Awning Safety Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/1767
Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Balderson, Troy [R-OH-12]

ID: B001306

Follow the money

The bill

Awning Safety Act of 2025

HR. 1767, 119th Congress — read as touching Construction & Engineering.

The sponsor

Rep. Balderson, Troy [R-OH-12]

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

The money

$71,950 raised

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

The alignment

40% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Agriculture" section, p. 329-331 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.

June 23, 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

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. The Awning Safety Act of 2025: because what America really needed was more bureaucratic red tape to strangle small businesses.

Let's dissect this farce:

**New regulations being created or modified:** Ah, yes, a whole new standard for retractable awnings! Because those pesky bungee tie-downs were just too darn deadly. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) will now dictate how to design and manufacture these awnings, ensuring that the industry is saddled with more compliance costs.

**Affected industries and sectors:** The usual suspects: manufacturers, retailers, and installers of retractable awnings. But don't worry, this bill won't affect the real culprits – the politicians who will rake in campaign donations from special interest groups "concerned" about awning safety.

**Compliance requirements and timelines:** Eighteen months to promulgate a new standard? That's just enough time for lobbyists to wine and dine CPSC officials, ensuring that their clients' interests are protected. The real timeline is: "How long will it take for us to figure out how to game this system?"

**Enforcement mechanisms and penalties:** Ah, the fun part! Non-compliance will be met with fines, lawsuits, and possibly even jail time (because, you know, awning safety is a matter of national security). The CPSC will have a field day policing these new regulations, creating a whole new revenue stream for lawyers and bureaucrats.

**Economic and operational impacts:** This bill will stifle innovation, increase costs, and lead to more bureaucratic busywork. Small businesses will be disproportionately affected, as they struggle to comply with the new regulations. But hey, who needs jobs or economic growth when we can have safer awnings?

Diagnosis: This bill is a classic case of "Regulatory Capture-itis," where special interest groups manipulate politicians to create rules that benefit their own interests at the expense of everyone else. The symptoms include:

* Overregulation * Increased compliance costs * Stifled innovation * Bureaucratic overreach

Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach for bureaucratic nonsense, and a willingness to call out politicians on their blatant pandering to special interests.

Prognosis: This bill will pass with flying colors, because who doesn't love more regulations? The real question is: how many jobs will be lost, and how much economic growth will be stifled, all in the name of "awning safety"?

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

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Balderson, Troy [R-OH-12]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$71,950
17 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$950
Committees
$0
Individuals
$71,000

No PAC contributions found

1
THORP FOR SHERIFF
1 transaction
$500
2
FRIENDS OF MARK FRAIZER
2 transactions
$450

No committee contributions found

1
STEMMER, THOMAS A
3 transactions
$14,900
2
COLER, JOHN
3 transactions
$9,900
3
COLER, TABITHA
2 transactions
$6,600
4
BORKOWSKI, BRIAN
1 transaction
$3,300
5
MACKINNON, JEFFREY
1 transaction
$3,300
6
DICKERSON, RICHARD D
1 transaction
$3,300
7
LEMMON, THEODORE
1 transaction
$3,300
8
DICKERSON, JOAN
1 transaction
$3,300
9
DAY, TIMOTHY
1 transaction
$3,300
10
KVAMME, MARK
1 transaction
$3,300
11
FISCHER, ALEX
1 transaction
$3,300
12
WAGENBRENNER, MARK
1 transaction
$3,300
13
FAISON, JAY W
1 transaction
$3,300
14
RASTIN, TOM
1 transaction
$3,300
15
PARFITT, THOMAS
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Castor, Kathy [D-FL-14]

ID: C001066

Top Contributors

23

1
SEMINOLE TRIBE
OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL
$3,300
Jun 30, 2024
2
SEMINOLE TRIBE
OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL
$3,300
Aug 25, 2023
3
BGR PAC
OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC
$925
Sep 13, 2024
4
OBERHELMAN, DIANE
CULLINAN PROPERTIES • FOUNDER
IndividualEDWARDS, IL
$3,300
Dec 3, 2024
5
III, WILLIAM H. GATES
BREAKTHROUGH ENERGY; GATES FOUNDATION • PHILANTHROPIST
IndividualREDMOND, WA
$3,300
Oct 19, 2023
6
OBERHELMAN, DIANE
CULLINAN PROPERTIES • FOUNDER
IndividualEDWARDS, IL
$3,300
Jun 16, 2023
7
BOSQUEZ, RAMON
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualST PETERSBURG, FL
$3,300
Mar 29, 2024
8
EDLOW, MR.JACK
EDLOW INTERNATIONAL COMPANY • CONSULTANT
IndividualTAMPA, FL
$3,300
Mar 28, 2024
9
SNELL, RAND R
SELF-EMPLOYED • COMPOSER
IndividualST PETERSBURG, FL
$3,300
Mar 18, 2024
10
BURGESS, TREVOR R.
TRB DEVELOPMENT • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
IndividualST PETERSBURG, FL
$3,300
Apr 2, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Balderson, Troy [R-OH-12]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 28 nodes and 36 connections

Total contributions: $36

Top Donors - Rep. Balderson, Troy [R-OH-12]

Showing top 17 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs15 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • Section 2(a) requires the CPSC to promulgate a mandatory consumer product safety standard for retractable awnings, which will impose compliance costs on manufacturers and installers in the construction and engineering 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.

Department of Agriculture

Minimal
Vector: 59%
Pages: 329-331AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Awning Safety Act concerns consumer product safety regulations for retractable awnings under the CPSC, whereas the Project 2025 agriculture excerpt focuses on reforming farm subsidy programs (sugar, ARC, PLC, crop insurance). There is no substantive thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 296 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise support went to just six commodities—corn, cotton, peanuts, rice, soybeans, and wheat—that together account for only 28 percent of farm receipts.32 Although many farmers do not receive much in the way of subsidies, especially those in the areas of livestock and specialty crops (fruit, vegetable, and nuts),33 there are still a sig- nificant number of farmers growing row crops like corn and cotton that do receive significant farm subsidies. The primary subsidy programs include the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) program,34 the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program,35 and the federal crop insur- ance program.36 Farmers can participate on a crop-by-crop basis in the ARC program or the PLC program. These programs cover about 20 different crops.37 The ARC program protects farmers from what are referred to as “shallow” losses, pro- viding payments when their actual revenues fall below 86 percent of the expected revenues for their crops.38 The PLC program provides payments to farmers when commodity prices fall below a fixed, statutorily established reference price.39 The federal crop insurance program is broader in scope than ARC and PLC, and in crop year 2019 covered 124 commodities.40 Farmers pay a portion of a premium to participate in the program. Taxpayers on average pay about 60 per- cent41 of the premium. As explained by CRS, “Revenue Protection was the most frequently purchased policy type in 2019, accounting for almost 70 [percent] of policies purchased.”42 While there are certainly other subsidy programs besides ARC, PLC, and federal crop insurance, one program that deserves special mention is the federal sugar program. This program, unlike most other subsidy programs, intentionally tries to restrict supply43 and thereby drives up prices. The program costs consumers as much as $3.7 billion a year.44 When it comes to reforming subsidy programs, the next Administration will primarily have to look to legislative solutions. The next Administration should champion legislation that would: l Repeal the federal sugar program. The federal government should not be in the central planning business, and the sugar program is a prime example of harmful central planning. Its very purpose is to limit the sugar supply in order to increase prices. The program has a regressive effect, since lower-income households spend more of their money to meet food needs compared to higher income households.45 l Ideally, repeal the ARC and PLC programs. Farmers eligible to participate in ARC or PLC are generally already able to purchase federal crop insurance, policies that protect against shortfalls in expected revenue whether caused by lower prices or smaller harvests. The ARC program is especially egregious because farmers are being protected from shallow — 297 — Department of Agriculture losses, which is another way of saying minor dips in expected revenue. This is hardly consistent with the concept of providing a safety net to help farmers when they fall on hard times. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in one of its options to reduce the federal deficit, has once again identified repealing all Title I farm programs, including ARC, PLC, and the federal sugar program.46 l Stop paying farmers twice for price and revenue losses during the same year. Farmers can receive support from the ARC or PLC programs and the federal crop insurance program to cover price declines and revenue shortfalls during the same year. Congress should prohibit this duplication by prohibiting farmers from receiving an ARC or PLC payment the same year they receive a crop insurance indemnity. l Reduce the premium subsidy rate for crop insurance. On average, taxpayers cover about 60 percent47 of the premium cost for policies purchased in the federal crop insurance program. One of the most widely supported and bipartisan policy reforms is to reduce the premium subsidy that taxpayers are forced to pay.48 At a minimum, taxpayers should not pay more than 50 percent of the premium. After all, taxpayers should not have to pay more than the farmers who benefit from the crop insurance policies. CBO has found that reducing the premium subsidy to 47 percent would save $8.1 billion over 10 years and have little impact on crop insurance participation or on the number of covered acres.49 In that analysis, there would be a reduction in insured acres of just one-half of 1 percent, and only 1.5 percent of acres would have lower coverage levels. 50 This reform is basically all benefit with little to no cost. In its recently released report identifying options to reduce the federal deficit, CBO found that reducing the premium subsidy to 40 percent would save $20.9 billion over 10 years.51 Beyond these legislative reforms, the next Administration should: l Communicate to Congress the necessity of transparency and a genuine reform process. The White House and the USDA should make it very clear that the farm bill process, including reform of farm subsidies, must be con- ducted through an open process with time for mark-up and the opportunity for changes to be made outside the Agriculture Committee process. The farm bill too often is developed behind closed doors and without any chance for real reform. The White House, given the power of the bully pulpit,

Environmental Protection Agency

Minimal
Vector: 58%
Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses consumer product safety for retractable awnings under the CPSC, while the Project 2025 EPA section focuses on environmental regulations, greenhouse gas reporting, and air permitting; there is no substantive overlap."

— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment. — 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms.

21

Minimal
Vector: 58%
Pages: 699-701AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Awning Safety Act concerns consumer product safety standards for retractable awnings under the CPSC, whereas Project 2025's Section 21 focuses on trade enforcement, AD/CVD proceedings, and China-related policy within the Department of Commerce; there is no substantive thematic overlap."

— 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. — 668 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Accelerate front-end work on reviews as opposed to constantly pushing against statutory deadlines. l Work with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and other relevant agencies to address circumvention and duty evasion, and promote policies that encourage full duty collection to ensure the integrity of AD/CVD and circumvention orders. l Work with CBP, the Department of Justice, the Department of Treasury, and other relevant agencies to aggressively pursue importers of record and other beneficiaries for unpaid duties, and consider policy changes to reduce uncollected duties in the future. l Work, pursuant to the above, with interagency partners in AD/CVD cases to either require foreign importers of record (IORs) to make cash deposits far in excess of established duty rates at the time of entry of AD/CVD merchandise, require IORs to register sufficient U.S. assets to ensure timely payment of duties, or otherwise prohibit IORs from importing AD/CVD merchandise. l Conduct a regulatory capture audit and put guardrails in place to address improper exercise of bureaucratic prerogative. Policy l Ensure senior policy and decision-making positions are always held by political appointees. l Reverse the practice of giving the benefit of the doubt to foreign companies versus U.S. companies in AD/CVD proceedings. l Establish a policy for addressing companies that invest heavily in the U.S. and thus have large import volumes, exposing them to AD/CVD petitions. l Establish an effective, fair, and objective process for self-initiation of AD/ CVD proceedings when industry lacks the resources or ability to act. Addressing China l Revive the China-specific non-market economy unit. l Provide transparency in the surrogate country list development process.

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.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills