit
By almost any measure, 2025 was a remarkable year for retirement plans, largely because it managed to be historically consequential without passing a single massive, system-rewriting law. This is unusual in the same way it is unusual when your roof collapses even though no meteor hit it.
There was no SECURE Act sequel. No Pension Protection Act reboot. Congress flirted with something called the One Big Beautiful Bill, then decided retirement plans should sit this one out, possibly because they were tired. Instead, 2025 delivered something far more subtle and far more exhausting: implementation problems, interpretive confusion, and enough litigation to keep ERISA lawyers hydrated for decades.
Rules were finalized, challenged, revised, challenged again, and then stared at intensely. Courts wrestled with fundamental ERISA questions that everyone thought had already been answered, except apparently not. A new Administration arrived and “recalibrated” several long-held positions, which is Washington code for “pretending we always believed this.” And fiduciaries were reminded, once again, that what really matters is not what happened, but how thoroughly you documented what you meant to happen.
Let’s relive it. Slowly. Carefully. With coffee.
January
January opened with a regulatory farewell tour from the outgoing Administration. Labor, Treasury, and the IRS issued rules addressing catch-up contributions, auto-enrollment, missing participants, and updates to the Voluntary Fiduciary Correction Program, which is the government’s way of saying, “We noticed you messed up, but we’ll pretend it was an accident.”
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court took up the question of who bears the burden of proof in ERISA fiduciary cases, a topic so exciting it caused several justices to blink slowly. At the same time, the American Airlines ESG case produced the rare legal outcome of “Yes, the process was prudent, but also no, that wasn’t loyal,” leaving observers nodding thoughtfully while quietly wondering if words still had meanings.
February
February brought personnel news, with Daniel Aronowitz nominated to lead EBSA, and legislative déjà vu, as Congress once again introduced a bill to allow 403(b) plans to invest in collective investment trusts. This bill has now been introduced so many times it qualifies for tenure.
Litigation, however, was fresh and energetic. Lawsuits challenged the use of forfeitures to offset employer contributions, including a high-profile case against Charter Communications’ $7 billion plan. A Texas judge upheld the ESG rule, surprising nearly everyone who had read literally anything else. HP won a forfeiture case, which would later become extremely important, like a minor character in a movie who suddenly gets their own sequel.
March
March brought confirmation of Lori Chavez-DeRemer as Secretary of Labor, followed immediately by more lawsuits, because the universe insists on balance.
New healthcare fiduciary claims hit JPMorgan. Johnson & Johnson saw a previously dismissed case resurrected, proving that no lawsuit is ever truly gone. One of the many BlackRock LifePath challenges was dismissed with prejudice, while Clorox discovered that winning once does not guarantee winning again, especially when forfeitures are involved.
April
April was the month litigation stopped being theoretical.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in the Cornell University case, clarifying exactly nothing in a way that encouraged everyone to file more lawsuits. Then came a rare ERISA jury trial against Pentegra, resulting in a $39 million verdict and the sudden realization that juries exist.
Meanwhile, fiduciaries scored a win in the first pension risk transfer case, suggesting that at least sometimes, moving liabilities off your balance sheet does not automatically make you a villain.
May
May was dominated by the One Big Beautiful Bill, which turned out to be neither particularly beautiful nor relevant to retirement plans. Still, momentum continued on the 403(b)-CIT front, and the IRS announced a modest increase in HSA limits, which thrilled dozens of people.
Litigation pressed on. Forfeiture cases multiplied, some were dismissed, and one settled quietly, like a family argument everyone agreed not to mention again.
June
June brought a regulatory pivot. The Labor Department reconsidered its ESG rule and rescinded its prior crypto warning, returning to a neutral stance best summarized as, “You’re adults. Please stop asking us.”
Courts, meanwhile, began dismissing forfeiture cases with increasing confidence. Wells Fargo and JPMorgan prevailed, with JPMorgan’s victory coming with prejudice, which in legal terms means “please stop.”
July
July featured new guidance on pooled employer plans, which raised many questions and answered several others incorrectly. More notably, the Labor Department filed an amicus brief supporting fiduciaries in the HP forfeiture appeal, causing observers to double-check the calendar.
The Pentegra case settled for $48.5 million, confirming that jury verdicts are not just theoretical exercises. A Texas court invalidated part of the fiduciary rollover rule, echoing Florida, because nothing says consistency like multiple courts disagreeing in harmony.
August
August delivered an executive order encouraging retirement plans to consider private markets, including alternatives, digital assets, real estate, and lifetime income products. This marked the first time all of these were mentioned together without anyone visibly sweating.
Litigation continued, with Empower sued over alleged misuse of participant data to cross-sell managed accounts, joining TIAA and Morningstar in the rapidly growing genre of “You had the data, but should you have used it?”
September
September brought the confirmation of Daniel Aronowitz as EBSA head, thanks to a procedural maneuver best described as “now everyone is confirmed, please stop emailing us.”
The IRS finalized Roth catch-up rules effective in 2027, which somehow managed to confuse people about a requirement scheduled for 2026. The SEC fined Vanguard and Empower over managed account disclosures, and the American Airlines ESG case concluded with governance changes but no damages, proving that sometimes everyone loses differently.
October
A government shutdown slowed activity, but not enough to prevent the release of Social Security COLA figures, because retirees notice.
Courts dismissed several pension risk transfer cases for lack of harm, while allowing others to proceed based on the possibility that harm might someday exist if the universe cooperated.
November
Post-shutdown, the IRS released 2026 contribution limits and the updated FICA threshold, reminding everyone that math is relentless.
More forfeiture cases were dismissed, some explicitly citing Labor’s HP amicus brief. New cases appeared anyway, because hope springs eternal. Advisors sued the Labor Department. Attorneys sought fees. Everyone was very busy.
December
December ended the year emphatically.
The Labor Department urged the Supreme Court to review major ERISA issues, siding with fiduciaries and explicitly reversing its prior positions, which is rare and also deeply confusing to historians. The Department abandoned its defense of the fiduciary rule while hinting at a replacement, because suspense matters.
Schlichter Bogard rolled out a new wave of lawsuits targeting voluntary benefits, proving there is always another category. A Johnson & Johnson healthcare case was dismissed. The Department requested more time in Honeywell, suggesting another amicus was loading.
Congress passed a bill allowing 403(b) plans to invest in CITs, plus floated auto-IRAs, Roth rollovers, ERISA lawsuit reform, and expanded emergency savings, all of which may or may not happen, but felt important at the time.
What Did We Learn?
The defining feature of 2025 was not transformation, but stress-testing. The system was tested. Employers were tested. Courts were tested. Fiduciaries were tested, mostly on whether they kept enough meeting minutes.
And somehow, the system held. Not gracefully. Not efficiently. But it held.
Going into 2026, there will be more lawsuits, more rules, and more confident statements that turn out to be provisional. But 2025 proved something important: retirement plans continue to function not because they are perfect, but because the people running them are persistent, pragmatic, and very good at reading footnotes.
Preserving the system will require less noise, clearer rules, fair enforcement, and a collective agreement that prudence does not require clairvoyance.
On to 2026. Please stretch first.
- Nevin E. Adams, JD (and ChatGPT)
