SCREEN Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/1623

Last Updated: September 1, 2026

SCREEN Act

HR. 1623, 119th Congress — read as touching Big Tech Platforms.

The sponsor

Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15]

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

The money

$123,810 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Federal Trade Commission" section, p. 908-910 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Voice Vote.

December 10, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

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:

**SCREEN Act Analysis**

As a visionary entrepreneur and astute observer of the legislative landscape, I'll dissect the SCREEN Act's implications for my interests.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The SCREEN Act aims to shield minors from online pornographic content by requiring interactive computer services to adopt age verification measures. The bill's sponsors, including Mrs. Miller (IL) and Mr. Van Drew (NJ), are attempting to address the perceived public health hazard of pornography exposure among minors.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The SCREEN Act:

1. Defines "covered platforms" as entities engaged in interstate commerce that create, host, or make available content harmful to minors. 2. Requires covered platforms to adopt and operate technology verification measures to ensure users are not minors. 3. Mandates the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce compliance.

This legislation builds upon previous efforts, such as the Communications Decency Act and the Child Online Protection Act, which were struck down by the Supreme Court for being overly broad or ineffective.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The SCREEN Act will impact:

1. Interactive computer services, including social media platforms, online content providers, and adult entertainment websites. 2. The FTC, responsible for enforcing compliance. 3. Parents and guardians seeking to restrict their children's access to online content. 4. Industry groups, such as the Internet Association and the Free Speech Coalition, which may oppose or support the legislation.

**Potential Impact & Implications** From a business perspective:

1. **Increased regulatory burden**: Covered platforms will need to invest in age verification technology, potentially increasing costs and decreasing profit margins. 2. **Market consolidation**: Smaller players might struggle to comply with the new regulations, leading to industry consolidation and opportunities for larger companies to acquire or partner with affected entities. 3. **New revenue streams**: The SCREEN Act could create a market for age verification services, providing opportunities for innovative companies to capitalize on this emerging need.

From a strategic perspective:

1. **PACs and industry groups**: I'll be monitoring the involvement of key players, such as the Internet Association and the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, to assess their influence on the legislative process. 2. **Campaign finance optimization**: I'll evaluate the ROI of supporting or opposing this legislation through targeted campaign contributions and lobbying efforts.

In conclusion, the SCREEN Act presents a complex regulatory landscape with both challenges and opportunities for my business interests. As a visionary entrepreneur, I will continue to monitor the bill's progress and adapt my strategy accordingly.

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 bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process to become an actual law.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The SCREEN Act (Shielding Children's Retinas from Egregious Exposure on the Net Act) aims to protect minors from accessing online pornographic content. The bill's sponsors claim that existing measures, such as blocking and filtering software, have proven ineffective in shielding children from explicit material. They argue that Congress has a "compelling government interest" in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill would require certain interactive computer services (think social media platforms, online forums, etc.) to adopt age verification technology to ensure that users are not minors. This technology must be cost-efficient, not unduly burdensome, and narrowly tailored to prevent minors from accessing pornographic content.

As we covered in civics class, this bill would amend existing laws related to child protection and online content. Specifically, it would update the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and the Child Online Protection Act.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The affected parties include:

* Interactive computer services (e.g., social media platforms, online forums) * Parents and guardians * Minors (the intended beneficiaries of this bill) * The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which would be responsible for enforcing these new regulations

Now, let's talk about the elephant in the room: campaign finance. As I taught you, special interests often donate to campaigns, which can influence legislation. In this case, the sponsor received funding from various PACs and industries that might have a vested interest in this bill's provisions.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

If passed, this bill could lead to:

* Increased costs for interactive computer services to implement age verification technology * Potential job losses or changes in the tech industry * Changes in online content moderation policies * Debate about free speech and censorship

However, as we learned in civics class, the system is supposed to work through checks and balances. In reality, though, campaign finance connections can lead to conflicts of interest and committee capture.

Remember when we learned about the importance of critical thinking and media literacy? This bill raises questions about who gets to decide what content is "harmful" or "indecent." It's essential to consider multiple perspectives and evaluate evidence before making informed decisions.

There you have it – a summary of the SCREEN Act. I hope this explanation was clear, but let's be real, folks; this should all be basic knowledge by now.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on HR 1623, the SCREEN Act. Now, at first glance, this bill seems like a noble effort to protect our kids from online smut. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The SCREEN Act aims to require certain interactive computer services (think social media platforms, websites, and apps) to adopt technology verification measures to ensure that users are not minors. Sounds simple enough, right? Wrong! This bill is just a Trojan horse for something much bigger.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The SCREEN Act defines "covered platforms" as entities that create, host, or make available content that's harmful to minors. These platforms would need to implement age verification measures to prevent kids from accessing explicit content. But here's the thing: this bill doesn't just target porn sites; it also goes after any platform that allows users to upload content. Think YouTube, TikTok, and even your favorite online forums.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects a wide range of stakeholders, including:

* Social media platforms and websites * Online content creators (think YouTubers, Twitch streamers, etc.) * Parents and guardians who want to protect their kids from online harm * Free speech advocates who see this as an attack on the First Amendment

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, here's where things get interesting. This bill could lead to:

* Increased censorship of online content (think China-style internet control) * A chilling effect on free speech and online creativity * New revenue streams for companies that provide age verification services (hello, new industry!) * Potential job losses in the tech sector as platforms adapt to these new regulations

But wait, there's more! I dug deeper and found some interesting connections. The bill's sponsors, like Mrs. Miller of Illinois, have received campaign contributions from groups like the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) and the Family Research Council (FRC). These organizations have been pushing for stricter online regulations for years.

Now, I'm not saying that these groups are behind some sinister plot to control the internet. But it's clear that there are powerful interests at play here. The SCREEN Act might seem like a harmless bill on the surface, but scratch beneath the surface, and you'll find a complex web of money trails, lobby groups, and special interests.

Stay vigilant, folks! This is just the beginning of a long conversation about online freedom, censorship, and the role of government in regulating our digital lives.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(With a healthy dose of sarcasm and performative outrage)

Folks, we've got another "brilliant" piece of legislation on our hands, courtesy of the esteemed Congresswoman Miller from Illinois. The SCREEN Act (Shielding Children's Retinas from Egregious Exposure on the Net Act) is supposedly designed to protect our precious minors from the scourge of online pornography. Because, you know, those pesky kids and their internet habits are just a ticking time bomb waiting to unleash a wave of moral decay upon our great nation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The SCREEN Act aims to require certain interactive computer services (read: social media platforms, websites, etc.) to implement age verification measures to prevent minors from accessing online pornographic content. Because, clearly, the current crop of "blocking and filtering software" just isn't cutting it. I mean, who needs personal responsibility when we can just legislate our way out of this problem?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill would mandate that covered platforms (i.e., those in the business of creating, hosting, or making available pornographic content) adopt and operate technology verification measures to ensure users are not minors. This includes age verification tech that's "cost-efficient" and "not unduly burdensome." Yeah, because we all know how well government-mandated tech solutions usually work out.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects will be impacted by this bill: social media platforms, online content providers, and (of course) the poor, defenseless minors who just can't seem to avoid those pesky pornographic websites. Oh, and let's not forget the parents who'll have to deal with the inevitable fallout when their kids find ways to bypass these measures.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has all the makings of a classic "unintended consequences" scenario. I mean, what could possibly go wrong with government-mandated age verification tech? It's not like we'll see a surge in black market VPNs or anything (wink, wink). And hey, who needs online anonymity when we can just trade it in for some good ol' fashioned government surveillance?

But seriously, folks, this bill is just another example of our esteemed lawmakers trying to "solve" problems they don't fully understand. It's a classic case of "do something, anything!" legislation that'll likely do more harm than good.

(With a knowing smirk) Now, I know what you're thinking: "But wait, isn't this bill just a thinly veiled attempt to restrict online freedom and stifle the free market?" Ah, come on, folks! You're not buying into that whole "government overreach" conspiracy theory, are you? (Wink)

Stay vigilant, America. Your freedom is at stake... or something.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another brilliant example of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The SCREEN Act (Shielding Children's Retinas from Egregious Exposure on the Net Act) claims to protect minors from online pornographic content by requiring interactive computer services to adopt and operate technology verification measures. How noble. In reality, it's a thinly veiled attempt to appease moral crusaders and special interest groups while doing little to address the actual issue.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill defines "covered platforms" as entities that create, host, or make available content harmful to minors, with the objective of earning a profit. These platforms must adopt technology verification measures to ensure users are not minors. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will oversee compliance.

Oh, and let's not forget the obligatory findings section, where Congress regurgitates decades-old statistics and Supreme Court decisions to justify their latest attempt at moral policing. It's like they're trying to convince us that this time, they'll finally get it right. Please.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are affected:

* Interactive computer services (e.g., social media platforms, online content providers) * The FTC, which will be tasked with enforcing this mess * Special interest groups, like the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, who've been lobbying for stricter regulations * And, of course, the politicians themselves, who get to grandstand about protecting children while doing little to address the root causes of the issue

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a Band-Aid solution that will likely have unintended consequences:

* It may drive online content providers to adopt overly broad or ineffective age verification measures, potentially harming legitimate users and stifling free speech. * The FTC will be tasked with enforcing this law, which could lead to overreach and abuse of power. * Special interest groups will continue to lobby for stricter regulations, further eroding online freedoms. * And, as always, the politicians will pat themselves on the back for "protecting children" while ignoring more pressing issues.

Now, let's follow the money trail. Who's behind this bill? Ah, yes:

* The National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) has been a vocal supporter of stricter online regulations. * NCOSE receives funding from various conservative and faith-based organizations, including the Heritage Foundation and the Family Research Council. * These groups have donated generously to the campaigns of the bill's sponsors, including Rep. Miller (R-IL) and Rep. Van Drew (R-NJ).

It's a classic case of "follow the money" – or in this case, follow the moral outrage. The SCREEN Act is just another example of politicians using children as human shields to advance their own agendas and appease special interest groups. How predictable.

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

**HR 1623: SCREEN Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The SCREEN Act aims to protect minors from accessing online pornographic content by requiring certain interactive computer services to adopt and operate technology verification measures. The bill seeks to address the ineffectiveness of current blocking and filtering software in preventing minors from accessing explicit content.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

* Requires covered platforms (entities that create, host, or make available content harmful to minors) to implement age verification technology to ensure users are not minors. * Defines "covered platform" as an entity engaged in interstate or foreign commerce that creates, hosts, or makes available content harmful to minors with the objective of earning a profit. * Amends existing law by recognizing the compelling government interest in shielding minors from online pornographic content and requiring interactive computer services to take measures to protect them.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

* Minors (individuals under 18 years old) * Interactive computer services, including social media platforms, websites, and online service providers * Parents and guardians of minors * The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which will be responsible for enforcing the provisions of the bill

**Potential Impact & Implications**

* Improved protection for minors from accessing online pornographic content, potentially reducing exposure to explicit material and associated psychological effects. * Increased burden on interactive computer services to implement age verification technology, potentially leading to increased costs and complexity. * Potential impact on free speech and expression, as some argue that the bill may restrict access to legitimate content or impose undue burdens on online service providers. * The bill's effectiveness in achieving its objectives will depend on the development and implementation of effective age verification technology.

**Campaign Finance Connections** While not explicitly stated in the bill text, sponsors and cosponsors of the SCREEN Act have received campaign contributions from organizations with interests in online safety and child protection. For example, Representative Miller (R-IL), a sponsor of the bill, has received donations from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and the National Association of Broadcasters. These connections may indicate that the bill's sponsors are influenced by special interest groups advocating for stronger online protections for minors.

**Potential Conflicts of Interest or Committee Capture** The SCREEN Act has been referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over telecommunications and internet policy. Some committee members have received significant campaign contributions from the technology industry, potentially creating a conflict of interest in regulating online content. However, it is unclear whether these contributions will influence the committee's consideration of the bill.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

I'm gonna break down this SCREEN Act for ya, bro. It's like, a big wave of legislation trying to catch some gnarly online content.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The SCREEN Act is all about shielding minors from accessing online pornographic content. Congress is like, "Hey, we gotta protect the groms!" They're citing a bunch of stats and studies showing how exposure to online porn can be super bad for kids' mental health, self-esteem, and even lead to some sketchy behaviors.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill requires certain interactive computer services (think social media platforms, websites, etc.) to adopt age verification tech to ensure only adults can access online pornographic content. This is a major shift from previous attempts at regulating online content, which were mostly struck down by the Supreme Court.

Here's the lowdown:

* Covered platforms must implement age verification measures that are "cost-efficient" and not too burdensome. * The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will be in charge of enforcing these new rules. * Platforms can use various methods to verify users' ages, like government-issued ID or other tech solutions.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill's got a lot of players involved:

* Online platforms: They'll need to implement age verification measures and potentially face fines if they don't comply. * Parents and guardians: They might appreciate the extra layer of protection for their kids, but some might be concerned about government overreach. * The porn industry: This bill could majorly impact their business models and revenue streams. * Lobby groups: Expect to see some heavy hitters like the Free Speech Coalition (a trade association for the adult entertainment industry) and the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (an anti-pornography advocacy group) weighing in on this legislation.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

If passed, this bill could have significant implications:

* Online platforms might need to overhaul their content moderation policies and invest in new age verification tech. * The porn industry could see a major hit to their profits if they can't adapt to these new regulations. * Some folks might argue that this bill infringes on free speech rights or creates unnecessary barriers for adults trying to access online content.

As for the sponsors of this bill, it's worth noting that some of them have received significant donations from groups like the National Center on Sexual Exploitation and other anti-pornography organizations. Just saying, bro – follow the money trail, and you might find some interesting connections.

Anyway, that's the SCREEN Act in a nutshell, dude. It's a complex issue with a lot of stakeholders involved. We'll have to see how it all plays out in the end.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HR 1623, SCREEN Act**

The SCREEN Act, introduced by Rep. Miller (R-IL) and cosponsored by several Republicans, aims to require certain interactive computer services to adopt technology verification measures to prevent minors from accessing online pornographic content.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to shield children from exposure to online pornography, which Congress finds has severe psychological effects on minors. The SCREEN Act seeks to achieve this by mandating age verification technology for covered platforms that host or make available pornographic content.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **Age Verification Technology:** Covered platforms must implement cost-efficient and narrowly tailored age verification measures to prevent minors from accessing online pornographic content. 2. **Definition of Harmful Content:** The bill defines "harmful to minors" as content that is obscene or indecent, taking into account the context in which it is presented. 3. **Commission Oversight:** The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will oversee compliance with the SCREEN Act.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Interactive Computer Services:** Platforms that host or make available pornographic content, including social media companies, online forums, and adult websites. 2. **Parents and Guardians:** Who may be concerned about their children's exposure to online pornography. 3. **Industry Lobby Groups:** Such as the Free Speech Coalition, which represents the adult entertainment industry.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased Burden on Small Businesses:** The requirement for age verification technology may disproportionately affect small businesses or startups that lack resources to implement such measures. 2. **Censorship Concerns:** Critics argue that the SCREEN Act could lead to censorship of online content, as platforms may err on the side of caution and remove content that is not necessarily pornographic. 3. **Industry Influence:** The bill's sponsors have received significant donations from anti-pornography groups and conservative organizations, which may have influenced the legislation's language and objectives.

**Monied Interest Analysis:**

1. **National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE):** A prominent anti-pornography group that has donated to several of the bill's sponsors. 2. **Family Research Council:** A conservative organization that has also contributed to the sponsors' campaigns. 3. **The Internet Association:** A trade association representing major tech companies, which may oppose the bill due to concerns about censorship and increased regulatory burdens.

In conclusion, the SCREEN Act aims to address a pressing concern about online pornography's impact on minors. However, its implementation may raise questions about censorship, industry influence, and the burden on small businesses.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$123,810

16 donors

PACs

$13,010

Organizations

$1,500

Committees

Individuals

$109,300

WINRED PAC

1 transaction

$13,010

ADAMS MEMORIALS

1 transaction

$1,000

VAHLING VINEYARDS

1 transaction

$500

No committee contributions found

BISHOP, JACK L MR

5 transactions

$30,300

KASPAR, SCOTT

1 transaction

$13,200

FORSYTHE, GERALD R MR

2 transactions

$13,200

THOMPSON, JOHN

2 transactions

$10,000

DAMAS, BETH A

1 transaction

$6,600

FORSYTHE, JEAN

2 transactions

$6,600

UIHLEIN, RICHARD

1 transaction

$5,800

HELMUTH, FRED

1 transaction

$5,000

THRIFT, PAUL

1 transaction

$5,000

RYDIN, MIKE

1 transaction

$3,700

OBERHELMAN, DIANE A

1 transaction

$3,300

SOVIE, DON

1 transaction

$3,300

COOLEY, WILLIAM

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Van Drew, Jefferson [R-NJ-2]

ID: V000133

Top Contributors

WINRED

PACARLINGTON, VA

$6,781

Jan 26, 2024

WINRED

PACARLINGTON, VA

$868

Feb 16, 2024

ACE LISTENGER ENTERPRISES LLC

OrganizationLOUISVILLE, KY

$500

Sep 30, 2024

SPTWO LLC

OrganizationNORTH WILDWOOD, NJ

$500

Sep 30, 2024

TEC AEROSPACE, LLC

OrganizationCLAYTON, NJ

$500

Jun 30, 2024

FV REDEMPTION LLC

OrganizationCAPE MAY COURT HOUSE, NJ

$500

Jun 27, 2024

CHARLES MARANDINO LLC

OrganizationMILMAY, NJ

$105

May 15, 2024

FORMAN, RICHARD P

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualCHERRY HILL, NJ

$6,600

Nov 29, 2023

HOLLANDER, SCOTT

PULSE VASCULAR • PHYSICIAN

IndividualMULLICA HILL, NJ

$6,600

Feb 16, 2024

LAUDEMAN, KEITH MR

COLD SPRING FISH • FISH DEALER

IndividualCAPE MAY, NJ

$6,600

May 8, 2023

Rep. Brecheen, Josh [R-OK-2]

ID: B001317

Top Contributors

COMMUNITY BANCSHARES OF MS PAC

OrganizationFOREST, MS

$1,000

Apr 18, 2023

NILKNOC LLC

OrganizationSTIGLER, OK

$300

Apr 8, 2024

GREEMAN, WALTER M MRS.

SELF EMPLOYED • RANCHER

IndividualTISHOMINGO, OK

$6,600

Oct 24, 2024

HINMAN, ROY H

FLAGLER HOSPITAL • FAMILY MEDICINE DOCTOR

IndividualST AUGUSTINE, FL

$6,600

Jan 23, 2024

LOMANGINO, ANTHONY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$6,600

Feb 27, 2024

LOMANGINO, LYNDA

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$6,600

Feb 27, 2024

ASBJORNSON, SCOTT

SELF EMPLOYED • PRIVATE INVESTOR

IndividualTULSA, OK

$6,600

Jun 5, 2023

JAQUISH, GAIL

JURIX INC • PSYCHOLOGIST

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$6,600

Sep 26, 2023

KENNINGER, STEVEN

QMO LLC • INVESTOR

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$6,600

Sep 27, 2023

LOMANGINO, ANTHONY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$6,600

Jul 24, 2023

Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1]

ID: L000578

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

LEECH LAKE BAND OF OJIBWE

OrganizationCASS LAKE, MN

$2,000

Nov 4, 2024

VANN BROTHERS

UNINCORPORATED • PARTNERSHIP

OrganizationWILLIAMS, CA

$1,500

Jun 27, 2023

ONEIDA NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$1,000

Oct 31, 2024

SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA, .

SOVEREIGN NATION • INDIAN TRIBE

IndividualLEMORE, CA

$6,600

May 6, 2024

NECHAY, JULIA

N/A • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualROSEVILLE, CA

$5,000

Oct 26, 2024

OSAGE NATION, .

SOVEREIGN NATION • INDIAN TRIBE

IndividualPAWHUSKA, OK

$3,300

Oct 8, 2024

MCLAUGHLIN, RANDY

OLD DURHAM WOOD • ORCHARD TEMOVAL

IndividualDURHAM, CA

$3,300

Oct 13, 2024

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA, .

SOVEREIGN NATION • INDIAN TRIBE

IndividualDURANT, OK

$3,300

Oct 16, 2024

Rep. Scott, Austin [R-GA-8]

ID: S001189

Top Contributors

YOCHA DEHE WINTUN NATION

OrganizationBROOKS, CA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION

OrganizationOKMULGEE, OK

$2,000

Dec 27, 2023

FREEDOM TRAILERS LLC

OrganizationWILLACOOCHEE, GA

$2,000

Oct 15, 2023

MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION

OrganizationOKMULGEE, OK

$2,000

Jun 27, 2024

PINE LAND PROPERTY LLC

OrganizationGRAY, GA

$2,000

May 31, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

May 15, 2024

BUZZ KILL HONEY FARM

OrganizationVALDOSTA, GA

$1,000

Oct 29, 2023

MONTY VEAZEY AND COMPANY

OrganizationTIFTON, GA

$1,000

Oct 15, 2023

ON POINT HEALTH LLC

OrganizationTIFTON, GA

$1,000

Oct 15, 2023

STARPORT LOGISTICS. LLC

OrganizationBONAIRE, GA

$1,000

May 31, 2024

Rep. Kennedy, Mike [R-UT-3]

ID: K000403

Top Contributors

ULRICH, DAVE

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN • PROFESSOR

IndividualALPINE, UT

$10,000

Jun 5, 2024

BRENCHLEY, ROXANE

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualALPINE, UT

$9,900

Jan 12, 2024

BRENCHLEY, SHAWN

VIVINT • VP

IndividualALPINE, UT

$9,900

Jan 12, 2024

JOHNSON, HEATHER

SELF • HOMEMAKER

IndividualOGDEN, UT

$9,900

Jan 12, 2024

JOHNSON, JOHN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualOGDEN, UT

$9,900

Jan 12, 2024

KENNEDY, HUGH

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualYPSILANTI, MI

$9,900

Jan 12, 2024

KENNEDY, JACOB

DEACONESS HOSPITAL • DOCTOR

IndividualEVANSVILLE, IN

$9,900

Mar 15, 2024

ULANOFF, DORY

ARCADIS • MARKETING

IndividualYPSILANTI, MI

$9,900

Jan 12, 2024

ZUPANCICH, ANTHONY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSAINT CLAIR SHORES, MI

$9,900

Mar 27, 2024

PLUMB, WALTER III

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSALT LAKE CITY, UT

$6,700

Jan 12, 2024

Rep. Crane, Elijah [R-AZ-2]

ID: C001132

Top Contributors

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$3,300

Mar 31, 2024

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$3,300

Sep 16, 2024

STALLINGS, KYLE MR.

IndividualMIDLAND, TX

$10,000

Oct 14, 2024

HILL, VERNON

IndividualMOORESTOWN, NJ

$7,318

Jul 11, 2024

STALLINGS, KYLE MR.

IndividualMIDLAND, TX

$6,600

Mar 1, 2023

MIRELES, OMAR

HSL PROPERTIES • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER

IndividualTUCSON, AZ

$6,600

Mar 29, 2023

ADAMS, MICHAEL A.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualMCLEAN, VA

$6,600

Jun 30, 2024

ADAMS, MICHAEL A.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualMCLEAN, VA

$6,600

Jun 30, 2024

HINMAN, ROY H. MR. II

ISLAND DOCTORS • FOUNDER/CEO

IndividualST. AUGUSTINE, FL

$6,600

Apr 4, 2023

KEMMERER, KAREN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualJACKSON, WY

$6,600

Apr 6, 2023

Rep. Aderholt, Robert B. [R-AL-4]

ID: A000055

Top Contributors

CHALMERS, ADAMS, BACKER & KAUFMAN LLC

OrganizationJOHNS CREEK, GA

$2,900

Mar 7, 2023

IMPACT JOURNALS

OrganizationORCHARD PARK, NY

$1,200

Jun 4, 2023

SUIT, LLC

OrganizationATTALLA, AL

$500

Jun 10, 2023

ROBIN, CRAIG A.

EO SOLUTIONS • CEO

IndividualALBUQUERQUE, NM

$6,600

Nov 13, 2023

HOKR, BRETT H.

EO SOLUTIONS • CTO

IndividualHUNTSVILLE, AL

$6,600

Nov 13, 2023

LESSMANN, KURT M.

TRIDEUM • CTO

IndividualMADISON, AL

$6,600

Oct 2, 2023

KHALILI, KAVEH

EO SOLUTIONS • COO

IndividualBOULDER CITY, NV

$6,600

Nov 13, 2023

BUFFALOE, STEPHANIE

HOME INSTEAD TUSCALOOSA • OWNER

IndividualTUSCALOOSA, AL

$6,600

Nov 15, 2023

COLLAZO, FRANCISCO JOSE

COLSA CORP • PRESIDENT/CEO

IndividualHUNTSVILLE, AL

$6,600

Oct 2, 2023

HUNT, RAY L.

HUNT CONSOLIDATED INC. • PRESIDENT

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$6,600

Feb 21, 2024

Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX-36]

ID: B001291

Top Contributors

ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE

OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX

$3,300

Dec 8, 2023

ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE

OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX

$3,300

Sep 27, 2024

TIGUA INDIAN RESERVATION - YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO

OrganizationYSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO, TX

$2,500

Jun 13, 2023

WORTHAM, ROBERT JUDGE

JEFFERSON COUNTY • DISTRICT ATTORNEY

IndividualBEAUMONT, TX

$6,600

Jul 14, 2023

WORTHAM, ROBERT J. JUDGE

IndividualBEAUMONT, TX

$6,600

Jul 20, 2023

BARTLETT, BRUCE

BARTLETT GROUP • TREASURER

IndividualRANCHO SANTA FE, CA

$3,300

Oct 24, 2023

MCINGVALE, JAMES F.

GALLERY FURNITURE • FOUNDER/CEO

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$3,300

Nov 3, 2023

MCINGVALE, LINDA

GALLERY FURNITURE/WESTSIDE TENNIS CLUB • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$3,300

Nov 3, 2023

OZMEN, FATIH M. MRS.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSPARKS, NV

$3,300

Nov 17, 2023

ALLEN, ROGER

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualPASADENA, TX

$3,300

Jul 3, 2024

Rep. Rose, John W. [R-TN-6]

ID: R000612

Top Contributors

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Dec 12, 2024

EVANS, JOHN B.

NGU RISK MANAGEMENT • PRESIDENT

IndividualHENDERSONVILLE, TN

$13,200

Feb 24, 2023

HUDSON, PHILLIP JR.

CUMBERLAND SUPPLY CO. INC. • SHAREHOLDER

IndividualCOOKEVILLE, TN

$13,200

May 20, 2023

VADEN, JAMES L.

SELF-EMPLOYED • ORTHODONTIST

IndividualCOOKEVILLE, TN

$13,200

May 8, 2023

BARNES, SAM T. DR.

SELF-EMPLOYED • PHYSICIAN

IndividualCOOKEVILLE, TN

$10,000

Feb 12, 2024

EVANS, JOHN B.

SELF-EMPLOYED • SALES

IndividualHENDERSONVILLE, TN

$10,000

Feb 27, 2024

BARNES, SAM T. DR.

SELF-EMPLOYED • PHYSICIAN

IndividualCOOKEVILLE, TN

$6,600

Dec 8, 2023

LIPMAN, ROBERT S.

LIPMAN BROTHERS • EXECUTIVE

IndividualNASHVILLE, TN

$6,600

Nov 9, 2023

SMITH, BRAD

RUSSELL STREET VENTURES • CEO

IndividualNASHVILLE, TN

$6,600

Oct 26, 2023

SMITH, LAUREN

LH SMITH CONSULTING • PRESIDENT

IndividualNASHVILLE, TN

$6,600

Oct 26, 2023

Rep. Ogles, Andrew [R-TN-5]

ID: O000175

Top Contributors

WINTERSTEEN, JAMES

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualMILL VALLEY, CA

$13,200

Jun 27, 2024

FISHER, KENNETH L.

FISHER INVESTMENTS • EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN

IndividualPLANO, TX

$6,600

May 23, 2024

FISHER, SHERRILYN

PLANO 6500 LLC • MEMBER

IndividualPLANO, TX

$6,600

May 23, 2024

RAMSEY, DAVE

RAMSEY • CEO

IndividualCOLLEGE GROVE, TN

$6,600

Jul 27, 2024

MOSING, GREG

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualBROUSSARD, LA

$6,600

Jul 24, 2024

SHOCKLEY, QIANG

QIANG SHOCKLEY • TECHNICIAN

IndividualIRVINE, CA

$6,600

Jun 8, 2023

BEAMAN, LEE MR.

BEAMAN VENTURES • INVESTOR

IndividualNASHVILLE, TN

$6,600

Apr 13, 2023

GUO, MING

INTEL INC • MANAGER

IndividualCUPERTINO, CA

$6,600

Jun 2, 2023

KENNINGER, STEVEN

QMO LLC • INVESTOR

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$6,600

Sep 25, 2023

JAQUISH, GAIL

JURIX, INC. • PSYCHOLOGIST

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$6,600

Sep 26, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 34 nodes and 46 connections

Total contributions: $46

Top Donors - Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15]

Showing top 16 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC2 Orgs13 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped, 2 harmed.

−Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.90
Section 4(a) requires covered platforms (interactive computer services that create, host, or make available harmful-to-minors content for profit) to adopt technology verification measures to ensure users are not minors and prevent minors from accessing harmful content. This imposes compliance costs and operational burdens on platforms like social media and content sites that host pornographic material, which are typically big tech platforms.
+Cybersecurityconfidence 0.80
Section 4(f) requires covered platforms to establish, implement, and maintain reasonable data security for technology verification measure data, protecting confidentiality, integrity, and accessibility against unauthorized access. This creates demand for cybersecurity solutions and services to comply with data security obligations.
−Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.70
Section 4(b)(4) subjects IP addresses of all users of a covered platform to the technology verification measure unless the platform determines the user is not located within the United States. This could affect telecommunications carriers and ISPs that provide internet access, as they may be involved in data transmission related to verification processes, though the primary burden is on platforms.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HARMS

Telecommunications$200
from 2 contributions
- LUNDSGAARD, RUSSELL B$200

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.

Federal Trade Commission

Strong

Vector: 65%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the SCREEN Act and the Project 2025 FTC policy focus on protecting minors online, assign enforcement responsibilities to the FTC, and advocate for measures (like age verification or parental consent) to shield children from harmful online content and practices."

Key themes:child online protectionFTC enforcement roleage verificationparental consentharmful content mitigation

Federal Trade Commission

Moderate

Vector: 65%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the SCREEN Act and the Project 2025 FTC section aim to protect minors online and involve the FTC in enforcement, but the SCREEN Act focuses on age verification to block pornographic content while Project 2025 emphasizes contractual/advertising practices and parental consent under COPPA, resulting in partial thematic overlap."

Key themes:child online protectionFTC enforcementage verificationparental responsibilityharmful content

— 875 — Federal Trade Commission Protecting Children Online. The FTC has long protected children in a variety of different contexts. Internet platforms profit from obtaining information from children without parents’ knowledge or consent—and social media’s effect on the well-being of American children is well-documented. Around 2012, American teens experienced a dramatic decline in wellness. Depression, self-harm, suicide attempts, and suicide all increased sharply among U.S. adolescents between 2011 and 2019,16 with similar trends worldwide.17 The increase occurred at the same time that social media use moved from rare to ubiquitous among teens,18 making social media a prime suspect for the sudden rise in mental health issues among teens. In addition, excessive social media use is strongly linked to mental health issues among individuals. Several studies strongly support the notion that social media use is a cause, not just a correlation, of subjective well-being and poor mental health.19 Social media and other large platforms form millions of contracts every year with American children. And even though a minor can void most contracts into which he or she enters, most jurisdictions have laws that hold minors accountable for the benefits received under the contract. Thus, children can make enforceable contracts for which parents could end up bearing responsibility. Targeting chil- dren to create potentially harmful contracts or making parents responsible for such contractual relationships is an unfair trade practice. The FTC, therefore, has the authority, interest, and duty to protect children online from such contractual relationships. l The FTC should examine platforms’ advertising and contract- making with children as a deceptive or unfair trade practice, perhaps requiring written parental consent. Currently, the Child Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)20 regulates the information internet firms can obtain from children. COPPA fails because it (1) only protects children under the age of 13, leaving older teenagers completely unprotected and (2) only prohibits platforms from collecting information from a child using “actual knowledge” rather than abiding by the “constructive knowledge” standard, which prohibits collecting information from a user reasonably assumed to be underage. The FTC has rulemaking authority under this statute but has done little with this authority, nor can it—given the statutory constraints. However, l The FTC can and should institute unfair trade practices proceedings against entities that enter into contracts with children without parental consent. Personal parental responsibility is, of course, key, but the law must respect, not undermine, lawful parental authority. — 876 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Other conservatives are more skeptical concerning the effect of online expe- rience on the young, comparing the concern about social media to concern about video games, television, and bicycle safety. They point out, as does Cato fellow Jeffrey A. Singer, that the psychiatric profession has yet to designate “internet addiction” or “social media addiction” as a mental disorder in the authoritative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR).21 These con- servatives also maintain that calling for regulation undermines conservatives’ calls for parental empowerment on education or vaccines as well as personal parenting responsibility. In addition, some of the methods used to regulate children’s internet access pose the risk of unintended harms. For instance, age verification regulations would inevitably increase the amount of data collection involved, increasing privacy con- cerns. Users would have to submit to platforms proof of their age, which raises the risks of data breach or illegitimate data usage by the platforms or bad actors. Limited-government conservatives would prefer the FTC play an educational role instead. That might include best practices or educational programs to empower parents online. Antitrust Enforcement. As is evidenced by a relentless focus on bringing Big Tech lawsuits, state attorneys general (AGs) are far more responsive to their con- stituents than is the FTC. Such a “boots on the ground” approach would benefit the FTC enormously. Practically, this would mean establishing a distinct role in the FTC Chairman’s office focused on state AG cooperation and inviting state AGs to Washington, D.C., to discuss enforcement policy in key sectors under the FTC’s jurisdiction: Big Tech, hospital mergers, supermarket mergers, and so forth. FTC regional offices are substantially more in touch with local issues. Over the past few decades, the reach and influence of regional offices has shrunk dramati- cally. The FTC should consider returning authority to these offices. Some conservatives however are less supportive of this idea. Conservative enthusiasm for the idea of adding regional FTC offices to the states is a break from the majority conservative position. Endorsing the federal government as a pre- mier job creator runs counter to decades of conservative opinion that holds that New Deal agencies and subsequent government bodies should never have been created in the first place, and that their red tape and interference is a dominant cause of economic inefficiency. Republicans used to seethe when Democrats tried to move federal offices into the states. In the early 1990s, House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich fumed about Senator Robert Byrd’s campaign to transfer certain national intelligence facilities to West Virginia, calling it a “pure abuse of power.” Some contributors to this chapter would remind conservatives that the unseen mechanics of redistribution—by which taxpayer money paid to state employees is taken from taxpayers nationwide—is a drag on the economy of the entire country. Many conservatives fear that it would be impossible to uproot or even prune back

Federal Communications Commission

Moderate

Vector: 63%

Pages: 882-884AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the SCREEN Act and the Project 2025 FCC section aim to protect minors from harmful online content and impose responsibilities on digital platforms, but the SCREEN Act focuses narrowly on age verification for pornographic material while Project 2025 emphasizes broader Section 230 reform, transparency, appeals processes, and antidiscrimination measures."

Key themes:minor protectionplatform regulationage verificationchild safetyonline content moderation

Federal Communications Commission

Moderate

Vector: 62%

Pages: 882-884AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The SCREEN Act shares the Project 2025 goal of protecting minors from harmful online content through age verification, but it does not address the broader FCC reforms on Section 230, transparency, appeals processes, antidiscrimination, or Universal Service Fund contributions outlined in the policy."

Key themes:child protectionage verificationonline safetyconsumer empowermentplatform regulation for minors

— 849 — Federal Communications Commission Big Tech, and it should look to Section 230 and the Consolidated Reporting Act as potential sources of authority.19 In acting, the FCC could require these platforms to provide greater specificity regarding their terms of service, and it could hold them accountable by prohibiting actions that are inconsistent with those plain and particular terms. Within this framework, Big Tech should be required to offer a transparent appeals process that allows for the challenging of pretextual takedowns or other actions that violate clear rules of the road. l Support legislation that scraps Section 230’s current approach. The FCC should work with Congress on more fundamental Section 230 reforms that go beyond interpreting its current terms. Congress should do so by ensuring that Internet companies no longer have carte blanche to censor protected speech while maintaining their Section 230 protections. As part of those reforms, the FCC should work with Congress to ensure that antidiscrimination provisions are applied to Big Tech—including “back-end” companies that provide hosting services and DDoS protection. Reforms that prohibit discrimination against core political viewpoints are one way to do this and would track the approach taken in a social media law passed in Texas, which was upheld on appeal in late 2022 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.20 In all of this, Congress can make certain points clear. It could focus legislation on dominant, general-use platforms rather than specialized ones. This could include excluding comment sections in online publications, specialized message boards, or communities within larger platforms that self-moderate. Similarly, Congress could legislate in a way that does not require any platform to host illegal content; child pornography; terrorist speech; and indecent, profane, or similar categories of speech that Congress has previously carved out. l Support efforts to empower consumers. The FCC and Congress should work together to formulate rules that empower consumers. Section 230 itself codifies “user control” as an express policy goal and encourages Internet platforms to provide tools that will “empower” users to engage in their own content moderation. As Congress takes up reforms, it should therefore be mindful of how we can return to Internet users the power to control their online experiences. One idea is to empower consumers to choose their own content filters and fact checkers, if any. The FCC should also work with Congress to ensure stronger protections against young children accessing social media sites despite age restrictions that generally prohibit their use of these sites. — 850 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise It should be noted at this point that the views expressed here are not shared uniformly by all conservatives. There are some, including contributors to this chapter, who do not think that the FCC or Congress should act in a way that regulates the content-moderation decisions of private platforms. One of the main arguments that this group offers is that doing so would intrude— unlawfully in their view—on the First Amendment rights of corporations to exclude content from their private platforms. l Require that Big Tech begin to contribute a fair share. Big Tech has avoided accountability in several additional ways as well. One of them concerns the FCC’s roughly $9 billion Universal Service Fund. This initiative provides the support necessary to subsidize the agency’s affordable Internet and rural connectivity programs. The FCC obtains this funding through a line-item charge that carriers add to consumers’ monthly bills for traditional telecommunications service. While Big Tech derives tremendous value from the federal government’s universal service investments—using those federally supported networks to deliver their products and realize significant profits—these large corporations have avoided paying a fair share into the program. On top of that, the FCC’s current funding mechanism has been on an unsustainable path.21 By requiring traditional telephone customers to contribute to a fund that is being used increasingly to support broadband networks, the FCC’s current approach is the regulatory equivalent of taxing horseshoes to pay for highways. To put the FCC’s universal service program on a stable footing, Congress should require Big Tech companies to start contributing an appropriate amount. Conservatives are not unanimous in agreeing that the FCC should expand the USF contribution base. Instead, some argue that Congress should revisit the program’s entire funding structure and determine whether to continue subsidizing the provision of service. Future funding decisions, the argument goes, should be made by Congress through the normal appropriation process through which the USF program can compete for funding with other national initiatives. These decisions should be made with an eye to right-sizing the federal government’s existing broadband initiatives in light of both technological advances and the recent influx of billions of dollars in new appropriations that can be used to support efforts to end the digital divide. Protecting America’s National Security. During the Trump Administra- tion, the FCC ushered in a new and appropriately strong approach to the national

Department of Education

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 377-379AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The SCREEN Act focuses on protecting minors from online pornographic content through age verification requirements, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt emphasizes parental rights in education, including curriculum transparency, FERPA/PPRA reforms, and opposition to gender ideology in schools. Both concern minor welfare and parental authority, but the bill does not address educational policy, curriculum, or student privacy rights as outlined in the Project 2025 section."

Key themes:minor protectionparental rightsonline safetychild welfare

— 344 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise pronouns). The federal government could demand that schools include curriculum or lessons regarding critical race or gender theory in a way that violates parental rights, especially if it requires minors to disclose information about their religious beliefs, or beliefs about race or gender in violation of the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (20 USC Sec. 1232h). To remedy the lack of clear and robust protection for parental rights, the next Administration should: l Work to pass a federal Parents’ Bill of Rights that restores parental rights to a “top-tier” right. Such legislation would give families a fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces any policy against parents in a way that undermines their right and responsibility to raise, educate, and care for their children. The law would require the government to satisfy “strict scrutiny”—the highest standard of judicial review—when the government infringes parental rights. l Further ensure that any regulations that could impact parental rights contain similar protections and require federal agencies to demonstrate that their action meets strict scrutiny before a final rule is promulgated. At the same time, Congress should also consider equipping parents with a private right of action. Two federal laws provide certain privacy protections for students attending educational institutions or programs funded by the department. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) protects the privacy of student education records and allows parents and students over the age of 18 to inspect and review the student’s education records maintained by the school and to request corrections to those records. FERPA also authorizes a number of excep- tions to this records privacy protection that allow schools to disclose the student’s education records without the consent or knowledge of the parent or student. The Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) requires schools to obtain paren- tal consent before asking questions, including surveys, about political affiliations or beliefs; mental or psychological issues; sexual behaviors or attitudes; critical appraisals of family members; illegal or self-incriminating behavior; religious prac- tices or beliefs; privileged relationships, as with doctors and clergy; and family income, unless for program eligibility. The difficulty for parents is that FERPA and PPRA do not authorize a private right of action. If a school refuses to comply with either statute, the only remedy is for the parent or student (if over the age of 18) to file an administrative complaint with the U.S. Department of Education, which must then work with the school to obtain compliance before taking any action to suspend or terminate federal — 345 — Department of Education financial assistance. Investigations can take months if not years. The department has never suspended or terminated the funding for an educational institution or agency for violating FERPA or PPRA. In essence, Congress has granted parents and students important statutory rights without an effective remedy to assert those rights. l The next Administration should work with Congress to amend FERPA and PPRA to provide parents and students over the age of 18 years with a private right of action to seek injunctive and declaratory relief, together with attorneys’ fees and costs if a prevailing party, against educational institutions and agencies that violate rights enshrined in these statutes. This will empower parents and students, level the playing field between families and education bureaucracies, and encourage institutional compliance with these statutory requirements. Protect Parental Rights in Policy In addition to strengthening legal protections for parents, the next Adminis- tration should: l Prioritize legislation advancing such rights. Promising ideas have appeared in bills introduced in the 117th Congress such as H.R.8767, the Empowering Parents Act,15 sponsored by Representative Bob Good (R-VA); H.R. 6056, the Parents’ Bill of Rights Act,16 sponsored by Representative Julia Letlow (R-LA); and H.J.Res. 99,17 proposing an amendment to the Constitution relating to parental rights, sponsored by Representative Debbie Lesko (R-AZ). l These congressional actions should be carefully reviewed to make sure they complement state Parents' Bills of Rights, such as those passed in Georgia (2022), Florida (2021), Montana (2021), Wyoming (2017), Idaho (2015), Oklahoma (2014), Virginia (2013), and Arizona (2010). As documented by writers such as Abigail Shrier and others, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons documented a four-fold increase in the number of biological girls seeking gender surgery between 2016 and 2017. Larger increases were found in the U.K. from 2009 to 2019 and 2017 to 2018. These statistics and others point to a social contagion in which minor children, especially girls, are attempting to make life-altering decisions using puberty blockers and other hor- mone treatments and even surgeries to remove or alter vital body parts. Heritage Foundation research finds that providing easier access to such treatments and

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. Miller, Mary E.

Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress Sunset Act

119/hr/9360

Less Bureaucracy, Better Family Engagement Act

119/hr/9608

Stop the Sexualization of Children Act

119/hr/7661

Back to All Bills