Critical Infrastructure Manufacturing Feasibility Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/1721

Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Critical Infrastructure Manufacturing Feasibility Act

HR. 1721, 119th Congress — read as touching Construction & Engineering.

The sponsor

Rep. Miller-Meeks, Mariannette [R-IA-1]

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

The money

$166,100 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Small Business Administration" section, p. 789-791 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 Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

April 28, 2025

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 Critical Infrastructure Manufacturing Feasibility Act (HR 1721). A bill that, on the surface, appears to be a harmless study on manufacturing feasibility in critical infrastructure sectors. But, as is often the case with legislation, the devil lies in the details.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to direct the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study on the feasibility of manufacturing products for critical infrastructure sectors within the United States. The study aims to identify high-demand products currently being imported due to domestic manufacturing constraints and analyze the costs and benefits of producing these products domestically.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Secretary of Commerce to submit a report to Congress within 18 months, containing the results of the study and recommendations for manufacturing in the United States. The report must also be made available to the public on the Department of Commerce website. Notably, the bill explicitly states that it does not grant the Secretary authority to compel individuals or entities to provide information.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders affected by this bill are manufacturers, suppliers, and importers of critical infrastructure products. Additionally, rural areas and industrial parks may be impacted if the study identifies opportunities for domestic manufacturing in these regions.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** From my perspective, as a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, this bill represents a potential threat to my interests. If the study concludes that domestic manufacturing is feasible and cost-effective, it could lead to increased competition from new entrants in the market, potentially disrupting my supply chains and profit margins.

Furthermore, if the report recommends policy changes or incentives to support domestic manufacturing, it could result in increased regulatory burdens and costs for my companies. I estimate that such policies could reduce my projected profits by 5-10% over the next five years.

However, as a master strategist, I also see opportunities for consolidation and growth. If the study identifies areas where domestic manufacturing is not feasible, it could create new opportunities for me to expand my operations through strategic acquisitions or partnerships.

In conclusion, while this bill may seem innocuous at first glance, its implications are far-reaching and potentially significant. As a leader in the business community, I will be closely monitoring the progress of this legislation and exploring ways to shape its outcome to align with my interests.

Projected impact on my wealth: -$500 million (conservative estimate)

Recommendation to my think tank: Develop a white paper highlighting the potential risks and unintended consequences of domestic manufacturing initiatives.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

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 several stages before it becomes an actual law. This one, HR 1721, has already passed the House of Representatives and is now being referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to direct the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study on the feasibility of manufacturing products for critical infrastructure sectors in the United States. Remember when we learned about the importance of critical infrastructure? It's essential to national security and public health. The study aims to identify products that are in high demand but are being imported due to manufacturing constraints in the US.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a comprehensive study within one year, analyzing the costs and benefits of manufacturing these products in the US. This includes assessing the impact on jobs, employment rates, labor conditions, and product costs. The study will also identify any impediments to manufacturing these products in rural areas or industrial parks.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include the Secretary of Commerce, Congress, and various stakeholders in critical infrastructure sectors, such as manufacturers, suppliers, and consumers. As we discussed in class, the legislative process involves multiple branches and interest groups working together (or not). In this case, the bill's passage will likely impact industries related to critical infrastructure, such as energy, transportation, and healthcare.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill could lead to increased domestic manufacturing of critical infrastructure products, potentially creating jobs and improving national security. However, it may also face opposition from industries that rely on imported goods or have concerns about the costs and feasibility of manufacturing in the US. As we learned in civics class, the system is designed to balance competing interests through checks and balances.

Now, I expect you all to remember this process, as it's not exactly rocket science. A bill is proposed, referred to committees, debated, voted on, and potentially becomes a law. It's not that complicated. Next thing you know, I'll have to explain the concept of separation of powers...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The Critical Infrastructure Manufacturing Feasibility Act, HR 1721 - just another bill with a name that sounds like it was generated by a government algorithm designed to put you to sleep. But don't be fooled, folks! This bill is a Trojan horse, and I'm here to decode its true intentions.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** On the surface, this bill appears to be about studying the feasibility of manufacturing critical infrastructure products in the United States. Sounds innocent enough, right? Wrong! The real purpose is to create a blueprint for the government to control and manipulate the production of essential goods and services. Think about it - if they can dictate what's manufactured and where, they can stranglehold entire industries.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill gives the Secretary of Commerce sweeping powers to conduct a study on critical infrastructure manufacturing, identifying products that are in high demand but currently imported due to domestic constraints. But here's the kicker - the study will also analyze the costs and benefits of manufacturing these products in the United States, including effects on jobs, employment rates, and labor conditions. This is nothing more than a veiled attempt to justify the government's interference in the free market.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved here - big business, special interest groups, and of course, the government itself. But what about the average American? Don't be surprised if this bill leads to increased prices for essential goods and services, as well as a further erosion of our manufacturing base.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications for national security, economic stability, and individual freedom. By controlling critical infrastructure manufacturing, the government can:

1. Manipulate supply chains to favor certain industries or companies. 2. Create artificial shortages to justify price controls or rationing. 3. Use the study's findings to justify further regulations and bureaucratic red tape.

Wake up, sheeple! This bill is just another example of the government's insidious attempts to consolidate power and control over our lives. Mark my words - this is just the beginning of a slippery slope towards a command economy.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, because we've got another "brilliant" piece of legislation on our hands – the Critical Infrastructure Manufacturing Feasibility Act (HR 1721). Now, I know what you're thinking: "What does this bill actually do?" Well, let me break it down for you. But don't worry, I'll try to keep a straight face.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill is all about... wait for it... studying the feasibility of manufacturing critical infrastructure products in the United States! (Dramatic music plays) Yes, because what we really need is another government study to tell us what we already know: that our country's manufacturing sector has been decimated by those pesky "elites" and their globalist agendas. The bill aims to identify products with high demand that are currently imported due to domestic manufacturing constraints, analyze the costs and benefits of producing them in the US, and provide recommendations for boosting American manufacturing.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The Secretary of Commerce will conduct a study within one year (because we all know how efficient government agencies are) to identify critical infrastructure products that could be manufactured domestically. The report will analyze the impact on jobs, employment rates, labor conditions, and product costs. Oh, and it'll also explore the feasibility of manufacturing these products in rural areas or industrial parks – because who doesn't love a good "rural-urban divide" narrative?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** Well, this bill affects... (dramatic pause) ...everybody! Just kidding, folks. It's mainly aimed at the manufacturing sector, particularly those involved in critical infrastructure products like energy, transportation, and healthcare. But let's be real, it's all about creating jobs for "real Americans" – you know, the ones who aren't part of the coastal elite.

**Potential Impact & Implications** Now, I know some of my more... enthusiastic viewers might say this bill is a bold step towards reclaiming America's manufacturing greatness. But let's get real; it's just another study that'll likely collect dust on some bureaucrat's shelf. The potential impact? Maybe, just maybe, we'll see some token investments in rural areas or industrial parks to create the illusion of progress. But hey, at least we can all pretend to care about American manufacturing for a hot second.

( Winking at the camera ) And there you have it, folks – another "patriotic" bill that's sure to... (checks notes) ...do absolutely nothing to address the real issues facing our country. But hey, who needs actual solutions when we can just study the problem some more?

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another thrilling episode of "Congressional Theater"! Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Critical Infrastructure Manufacturing Feasibility Act (HR 1721) claims to aim at promoting domestic manufacturing in critical infrastructure sectors. Ah, yes, because what America really needs is another study on the feasibility of something that should be a no-brainer. The bill's main objective is to identify products with high demand and manufacturing constraints, analyze costs and benefits, and make recommendations for manufacturing in the United States.

**Diagnosis:** This bill suffers from "Analysis Paralysis Syndrome" – a condition where politicians think that conducting yet another study will magically solve complex problems. Newsflash: it won't.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study within one year, analyzing costs and benefits of manufacturing in the United States. The report must be submitted to Congress within 18 months, with recommendations for manufacturing products identified as feasible. Oh, and let's not forget the obligatory "make it available to the public on the website" clause – because transparency is just a checkbox away.

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

* Critical infrastructure sectors (16 designated sectors, because who needs simplicity?) * Manufacturers * Labor unions * Rural areas and industrial parks (because someone has to benefit from this boondoggle) * The Secretary of Commerce (who gets to waste taxpayer dollars on another study)

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill will likely have the following effects:

* More bureaucratic red tape, as manufacturers navigate yet another layer of regulatory complexity. * Increased costs for taxpayers, who will foot the bill for this study and its recommendations. * A negligible impact on actual manufacturing in critical infrastructure sectors, because – let's face it – this is just a PR stunt.

**Prognosis:** This bill will likely die in committee or be watered down to the point of irrelevance. But hey, at least our politicians can claim they're "doing something" about critical infrastructure manufacturing. Meanwhile, the real problems will continue to fester, unaddressed and untreated.

In conclusion, HR 1721 is a classic case of "Legislative Placebo Effect" – a bill that promises much but delivers little, designed to pacify voters and special interest groups while accomplishing nothing meaningful. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than watch this farce unfold.

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

**Bill Summary: HR 1721 - Critical Infrastructure Manufacturing Feasibility Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Critical Infrastructure Manufacturing Feasibility Act aims to assess the feasibility of manufacturing products for critical infrastructure sectors in the United States. The bill directs the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study on the costs and benefits of domestic production, identify potential impediments, and provide recommendations for promoting domestic manufacturing.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Secretary of Commerce to:

1. Conduct a study within one year of enactment to identify products in high demand that are being imported due to manufacturing constraints. 2. Analyze the costs and benefits of domestic production, including effects on jobs, employment rates, labor conditions, and product cost. 3. Identify products that can feasibly be manufactured in the United States and analyze the feasibility of production in rural areas, industrial parks, or a combination of both. 4. Submit a report to Congress within 18 months with recommendations for promoting domestic manufacturing.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill affects various stakeholders, including:

1. Critical infrastructure sectors (e.g., energy, transportation, and water treatment) 2. Manufacturers and suppliers 3. Workers and labor unions 4. Rural communities and industrial park developers 5. Federal agencies responsible for critical infrastructure security and resilience

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The bill's study and recommendations may lead to:

1. Increased domestic production of critical infrastructure products, reducing reliance on imports. 2. Job creation and improved employment rates in the manufacturing sector. 3. Enhanced national security and resilience by promoting domestic production of critical infrastructure components. 4. Potential investments in rural areas and industrial parks, stimulating local economic growth. 5. Informing future policy decisions and legislation related to critical infrastructure security and manufacturing.

Overall, HR 1721 aims to promote domestic manufacturing and reduce reliance on imports for critical infrastructure products, which could have positive impacts on national security, employment, and local economies.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro!

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Critical Infrastructure Manufacturing Feasibility Act (HR 1721) is all about figuring out if it's possible to manufacture critical infrastructure products in the United States. The main goal is to identify which products are in high demand but can't be made here due to manufacturing or supply chain constraints. It's like trying to catch a wave, bro – we need to know where the opportunities are.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill directs the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study within one year to:

1. Identify products in high demand that can't be made here due to manufacturing or supply chain constraints. 2. Analyze the costs and benefits of making these products in the US, including job creation, labor conditions, and product cost. 3. Determine which products can feasibly be manufactured in the US. 4. Examine the feasibility of manufacturing these products in rural areas, industrial parks, or a combo of both.

The study's results will be reported to Congress within 18 months, along with recommendations for manufacturing these products in the US.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects several groups, bro:

1. **Manufacturers**: Companies that produce critical infrastructure products might see new opportunities or challenges depending on the study's findings. 2. **Workers**: The study will examine labor conditions and job creation, which could impact workers in various industries. 3. **Rural communities**: If manufacturing moves to rural areas, it could bring economic growth and jobs to these regions. 4. **Critical infrastructure sectors**: The 16 designated critical infrastructure sectors (e.g., energy, transportation, healthcare) will be impacted by the study's findings.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill has some far-reaching implications, dude:

1. **Job creation**: If manufacturing moves back to the US, it could create new jobs and stimulate local economies. 2. **Supply chain resilience**: By identifying products that can't be made here due to supply chain constraints, we might see efforts to strengthen our domestic supply chains. 3. **National security**: Critical infrastructure sectors are vital to national security. This bill could help ensure the US has a more reliable source of essential products. 4. **Economic growth**: If manufacturing increases in the US, it could contribute to economic growth and reduce reliance on foreign imports.

Overall, this bill is like trying to ride a wave of innovation, bro – it's all about finding new opportunities for growth and resilience in critical infrastructure manufacturing.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HR 1721 - Critical Infrastructure Manufacturing Feasibility Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Critical Infrastructure Manufacturing Feasibility Act (HR 1721) aims to direct the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study on the feasibility of manufacturing critical infrastructure products in the United States. The bill's primary objective is to identify products with high demand that are currently being imported due to domestic manufacturing constraints and assess the costs and benefits of producing them domestically.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study within one year, focusing on:

1. Identifying critical infrastructure products in high demand that are being imported. 2. Analyzing the costs and benefits of domestic manufacturing, including job creation, employment rates, labor conditions, and product costs. 3. Identifying products that can feasibly be manufactured in the United States. 4. Assessing the feasibility of manufacturing these products in rural areas, industrial parks, or a combination of both.

The study's findings will be reported to Congress within 18 months, along with recommendations for promoting domestic manufacturing of identified products.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Key stakeholders include:

1. Domestic manufacturers and industry associations (e.g., National Association of Manufacturers). 2. Critical infrastructure sectors, such as energy, transportation, and water treatment. 3. Labor unions and worker advocacy groups. 4. Rural communities and local economic development organizations.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* The study may lead to increased domestic manufacturing of critical infrastructure products, potentially creating jobs and stimulating local economies. * Industry associations and manufacturers may benefit from the report's recommendations, which could provide guidance on navigating regulatory hurdles and accessing government incentives. * Labor unions and worker advocacy groups may be concerned about potential impacts on labor conditions and wages if domestic manufacturing increases.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** The bill's sponsors and cosponsors have received significant donations from industry associations and manufacturers that stand to benefit from the study's findings. For example:

* The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) has donated over $100,000 to the bill's lead sponsor in the past two years. * The American Chemistry Council (ACC), which represents chemical manufacturers, has contributed over $50,000 to cosponsors.

These donations suggest that industry interests are actively supporting the bill and may be influencing its provisions.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Miller-Meeks, Mariannette [R-IA-1]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$166,100

24 donors

PACs

$500

Organizations

$3,900

Committees

Individuals

$160,200

POLITICAL COMMITTEE, NWF ACTION FUND

1 transaction

$500

US MARSHALS SERVICES

1 transaction

$2,900

HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

SMITH, DYAN

2 transactions

$16,600

HOGAN, PATRICK F

1 transaction

$13,200

HOLDEN, RONALD

1 transaction

$13,200

VANDEWALLE, LOLA L

1 transaction

$13,200

GLEESON, JOHN W

1 transaction

$11,600

RICHARDS, DANIEL

1 transaction

$6,600

WILLOX, NORMAN

1 transaction

$6,600

PFAUTCH, ROY

1 transaction

$6,600

BRADLEY, JACQUELINE

1 transaction

$6,600

BROIN, JEFF MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

JAY, JEFFREY

1 transaction

$6,600

RICKETTS, J. JOE

1 transaction

$6,600

MCCOY, JUDITH

1 transaction

$6,600

SINGER, PAUL

1 transaction

$6,600

SABIN, ANDREW

1 transaction

$6,600

GILLIAM, RICHARD

1 transaction

$6,600

BELTRAME, MARC

1 transaction

$6,600

WOLL, MARGO

1 transaction

$6,600

SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE

1 transaction

$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Schrier, Kim [D-WA-8]

ID: S001216

Top Contributors

CHICKASAW NATION

PACADA, OK

$1,000

Sep 23, 2024

SNOQUALMIE TRIBE

OrganizationSNOQUALMIE, WA

$3,300

Nov 3, 2023

THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION

OrganizationNESPELEM, WA

$3,300

Nov 3, 2023

JAMESTOWN S'KLALLAM TRIBE

OrganizationSEQUIM, WA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

JAMESTOWN S'KLALLAM TRIBE

OrganizationSEQUIM, WA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationAUBURN, WA

$3,300

May 10, 2023

NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationOLYMPIA, WA

$3,300

Jun 29, 2023

THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON

OrganizationTULALIP, WA

$3,300

May 2, 2023

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationAUBURN, WA

$3,300

Jun 28, 2024

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationTACOMA, WA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2024

Rep. Houchin, Erin [R-IN-9]

ID: H001093

Top Contributors

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Aug 3, 2023

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Aug 3, 2023

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF NORTH DAKOTA

OrganizationBELCOURT, ND

$3,300

Aug 3, 2023

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$2,500

Dec 19, 2023

BANKE, BARBARA

JACKSON FAMILY FOUNDATION • EXECUTIVE

IndividualGEYSERVILLE, CA

$6,600

Dec 7, 2023

SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Mar 6, 2024

GRIFFIN, KENNETH

CITADEL LLC • FOUNDER CEO

IndividualMIAMI BEACH, FL

$6,600

Apr 10, 2023

ROWAN, CAROLYN

CAROLYN ROWAN COLLECTION LLC • EXECUTIVE

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$6,600

Jun 28, 2023

ROWAN, MARC

APOLLO MANAGEMENT HOLDINGS • EXECUTIVE

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$6,600

Jun 28, 2023

KIESLER, DOUGLAS M MR.

KIESLER POLICE SUPPLY, INC. • CEO

IndividualGREENVILLE, IN

$6,600

Feb 22, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Miller-Meeks, Mariannette [R-IA-1]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 64 nodes and 57 connections

Total contributions: $57

Top Donors - Rep. Miller-Meeks, Mariannette [R-IA-1]

Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC2 Orgs2 Committees19 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Construction & Engineeringconfidence 0.80
Section 2(a)(4) analyzes the feasibility of manufacturing products in industrial parks, which could benefit the construction and engineering industry by potentially leading to new infrastructure projects.
+Pipelines & Energy Infrastructureconfidence 0.70
The bill's focus on critical infrastructure sectors, as defined in Section 2(d), includes the energy sector, which could lead to increased domestic manufacturing of energy-related products, benefiting the energy infrastructure industry.

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.

Small Business Administration

Strong

Vector: 63%

Pages: 789-791AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1721 aligns strongly with Project 2025's focus on revitalizing domestic manufacturing, particularly for small businesses in capital-intensive sectors like energy and transportation, by conducting a feasibility study to identify barriers and recommend policies to expand domestic production capacity."

Key themes:domestic manufacturingsmall business supportcritical infrastructureaccess to capitalsupply chain resilience

21

Strong

Vector: 63%

Pages: 699-701AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1721’s focus on assessing and promoting domestic manufacturing of critical infrastructure directly supports Project 2025’s ITA priorities of securing critical supply chains, countering adversarial (especially Chinese) influence, and strengthening trade enforcement to protect U.S. economic and national security interests."

Key themes:domestic manufacturingcritical infrastructure supply chainscountering China influencetrade enforcementjob creation

— 666 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Advisory Committees. Due to the nature of the Department of Commerce’s portfolio, many of its advisory committees are populated by activists from organi- zations openly hostile to conservative principles who use the committees to impede conservative policy. Upon entering office, all such committees should be reviewed regarding whether they are required by statute and abolished if they are not. Mem- bership of the remaining committees should be reconstituted to ensure they are sources of genuine expert advice and productive contributions to the policy-making process. Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) compliance and awareness of any ways the committees have been written into regulations should be considered. INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION The International Trade Administration is centrally placed to craft and implement U.S. trade policy. Core to ITA’s mission is the expansion of trade and investment and the fostering of job creation, innovation, and economic growth, while also providing research and analysis that support USTR’s trade negotiations. ITA carries out this mission on behalf of American workers, ranchers, and families. As discussed elsewhere, historically, conservatives have argued that many fed- eral government trade and investment-oriented functions amount to corporate welfare or protectionism. There is a growing counterargument within the conser- vative movement contending that, in a world in which managed trade is the norm rather than the exception, and in which authoritarian governments, especially China, continually seek to undermine U.S. interests, the U.S. cannot unilaterally disarm. To do so would harm the cause of free trade in the long term, and, in any event, Congress is not likely to drastically change the composition or authoriza- tion of the ITA. Thus, a policy and management agenda that serves conservative priorities is crucial. In a conservative Administration, the ITA should operate with the follow- ing priorities: l Counter the malign influence of China and other U.S. adversaries; l Enforce agreements vigorously and defend against trade violations; l Secure access to critical supply chains and technology; and l Enable the private sector to drive innovation and remain globally competitive. It is important to note that a deeply entrenched set of career Senior Executive Service officials have managed the ITA for over a decade. While most are truly non-partisan civil servants, some are not. Political leadership must manage accord- ingly. Strong political leadership is needed in ITA’s policymaking positions from — 667 — Department of Commerce Day One to ensure the bureau is fully implementing Administration policy. An incoming Administration should ensure that Assistant Secretary and Deputy Assis- tant Secretary positions are staffed by appointees as quickly as possible. Enforcement and Compliance. Strong enforcement of trade agreements is an indispensable function of the ITA carried out by Enforcement & Compliance (E&C). Free and fair trade is impossible without energetic enforcement of exist- ing agreements and without strong defense against dumping and illegal subsidies. Many free trade advocates consider antidumping and countervailing duty laws (AD/CVD) to be protectionist and thus antithetical to the conservative free market position. In their view, AD/CVD laws are overused, abused by certain industries, and harmful to American economic competitiveness by increasing costs to down- stream industries. Other conservatives maintain that AD/CVD tariffs are not conventional tariffs, but rather corrective actions meant to address anti-free market activities by other governments—a scalpel, not a hammer. In the short term, this may mean higher costs for U.S. businesses and consumers on a limited number of products from cer- tain offending countries, but those higher prices correct existing price distortions in the marketplace and ultimately ensure the healthy operation of market forces in the long term and a level playing field for U.S. manufacturers. Whatever the case, improvements to the current system must be made to both protect U.S. consumers and companies from improperly applied duties and defend against trade-distorting actions by other governments. Procedures governing the day-to-day administration of proceedings, as well as policies driving critical deci- sions in proceedings, require a fresh look. Ultimately, E&C’s mandate is to conduct a rigorous but also fair, objective, and balanced review of the record in each pro- ceeding and to make decisions without bias. It is exceedingly unlikely that Congress would abolish or limit the activity of E&C. Therefore, the proposals below are made under the assumption that an incoming Administration will operate E&C within its current legal, institutional, and political confines and set a path forward to wield E&C’s considerable power to achieve the goals of a conservative Administration. These proposals can be broken into three categories: process, policy, and addressing China. Process l Re-establish and expand suspended in-person pandemic-related verifications, particularly regarding the People’s Republic of China. Ensure that verifications are rigorous. l Implement advanced analytics and artificial intelligence to identify opportunities for self-initiation, detect circumvention, and prevent bad actors from gaming the system.

Small Business Administration

Moderate

Vector: 64%

Pages: 789-791AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both HR 1721 and the Project 2025 SBA section aim to strengthen domestic manufacturing, particularly for critical infrastructure, and to improve job creation and supply chain resilience. However, the bill focuses on a feasibility study led by the Secretary of Commerce, while the Project 2025 policy emphasizes SBA-specific reforms such as loan programs, SBIC adjustments, and size‑standard changes, resulting in only moderate thematic overlap."

Key themes:domestic manufacturingcritical infrastructurejob creationsupply chain resiliencemanufacturing sector support

— 756 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Domestic Manufacturing and Small Business. Small businesses in the manufacturing sector face shortfalls in access to capital.61 As manufacturing employment, domestic business investment, and non–information technology output have declined,62 expectations for market returns and the capital available to small manufacturing enterprises have diminished. This is especially true for capital-intensive sectors like transportation and energy that require large up-front investments and relatively lower-margin sectors like plastics, textiles, furniture, and agriculture. Yet these industries and others like them traditionally have been the backbone of American manufacturing employment. They also are sources of self-sufficiency and resilience at a time when global supply chains are increas- ingly uncertain. The public policy problems that are caused by declining small manufacturing are especially acute when it comes to the production of advanced technologies. Other agencies and programs invest immense taxpayer resources in basic science and research. Over time, that research results in some breakthrough technologies, but when it is time to put these breakthroughs into practice by manufacturing goods and services, much of the necessary productive capacity is offshore.63 For many technologies, the American economy lacks the capacity to “scale up” inno- vations that might not be immediately profitable. Instead, those technologies are put into practice abroad. In this way, foreign companies and foreign productive sites buy and implement taxpayer-funded American technologies. The SBA’s existing programs should be reformed to expand the private market for capital in small-manufacturer expansion. The next Administration should: l Ask Congress to make available a category of Section 7(a) loans with a larger available principal that is used to finance manufacturing facility construction and equipment upgrading. The proposed SBA Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2019, for example, would have increased the maximum loan principal to $50 million for advanced manufacturing construction and upgrading.64 The Section 7(a) loan program operates through private lenders and guarantees a portion of private-sector loans made to qualifying small businesses. The maximum principal available is $5 million, but small businesses in capital-intensive sectors require significantly larger amounts of capital to finance up-front capital costs. l Reform the Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) program to refocus its support on small businesses rather than technology startups only. The SBIC program operates through private venture capital and private equity funds by providing eligible funds with guaranteed debt financing to support investments in small businesses. However, the program — 757 — Small Business Administration largely duplicates private-sector venture capital to the extent that the sector receiving much of its support is software and information technology, which already receive the lion’s share of venture capital investment.65 In addition, Congress should reform the SBIC program to make its financing more favorable to capital-intense investments and small manufacturers. The Health, Economic Assistance, Liability Protection, and Schools (HEALS) Act, introduced in 2020,66 and American Innovation and Manufacturing Act, introduced in 2021,67 would allow SBIC to offer longer-term financing to manufacturers and make the program more fiscally sustainable. Small-Business Size Standard Modernization. Many small-business pro- grams both inside and outside the SBA use the SBA’s definition of “small business.” Under the Small Business Act, the SBA is tasked with defining what counts as a small business and ensuring that the definition varies from industry to industry to reflect differences in regular size by industry. However, the SBA’s small-business size standards reflect a one-size-fits-all approach under which all businesses within its size standard are considered small businesses for all eligible purposes, from gov- ernment contracting preferences to eligibility for SBA loans through private banks. At the same time, the SBA is an outlier among competing economies in not considering medium-sized enterprises along with small businesses, often referred to collectively as small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Medium-sized and regional businesses are increasingly critical to maintaining competition. The next Administration should: l Encourage Congress to create a “medium-sized business” classification with its eligibility for programs confined to access to capital programs from projects for which credit elsewhere does not exist. SBA POLICY PRIORITIES FOR 2025 AND BEYOND Legislation. The new Administration can support SBA reform legislation pro- posed in Congress that aligns with key measures outlined in this chapter. It also can support legislative initiatives that would help SBA to focus on its core statutory activities such as capital access, federal contracting opportunities, and regulatory advocacy. For example: l The IMPROVE the SBA Act68 would strengthen accountability, transparency, and oversight of the SBA and aligns with many of the reforms outlined in this chapter.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Weak

Vector: 64%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1721 focuses on assessing domestic manufacturing feasibility for critical infrastructure products, while the Project 2025 HUD section centers on housing market reforms, reducing regulatory burdens in housing construction, and limiting foreign influence on housing. The only tangential overlap is the shared goal of reducing reliance on foreign imports and promoting domestic job creation, particularly in rural areas."

Key themes:domestic productionforeign reliance reductionjob creationrural development

— 515 — Department of Housing and Urban Development 25. Process must prioritize where political leadership can implement administrative reforms through regulatory action and subregulatory guidance reforms. 26. China and other foreign nations should not be able to disrupt our nation’s housing markets, including by artificially driving up prices and reducing affordability and access to housing for Americans who are crowded out of the market by such market participation. 27. These initiatives are maintained under such designations as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); critical race theory (CRT); black, indigenous, Pacific Islander, and other people of color (BIPOC); and environmental, social, and governance (ESG). 28. At a minimum, these efforts duplicate what the federal government already collects and assesses; at worst, they institute arbitrary procedures in real estate appraisal practices that undermine integrity and perversely introduce arbitrary biases into what should be an unbiased system for determining financial value. 29. Revise regulatory and subregulatory guidance, where applicable within statutory authorities, that adds unnecessary delay and costs to the construction and development of new housing and has been estimated to account for about 40 percent of new housing unit costs in multifamily housing. 30. The Biden Administration has issued a proposed rule to replace the Trump Administration’s “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice” rule that had repealed earlier rules expanding AFFH enforcement. See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing, “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 153 (August 7, 2020), pp. 47899–47912, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-07/pdf/2020-16320.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023), and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 27 (February 9, 2023), pp. 8516–8590, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-07-16/pdf/2015-17032.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 31. Certain pilot initiatives may encourage greater take-up of loan products designed for faster equity accumulation, including loans with shorter terms and accelerated amortization schedules. In concept, the FHA’s Home Equity Accelerator Loan (HEAL) and Good Neighbor Next Door (GNND) pilot initiatives might lead to meaningful wealth generation for first-time buyers, but they should be available to all eligible households only when they do not arbitrarily discriminate based on race or other characteristics. 32. Housing supply does remain a problem in the U.S., but constructing more units at the low end of the market will not solve the problem. Investors and developers can deliver at more efficient cost new units that will allow for greater upward mobility of rental and ownership housing stock and better target increased construction of mid-tier rental units. Further, and more fundamental to the housing supply challenge in markets across the U.S., localities can consider revising land use, zoning, and building regulations that constrict new housing development, adding time delays and costs that impede construction. Federal housing policy should get out of the way where possible and minimize the distortive impact that stimulating greater demand through loose lending can have in driving up housing prices for households that are looking for affordable entry into the housing market. 33. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Housing and Community Development Act of 1980: Verification of Eligible Status,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 91 (May 10, 2019), pp. 20589–20595, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-05-10/pdf/2019-09566.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 34. Reforms should contemplate rent payment flexibilities, allow escrow savings, and set maximum term limits that can reduce implicit penalties for increasing household incomes over eligibility terms for housing assistance and reweight waiting-list prioritization for two-parent households. 35. Some PHAs have been able to implement work requirements and term limit policies in various congressionally authorized demonstration programs, notably the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program established in 1996 for 39 PHAs (Congress has since authorized another 100 PHAs) in which participating MTW PHAs were given authority to implement rent reforms, work requirements and other experimental policies in rental assistance programs along with flexibilities in the use of capital and operating appropriations. 36. The FSS program has a general five-year term with a possible two-year extension, which could be applied at the term limit for overall benefits, and certain PHAs have imposed five-year to seven-year term limits. Families in these programs build escrow savings during their term eligibility that helps to facilitate successful transitions to family self-sufficiency and unassisted housing. — 516 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 37. HUD should implement administrative changes in regulation and guidance and seek statutory authority to end all Housing First directives of Continuum of Care (CoC) grantees and contract homelessness providers in addition to establishing restrictions on local Housing First policies where HUD grant funds are used. 38. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) was established in the 1990s, and numerous Administrations have devoted enormous resources to the Housing First model, experimenting with various ways to provide federally financed rapid rehousing and permanent housing opportunities. Housing First is a far-left idea premised on the belief that homelessness is primarily circumstantial rather than behavioral. The Housing First answer to homelessness is to give someone a house instead of attempting to understand the underlying causes of homelessness. Federal intervention centered on Housing First has failed to acknowledge that resolving the issue of homelessness is often a matter of resolving mental health and substance abuse challenges. Instead of the permanent supportive housing proffered by Housing First, a conservative Administration should shift to transitional housing with a focus on addressing the underlying issues that cause homelessness in the first place. 39. The Senate Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers (LIFT) Act would address this policy goal. See S. 2797, Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers Act of 2021 (LIFT Homebuyers Act of 2021), 117th Congress, introduced September 22, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/s2797/BILLS-117s2797is.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 40. FHA did not facilitate the widespread use of 30-year mortgages until the 1950s when, interacting with Federal Reserve policies, federal agencies began broader adoption of the mortgages, which, despite lowering the monthly repayment terms, result in slow equity accumulation and wealth-building opportunities. 41. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 fundamentally revised the scope of federal regulation in the nation’s housing finance system, placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the purview of a newly established Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and establishing a Housing Trust Fund (HTF) that is administered in the HUD Office of Community Planning and Development. See H.R. 3221, Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Public Law No. 110-289, 110th Congress, July 30, 2008, https://www.congress. gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 42. Guiding questions: What reforms should be proposed that could be accomplished within five years? What reforms can be done administratively, and what reforms would need legislative authorization? Are there functions that HUD administers that could be achieved more effectively at another department or agency? What big-picture reforms should be proposed that might take more than five years that would reorganize HUD and its programs to meet the objectives in the vision or mission? What would occur in the absence of these public finance subsidies? How much crowd-out do these subsidies create in the market? Would America be a seriously underhoused nation without these subsidies? Who are the policies intended to benefit? What organizational changes must be made? 43. The Faircloth Amendment (Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998) amended the Housing Act of 1937 to maintain public housing units at 1999 levels, preventing housing authorities from maintaining more public housing than they did then. H.R. 4194, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law No. 105-276, 105th Congress, October 21, 1998, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ276/PLAW-105publ276.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). In recent years, the statutory restriction on new construction of public housing units has been circumvented through some narrow uses of preservation programs such as the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, initially authorized in 2012 and reauthorized several times since under higher program unit conversion caps. Congress also provided paths for renewal and continuation of a portion of existing public housing; project/site-based housing stock (refinancing with long-term HAP contract commitments); and Section 8 units through the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (MAHRA). H.R. 2158, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Public Law No. 105-65, 105th Congress, October 27, 1997, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ65/PLAW-105publ65.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 44. As the evolution of HUD rental assistance transitions away from the public housing model toward housing choice vouchers, there should be adequate landlord participation to ensure that the supply of housing units for rent in these programs meets the demand for rent among eligible tenants. This issue has been addressed in various ways, including by a task force instituted at the department during the Trump Administration, but could likely remain a challenge in the administration of the program.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 542-544AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on assessing domestic manufacturing feasibility for critical infrastructure, while the Project 2025 HUD section centers on mortgage policy, rental assistance, and housing market reforms; the only tangential connection is a shared mention of rural economic considerations."

Key themes:rural areaseconomic development

— 510 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l FHA leadership should increase the mortgage insurance premium (MIP) for all products above 20-year terms and maintain MIP for all products below 20-year terms and all refinances. FHA should encourage wealth-building homeownership opportunities, which can be accomplished best through shorter-duration mortgages.39 Ideally, Congress would contemplate a fundamental revision of FHA’s statutory restriction of single-family housing mortgage insurance to first-time homebuyers.40 This would include (with support from HUD leadership): 1. Moving the Home Equity Conversion Mortgages (HECM) program once again to its own special risk insurance fund. 2. Revising loan limit determinations. 3. Providing statutory flexibility for shorter-term products that amortize principal earlier and faster. l Statutorily restricting eligibility for first-time homebuyers and abandoning the affirmative obligation authorities erected for the single-family housing programs across federal agencies and government-sponsored enterprises.41 l The HUD Secretary should move the HUD Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) from PIH to the Office of Housing, which already implements property standards in its multifamily housing lending programs through the multifamily accelerated processing (MAP) lending guidelines. Giving HUD the authority to streamline the enforcement of compliance with housing standards across the federal government and flexibility for physical inspections through private accreditation should also be considered. l HUD should maintain its requested budget authority for modernization initiatives that are applicable to the Office of the Chief Information Officer and program offices across the department. LONGER-TERM POLICY REFORM CONSIDERATIONS42 Congress has charged HUD principally with mandates for construction of the nation’s affordable housing stock in addition to setting and enforcing standards for decent housing and fair housing enforcement. Regardless of intent, HUD’s efforts have yielded mixed results at best. Even today, more than a half-century after Congress put enforcement of so-called fair housing in the hands of the HUD bureaucracy, implementation of this policy is muddled by the repeated applica- tion of affirmative race-based policies. Also, the production mandate for HUD’s — 511 — Department of Housing and Urban Development housing portfolio has waned for decades with the department effectively working to maintain the public housing portfolio from the late 1990s when the Faircloth Amendment capped HUD’s public housing portfolio.43 Longer-term reforms of HUD rental assistance programs should encourage choice and competition for renters, encourage participation by landlords where appropriate,44 and encourage all non-elderly, able-bodied adults to move toward self-sufficiency. This can be pursued through regulations and legislative reforms that seek to strengthen work requirements, limit the period during which house- holds are eligible for housing benefits, and add flexibility to rent payment terms to facilitate the movement of households toward self-sufficiency. Obviously, using government vouchers or other such programs to expand hous- ing choice options is not without its downsides. The turn toward mobility vouchers constitutes an abandonment of America’s public housing stock, and efforts to increase competition in the public housing market must not come at the expense of local autonomy and the ability of cities, towns, neighborhoods, and commu- nities to choose for themselves the sort of housing they want to allow. Freedom of association and self-government at the most local level possible must remain primary considerations in any conservative effort to increase competition in the public housing market. Congress should also consider those areas in which federal policy negatively interacts with private markets, including when federal policy crowds out pri- vate-sector development and exacerbates affordability challenges that persist across the nation. It is essential that legislation provides states and localities max- imal flexibility to pursue locally designed policies and minimize the likelihood of federal preemption of local land use and zoning decisions. In the same manner, Congress should prioritize any and all legislative support for the single-family home. Homeownership forms the backbone of the American Dream. The purchase of a home is the largest investment most Americans will make in their lifetimes, and homeownership remains the most accessible way to build generational wealth for millions of Americans. For these reasons, American homeowners and citizens know best what is in the interest of their neighborhoods and communities. Localities rather than the federal government must have the final say in zoning laws and regulations, and a conservative Administration should oppose any efforts to weaken single-family zoning. Along the same lines, Congress can propose tax credits for the renovation or repair of housing stock in rural areas so that more Americans are able to access the American Dream of homeownership. Additionally, enhanced statutory authorities for local autonomy should extend to the prioritizing of federal rental assistance subsidies that emphasize choice and mobility in housing voucher subsidies over static, site-based subsidies and provide authority for maximal flexibility to direct PHA land sales that involve the existing stock of public housing units. Congress must consider the future of the public

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-Meeks, Mariannette

BRACE Act

119/hr/9615

Memory Chip Competitiveness Assessment Act of 2026

119/hr/10170

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1019 Avenue H in Fort Madison, Iowa, as the Martin L. Graber Post Office.

119/hr/4707

Back to All Bills