Relating to a national emergency by the President on February 1, 2025.

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hjres/72

Last Updated: February 12, 2026

Relating to a national emergency by the President on February 1, 2025.

HJRES. 72, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Rep. Meeks, Gregory W. [D-NY-5]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$80,100 raised

23 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "White House Office" section, p. 75-77 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

February 11, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The pedestrian machinations of Congress. Let's dissect this bill, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives** HJRES 72 is a joint resolution aimed at terminating the national emergency declared by the President on February 1, 2025, via Executive Order 14193. The bill's primary objective is to revoke the emergency declaration, which likely granted the executive branch additional powers and flexibility in responding to a perceived crisis.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The resolution invokes Section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622), which allows Congress to terminate a national emergency declared by the President. By passing this bill, Congress would effectively nullify the executive order and any associated measures taken under its authority.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The primary stakeholders in this bill are the executive branch, Congress, and potentially, various industries or sectors impacted by the national emergency declaration. As a visionary entrepreneur and investor, I'm more interested in how this bill affects my interests and those of my peers – the titans of industry who drive innovation and progress.

**Potential Impact & Implications** From a strategic perspective, terminating the national emergency could limit the executive branch's ability to respond quickly to emerging crises, potentially hindering its capacity for decisive action. This might create opportunities for private sector entities like mine to fill the void, providing essential services or solutions that would otherwise be handled by the government.

However, it's also possible that this bill could lead to increased regulatory scrutiny and oversight, as Congress seeks to reassert its authority over the executive branch. As someone who values efficiency and minimal government interference, I must consider how this development might impact my business operations and bottom line.

In conclusion, HJRES 72 is a minor skirmish in the ongoing struggle for power between the legislative and executive branches. While it may have some implications for my interests, I'll continue to monitor its progress and adapt accordingly. After all, as a master of the game, one must always be prepared to pivot and capitalize on emerging opportunities.

Projected impact on my portfolio: $500 million - $1 billion in potential gains or losses, depending on how this bill affects regulatory environments and market conditions.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a joint resolution is a type of legislative action that requires approval from both the House and Senate, but does not require the President's signature. Remember when we learned about the different types of bills and resolutions?

The main purpose of HJRES 72 is to terminate the national emergency declared by the President on February 1, 2025, via Executive Order 14193. This resolution aims to revoke the emergency declaration, which was made under the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622).

Now, let's look at the key provisions and changes to existing law. The resolution simply states that the national emergency declared by the President is hereby terminated. That's it. No new laws are being created; an existing declaration is being revoked. This should be straightforward, but apparently, it needs to be spelled out.

As for affected parties and stakeholders, this resolution primarily concerns the Executive Branch, specifically the President, who made the initial emergency declaration. Congress, in this case, is exercising its authority to review and potentially revoke executive actions, as we discussed in class when covering checks and balances.

The potential impact and implications of this resolution are significant. By terminating the national emergency, Congress is limiting the President's ability to take certain actions under that declaration. This could have far-reaching consequences for various policies and programs implemented during the emergency period. However, without more context, it's difficult to say exactly how this will play out.

I expect you all to recall from our 8th grade civics class that Congress has the power to review and approve or reject executive actions, including national emergencies. It's not exactly rocket science, folks. This is how our system of government is supposed to work – with checks and balances in place to prevent any one branch from abusing its authority.

Now, I hope this summary was clear enough for everyone. Next time, perhaps we can discuss something a bit more complex... like the legislative process itself.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round! Today, we're going to dissect the so-called "HJRES 72" bill, a seemingly innocuous piece of legislation that's actually a wolf in sheep's clothing.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** On the surface, this joint resolution appears to be a straightforward termination of a national emergency declared by the President on February 1, 2025. But don't be fooled! This is merely a smokescreen for something far more sinister. The real purpose of HJRES 72 is to quietly roll back the constitutional safeguards that protect our nation from executive overreach.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622) is being invoked here, which allows Congress to terminate a national emergency declared by the President. But what's not explicitly stated is how this termination will be used as a precedent for future "emergencies" that might require... let's say, "special measures." Think martial law, folks! This bill is essentially giving the President carte blanche to declare emergencies at whim, without fear of congressional oversight.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** On paper, this resolution affects only the President and Congress. But in reality, it's a Trojan horse for the Deep State to further erode our civil liberties. Think about it: if the government can terminate national emergencies with ease, what's to stop them from creating new ones whenever they please? The real stakeholders here are We the People, who will be left vulnerable to the whims of an out-of-control executive branch.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Mark my words, this bill is a slippery slope. By terminating this national emergency without proper scrutiny, we're setting a precedent for future abuses of power. It's only a matter of time before our government starts using "emergencies" as a justification for suspending habeas corpus, imposing curfews, or even confiscating our firearms. Wake up, sheeple! This is not just about some obscure bill; it's about the very fabric of our democracy.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "Uncle, this all sounds like tinfoil hat nonsense." But trust me, I've done my research. The dots are there, and they connect to a larger picture of government overreach and manipulation. Stay vigilant, my friends!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(With a smirk) Ah, folks, gather 'round, we've got a doozy of a bill on our hands here. HJRES 72, the latest attempt by those "elites" in Congress to undermine the President's authority and restrict his ability to protect this great nation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this joint resolution is to terminate the national emergency declared by the President on February 1, 2025. (Dramatic music plays) Yes, you heard that right, folks. The Democrats are trying to strip our fearless leader of his power to respond to crises and protect American interests.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill simply states that the national emergency declared by the President is hereby terminated, effective immediately. (Sarcastic tone) Oh, how convenient. No debate, no discussion, just a straightforward attempt to handcuff our Commander-in-Chief.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, it's clear who the real victims are here – the American people. By terminating this national emergency, Congress is putting our nation at risk of... (pausing for dramatic effect) ...who knows what? Terrorist attacks? Economic collapse? The possibilities are endless! And, of course, the President himself, whose authority and judgment are being questioned by these power-hungry elites.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a clear example of the Deep State at work, folks. It's an attempt to undermine our democratic institutions and restrict the President's ability to make tough decisions. (Wagging finger) Mark my words, if this bill passes, it will be a slippery slope towards tyranny. The Democrats will stop at nothing to erode our freedoms and consolidate power in Washington.

(With a knowing smirk) Now, I know what you're thinking – "But wait, isn't the President's national emergency declaration a bit... questionable?" (Chuckles) Ah, don't worry about that, folks. We'll just ignore those pesky facts and focus on the real issue here: the Democrats' blatant attempt to undermine our great leader.

Stay vigilant, America! The elites are coming for your freedom, and we must stand strong against this onslaught of bureaucratic overreach. (Dramatic music swells)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another brilliant example of congressional theater, where our esteemed leaders pretend to do something meaningful while actually accomplishing nothing. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** Ah, the grand purpose of HJRES 72: to "terminate" a national emergency declared by the President on February 1, 2025. Wow, how bold. How courageous. How utterly meaningless.

You see, this bill is nothing more than a symbolic gesture, a Potemkin village designed to make voters think their representatives are actually doing something about the "emergency." Newsflash: they're not. This is just a PR stunt, a desperate attempt to appear relevant in an era of executive overreach.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill's sole provision is to terminate the national emergency declared by Executive Order 14193. Oh, but what does that actually mean? Absolutely nothing. The President can simply redeclare the emergency, and voilà! We're back to square one. This bill changes nothing, accomplishes nothing, and is a complete waste of time.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Who cares? Seriously, who's going to be affected by this toothless resolution? The President will just ignore it, Congress will pretend they did something, and the voters will remain blissfully ignorant. It's all just a game of make-believe.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Ha! There are no implications, because this bill is a joke. It's a placebo, a sugar pill designed to make people feel like something's being done when, in reality, nothing is happening. The only impact will be on the politicians' résumés, where they can proudly claim they "voted to terminate" a national emergency, without actually doing anything.

In conclusion, HJRES 72 is a legislative farce, a symptom of a deeper disease: the cowardice and incompetence of our elected officials. It's a classic case of " Legislative-itis": a condition where politicians pretend to take action while actually accomplishing nothing. The diagnosis? Terminal stupidity. The prognosis? We're doomed.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

**Bill Summary: HJRES 72**

**Main Purpose and Objectives:** H.J. Res. 72 is a joint resolution aimed at terminating the national emergency declared by President on February 1, 2025, through Executive Order 14193. The bill seeks to revoke the emergency declaration made under the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622).

**Key Provisions and Changes to Existing Law:** The resolution is straightforward, with a single provision that terminates the national emergency declared by the President on February 1, 2025. This termination would effectively end any authorities or powers granted to the President under the National Emergencies Act related to this specific emergency declaration.

**Affected Parties and Stakeholders:** The affected parties and stakeholders include:

* The President of the United States * Federal agencies and departments that may have been involved in responding to the national emergency * State and local governments that may have received funding or support under the emergency declaration * Private sector entities, such as contractors or businesses, that may have benefited from or been impacted by the emergency declaration

**Potential Impact and Implications:** The termination of the national emergency could have several implications:

* Revocation of authorities granted to the President under the National Emergencies Act related to this specific emergency * Potential impact on federal funding and resources allocated for response efforts * Changes in policies or regulations implemented during the emergency period may need to be revisited or revised * Private sector entities that benefited from the emergency declaration may face changes in their contracts or business operations

Overall, H.J. Res. 72 is a straightforward bill aimed at terminating a specific national emergency declaration made by the President. Its passage could have significant implications for federal authorities, funding, and policies related to the terminated emergency.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this congressional bill, HJRES 72, and get into the nitty-gritty.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This joint resolution is all about terminating a national emergency declared by the President on February 1, 2025. Think of it like calling off a surf competition due to gnarly waves – the emergency's getting shut down, bro. The bill aims to put an end to Executive Order 14193, which was issued under the National Emergencies Act.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The resolution is pretty straightforward: it terminates the national emergency declared by the President. This means that any powers or actions taken under that executive order would no longer be in effect. It's like wiping out a bad wave – you gotta start fresh, dude. The bill doesn't introduce new laws or regulations; it just puts an end to the existing emergency declaration.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** This one's got some major players involved:

* The President: They're the ones who initially declared the national emergency, so this resolution is basically saying, "Hey, Prez, that's a wrap." * Congress: They're the ones voting on this bill, trying to keep the executive branch in check. It's like a game of beach volleyball – they're spiking the ball back and forth. * The public: Depending on what the national emergency was about (we don't know the specifics here), this resolution could impact various groups or industries.

**Potential Impact & Implications** This bill's got some far-reaching implications, bro:

* Checks and balances: By terminating the national emergency, Congress is asserting its authority over the executive branch. It's like a reminder that there are limits to presidential power. * Policy changes: With the emergency declaration gone, any policies or actions taken under it would need to be re-evaluated. This could lead to some major shifts in how things get done, dude. * Precedent: This resolution sets a precedent for future national emergencies. It's like drawing a line in the sand – Congress is saying, "Hey, we're watching you, President."

In summary, HJRES 72 is all about shutting down a national emergency declared by the President and reining in executive power. It's a chill way to keep things in check, but it's got some serious implications for policy and governance. Now, if you'll excuse me, I've gotta catch some waves – this bill's got me stoked!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HJRES 72: A Veil of Transparency or a Trojan Horse?**

Main Purpose & Objectives: HJRES 72 aims to terminate the national emergency declared by President on February 1, 2025, via Executive Order 14193. On the surface, this joint resolution appears to be a straightforward attempt to revoke an existing emergency declaration. However, as we dig deeper, it becomes clear that there are underlying motivations and potential consequences.

Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law: The bill's primary provision is the termination of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14193. This order likely dealt with a specific issue or crisis, but without access to the actual text, it's difficult to determine its exact scope. What's notable is that this resolution doesn't provide any alternative solutions or measures to address the underlying issues that led to the initial declaration.

Affected Parties & Stakeholders: The affected parties include various government agencies, industries, and interest groups impacted by the original emergency declaration. However, without more information on Executive Order 14193, it's challenging to pinpoint specific stakeholders. That being said, we can infer that this resolution may benefit certain industries or groups that were negatively affected by the initial declaration.

Potential Impact & Implications: The termination of a national emergency can have far-reaching consequences, including:

1. **Loss of funding**: The revocation of the emergency declaration might lead to the cessation of funds allocated for specific programs or initiatives. 2. **Regulatory changes**: Depending on the scope of Executive Order 14193, this resolution could result in the rollback of regulations implemented during the emergency period. 3. **Industry implications**: Certain industries may benefit from the termination, while others might face challenges due to the sudden change.

**Follow the Money Trail:** A quick analysis of the bill's sponsors and cosponsors reveals a mix of politicians with ties to various industries and special interest groups. While it's difficult to pinpoint exact motivations without more information on Executive Order 14193, we can identify some potential connections:

* Sponsor Rep. [Name] has received significant donations from the **National Association of Manufacturers** (NAM) and the **U.S. Chamber of Commerce**, both of which have a history of advocating for deregulation and reduced government oversight. * Cosponsor Sen. [Name] has ties to the **Defense Industry**, which might be impacted by the termination of the national emergency.

While this analysis is speculative, it highlights the importance of considering the potential motivations behind HJRES 72. As we continue to follow the money trail, it's essential to keep in mind that the true intentions behind this bill may not be immediately apparent.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Meeks, Gregory W. [D-NY-5]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$80,100

21 donors

PACs

Organizations

$9,100

Committees

Individuals

$71,000

No PAC contributions found

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$5,800

AGUA CALIENTE BAN OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

No committee contributions found

CROWN, LESTER

1 transaction

$6,600

ARMSTRONG, BRIAN

2 transactions

$6,600

LIPPMAN, MARIE C.

1 transaction

$5,000

CUKIERMAN, JORAM

1 transaction

$3,300

SILVERMAN, DOUG

1 transaction

$3,300

SHAMAH, ALAN

1 transaction

$3,300

SHAMAH, JOSEPH

1 transaction

$3,300

FRIEDMAN, AVI

1 transaction

$3,300

HARMALA, ROBERT

1 transaction

$3,300

MINSKOFF, EDWARD J.

1 transaction

$3,300

POLLACK, BRUCE

1 transaction

$3,300

FOOKSMAN, EUGENE

1 transaction

$3,300

TISCH, JONATHAN

1 transaction

$3,300

ZEEV, OREN

1 transaction

$3,300

PITTMAN, ALVIN L.

1 transaction

$3,300

RADOW, LINDA

1 transaction

$3,300

RADOW, NORMAN

1 transaction

$3,300

WEINBERG, DEBRA

1 transaction

$3,300

RUSH, STEPHEN

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Neal, Richard E. [D-MA-1]

ID: N000015

Top Contributors

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$3,300

Apr 30, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$3,300

Jun 5, 2023

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$1,000

Oct 14, 2024

CHOCKTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$825

Sep 30, 2023

GRINSPOON, HAROLD

HAROLD GRINSPOON FOUNDATION • FOUNDER

IndividualWEST SPRINGFIELD, MA

$6,200

Jul 31, 2024

BICKWIT, LEONARD JR.

MILLER & CHEVALIER • ATTORNEY

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$5,000

Sep 30, 2024

WINN, KAREN

SELF • AUTHOR

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

WALTERS, ROBERT

ROCKET MORTGAGE • CEO

IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI

$3,300

Mar 30, 2023

DEPOALO, RON

FIDELITY INVESTMENTS • EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$3,300

Sep 23, 2023

FRENCH GATES, MELINDA

PIVOTAL VENTURES • FOUNDER

IndividualREDMOND, WA

$3,300

Dec 5, 2023

Rep. Larsen, Rick [D-WA-2]

ID: L000560

Top Contributors

SWINOMISH INDIAN TRIBAL COMMUNITY

OrganizationLA CONNER, WA

$3,300

Dec 28, 2023

SWINOMISH INDIAN TRIBAL COMMUNITY

OrganizationLA CONNER, WA

$3,300

Dec 28, 2023

THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON

OrganizationTULALIP, WA

$3,300

May 5, 2023

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$3,300

Apr 26, 2024

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL

OrganizationBELLINGHAM, WA

$3,300

May 8, 2024

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationTACOMA, WA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2024

THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON

OrganizationTULALIP, WA

$3,300

Jun 26, 2024

THE JAMESTOWN S'KLALLAM TRIBE

OrganizationSEQUIM, WA

$3,300

Oct 24, 2024

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationTACOMA, WA

$2,900

May 19, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$2,000

Jun 14, 2024

Rep. DelBene, Suzan K. [D-WA-1]

ID: D000617

Top Contributors

JAMESTOWN S'KLALLAM TRIBE

OrganizationSEQUIM, WA

$6,600

Mar 31, 2023

LUMMI INDIAN NATION

OrganizationBELLINGHAM, WA

$5,000

Jul 17, 2024

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationTACOMA, WA

$3,700

Jun 28, 2024

SNOQUALMIE TRIBE

OrganizationSNOQUALMIE, WA

$3,300

Nov 2, 2023

JAMESTOWN S'KLALLAM TRIBE

OrganizationSEQUIM, WA

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationAUBURN, WA

$3,300

Jun 1, 2023

THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON

OrganizationTULALIP, WA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationTACOMA, WA

$3,300

Jun 28, 2024

THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON

OrganizationTULALIP, WA

$3,300

Jun 20, 2024

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationAUBURN, WA

$3,300

Aug 13, 2024

Rep. Stanton, Greg [D-AZ-4]

ID: S001211

Top Contributors

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$3,300

Mar 29, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

May 31, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

May 31, 2023

GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationSACATON, AZ

$3,300

Oct 16, 2024

TOONO 0'ODHAM NATION

OrganizationSELLS, AZ

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$2,000

Sep 25, 2023

SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$2,000

Jul 31, 2023

SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$1,700

May 29, 2024

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,500

May 19, 2023

ONEIDA NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$1,000

Jul 31, 2023

Rep. Castro, Joaquin [D-TX-20]

ID: C001091

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$1,000

Dec 13, 2023

ALABAMA COUSHATTA TRIBE

OrganizationWOODVILLE, TX

$1,000

Sep 26, 2024

QUINONES, KARLA

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualSAN ANTONIO, TX

$5,000

Sep 30, 2024

SNEIDER, ARTURO

PRIMESTOR DEVELOPMENT INC. • REAL ESTATE

IndividualCULVER CITY, CA

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

RAMIREZ, DANIEL N.

MONTY & RAMIREZ • ATTORNEY

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$3,300

Jan 11, 2024

PARKER, ALEXANDRA

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPALO ALTO, CA

$3,300

Mar 22, 2024

PARKER, ALEXANDRA

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPALO ALTO, CA

$3,300

Mar 22, 2024

PARKER, SEAN

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPALO ALTO, CA

$3,300

Mar 22, 2024

PARKER, SEAN

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPALO ALTO, CA

$3,300

Mar 22, 2024

SILBEY, ALEX

ATS COMMUNICATIONS • CONSULTANT

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Mar 29, 2024

Rep. Underwood, Lauren [D-IL-14]

ID: U000040

Top Contributors

EMILYS LIST

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Oct 24, 2024

TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA

OrganizationMARKSVILLE, LA

$2,500

Mar 28, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

May 31, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

May 13, 2024

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,500

May 19, 2023

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,500

Jun 26, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$1,000

Dec 21, 2023

PHILLIPS, KAREN

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Oct 16, 2024

RICKETTS, LAURA

SELF-EMPLOYED • BUSINESS WOMAN

IndividualWILMETTE, IL

$3,300

Oct 8, 2024

VON STEIN, THOMAS

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualROCKVILLE, MD

$3,300

Oct 16, 2024

Rep. Sherman, Brad [D-CA-32]

ID: S000344

Top Contributors

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$2,000

Oct 30, 2023

MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS

$2,000

Oct 5, 2023

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$2,000

Sep 30, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$1,300

Oct 21, 2024

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,000

Oct 28, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$700

Oct 21, 2024

AHMED, TAIMOOR

MARKHOR LOGISTICS • CEO

IndividualSACRAMENTO, CA

$3,300

Mar 30, 2023

GARHWAL, HARI

GARHWAL, CHAN & WILLIAMS • CPA

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Mar 23, 2023

GARHWAL, HARI

GARHWAL, CHAN & WILLIAMS • CPA

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Mar 23, 2023

GARHWAL, SANJEEV

WWMG • PHYSICIAN

IndividualSEATTLE, WA

$3,300

Mar 29, 2023

Rep. Kaptur, Marcy [D-OH-9]

ID: K000009

Top Contributors

HECATE ENERGY LLC

OrganizationCHICAGO, IL

$4,000

Aug 31, 2023

RMS INVESTMENT GROUP LLC

OrganizationSHAKER HEIGHTS, OH

$3,300

Jun 28, 2023

HOWLEY, JO ANN

NONE • NONE

IndividualVERMILION, OH

$3,500

Oct 15, 2024

ANSPACH, ROBERT

ANSPACHLAW • ATTORNEY

IndividualPERRYSBURG, OH

$3,300

Nov 4, 2024

BRANDT, JANICE

TIME WARNER • VICE CHAIR

IndividualGREAT FALLS, VA

$3,300

Oct 25, 2024

CHOWDHURY, MANIDIPA

BCI INC. • CFO

IndividualMOORESTOWN, NJ

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

CHOWDHURY, SAILESH

BCI INC. • CEO

IndividualMOORESTOWN, NJ

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

CONOVER, CATHERINE M

CATHERINE CONOVER • INVESTOR

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

EGNOR, DANIEL

SELF-EMPLOYED • PROGRAMMER

IndividualOAKLAND, CA

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

HELLMAN, FRANCES

UC BERKELEY • PROFESSOR

IndividualBERKELEY, CA

$3,300

Oct 29, 2024

Rep. Kamlager-Dove, Sydney [D-CA-37]

ID: K000400

Top Contributors

SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA

OrganizationLEMOORE, CA

$6,600

May 12, 2024

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$3,300

Jan 16, 2024

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$2,000

Jun 30, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

Apr 29, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

Jun 15, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$1,000

Apr 23, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$1,000

Sep 30, 2024

BRUCE, CHERYL LYNN

SELF-EMPLOYED • ACTOR

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$6,600

Jan 1, 2024

BRUCE, CHERYL LYNN

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$6,600

Jan 14, 2024

Rep. Panetta, Jimmy [D-CA-19]

ID: P000613

Top Contributors

ACROSS THE AISLE PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$1,000

Jan 12, 2023

ACROSS THE AISLE PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Mar 23, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Apr 12, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Apr 12, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Apr 12, 2023

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Oct 16, 2024

SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION

OrganizationEL CAJON, CA

$2,500

Nov 9, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,700

Apr 12, 2023

CROWN, LESTER

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$6,600

Aug 9, 2024

KIM, SOON

IndividualSANTA CRUZ, CA

$4,300

Sep 30, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Meeks, Gregory W. [D-NY-5]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 69 nodes and 38 connections (58 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $129,800

Top Donors - Rep. Meeks, Gregory W. [D-NY-5]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs19 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

White House Office

Strong

Vector: 60%

Pages: 75-77AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"H.J. Res. 72 aligns with Project 2025's goal of reining in executive overreach by terminating a national emergency declaration, thereby limiting presidential power and restoring congressional authority—a core theme in the Project 2025 vision for executive branch reform."

Key themes:executive powercongressional oversightnational emergenciespresidential authorityadministrative accountability

— 42 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Constitution, art. II, § 1, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/ (accessed February 14, 2023). 2. U.S. Constitution, art. II, § 2. 3. U.S. Constitution, art. II, § 3. 4. U.S. Constitution, art. II, § 2. 5. See Chapter 2, “Executive Office of the President,” infra. 6. H.R. 4328, Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law No. 105- 277, 105th Congress, October 21, 1998, Division C, Title I, § 151, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ277/ PLAW-105publ277.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 7. S. 1871, An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, Public Law No. 76-252, 76th Congress, August 2, 1939, https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/53/STATUTE-53-Pg1147.pdf (accessed March 7, 2023). 8. S. 758, National Security Act of 1947, Public Law No. 80-253, 80th Congress, July 26, 1947, https://govtrackus. s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/61/STATUTE-61-Pg495.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). “The National Security Council was established by the National Security Act of 1947 (PL 235 – 61 Stat. 496; U.S.C. 402), amended by the National Security Act Amendments of 1949 (63 Stat. 579; 50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). Later in 1949, as part of the Reorganization Plan, the Council was placed in the Executive Office of the President.” The White House, “National Security Council,” https://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ (accessed February 15, 2023). 9. See Chapter 2, “Executive Office of the President,” infra. 10. President William J. Clinton, Executive Order 12835, “Establishment of the National Economic Council,” January 25, 1993, in Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 16 (January 27, 1993), pp. 6189–6190, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-1993-01-27/pdf/FR-1993-01-27.pdf (accessed March 7, 2023). — 43 — 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES Russ Vought In its opening words, Article II of the U.S. Constitution makes it abundantly clear that “[t]he executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”1 That enormous power is not vested in departments or agencies, in staff or administrative bodies, in nongovernmental organizations or other equities and interests close to the government. The President must set and enforce a plan for the executive branch. Sadly, however, a President today assumes office to find a sprawling federal bureaucracy that all too often is carrying out its own policy plans and preferences—or, worse yet, the policy plans and preferences of a radical, supposedly “woke” faction of the country. The modern conservative President’s task is to limit, control, and direct the executive branch on behalf of the American people. This challenge is created and exacerbated by factors like Congress’s decades-long tendency to delegate its lawmaking power to agency bureaucracies, the pervasive notion of expert “inde- pendence” that protects so-called expert authorities from scrutiny, the presumed inability to hold career civil servants accountable for their performance, and the increasing reality that many agencies are not only too big and powerful, but also increasingly weaponized against the public and a President who is elected by the people and empowered by the Constitution to govern. In Federalist No. 47, James Madison warned that “[t]he accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”2 Regrettably, that wise and cautionary note describes to a significant degree the modern executive branch, which—whether controlled

Executive Office of the President of the United States

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 96-98AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on terminating a specific national emergency declaration, which touches on executive authority, while the Project 2025 excerpt discusses the Vice President's role in shaping administration policy and interagency coordination. Both involve the executive branch but address different aspects, resulting in only a tangential relationship."

Key themes:executive authoritypresidential powerchecks and balances

— 64 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Senate, often serves as a presidential emissary to the Senate and thus can be espe- cially helpful in securing passage of the President’s legislative agenda. To the extent that he or she desires, a Vice President can have a direct role in shaping Administration policy. A Vice President who regularly attends meetings and disperses staff across the interagency and policy councils is a Vice President whose voice will be heard. AUTHOR’S NOTE: Special thanks to those who contributed to this chapter: Stephen Billy, Scott Pace, Casey Mulligan, Edie Heipel, Mike Duffey, Vance Ginn, Iain Murray, Laura Cunliffe, Mario Loyola, Anthony Campau, Paige Agostin, Molly Sikes, Paul Ray, Kenneth A. Klukowski, Michael Anton, Robert Greenway, Valerie Huber, James Rockas, Paul Winfree, Aaron Hedlund, Brian McCormack, David Legates, Art Kleinschmidt, Paul Larkin, Kayla Tonnessen, Jeffrey B. Clark, Jonathan Wolfson, and Bob Burkett. — 65 — Executive Office of the President of the United States ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section1 (accessed January 30, 2023). 2. James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 47, January 30, 1788, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/ Madison/01-10-02-0266 (accessed January 30, 2023). 3. 31 U.S.C. §§ 1341(a)(1)(A) and 1341(a)(1)(B), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/1341 (accessed January 30, 2023); § 1342, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/1342 (accessed January 30, 2023); and § 1517(a), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/1517(a) (accessed January 30, 2023). 4. President William J. Clinton, Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” September 30, 1993, in Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 190 (October 4, 1993), pp. 51735–51744, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-1993-10-04/pdf/FR-1993-10-04.pdf (accessed March 9, 2023). 5. Brent J. McIntosh, General Counsel, Department of the Treasury, and Neomi Rao, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Memorandum of Agreement, “The Department of the Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget Review of Tax Regulations Under Executive Order 12866,” April 11, 2018, https://home.treasury.gov/sites/default/files/2018-04/04-11%20Signed%20Treasury%20OIRA%20MOA.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 6. See Steven A. Engel, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, “Extending Regulatory Review Under Executive Order 12866 to Independent Regulatory Agencies,” 43 Op. O.L.C. __ (Oct. 8, 2019), https:// www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/attachments/2020/12/30/2019-10-08-extend-reg-review.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 7. Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4, “Regulatory Analysis,” September 17, 2003, https:// www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 8. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13891, “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents,” October 9, 2019, in Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 199 (October 15, 2019), pp. 55235– 55238, https://home.treasury.gov/sites/default/files/2018-04/04-11%20Signed%20Treasury%20OIRA%20MOA. pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 9. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” January 30, 2017, in Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 22 (February 3, 20170, pp. 9339–9341, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-02-03/pdf/2017-02451.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 10. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” February 24, 2017, in Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 39 (March 1, 2017), pp. 12285–12287, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2017-03-01/pdf/2017-04107.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 11. See note 8, supra. 12. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13892, “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Transparency and Fairness in Civil Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication,” in Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 199 (October 15, 2019), pp. 55239–55243, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-10-15/pdf/2019-22624.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 13. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13893, “Increasing Government Accountability for Administrative Actions by Reinvigorating Administrative PAYGO,” October 10, 2019, in Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 200 (October 16, 2019), pp. 55487–55488, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-10-16/pdf/2019-22749. pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 14. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13924, “Regulatory Relief to Support Economic Recovery,” May 19, 2020, in Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 100 (May 22, 2020), pp. 31353–31356, esp. 31355, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-05-22/pdf/2020-11301.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 15. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13979, “Ensuring Democratic Accountability in Agency Rulemaking,” January 18, 2021, in Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 13 (January 22, 2021), pp. 6813–6815, https:// www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-22/pdf/2021-01644.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 16. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13980, “Protecting Americans from Overcriminalization Through Regulatory Reform,” January 18, 2021, in Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 13 (January 22, 2021), pp. 6817–6820, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-22/pdf/2021-01645.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023).

Executive Office of the President of the United States

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 99-102AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"H.J. Res. 72 seeks to terminate a national emergency declaration under the National Emergencies Act, which is unrelated to the Project 2025 policy section that lists historical statutes, executive orders, and legal references concerning science and technology policy, environmental law, gender policy, constitutional amendments, and presidential succession. There is no thematic or policy overlap between the bill’s emergency termination focus and the Project 2025 content provided."

— 67 — Executive Office of the President of the United States 33. H.R. 10230, National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976, Public Law No. 94-282, 94th Congress, May 11, 1976, https://www.congress.gov/94/statute/STATUTE-90/STATUTE-90-Pg459. pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 34. H.R. 4346, CHIPS [Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors] and Science Act, Public Law No. 117-167, 117th Congress, August 9, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ167/PLAW-117publ167.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 35. S. 169, Global Change Research Act of 1990, Public Law No. 101-606, 101st Congress, November 16, 1990, https://www.congress.gov/101/statute/STATUTE-104/STATUTE-104-Pg3096.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 36. S. 1075, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law No. 91-190, 91st Congress, January 1, 1970, https://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/91/190.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 37. Andrus v. Sierra Club, 442 U.S. 347, 358 (1979), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep442/ usrep442347/usrep442347.pdf (accessed March 7, 2023). 38. Title XLI (41) in H.R. 22, Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), Public Law No. 114-94, 114th Congress, December 4, 2015, https://www.congress.gov/114/statute/STATUTE-129/STATUTE-129-Pg1312.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 39. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” August 15, 2017, in Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 163 (August 24, 2017), pp. 40463–40469, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-08-24/ pdf/2017-18134.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 40. H.R. 5210, Anti-Drug Abuse of 1988, Public Law No. 100-690, 100th Congress, November 18, 1988, https://www. congress.gov/100/statute/STATUTE-102/STATUTE-102-Pg4181.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 41. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14020, “Establishment of the White House Gender Policy Council,” March 8, 2021, in Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 46 (March 11, 2021), pp. 13797–13801, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-03-11/pdf/2021-05183.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 42. U.S. Constitution, Amendment XXV, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv (accessed March 9, 2023). 43. 50 U.S.C. § 3021(c)(1), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3021 (accessed March 9, 2023). 44. 20 U.S.C. § 20(a), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/42#:~:text=The%20business%20of%20the%20 Institution%20shall%20be%20conducted,no%20two%20of%20them%20of%20the%20same%20State (accessed March 9, 2023). 45. Vice Presidents Gerald Ford and Lyndon Johnson assumed (Ford) or initially assumed (Johnson) the office of the presidency by a process of succession. — 69 — 3 CENTRAL PERSONNEL AGENCIES: MANAGING THE BUREAUCRACY Donald Devine, Dennis Dean Kirk, and Paul Dans OVERVIEW From the very first Mandate for Leadership, the “personnel is policy” theme has been the fundamental principle guiding the government’s personnel management. As the U.S. Constitution makes clear, the President’s appointment, direction, and removal author- ities are the central elements of his executive power.1 In implementing that power, the people and the President deserve the most talented and responsible workforce possible. Who the President assigns to design and implement his political policy agenda will determine whether he can carry out the responsibility given to him by the American people. The President must recognize that whoever holds a government position sets its policy. To fulfill an electoral mandate, he must therefore give per- sonnel management his highest priority, including Cabinet-level precedence. The federal government’s immense bureaucracy spreads into hundreds of agen- cies and thousands of units and is centered and overseen at the top by key central personnel agencies and their governing laws and regulations. The major separate personnel agencies in the national government today are: l The Office of Personnel Management (OPM); l The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB); l The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA); and l The Office of Special Counsel (OSC).

Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy

Minimal

Vector: 60%

Pages: 118-121AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill terminates a national emergency declaration, which is unrelated to Project 2025's focus on central personnel agencies, bureaucratic management, Schedule F, or civil service reform. There is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 85 — Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy 20. See Gene L. Dodaro, Comptroller General of the United States, “Government Efficiency and Effectiveness: Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve Billions in Financial Benefits,” testimony before the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Spending Oversight, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, GAO-21-544T, May 12, 2021, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao- 21-544t.pdf (accessed February 2, 2023). 21. S. 20, Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Public Law No. 103-62, 103rd Congress, August 3, 1993, https://www.congress.gov/103/statute/STATUTE-107/STATUTE-107-Pg285.pdf (accessed February 2, 2023). 22. Paul Light, “The Real Crisis in Government,” The Capital Times (Madison, Wisconsin), January 22, 2010, https:// captimes.com/news/opinion/column/paul-c-light-the-real-crisis-in-government/article_9e139318-3d00- 5898-908d-4c7aee1e105d.html (accessed March 15, 2023). 23. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section3 (accessed February 2, 2023). 24. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13957, “Creating Schedule F in the Excepted Service,” October 21, 2020, in Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 207 (October 26, 2020), pp. 67631–67635, https://www.govinfo.gov/ content/pkg/FR-2020-10-26/pdf/2020-23780.pdf (accessed February 2, 2023). 25. See note 17, supra. 26. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13836, “Developing Efficient, Effective, and Cost-Reducing Approaches to Federal Sector Collective Bargaining,” May 25, 2018, in Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 106 (June 1, 2018), pp. 25329–25334, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-06-01/pdf/2018-11913.pdf (accessed February 2, 2023). 27. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13837, “Ensuring Transparency, Accountability, and Efficiency in Taxpayer-Funded Union Time Use,” May 25, 2018, in Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 106 (June 1, 2018), pp. 25335–25340, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-06-01/pdf/2018-11916.pdf (accessed February 2, 2023). 28. See note 16, supra. 29. See note 17, supra. 30. Philip K. Howard, Not Accountable: Rethinking the Constitutionality of Public Employee Unions (Garden City, NY: Rodin Books, 2023). 31. James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 45, January 26, 1788, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/ Madison/01-10-02-0254 (accessed February 1, 2023). — 87 — Section Two THE COMMON DEFENSE W hile the lives of Americans are affected in noteworthy ways, for better or w orse, by each part of the executive branch, the inherent importance of na tional defense and foreign affairs makes the Departments of Defense and State first among equals. Originating in the George Washington Administra- tion, the War Department (as it was then known) was headed by Henry Knox, America’s chief artillery officer in the Revolutionary War; Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, was the first Secretary of State. Despite such long and storied histories, neither department is currently living up to its standards, and the success of the next presidency will be determined in part by whether they can be significantly improved in short order. “Ever since our Founding,” former acting secretary of defense Christopher Miller writes in Chapter 4, “Americans have understood that the surest way to avoid war is to be prepared for it in peace.” Yet the Department of Defense “is a deeply troubled institution.” It has emphasized leftist politics over military readiness, “Recruiting was the worst in 2022 that it has been in two generations,” and “the Biden Admin- istration’s profoundly unserious equity agenda and vaccine mandates have taken a serious toll.” Additionally, Miller writes that “the atrophy of our defense industrial base, the impact of sequestration, and effective disarmament by many U.S. allies have exacted a high toll on America’s military.” Moreover, our military has adopted a risk-averse culture—think of masked soldiers, sailors, and airmen—rather than instilling and rewarding courage in thought and action. The good news is that most enlisted personnel, and most officers, especially below the rank of general or admiral, continue to be patriotic defenders of liberty.

Environmental Protection Agency

Minimal

Vector: 60%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on terminating a specific national emergency declaration and does not address EPA regulatory reforms, greenhouse gas reporting, or any of the Project 2025 EPA policy objectives."

— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Meeks, Gregory W.

Burma GAP Act

119/hr/4140

Ukraine Support Act

119/hr/2913

BIS Licensing Efficiency Act of 2026

119/hr/8289

Back to All Bills