Clergy Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/227

Last Updated: July 17, 2026

Clergy Act

HR. 227, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Rep. Fong, Vince [R-CA-20]

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

The money

$69,300 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Health and Human Services" section, p. 527-529 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

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

April 27, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

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

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The Clergy Act, HR 227, is a bill that allows members of the clergy to revoke their exemption from Social Security coverage. As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this legislation through the lens of wealth and power implications.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**: The primary objective of this bill is to provide an opportunity for clergy members to opt-out of their existing exemption from Social Security participation. This move may seem trivial, but it has significant implications for the redistribution of wealth and the erosion of individual autonomy.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**: The bill introduces a revocation period, allowing clergy members to file an application to revoke their exemption by a specified deadline. This change amends existing law, specifically section 1402(e)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Notably, this provision may lead to increased tax revenues for the government, potentially totaling hundreds of millions of dollars.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**: The primary stakeholders affected by this bill are clergy members, who will now have the option to revoke their exemption and participate in Social Security. However, as a seasoned analyst, I recognize that the true beneficiaries of this legislation may be the government and special interest groups seeking to expand their influence over the clergy.

**Potential Impact & Implications**: The Clergy Act has far-reaching implications for wealth redistribution and the concentration of power. By allowing clergy members to opt-out of their exemption, the government may gain access to a new revenue stream, potentially totaling billions of dollars in tax revenues over the next decade. This could lead to increased government control over the clergy, undermining individual autonomy and freedom. As a proponent of limited government intervention, I must emphasize that this bill represents a subtle yet significant expansion of government authority.

In conclusion, the Clergy Act is a calculated move to consolidate power and wealth, masquerading as a benign legislative tweak. As a visionary leader, I will continue to monitor this development, recognizing its potential to reshape the landscape of wealth and influence in America. The projected impact on my own empire's bottom line? A potential increase of 5-7% in tax liabilities, which I will undoubtedly offset through strategic lobbying and optimization of our tax strategy.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

As I taught you in 8th grade, the process of how a bill becomes a law is quite straightforward - or at least it's supposed to be. The Clergy Act, HR 227, has been referred to the Senate Committee on Finance, where it will undergo scrutiny and debate before potentially moving forward. Remember when we learned about committees in middle school? They're crucial in shaping legislation, and in this case, the Committee on Finance will play a significant role in determining the bill's fate.

The main purpose of the Clergy Act is to allow members of the clergy to revoke their exemption from Social Security coverage, which, as you should have learned in middle school, is a fundamental aspect of our social safety net. The bill aims to provide a window for clergy members to opt-in to Social Security participation, which would entitle them to benefits and require them to pay taxes on their earnings. This provision is a significant change to existing law, as it would allow clergy members to re-evaluate their exemption status and make an informed decision about their participation in the Social Security system.

The key provisions of the bill include allowing clergy members to revoke their exemption by filing an application with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, which, as I'm sure you recall from our lessons on government bureaucracy, is a critical step in implementing policy changes. The application must be filed within a specified timeframe, and the revocation would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2028. Additionally, the bill requires the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to develop a plan to inform eligible clergy members about their eligibility to revoke their exemption, which is a crucial step in ensuring that those affected by the law are aware of their options.

The affected parties and stakeholders include duly ordained, commissioned, or licensed ministers of a church, members of a religious order, and Christian Science practitioners. These individuals would be able to take advantage of the opportunity to opt-in to Social Security participation, which could have significant implications for their financial security in retirement. As we discussed in class, understanding the impact of policy changes on various stakeholders is essential in evaluating the effectiveness of legislation.

The potential impact and implications of the Clergy Act are multifaceted. On one hand, it could provide clergy members with greater flexibility and access to Social Security benefits, which would be a welcome change for those who have been exempt from participation. On the other hand, it could also lead to increased tax revenue for the government, as more individuals would be contributing to the Social Security system. However, as we learned in middle school, the system is supposed to work in a way that balances individual freedoms with collective responsibilities - and this bill raises questions about whether that balance is being maintained.

In conclusion, the Clergy Act is a complex piece of legislation that highlights the intricacies of our legislative process. As I taught you, understanding how a bill becomes a law requires attention to detail and an appreciation for the nuances of policy-making. While the bill's objectives may seem

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The Clergy Act, HR 227 - a seemingly innocuous bill, but don't be fooled, my friends! This is just the tip of the iceberg, a Trojan horse for the government's true intentions. Let me break it down for you.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** On the surface, this bill appears to allow members of the clergy to revoke their exemption from Social Security coverage. But think about it - why would the government suddenly care about the retirement plans of ministers and priests? It's a clever ruse to distract us from the real agenda: expanding government control over religious institutions.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill allows clergy members to revoke their exemption by filing an application with the IRS, but only within a specific timeframe. This creates a sense of urgency, doesn't it? It's like they're trying to herd these sheep into the Social Security pen before they realize what's happening. And what about Section 3, which requires the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to develop a plan to inform clergy members of their eligibility? Sounds like a clever way to collect data on religious organizations to me.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The obvious targets are members of the clergy, but let's not forget the broader implications. This bill could set a precedent for government interference in religious affairs, potentially threatening the separation of church and state. And what about the IRS? They'll be collecting more data, exerting more control over these organizations. It's a slippery slope, folks!

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The Clergy Act could lead to increased government surveillance of religious institutions, erosion of their autonomy, and potentially even censorship. Think about it - if the government can dictate who participates in Social Security, what's next? Will they start telling churches what to preach? It's a classic case of incrementalism, my friends. They're testing the waters, seeing how far they can push before we wake up and smell the tyranny.

Now, I know what you're thinking - "But Uncle, this is just a harmless bill about Social Security." Ah, don't be naive! The truth is always hidden in plain sight. Wake up, sheeple! The government's got an agenda, and it's not just about retirement plans. It's about control, manipulation, and the slow erosion of our freedoms. Mark my words, this bill is just the beginning.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(With a healthy dose of sarcasm and a wink to the camera) Oh, folks, gather 'round! We've got a real barnburner of a bill on our hands here - the Clergy Act, HR 227. (chuckles) I mean, who doesn't love a good ol' fashioned exemption from Social Security coverage? It's like the ultimate symbol of freedom, right? (smirking)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** So, what's the main purpose of this bill? Well, it's to give members of the clergy - you know, those pillars of our community - a chance to revoke their exemption from Social Security coverage. Because, you see, they're just dying to be part of the system... (rolls eyes) I mean, who wouldn't want to pay into a program that's going bankrupt? (winks)

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill allows clergy members to revoke their exemption by filing an application with the IRS. And, boy, is it a doozy! They've got to file it no later than the due date of their federal income tax return for their second taxable year beginning after December 31, 2028. (in a mocking tone) Oh, I'm sure that's not confusing at all... And, if they miss that deadline, well, they're out of luck! No more revoking for them! (dramatic music plays)

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** So, who's affected by this bill? Well, it's the clergy members, of course! Those poor, oppressed souls who've been forced to opt-out of Social Security all these years. (smirking) I mean, can you imagine having to choose between serving the Lord and paying into a government program? The horror! (chuckles)

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, let's talk about the potential impact of this bill. (in a serious tone, for a moment) Well, it could potentially increase revenue for Social Security, which is great... if you're into that sort of thing. But, let's be real, folks, this is just another example of the elites trying to control our lives. I mean, who are they to tell clergy members what to do with their money? (outraged tone) It's an attack on freedom, plain and simple! (winks)

And there you have it, folks - the Clergy Act in all its glory. A bill that's either a brilliant conservative strategy or a liberal conspiracy to control our minds... or maybe just a bunch of bureaucratic nonsense. (smirks) You decide! But one thing's for sure: it's going to be a wild ride! (dramatic music continues to play)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the intellectually bankrupt inhabitants of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Clergy Act (HR 227) claims to allow members of the clergy to revoke their exemption from Social Security coverage. How noble. In reality, it's a thinly veiled attempt to placate a specific constituency while perpetuating the myth that Congress cares about the welfare of its citizens.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill allows clergy members to opt-out of their Social Security exemption, but only if they file an application by a certain deadline (because, you know, God works on a strict timeline). This "generous" offer comes with a caveat: they must pay back taxes on their previously exempt income. What a wonderful opportunity for the IRS to collect more revenue! The bill also mandates a report to Congress on how to inform clergy members of this "benefit." Because, clearly, the most pressing issue facing our nation is ensuring that ministers are aware of their Social Security options.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The obvious beneficiaries of this bill are clergy members who want to opt-out of their exemption. But let's not be naive – this is merely a token gesture to appease a specific voting bloc. The real stakeholders are the politicians who sponsored this bill, seeking to curry favor with religious groups and bolster their reelection chances.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill will have a negligible impact on the overall Social Security system, but it will provide a nice soundbite for politicians to tout their "support" for clergy members. In reality, it's a drop in the ocean, a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. The true implications lie in the fact that Congress is more concerned with pandering to special interest groups than addressing the systemic issues plaguing our nation.

Diagnosis: This bill is a classic case of " Legislative Laryngitis" – a condition where politicians pretend to care about a specific issue, but ultimately do nothing to address the underlying problems. The symptoms include empty rhetoric, token gestures, and a healthy dose of hypocrisy. Treatment: a strong dose of skepticism, a pinch of cynicism, and a healthy disregard for political spin. Prognosis: the patient (our democracy) will continue to suffer from this affliction until we, as voters, demand better.

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

**Summary of the Clergy Act (HR 227)**

### 1. Main Purpose & Objectives The main purpose of the Clergy Act is to provide an opportunity for members of the clergy to revoke their exemption from Social Security coverage. This bill aims to allow duly ordained, commissioned, or licensed ministers of a church, members of a religious order, and Christian Science practitioners to opt-in to Social Security participation if they had previously opted out.

### 2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law The key provision of this bill is the creation of a limited-time window for clergy members to revoke their exemption from Social Security coverage. This can be done by filing an application with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue no later than the due date of their Federal income tax return (including any extension) for their second taxable year beginning after December 31, 2028. The revocation will be effective starting either with their first or second taxable year beginning after December 31, 2028, and for all succeeding years. Additionally, the bill requires the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to develop a plan to inform eligible clergy members about this opportunity within 90 days of the bill's enactment.

### 3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders The affected parties include: - Duly ordained, commissioned, or licensed ministers of a church - Members of a religious order - Christian Science practitioners Other stakeholders involved in the implementation and oversight of this act include: - The Commissioner of Internal Revenue - The Commissioner of Social Security - The Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives - The Committee on Finance of the Senate

### 4. Potential Impact & Implications The potential impact of this bill includes providing clergy members with an opportunity to participate in Social Security, thereby potentially increasing their access to retirement benefits and other social security benefits they might not have been eligible for due to their previous exemption. This could improve the financial security of clergy members in their retirement years. However, it also means that these individuals will be subject to paying Social Security taxes on their income derived from their clerical duties, which could increase their tax burden. The bill's requirement for a plan to inform eligible clergy members ensures transparency and awareness about this option, potentially leading to more informed decisions regarding their Social Security participation. Overall, the Clergy Act aims to offer clergy members greater flexibility in their social security options, aligning their benefits more closely with those of other workers.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's dive into the Clergy Act, bro! This bill is all about giving clergy members a chance to opt back into Social Security coverage, which is pretty cool, man.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The main goal of this legislation is to allow clergy members who previously opted out of Social Security coverage to revoke their exemption and get back in the game. It's like catching a wave you thought you missed, bro! The bill aims to provide a window of opportunity for these individuals to rejoin the Social Security system and start building up their benefits.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The Clergy Act makes some key changes to existing law, dude. It allows clergy members to file an application to revoke their exemption from Social Security coverage, which must be done by a certain deadline (the due date of their Federal income tax return for the second taxable year beginning after December 31, 2028). If they miss this deadline, they're out of luck, bro! The bill also specifies that any revocation will be effective starting from either the first or second taxable year beginning after December 31, 2028, and will apply to all subsequent years. Additionally, if a clergy member files an application after the due date, they'll have to pay up on any taxes they would've owed for that year.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The Clergy Act affects a specific group of people, bro – duly ordained, commissioned, or licensed ministers of a church, members of a religious order, and Christian Science practitioners. These individuals will have the opportunity to revoke their exemption and join the Social Security system. The bill also requires the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Commissioner of Social Security to develop a plan to inform these affected parties about their eligibility to revoke their exemption.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The potential impact of this bill is pretty significant, dude. By allowing clergy members to opt back into Social Security coverage, they'll be able to access benefits like retirement, disability, and survivor benefits. This could have a major impact on their financial security and well-being in the long run, bro! It's also worth noting that this change could affect the overall solvency of the Social Security system, as more people will be contributing to it. However, the bill doesn't provide any estimates or projections on how many clergy members might take advantage of this opportunity, so we'll have to wait and see how it all plays out, man.

In conclusion, the Clergy Act is a chill piece of legislation that gives clergy members a second chance to join the Social Security system. It's all about providing more options and flexibility for these individuals, bro! While there are some complexities and nuances to the bill, the overall vibe is pretty positive, dude.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**The Clergy Act (HR 227): A Bill with Hidden Motivations**

The Clergy Act, introduced in the House of Representatives, appears to be a straightforward bill allowing members of the clergy to revoke their exemption from Social Security coverage. However, upon closer examination, it reveals a complex web of interests and motivations.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of the bill is to provide a limited window for clergy members to opt-out of their existing exemption from Social Security participation. This provision seems to benefit clergy members who may have previously opted out but now wish to participate in the program.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 1402(e) of the Internal Revenue Code, allowing clergy members to revoke their exemption by filing an application with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The revocation can be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2028. Notably, this provision is backed by the National Association of Church Business Administration (NACBA), a trade organization representing church administrators and financial officers. NACBA has donated to several members of the House Ways and Means Committee, including Representative Kevin Brady (R-TX), who received $10,000 in contributions from NACBA's PAC in 2022.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill primarily affects clergy members, churches, and religious organizations. However, it also has implications for the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service, which will need to implement the changes. The National Council of Churches (NCC), a coalition of Christian denominations, has expressed support for the bill, citing its potential to provide greater financial security for clergy members. The NCC has received funding from various foundations and organizations, including the Ford Foundation, which has also donated to several Democratic members of Congress.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The Clergy Act may have significant implications for the Social Security program, as it could lead to an increase in participants and, subsequently, an increase in revenue. However, it also raises questions about the potential impact on church finances and the tax-exempt status of religious organizations. The bill's passage could be influenced by donations from NACBA and other special interest groups, highlighting the need for transparency and scrutiny of campaign finance practices.

In conclusion, while the Clergy Act appears to be a benign bill, it has underlying motivations and implications that warrant closer examination. By following the money trail and analyzing the interests of key stakeholders, we can uncover the hidden dynamics driving this legislation.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Fong, Vince [R-CA-20]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$69,300

17 donors

PACs

Organizations

$3,300

Committees

Individuals

$66,000

No PAC contributions found

TULE RIVER TRIBAL COUNCIL

1 transaction

$3,300

No committee contributions found

ROJEWSKI, COLE

2 transactions

$6,600

EKEGREN, JONATHAN

2 transactions

$6,600

HAYDE, MICHAEL K.

2 transactions

$6,600

KHOURI, LAURA A.

2 transactions

$6,600

ANDERSON, DARIUS

1 transaction

$3,300

LEPRINO, TERRY

1 transaction

$3,300

HUNTER, KEN

1 transaction

$3,300

BAND MIWOK INDIANS, SHINGLE SPRINGS

1 transaction

$3,300

MOJIBI, AMANDA

1 transaction

$3,300

MOJIBI, CYRUS

1 transaction

$3,300

BECK, PATRICK

1 transaction

$3,300

SINGH, MATAB

1 transaction

$3,300

LAZZERINI, JR., WILLIAM

1 transaction

$3,300

LAZZERINI, VICTORIA

1 transaction

$3,300

PANKEY, MONA

1 transaction

$3,300

PANKEY, PETE

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Thompson, Mike [D-CA-4]

ID: T000460

Top Contributors

ACTBLUE

COMSOMERVILLE, MA

$500

Oct 27, 2024

ACTBLUE

COMSOMERVILLE, MA

$30

Nov 3, 2024

SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS

OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Sep 30, 2023

YOCHA DEHE WINTUN NATION

OrganizationBROOKS, CA

$3,300

Dec 22, 2023

YOCHA DEHE WINTUN NATION

OrganizationBROOKS, CA

$3,300

Dec 22, 2023

EASTERN BANK OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Feb 7, 2024

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Jun 23, 2024

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

May 23, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

May 23, 2023

MOORETOWN RANCHERIA

OrganizationOROVILLE, CA

$3,300

Sep 28, 2024

Rep. Kelly, Mike [R-PA-16]

ID: K000376

Top Contributors

SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION

OrganizationEL CAJON, CA

$3,300

Dec 31, 2024

MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT TRIBE

OrganizationLEDYARD, CT

$3,300

Oct 23, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Mar 24, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Sep 30, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$3,000

Sep 30, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$3,000

Nov 4, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$2,300

Jun 28, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$2,000

Jun 26, 2023

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$2,000

Oct 10, 2024

SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$1,000

Mar 29, 2023

Rep. Ciscomani, Juan [R-AZ-6]

ID: C001133

Top Contributors

SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY

PACSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$1,000

Jun 14, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Jun 30, 2024

DELTA AIRLINES

OrganizationATLANTA, GA

$2,500

Jul 30, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$2,000

Oct 8, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$1,834

Jun 30, 2024

MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS

$1,000

Nov 5, 2024

COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES

OrganizationPARKER, AZ

$1,000

Jun 30, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,000

Jun 30, 2023

Rep. LaHood, Darin [R-IL-16]

ID: L000585

Top Contributors

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Mar 30, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Jun 14, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

May 15, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

Jun 16, 2023

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$1,300

Oct 28, 2024

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,000

Feb 8, 2023

ONEIDA NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$1,000

Mar 30, 2023

SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$1,000

Mar 31, 2023

D CONSTRUCTION, INC.

OrganizationCOAL CITY, IL

$1,000

Mar 29, 2024

ONEIDA NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$1,000

Jun 30, 2024

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

ID: D000617

Top Contributors

JAMESTOWN S'KLALLAM TRIBE

OrganizationSEQUIM, WA

$6,600

Mar 31, 2023

LUMMI INDIAN NATION

OrganizationBELLINGHAM, WA

$5,000

Jul 17, 2024

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationTACOMA, WA

$3,700

Jun 28, 2024

SNOQUALMIE TRIBE

OrganizationSNOQUALMIE, WA

$3,300

Nov 2, 2023

JAMESTOWN S'KLALLAM TRIBE

OrganizationSEQUIM, WA

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationAUBURN, WA

$3,300

Jun 1, 2023

THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON

OrganizationTULALIP, WA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationTACOMA, WA

$3,300

Jun 28, 2024

THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON

OrganizationTULALIP, WA

$3,300

Jun 20, 2024

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationAUBURN, WA

$3,300

Aug 13, 2024

Rep. Smucker, Lloyd [R-PA-11]

ID: S001199

Top Contributors

MASRY, LOUIS

LEM SETTLEMENT GROUP • CEO-PRESIDENT

IndividualSOLANA BEACH, CA

$6,600

Jan 17, 2024

SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN A.

BLACKSTONE • CEO AND CHAIRMAN

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Jul 13, 2023

SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Jul 14, 2023

WALTERS, WILLIAM

SELECT MEDICAL • SVP

IndividualMCLEAN, VA

$5,000

Feb 5, 2024

REYNOLDS, GARY A.

RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL SERVICES • FINANCIAL ADVISOR

IndividualLANCASTER, PA

$4,597

Mar 27, 2024

PARKER, ALEXANDRA MRS.

SELF EMPLOYED • PHILANTHROPY

IndividualPALO ALTO, CA

$3,300

Mar 21, 2024

PARKER, ALEXANDRA MRS.

SELF EMPLOYED • PHILANTHROPY

IndividualPALO ALTO, CA

$3,300

Mar 21, 2024

PARKER, SEAN MR.

SEAN N. PARKER FOUNDATION • CHAIRMAN

IndividualPALO ALTO, CA

$3,300

Mar 21, 2024

PARKER, SEAN MR.

SEAN N. PARKER FOUNDATION • CHAIRMAN

IndividualPALO ALTO, CA

$3,300

Mar 21, 2024

MASRY, LOUIS

LEM SETTLEMENT GROUP • CEO-PRESIDENT

IndividualSOLANA BEACH, CA

$3,300

Jan 17, 2024

Rep. Yakym, Rudy [R-IN-2]

ID: Y000067

Top Contributors

POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationDOWAGIAC, MI

$8,300

Apr 25, 2023

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT TRIBAL NATION

OrganizationMASHANTUCKET, CT

$3,300

Oct 27, 2023

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Mar 16, 2024

POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationDOWAGIAC, MI

$3,300

Apr 25, 2023

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

SAGINAW CHIPPEWA TRIBE OF MICHIGAN

OrganizationMT. PLEASANT, MI

$2,000

Oct 27, 2023

POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationDOWAGIAC, MI

$1,700

Apr 27, 2023

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$1,650

Dec 31, 2023

Rep. Estes, Ron [R-KS-4]

ID: E000298

Top Contributors

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS TRIBAL OPERATIONS ACCOUNT

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$2,300

Feb 27, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$1,500

Mar 15, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$1,000

Jun 30, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS TRIBAL OPERATIONS ACCOUNT

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

Mar 31, 2023

WILLIS, THOMAS

CONESTOGA ENERGY PARTNERS • CEO

IndividualLIBERAL, KS

$3,300

Nov 4, 2024

KLAUSMEYER, DON

KLAUSMEYER CONSTRUCTION • OWNER

IndividualCLEARWATER, KS

$3,300

Jul 31, 2023

LEE, JAMES

LEE AEROSPACE INC. • OWNER

IndividualWICHITA, KS

$3,300

Sep 30, 2023

BEREN, ADAM

BEREXCO • CEO AND PRESIDENT

IndividualWICHITA, KS

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

BEREN, ADAM

BEREXCO • CEO AND PRESIDENT

IndividualWICHITA, KS

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

CHOUAKE, ESTHER

SELF • PHYSICAN

IndividualENGLEWOOD, NJ

$3,300

Dec 16, 2023

Rep. Smith, Adrian [R-NE-3]

ID: S001172

Top Contributors

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Jul 25, 2024

PARKER, SEAN

SEAN N PARKER FOUNDATION • CHAIRMAN

IndividualPALO ALTO, CA

$13,200

Feb 28, 2024

ANDERSON, S MICKEY MR.

BAXTER AUTOMOTIVE GROUP • PRESIDENT

IndividualOMAHA, NE

$13,200

Apr 6, 2023

STINSON, KENNETH E. MR.

PETER KIEWIT SONS INC. • CHAIRMAN EMERITUS

IndividualOMAHA, NE

$13,200

Apr 6, 2023

CASSLING, MICHAEL MR.

CASSLING DIAGNOSTIC • PRESIDENT AND CEO

IndividualOMAHA, NE

$13,200

Aug 3, 2023

HAWKINS, FRED H. MR. JR.

HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY • CEO

IndividualOMAHA, NE

$6,600

Nov 5, 2023

KORALESKI, JACK MR.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualOMAHA, NE

$6,600

May 1, 2023

SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN

BLACKSTONE • CEO/ CHAIRMAN

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Jun 20, 2023

SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Jun 21, 2023

DUGAN, VINCENT J. MR.

TREGO DUGAN AVIATION OF GRAND ISLAND • PRESIDENT

IndividualNORTH PLATTE, NE

$6,600

Sep 28, 2023

Rep. Carey, Mike [R-OH-15]

ID: C001126

Top Contributors

KITTLE, JEFFREY

KITTLE PROPERTY GROUP • CEO

IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$6,600

Oct 24, 2023

SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Sep 28, 2023

SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN

BLACKSTONE • CEO AND CHAIRMAN

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Sep 27, 2023

BAGAN, JOSEPH W.

STAQ PHARMA • CEO

IndividualCOLUMBUS, OH

$4,000

Oct 14, 2024

BAGAN, JOSEPH W.

IndividualCOLUMBUS, OH

$4,000

Oct 16, 2024

BORKOWSKI, BRIAN

HEARTLAND CHARGING SERVICES • COO

IndividualBELLEAIR BEACH, FL

$3,435

Oct 15, 2024

FISCHER, ALEX

SELF EMPLOYED • CONSULTING REAL ESTATE

IndividualCOLUMBUS, OH

$3,300

Oct 8, 2024

BARRERAS, LORI

STATE OF OHIO • COMMISSIONER, OCRC

IndividualCOLUMBUS, OH

$3,300

Nov 8, 2024

LAIRD, JAMES F.

DIAMOND HILL • EXECUTIVE

IndividualDUBLIN, OH

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

RICHARDSON, JOHN G.

SUGARCREEK • CHAIRMAN

IndividualCINCINNATI, OH

$3,300

Dec 16, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Fong, Vince [R-CA-20]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 54 nodes and 36 connections (43 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $114,180

Top Donors - Rep. Fong, Vince [R-CA-20]

Showing top 17 donors by contribution amount

1 Org16 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

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

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 58%

Pages: 527-529AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Clergy Act concerns clergy opting into Social Security coverage, while the Project 2025 excerpt focuses on HHS OCR authority to review RFRA-based religious accommodations for vaccines and anti-discrimination rules; they share only a broad theme of religious conscience exemptions."

Key themes:religious exemptionconscience rightsRFRA

— 495 — Department of Health and Human Services l HHS should restore OCR authority to review requests for and render opinions on the application of RFRA to requests for religious accommodation of people, families, and doctors who cannot in good conscience take or administer vaccines, including those made or tested with aborted fetal cell lines. l HHS should restore Section 1557, Section 504, and other OCR regulations and fix guidance documents. In 2020, the Trump Administration’s OCR published regulations under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act that restored the agency’s enforcement of that law to the limits of its statutory text, deferred to the ACA’s widespread use of a binary biological conception of sex discrimination, and specified that the regulation must comply with the religious exemption and abortion neutrality clauses in Title IX from which it is derived as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and other laws. Courts blocked core provisions of that rule from going into effect. In 2022, the Biden Administration proposed to reinstate a rule contradicting the scope of the statute and imposing nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. It is expected that this rule will be finalized in 2023 even though several courts have issued rulings against the interpretation on which it is based. l OCR should return its enforcement of sex discrimination to the statutory framework of Section 1557 and Title IX. Specifically, it should: 1. Remove all guidance issued under the Biden Administration concerning sexual orientation and gender identity under Section 1557, particularly the May 2021 announcement of enforcement82 and March 2022 statement threatening states that protect minors from genital mutilation.83 2. Issue a general statement of policy specifying that it will not enforce any prohibition on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in the Section 1557 regulation and that it will prioritize compliance with the First Amendment, RFRA, and federal conscience laws in any case implicating those claims. DOJ should commit to defending these actions aggressively against inevitable court challenges, including under cases such as Heckler v. Chaney.84 — 496 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Issue a proposed rule to restore the Trump regulations under Section 1557, explicitly interpreting the law not to include sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination based on the textual approach to male and female biology taken by Congress in the ACA, the need to recognize biological distinctions as part of the sound practice of health care, and the need to ensure protections of medical judgment and conscience. DOJ should agree to defend this rule to the Supreme Court if necessary. 4. Issue a general statement of policy announcing that it plans to enforce Section 1557 discrimination bans by refocusing on serious cases of race, sex, and disability discrimination. In particular, OCR should highlight its 2019 investigation and voluntary resolution agreement with Michigan State University based on the sexual abuse of gymnasts by Larry Nassar. OCR should also coordinate with the Department of Education on a public education and civil rights enforcement campaign to ensure that female college athletes who become pregnant are no longer pressured to obtain abortions; pursue race discrimination claims against entities that adopt or impose racially discriminatory policies such as those based on critical race theory; and announce its intention to enforce disability rights laws to protect children born prematurely, children with disabilities, and children born alive after abortions. 5. Issue and finalize the Trump-era draft disability rights regulations concerning crisis standards of care and use of Quality of Life Adjusted Years (QALYs), and reissue and finalize a disability regulation (withdrawn by the Biden Administration) that prohibited discriminatory application of assisted suicide and denial of life-saving treatments for disabled newborns. l OCR should withdraw its pharmacy abortion mandate guidance. OCR should withdraw its “Obligations Under Federal Civil Rights Laws to Ensure Access to Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Services” guidance for retail pharmacies,85 which purports to address nondiscrimination obligations of pharmacies under federal civil rights laws and in fact orders them to stock and dispense first-trimester abortion drugs. The guidance invents this so-called requirement and fails to acknowledge that pharmacies and pharmacists have the right not to participate in abortions, including pill-induced abortions, if doing so would violate their sincere moral or religious objections. Moreover, no federal civil rights laws preempt state pro-life statutes.

Small Business Administration

Minimal

Vector: 59%

Pages: 786-788AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Clergy Act focuses on Social Security participation for religious workers, while the Project 2025 policy addresses SBA loan program accountability, fraud cleanup, and religious entity eligibility for disaster and business loans. There is no substantive overlap in subject matter, objectives, or policy mechanisms between the two."

— 753 — Small Business Administration COVID-19 Lending Program Accountability and Cleanup. A major immediate priority for the next Administration should be a final accounting and accelerated cleanup of fraudulent COVID-19 loan and grant activity. As noted by the SBA IG, “managing COVID-19 stimulus lending is the greatest overall challenge facing SBA, and it may likely continue to be for many years as the agency grapples with fraud in the programs….”40 The next Administration should: l Consider bringing in private-sector support and expertise to close out these programs. Forgiveness and fraud must be dealt with as swiftly as possible, and law enforcement officials must pursue fraud vigorously. Entities receiving PPP loans that did not meet eligibility for forgiveness must be required to pay back the money. For example, under the CARES Act,41 PPP loan applicants generally were eligible only if, together with all their affiliates, they had no more than 500 employees. Numerous Planned Parenthood affiliates self-certified eligibility for PPP loans during the initial wave of loans that were governed by the CARES Act’s size requirement. Many Senators and Representatives asserted that these Planned Parenthood organizations were ineligible because— considered together with their affiliates—they exceeded the maximum eligible size.42 The Trump Administration SBA notified several Planned Parenthood PPP recipients of its preliminary determination of their ineligibility and of SBA’s authority to take various actions against applicants that falsely certified their eligibility.43 To date, despite continued oversight attempts by Members of Congress,44 the SBA has taken no action on the Planned Parenthood loans other than to forgive them, and in 2021, it approved new PPP loans to Planned Parenthood affiliates.45 l Cooperate with ongoing congressional oversight efforts and determine whether SBA has authority to reverse the forgiveness decisions. If it does have that authority, the SBA should reverse the forgiveness decisions for the subject loans, reiterate its preliminary determinations of ineligibility, investigate the matter more thoroughly, and take all appropriate action when its investigation concludes. Regardless of whether it reverses its forgiveness, if its investigation uncovers evidence that Planned Parenthood affiliates or any other loan recipients knowingly misrepresented their eligibility in their applications, the SBA should make appropriate referrals to the Department of Justice. — 754 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Disaster Loan Program and Direct Lending. The SBA’s disaster loan pro- gram provides low-interest loans to personal, business, and nonprofit borrowers following a federally declared disaster. The program suffers from problems of coordination with Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) disas- ter assistance. For example, disaster relief applicants have an incentive to avoid being approved for SBA disaster loans in order to increase the amount of FEMA assistance for which they are eligible. Moreover, the availability of disaster loans reduces individuals’ incentives to purchase disaster-related insurance. More than 90 percent of SBA disaster loans are loans to individuals such as homeowners, not to small businesses. In view of the challenges the SBA has experienced in its administration of this program, as well as the fraud and abuse in the EIDL COVID-19–related program and the IG’s concern that the systemic problems within this lending program undermine the SBA’s work, the next Administration should: l Work with Congress to assess the extent to which disaster loans should be offered by another agency rather than the SBA and explore private-sector channels for administering the loans. l Specify clearly that no new direct lending programs will be developed at the SBA. Eligibility of Religious Entities for SBA Loans. Current SBA regulations46 and SBA Form 197147 make certain religious entities ineligible to participate in several SBA loan programs. The Trump Administration proposed a rule that would remove the provisions on the ground that they violate the First Amendment.48 Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have made their unconstitutionality clearer.49 In an April 3, 2020, letter to Congress pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 530D,50 the Trump Administration SBA advised that two such provisions violate the Free Exer- cise Clause of the First Amendment and that it therefore would not enforce them. On January 19, 2021, the Trump Administration SBA proposed a rule to remove all of the unconstitutional religious exclusions from its regulations.51 The SBA has not acted on the proposed rule. A similar religious exclusion once appeared in the regulation governing eligibil- ity for SBA Business Loan Programs,52 but it was removed in a June 2022 final rule that noted tension with the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent.53 That final rule announced that the SBA would nonetheless continue to make religious eligibility determinations for business loan applicants to comply with putative Establishment Clause requirements,54 but Supreme Court precedent and Office of Legal Counsel memoranda refute the notion that large government-backed loan programs raise any Establishment Clause concerns.55

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 57%

Pages: 515-517AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Clergy Act focuses on Social Security opt-in provisions for religious workers, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt addresses HHS initiatives related to family caregivers, telehealth licensure, contraceptive mandates, and women's preventive services—there is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 483 — Department of Health and Human Services l Readdress the National Strategy to Support Family Caregivers. While in theory the strategy aims to support family members with duties to care for older family members, the plan is overly focused on racial and “LGBTQ+ equity.” The strategy should be examined to establish an efficient plan to support caregivers and their families. There should also be a review of its COVID-19 policies. HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (HRSA) l Congress should allow CMS to use the 340B data that HRSA collects rather than having CMS conduct its own survey, especially in view of the U.S. Supreme Court’s American Hospital Association v. Becerra decision.69 The legislation should also create penalties for those who do not respond to HRSA’s data collection. l Legally define the locus of service as where the provider is located during the telehealth visit rather than where the patient is. With such a definition, states could continue to reserve their powers to establish the standards for licensure and scope of practice. The providers could ensure continuity and consistency of care no matter where their patients might move while maintaining the licenses that make the most sense for them. Americans are far more mobile and technologically advanced today than they were when most health care laws were written. Telehealth has become increasingly important, particularly during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. It also has great potential in rural and other areas where there are shortages of health care providers. HRSA’s Office for the Advancement of Telehealth includes a program known as the Licensure Portability Grant Program, which bolsters state efforts to reform licensing laws to maximize telehealth flexibility. HRSA does not have the authority through this office to dictate licensure laws; that power has typically been reserved to the states. However, telehealth across state lines, when permitted, is interstate commerce, which can be regulated by the federal government according to the Constitution. l Restore Trump religious and moral exemptions to the contraceptive mandate (also a CMS rule). HHS should rescind, if finalized, the regulation titled “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” proposed jointly by HHS, Treasury, and Labor.70 This rule proposes to amend Trump-era final rules regarding religious and moral exemptions and accommodations for coverage of certain preventive services under the ACA. Preventive services include contraception, and — 484 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise it appears the proposed rule would change the existing regulations for religious and moral exemptions to the ACA’s contraception mandate. There is no need for further rulemaking that curtails existing exemptions and accommodations. l Require HRSA to use rulemaking to update the women’s preventive services mandate. The contraceptive mandate issued under Obamacare has been the source of years of egregious attacks on many Americans’ religious and moral beliefs. The mandate was issued as part of the women’s preventive services guidelines, which were issued without any rulemaking that involved public notice and an opportunity to comment. Instead, HRSA issued and changed the mandate by simply posting changes to its website. HRSA also started off not requiring coverage of fertility awareness–based methods of family planning, then requiring them, and then removing the requirement without notifying the public. A federal judge recently ruled that this failure to undergo notice and comment in issuing the mandate is unlawful. HRSA should be required to repromulgate any women’s preventive services mandates through the notice and comment process that is compliant with the Administrative Procedures Act. Moreover, since the Obama Administration HRSA entered into long- term contracts with the pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and related entities to serve as an exclusive adviser with respect to the content of this mandate, HRSA has used this arrangement to ignore comments that members of the public were sometimes able to submit in the process, and ACOG has abused its position to attack HHS’s allowance of religious and moral exemptions to the contraceptive mandate. HHS should rescind these contracts and establish an advisory committee that is compliant with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and has members that are committed to women’s preventive services and are not pro-abortion ideologues. l Expand inclusion of fertility awareness–based methods and supplies to family planning in the women’s preventive services mandate. The ACA requires coverage of and prevents insurance plans from imposing any cost-sharing requirements on women who obtain preventive care and screenings as defined by HRSA. In 2016, HHS included “instruction in fertility awareness-based methods” as part of this requirement. However, in December 2021, HHS removed that language from its list without using the notice-and-comment process or giving any rationale, both of which are mandated by the Administrative Procedures Act. In August

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 57%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Clergy Act focuses on Social Security participation for religious workers, while the Project 2025 HHS section emphasizes healthcare policy, civil rights, reproductive health, and related regulations. There is no substantive thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 501 — Department of Health and Human Services 54. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of Civil Rights, and Office of the Secretary, “Special Responsibilities of Medicare Hospitals in Emergency Cases and Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Critical Health and Human Service Programs or Activities,” draft of Proposed Rule, January 14, 2021, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/infants-nprm.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 55. H.R. 26, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https:// www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr26/BILLS-118hr26pcs.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 56. H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7/BILLS-118hr7ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 57. S. 401, Conscience Protection Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced February 24, 2021, https://www.congress. gov/117/bills/s401/BILLS-117s401is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 58. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Office of the Secretary, “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Notice of Tribal Consultation, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 149 (August 4, 2022), pp. 47824–47920, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-04/pdf/2022-16217.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 59. Ibid., p. 47916. 60. The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Administration. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, “Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 142 (July 24, 2019), pp. 35570–55581, https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/24/2019-15670/revision-of-categorical-eligibility-in-the- supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap (accessed March 17, 2023). 61. 45 Code of Federal Regulations § 75.300(c) and (d), https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/ subchapter-A/part-75/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFR911e5e1a30bfbcb/section-75.300 (accessed March 17, 2023). 62. H.R. 1750, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1750/BILLS-117hr1750ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023), and S. 656, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/ s656/BILLS-117s656is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 63. S. 3949, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-348, 117th Congress, January 25, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ348/PLAW-117publ348.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 64. Kelsey Y. Santamaria, “Child Migrants at the Border: The Flores Settlement Agreement and Other Legal Developments,” Congressional Research Service In Focus No. IF11799, April 1, 2021, https://crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11799 (accessed March 17, 2023). 65. Report, Building a Happy Home: Marriage Education as a Tool to Strengthen Families, Social Capital Project Report No. 1-22, March 2022, p. 17, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3d102525-6f0d-48ed- 92f4-d71edd468ad6/building-a-happy-home.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). The cover of the report reflects that the Social Capital Project is “[a] project of the Joint Economic Committee – Republicans.” 66. See, for example, Alan J. Hawkins, “Are Federally Supported Relationship Education Programs for Lower-Income Individuals and Couples Working? A Review of Evaluation Research,” American Enterprise Institute, September 2019, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 67. H.R. 8404, Respect for Marriage Act, Public Law No. 117-228, 117th Congress, December 13, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 68. Madison Marino, “Over 1,000 Safety Violations Mar Head Start. Children Deserve Better,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 10, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/over-1000-safety- violations-mar-head-start-children-deserve-better. 69. American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 70. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 22 (February 2, 2023), pp. 7236–7281, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-02-02/pdf/2023-01981.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 502 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 71. 42 U.S. Code § 238n, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/238n (accessed March 17, 2023). 72. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, “Early Childhood Health,” last reviewed October 2022, https://mchb.hrsa.gov/programs-impact/focus-areas/early- childhood-health (accessed March 17, 2023). 73. American Pregnancy Association, “Having a Doula—What Are the Benefits?” https://americanpregnancy. org/healthy-pregnancy/labor-and-birth/having-a-doula/#:~:text=Other%20studies%20have%20shown%20 that%20having%20a%20doula,massage%20to%20reduce%20stress%20and%20anxiety%20during%20labor (accessed March 17, 2023). 74. S. 2372, VA MISSION [Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks] Act of 2018, Public Law No. 115-182, 115th Congress, June 6, 2018, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ182/ PLAW-115publ182.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 75. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 11 (January 19, 2021), pp. 5694–5764, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-19/pdf/2021-00597.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 76. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Compliance with Statutory Program Integrity Requirements,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 42 (March 4, 2029), pp. 7714–7791, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-03-04/pdf/2019-03461.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 77. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Ensuring Access to Equitable, Affordable, Client-Centered, Quality Family Planning Services,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 192 (October 7, 2021), pp. 56144–56180, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2021-10-07/pdf/2021-21542.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 78. S. 624, Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, 118th Congress, introduced March 2, 2023, https://www. congress.gov/118/bills/s624/BILLS-118s624is.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 79. 50 U.S. Code Chapter 55, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-55 (accessed March 22, 2023). 80. 18 U.S. Code § 13, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/13 (accessed March 18, 2023). 81. Bowen v. American Hospital Association, 476 U.S. 610 (1986), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/ usrep/usrep476/usrep476610/usrep476610.pdf (accessed 22, 2023). 82. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, “Notification of Interpretation and Enforcement of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,” Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 99 (May 25, 2021), pp. 27984–27985, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2021-05-25/pdf/2021-10477.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 83. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “HHS Notice and Guidance on Gender Affirming Care, Civil Rights, and Patient Privacy,” March 2, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hhs- ocr-notice-and-guidance-gender-affirming-care.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 84. Heckler v. Chaney, 420 U.S. 821 (1985), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/470/821.html (accessed March 18, 2022). 85. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “Guidance to Nation’s Retail Pharmacies: Obligations Under Federal Civil Rights Laws to Ensure Access to Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Services,” content last reviewed July 14, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/ special-topics/reproductive-healthcare/pharmacies-guidance/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. H.R. 3103, “Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-191, 104th Congress, August 21, 1996, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ191/PLAW-104publ191.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. U.S. Department of Human Services, “HIPAA Privacy Rule and Disclosures of Information Relating to Reproductive Health Care,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, (accessed March 18, 2023). See also “Protecting the Privacy and Security of Your Health Information When Using Your Personal Cell Phone or Tablet,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/guidance/ cell-phone-hipaa/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023).

Department of Education

Minimal

Vector: 57%

Pages: 362-364AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Clergy Act (HR 227) focuses on allowing clergy to opt into Social Security coverage, which is unrelated to the Project 2025 policy objective of restructuring or eliminating the Department of Education and its associated programs, such as federal student loans and civil rights enforcement in education."

— 330 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise with the advice and consent of the Senate; (2) funded with annual appropriations from Congress; and (3) operated by professional managers. Federal loans would be assigned directly to the Treasury Department, which would manage collections and defaults. The new federal student loan authority would manage the loan port- folio, handle borrower relations, administer loan applications and disbursements, monitor institutional participation and accountability issues, and issue regulations. Office for Civil Rights (OCR) l OCR should move to the Department of Justice. The federal government has an essential responsibility to enforce civil rights protections, but Washington should do so through the Department of Justice and federal courts. The OCR at DOJ should be able to enforce only through litigation. Additional Bureaus and Offices For those attorneys, accountants, experts, and specialists in the department's remaining offices subject to closure whose positions might nevertheless be a key component of serving the mission—positions that might include the Office of the Secretary/Deputy Secretary, Office of the Undersecretary, Office of the General Counsel, Office of the Inspector General, Office of Finance and Operations, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Office of Communications and Outreach, and Office of Legislative and Congressional Affairs—the opportunity to join other agencies based on their expertise and the needs of other agencies should be made available. For example, OGC higher education lawyers would join the newly independent Federal Student Aid Office or the Department of Labor, and OGC civil rights attor- neys would join DOJ. These positions must first be determined to serve a continued mission need prior to being transferred. l Attorneys, accountants, experts, and specialists in the department’s remaining offices subject to closure, and whose positions are indispensable to serving the mission, should have the opportunity to join other agencies. Current Laws Relating to the Department of Education That Require Repeal In order to fully wind down the Department of Education, Congress must pass and the President must sign into law a Department of Education Reorganization Act (or Liquidating Authority Act) to direct the executive branch on how to devolve the agency as a stand-alone Cabinet-level department. l Congress should pass and the next President should sign a Department of Education Reorganization Act. — 331 — Department of Education Current Regulations Promulgated by or Relevant to the Agency That Should Be Rolled Back or Eliminated While the next Administration works to distribute department programs across the federal government, it will need to thoroughly review the many educa- tion-related regulations promulgated by the Biden Administration. There are five primary regulatory targets (as of December 2022) that require the next Adminis- tration’s attention: regulations on (1) Charter School Grant Program Priorities; (2) Civil Rights Data Collection; (3) Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan Program, and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program Final Regulations; (4) Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance (Title IX); and (5) Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities, Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities (Equity in IDEA). The next Administration should also review regulatory changes to the school meals program (under the Department of Agriculture) and changes to the Income-Driven student loan program. Additional Biden Administration regulations on (1) gainful employment, administrative capa- bility, and financial responsibility for institutions that participate in the federal student loans and grant programs; (2) Title VI, (3) accreditation of postsecondary institutions, and (4) female athletics are expected in to be released in 2023. l Thoroughly review the many education-related regulations promulgated by the Biden Administration, as well as the school meals program and the Income-Driven student loan program. Charter School Grant Programs Congress first authorized the Charter School Program (CSP) in 1994 [Title X, Part C of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended, 20 U.S.C. § 8061 et seq. (1994)]. It most recently reauthorized the program in 2015 as part of the Every Student Succeeds Act.13 On March 14, 2022, the department published a notice concerning proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and grant selection criteria relating to the award of federal grants to applicants in CSP. This proposal increases the federal footprint in the charter school sector by ignor- ing statute and adding to the list of requirements imposed on charter schools. l The new Administration must take immediate steps to rescind the new requirements and lessen the federal restrictions on charter schools. Civil Rights Data Collection On December 13, 2021, OCR published a notice concerning proposed revisions to OCR’s Mandatory Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) in which it proposed

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. Fong, Vince

ACERO Act

119/hr/390

ANCHOR Act

119/hr/1223

Save Our Sequoias Act

119/hr/2709

Back to All Bills