Enjoy complimentary access to top ideas and insights — selected by our editors.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Education have all been caught in the crosshairs of the Trump administration and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. Now, accountants predict that the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board could be next.
Trump’s nomination of Paul Atkins to replace former SEC Chair Gary Gensler has been seen by many to be a sign of deregulation on the horizon, with further estimates that Atkins will reshape the PCAOB’s leadership makeup if confirmed to the SEC. Other possible scenarios include the consolidation of the PCAOB into the SEC.
Lara Long, managing director at the New York-based business advisory firm Riveron, said players in the capital markets see Republican control of the White House and Congress as a strong sign that regulatory actions will “either be reversed or will significantly decline.”
“So far, no one is 100% sure of the PCAOB’s future, including whether the agency will be folded into the SEC,” Long said. “Many insiders feel that whatever happens with the PCAOB will not eliminate the need for the financial markets to have an audit regulator.”
Data published by Cornerstone Research in February recapped the PCAOB’s enforcement action trends over the last 20 years. In the decade that followed the first finalized enforcement action from the board in 2004, activity was calm, with 72 auditing actions against a mix of 126 respondents that included 53 audit firms and 73 individuals. Monetary penalties were roughly $5 million.
That trend took a dramatic shift in 2015, when the PCAOB finalized 34 auditing actions and submitted close to $10 million in penalties — double the total for the prior 10 years.
Between 2015 and 2024, the board finalized a total 302 auditing actions against 466 respondents and issued monetary penalties in excess of $86 million. Last year accounted for roughly 40% of the penalties issued for the decade.
“The PCAOB continued aggressive enforcement in 2024, finalizing 30 auditing actions in the first half of 2024, more than triple the number of actions finalized in the first half of 2023,” Jean-Philippe Poissant, one of the report’s co-authors and co-head of Cornerstone Research’s accounting practice, said in a statement. “In one in five auditing actions, the PCAOB alleged violations of not only auditing standards, but quality control standards and ethics and independence, as well.”
Similar data released in a March report by the Brattle Group offered predictions into how this trend could change under the new Trump administration.
“We expect that the combination of Trump 2.0 and ongoing constitutional challenges [like] Jarkesy and Doe vs. PCAOB matters will bring a sea change in auditor enforcement activity,” the report said.
Learn more about the recent activity from the PCAOB and what experts across the profession think the future will hold for the organization.
Sean Gallup/Getty Images Europe
PCAOB sanctions nine firms in KPMG’s network
Officials with the PCAOB censured and fined nine firms in KPMG’s global network of firms for both violating quality control standards and neglecting to shed light on who performed the audits.
“It is essential that investors and audit committees know where issuers’ audits are being conducted and by whom so that they can make informed selection and ratification decisions,” Erica Williams, PCAOB chair, said in a statement this month. “These violations prevent investors and audit committees from obtaining important information.”
Is it the end of the PCAOB and SEC’s crackdown on auditors?
The first half of 2024 was rife with enforcement actions from the PCAOB and Securities and Exchange Commission, but that trend was quelled in the second half of the year due to a notable Supreme Court ruling and a rash of lawsuits against the PCAOB.
Data from the Brattle Group showed that both organizations brought 58 enforcement actions against auditors last year, keeping pace with the 60 actions the previous year and the 59 actions in 2022. But experts predict that leadership changes at the PCAOB and SEC, coupled with a second Trump administration, could drastically hamper this trend.
“Activity appears to have been substantially impacted by the Supreme Court’s SEC vs. Jarkesy ruling, which found that the regulator’s use of administrative proceedings to seek financial civil penalties for securities fraud was unconstitutional,” Alison Forman, co-leader of Brattle’s Accounting Practice, said in a statement. “We expect fallout from Jarkesy and similar constitutional challenges facing the PCAOB — as well as the new presidential administration — to dramatically shift the enforcement landscape moving forward.”
Auditor outcry sees rollback of PCOAB firm and engagement metrics
Following widespread outcry from auditing firms and companies, the PCAOB has walked back two proposed standards on firm reporting and firm and engagement metrics it approved last November.
Both standards failed to obtain the required additional approval from the SEC in order to take effect. Under the new guidance, firms would have been required to provide the PCAOB with details on their partner and manager involvement in audits, workload, training hours, experience of audit personnel, retention, allocation of audit hours, restatement history, fees, governance, network relationships, cybersecurity and more.
“Among our concerns was the potential unintended consequence of the rules prompting small and midsized audit firms to stop performing public company audits, impacting companies that depend on those audit firms as they seek access to U.S. capital markets,” Sue Coffey, the AICPA’s CEO of public accounting, said in a statement, according to the Journal of Accountancy.
Could the Trump administration dissolve the PCAOB?
Industry experts eyeing the governmental downsizing led by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency are beginning to prepare for a similar scenario at the PCAOB.
In speaking at a February meeting of the Accountants Club of America in New York, AICPA and CIMA president and CEO Mark Koziel remarked that the lack of general public awareness of the PCAOB leaves the organization with a smaller pool of advocates working to keep it alive when compared to other organizations.
“When you think about the fact that the PCAOB, if they were to shut it down, and DOGE would be able to take credit for it, who would oppose it?” Koziel said. “It has a $400 million budget, none of which is paid for by taxpayers. … But it’s a $400 million win, if [Elon Musk’s DOGE] could say it publicly in some way, shape or form.”
Diving into the PCAOB’s record $35M in fines in 2024
Last year was an active enforcement year for the PCAOB, as officials levied more than $35 million in fines.
The largest of the bunch was a $25 million fine against KPMG Netherlands, after the PCAOB found via a 2022 whistleblower report that employees were cheating on the firm’s internal training program by sharing answers with one another over a five year period. This was the largest civil money penalty in the PCAOB’s history.
The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board is proposing to tailor some of its standards to align with recent additions to the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants’ International Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants when it comes to using the work of an external expert.
The IAASB is asking for comments via a digital response template that can be found on the IAASB website by July 24, 2025.
In December 2023, the IESBA approved an exposure draft for proposed revisions to the IESBA’s Code of Ethics related to using the work of an external expert. The proposals included three new sections to the Code of Ethics, including provisions for professional accountants in public practice; professional accountants in business and sustainability assurance practitioners. The IESBA approved the provisions on using the work of an external expert at its December 2024 meeting, establishing an ethical framework to guide accountants and sustainability assurance practitioners in evaluating whether an external expert has the necessary competence, capabilities and objectivity to use their work, as well as provisions on applying the Ethics Code’s conceptual framework when using the work of an outside expert.
President Donald Trump’s tariffs would effectively cause a tax increase for low-income families that is more than three times higher than what wealthier Americans would pay, according to an analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
The report from the progressive think tank outlined the outcomes for Americans of all backgrounds if the tariffs currently in effect remain in place next year. Those making $28,600 or less would have to spend 6.2% more of their income due to higher prices, while the richest Americans with income of at least $914,900 are expected to spend 1.7% more. Middle-income families making between $55,100 and $94,100 would pay 5% more of their earnings.
Trump has imposed the steepest U.S. duties in more than a century, including a 145% tariff on many products from China, a 25% rate on most imports from Canada and Mexico, duties on some sectors such as steel and aluminum and a baseline 10% tariff on the rest of the country’s trading partners. He suspended higher, customized tariffs on most countries for 90 days.
Economists have warned that costs from tariff increases would ultimately be passed on to U.S. consumers. And while prices will rise for everyone, lower-income families are expected to lose a larger portion of their budgets because they tend to spend more of their earnings on goods, including food and other necessities, compared to wealthier individuals.
Food prices could rise by 2.6% in the short run due to tariffs, according to an estimate from the Yale Budget Lab. Among all goods impacted, consumers are expected to face the steepest price hikes for clothing at 64%, the report showed.
The Yale Budget Lab projected that the tariffs would result in a loss of $4,700 a year on average for American households.
Artificial intelligence is just getting started in the accounting world, but it is already helping firms like technology specialist Schellman do more things with fewer people, allowing the firm to scale back hiring and reduce headcount in certain areas through natural attrition.
Schellman CEO Avani Desai said there have definitely been some shifts in headcount at the Top 100 Firm, though she stressed it was nothing dramatic, as it mostly reflects natural attrition combined with being more selective with hiring. She said the firm has already made an internal decision to not reduce headcount in force, as that just indicates they didn’t hire properly the first time.
“It hasn’t been about reducing roles but evolving how we do work, so there wasn’t one specific date where we ‘started’ the reduction. It’s been more case by case. We’ve held back on refilling certain roles when we saw opportunities to streamline, especially with the use of new technologies like AI,” she said.
One area where the firm has found such opportunities has been in the testing of certain cybersecurity controls, particularly within the SOC framework. The firm examined all the controls it tests on the service side and asked which ones require human judgment or deep expertise. The answer was a lot of them. But for the ones that don’t, AI algorithms have been able to significantly lighten the load.
“[If] we don’t refill a role, it’s because the need actually has changed, or the process has improved so significantly [that] the workload is lighter or shared across the smarter system. So that’s what’s happening,” said Desai.
Outside of client services like SOC control testing and reporting, the firm has found efficiencies in administrative functions as well as certain internal operational processes. On the latter point, Desai noted that Schellman’s engineers, including the chief information officer, have been using AI to help develop code, which means they’re not relying as much on outside expertise on the internal service delivery side of things. There are still people in the development process, but their roles are changing: They’re writing less code, and doing more reviewing of code before it gets pushed into production, saving time and creating efficiencies.
“The best way for me to say this is, to us, this has been intentional. We paused hiring in a few areas where we saw overlaps, where technology was really working,” said Desai.
However, even in an age awash with AI, Schellman acknowledges there are certain jobs that need a human, at least for now. For example, the firm does assessments for the FedRAMP program, which is needed for cloud service providers to contract with certain government agencies. These assessments, even in the most stable of times, can be long and complex engagements, to say nothing of the less predictable nature of the current government. As such, it does not make as much sense to reduce human staff in this area.
“The way it is right now for us to do FedRAMP engagements, it’s a very manual process. There’s a lot of back and forth between us and a third party, the government, and we don’t see a lot of overall application or technology help… We’re in the federal space and you can imagine, [with] what’s going on right now, there’s a big changing market condition for clients and their pricing pressure,” said Desai.
As Schellman reduces staff levels in some places, it is increasing them in others. Desai said the firm is actively hiring in certain areas. In particular, it’s adding staff in technical cybersecurity (e.g., penetration testers), the aforementioned FedRAMP engagements, AI assessment (in line with recently becoming an ISO 42001 certification body) and in some client-facing roles like marketing and sales.
“So, to me, this isn’t about doing more with less … It’s about doing more of the right things with the right people,” said Desai.
While these moves have resulted in savings, she said that was never really the point, so whatever the firm has saved from staffing efficiencies it has reinvested in its tech stack to build its service line further. When asked for an example, she said the firm would like to focus more on penetration testing by building a SaaS tool for it. While Schellman has a proof of concept developed, she noted it would take a lot of money and time to deploy a full solution — both of which the firm now has more of because of its efficiency moves.
“What is the ‘why’ behind these decisions? The ‘why’ for us isn’t what I think you traditionally see, which is ‘We need to get profitability high. We need to have less people do more things.’ That’s not what it is like,” said Desai. “I want to be able to focus on quality. And the only way I think I can focus on quality is if my people are not focusing on things that don’t matter … I feel like I’m in a much better place because the smart people that I’ve hired are working on the riskiest and most complicated things.”