The bill
SHARE Act of 2025
HR. 2332, 119th Congress — read as touching Law Enforcement & Surveillance Tech.
SHARE Act of 2025
Download PDFBill ID: 119/hr/2332
Last Updated: July 27, 2026
Sponsored by
Rep. Mann, Tracey [R-KS-1]
ID: M000871
Follow the money
The sponsor
Rep. Mann, Tracey [R-KS-1]
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
$149,070 raised
22 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
70% match to Project 2025
This bill's text tracks the "Intelligence Community" section, p. 254-256 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 33 - 0.
June 24, 2026
Introduced
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
🏛️
Committee Review
🗳️
Floor Action
✅
Passed House
🏛️
Senate Review
🎉
Passed Congress
🖊️
Presidential Action
⚖️
Became Law
📚 How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the same geniuses who thought "affordable healthcare" was a thing.
**Main Purpose & Objectives**
The SHARE Act of 2025 is a bill that claims to facilitate the sharing of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) criminal history record information between states for the purpose of conducting background checks on individuals seeking licenses or privileges to practice an occupation or profession. Because, you know, it's not like we have more pressing issues to address.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**
The bill amends the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 by adding a new section that allows the FBI to share criminal history record information with state licensing authorities through an agreement with a state law enforcement agency or state identification bureau. Oh, and it also defines some terms, because who doesn't love a good game of legislative Calvinball?
The bill's proponents claim this will streamline the process for individuals seeking licenses across state lines. Yeah, right. It's not like we have a robust system in place already that allows states to share information. This is just a clever way to expand federal control over state licensing processes.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**
* State licensing authorities: They'll get to play with new toys and pretend they're doing something important. * Individuals seeking licenses: They might experience slightly less bureaucratic red tape, but let's be real, it's not like this bill will make a significant difference in their lives. * The FBI: They'll get to collect more data and expand their surveillance state. Yay!
**Potential Impact & Implications**
This bill is a Trojan horse for increased federal control over state licensing processes. It's a classic case of "mission creep," where the government slowly expands its reach under the guise of convenience or efficiency.
The real impact will be on individual liberties, as this bill further erodes the concept of state sovereignty and increases the power of the federal government to collect and share personal data. But hey, who needs privacy when you can have a slightly more efficient licensing process?
In conclusion, the SHARE Act of 2025 is a masterclass in legislative doublespeak, designed to obfuscate its true intentions behind a veil of bureaucratic jargon. It's a bill that promises to "streamline" processes while actually expanding federal control and eroding individual liberties. Bravo, Congress. You've done it again.
Related Topics
Healthcare & Insurance ReformCriminal Justice & Law EnforcementFederal Budget & Appropriations
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)
💰 Campaign Finance Network
Rep. Mann, Tracey [R-KS-1]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
Total Contributions
$149,070
19 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$5,800
Committees
$0
Individuals
$143,270
No PAC contributions found
1
PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI NATION
$3,300
2
HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE
$2,500
No committee contributions found
1
DEMETREE, MARK
$13,200
2
CORDES, SHANE L.
$13,200
3
FLOYD, MARTIE
$13,200
4
MANN, ROETTA D.
$13,200
5
HEMMER, THOMAS M.
$13,200
6
HEBENSTREIT, JAMES
$6,600
7
BARTON, TIMOTHY
$6,600
8
HURD, MATTHEW D.
$6,600
9
OLSEN, LINDSAY
$6,600
10
MORRISON, AARON
$6,600
11
CROSSLAND, IVAN
$6,600
12
MURFIN, DAVID L.
$6,600
13
BORCK, LEE
$6,600
14
ANDERSON, STEVE
$6,600
15
VAN COURT, PHILLIP
$6,600
16
SILVER, LARRY
$6,270
17
BRIGGS, BART
$5,000
Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance
This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2]
ID: N000191
Top Contributors
24
1
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Mar 31, 2023
2
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$2,500
Oct 13, 2024
3
YUROK TRIBE
OrganizationKLAMATH, CA
$1,000
Feb 1, 2023
4
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$1,000
Jun 9, 2024
5
EKLUND, PAUL
IndividualBOULDER, CO
$6,400
Oct 3, 2023
6
EKLUND, PAUL
P.N. EKLUND INTERESTS INC. • REAL ESTATE
IndividualBOULDER, CO
$6,400
Sep 30, 2023
7
KLARMAN, SETH
THE BAUPOST GROUP • CEO
IndividualBOSTON, MA
$3,300
Oct 18, 2024
8
GROSS, DAVID
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO • INSTRUCTOR
IndividualBOULDER, CO
$3,300
Oct 31, 2024
9
WEAVER, LINDSAY
SELF • ENGINEER
IndividualPAGOSA SPRINGS, CO
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
10
BLOOM, BRADLEY
BERKSHIRE PARTNERS LLC • INVESTMENTS
IndividualWELLESLEY, MA
$3,300
Oct 21, 2024
Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1]
ID: L000578
Top Contributors
25
1
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Oct 31, 2024
2
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Sep 29, 2023
3
LEECH LAKE BAND OF OJIBWE
OrganizationCASS LAKE, MN
$2,000
Nov 4, 2024
4
VANN BROTHERS
UNINCORPORATED • PARTNERSHIP
OrganizationWILLIAMS, CA
$1,500
Jun 27, 2023
5
ONEIDA NATION
OrganizationONEIDA, WI
$1,000
Oct 31, 2024
6
SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA, .
SOVEREIGN NATION • INDIAN TRIBE
IndividualLEMORE, CA
$6,600
May 6, 2024
7
NECHAY, JULIA
N/A • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualROSEVILLE, CA
$5,000
Oct 26, 2024
8
OSAGE NATION, .
SOVEREIGN NATION • INDIAN TRIBE
IndividualPAWHUSKA, OK
$3,300
Oct 8, 2024
9
MCLAUGHLIN, RANDY
OLD DURHAM WOOD • ORCHARD TEMOVAL
IndividualDURHAM, CA
$3,300
Oct 13, 2024
10
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA, .
SOVEREIGN NATION • INDIAN TRIBE
IndividualDURANT, OK
$3,300
Oct 16, 2024
Rep. Davis, Donald G. [D-NC-1]
ID: D000230
Top Contributors
26
1
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Mar 5, 2024
2
TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA
OrganizationMARKSVILLE, LA
$2,000
Dec 31, 2023
3
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Jun 6, 2023
4
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
May 13, 2024
5
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA
$1,500
May 31, 2023
6
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$1,000
Dec 28, 2023
7
FISHER, DEBORAH
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualCOEUR D ALENE, ID
$4,000
Jul 29, 2024
8
BLOOM, BRADLEY
BERKSHIRE PARTNERS LLC • INVESTMENTS
IndividualWELLESLEY, MA
$3,300
Oct 31, 2024
9
BRAUFMAN, JILL
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualSURFSIDE, FL
$3,300
Oct 18, 2024
10
CLAPP, STEPHEN
SELF EMPLOYED • RANCHER
IndividualSEQUIM, WA
$3,300
Oct 30, 2024
Rep. Crenshaw, Dan [R-TX-2]
ID: C001120
Top Contributors
26
1
CHEVRON
OrganizationSAN RAMON, CA
$5,000
Sep 4, 2024
2
COMPLETE EMERGENCY CARE HOLDING LLC
OrganizationSOUTHLAKE, TX
$3,500
Mar 11, 2024
3
SANDLIAN REALTY
OrganizationWICHITA, KS
$1,000
Feb 7, 2024
4
ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE
OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX
$1,000
Sep 30, 2024
5
RUSSELL W H KRIDEL MD PA
OrganizationHOUSTON, TX
$250
Feb 28, 2023
6
JONES RANCH LLC
OrganizationCORPUS CHRISTI, TX
$250
Mar 13, 2024
7
MAFRIGE, DAVID
SELF • COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$9,900
Jun 21, 2023
8
MAFRIGE, DAVID
SELF • COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$9,900
Jun 21, 2023
9
ODEN, KEITH
CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST • EXECUTIVE VICE CHAIRMAN
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$9,900
Jun 27, 2023
10
ODEN, KEITH
CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST • EXECUTIVE VICE CHAIRMAN
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$9,900
Jun 27, 2023
Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]
ID: N000147
Top Contributors
20
1
DONOHOE, BERT
THE DONOHOE COMPANIES INC. • EVP, REAL ESTATE
IndividualBETHESDA, MD
$3,300
May 2, 2024
2
OTONI, RAFAELA
HILTON CORPORATION • PRESIDENT & CEO
IndividualMC LEAN, VA
$3,300
May 3, 2024
3
REID, JACK
RAM CUSTOM SERVICES • PRESIDENT
IndividualCHESAPEAKE BEACH, MD
$3,300
May 6, 2024
4
LEWIS, JACQUELINE
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Jul 10, 2023
5
LEWIS, JACQUELINE
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Jul 10, 2023
6
BARRY, DAVID E. JR
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualBEALLSVILLE, MD
$2,500
May 12, 2024
7
POLASKI, MICHAEL
THE DONOHOE COMPANIES INC. • EXECUTIVE
IndividualBROADLANDS, VA
$2,500
May 13, 2024
8
GRUNLEY, KENNETH
GRUNLEY CONSTRUCTION • CEO
IndividualPOTOMAC, MD
$2,500
Jun 23, 2023
9
BRUCH, CHRIS
THE DONOHOE COMPANIES INC. • CEO
IndividualBETHESDA, MD
$2,300
Apr 30, 2024
10
EARNEST, JAMES M.
SELF-EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE INVESTOR
IndividualBETHESDA, MD
$2,300
May 10, 2024
Rep. Meuser, Daniel [R-PA-9]
ID: M001204
Top Contributors
22
1
PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORP
OrganizationDURYEA, PA
$2,500
Sep 18, 2024
2
COTLER, YUDACUFSKI, HUEBNER
OrganizationSAINT CLAIR, PA
$1,000
Apr 23, 2024
3
DOWD, JOHN J
SUNDANCE VACATIONS • PRESIDENT
IndividualLEHIGHTON, PA
$6,600
Mar 25, 2024
4
PEYKOFF, ANDY
NIAGARA BOTTLING, LLC • CEO
IndividualLAS VEGAS, NV
$6,600
Mar 22, 2024
5
DOWD, JOHN J
SUNDANCE VACATIONS • PRESIDENT
IndividualLEHIGHTON, PA
$6,600
Sep 18, 2024
6
ROWAN, MARC J
APOLLO MANAGEMENT • MANAGEMENT
IndividualGREENWICH, CT
$6,600
Aug 23, 2023
7
ROWAN, CAROLYN
CAROLYN ROWAN COLLECTION • OWNER
IndividualGREENWICH, CT
$6,600
Aug 23, 2023
8
RICH, BRIAN R MR. JR
GILBERTON COAL CO. • EXECUTIVE SALES
IndividualCONSHOHOCKEN, PA
$6,600
Oct 24, 2024
9
VOLPE, ELLEN M
SELF • HOMEMAKER
IndividualWAVERLY TOWNSHIP, PA
$5,800
May 31, 2023
10
VOLPE, CHARLES J
EXCALIBUR INSURANCE MGMT • PRESIDENT
IndividualWAVERLY TOWNSHIP, PA
$5,800
May 31, 2023
Rep. Graves, Sam [R-MO-6]
ID: G000546
Top Contributors
28
1
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationDURANT, OK
$3,300
Sep 26, 2024
2
VOLUME TRANSPORTATION
OrganizationCONYERS, GA
$2,000
Aug 28, 2023
3
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationCABAZON, CA
$1,500
Jul 19, 2023
4
NORTHWEST MISSOURI CELLULAR
OrganizationMARYVILLE, MO
$1,000
May 15, 2024
5
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationCABAZON, CA
$1,000
Jan 30, 2024
6
MIDWEST DATA CENTER
OrganizationROCK PORT, MO
$500
Jul 25, 2023
7
MIDWEST DATA CENTER
OrganizationROCK PORT, MO
$500
May 15, 2024
8
DEMOCRACY ENGINE LLC
OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC
$469
Apr 28, 2024
9
BUSCH, AUGUST
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO
$100,000
Oct 31, 2023
10
BUSCH, AUGUST
IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO
$20,900
Apr 16, 2024
Rep. Boebert, Lauren [R-CO-4]
ID: B000825
Top Contributors
24
1
ENERGY STRONG LLC
OrganizationWINDSOR, CO
$2,000
Oct 4, 2024
2
EFFECTV
OrganizationSAN ANTONIO, TX
$1,169
Aug 29, 2024
3
CAPITOL FOCUS LLC
OrganizationDENVER, CO
$500
Oct 14, 2024
4
J A'S LLC
OrganizationDURANGO, CO
$250
Jun 21, 2023
5
CUYLER, BEVERLY
IndividualPAGOSA SPRINGS, CO
$9,100
Jul 1, 2023
6
ELLIOTT, DAVID
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$8,300
Sep 30, 2023
7
COVINGTON, GARY
IndividualMIDLAND, TX
$6,800
Jun 14, 2023
8
CLARK, ROBERT
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNEWTON, NC
$6,600
Mar 10, 2024
9
BECK, ELAINE
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualORO VALLEY, AZ
$6,600
Jan 17, 2024
10
HINMAN, ROY H.
IndividualSAINT AUGUSTINE, FL
$6,600
Mar 31, 2023
Rep. McCaul, Michael T. [R-TX-10]
ID: M001157
Top Contributors
22
1
SOUTH SPUR LP
OrganizationHOUSTON, TX
$3,300
Jan 31, 2024
2
TRACEY FOX KING & WALTERS
OrganizationHOUSTON, TX
$1,000
Feb 17, 2023
3
CHILDS, JOHN W.
JW CHILDS ASSOCIATES • OWNER
IndividualVERO BEACH, FL
$50,000
Dec 12, 2023
4
LANIER, BECKY MRS.
LANIER LAW FIRM • ATTORNEY
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$50,000
Mar 4, 2024
5
LANIER, MARK W.
LANIER LAW FIRM • ATTORNEY
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$50,000
Mar 4, 2024
6
CHILDS, JOHN W
IndividualVERO BEACH, FL
$38,400
Mar 15, 2024
7
CHILDS, JOHN W.
JW CHILDS ASSOCIATES • OWNER
IndividualVERO BEACH, FL
$38,400
May 7, 2024
8
CHILDS, JOHN W
IndividualVERO BEACH, FL
$33,400
Nov 14, 2024
9
CARLTON, C. CRAIG MR.
C.C. CARLTON INDUSTRIES • OWNER
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$25,000
Feb 13, 2024
10
LUROS, HILARY
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSUGAR LAND, TX
$25,000
Feb 27, 2024
Rep. Bice, Stephanie I. [R-OK-5]
ID: B000740
Top Contributors
32
1
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
COMCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Dec 27, 2023
2
CHEROKEE NATION
COMTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Sep 30, 2024
3
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS
COMTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Jun 10, 2024
4
MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
COMCHOCTAW, MS
$1,000
Dec 19, 2023
5
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND
PACBANNING, CA
$1,000
Mar 31, 2024
6
MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION
COMOKMULGEE, OK
$1,000
Aug 7, 2024
7
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
COMLAKESIDE, CA
$1,000
Jun 30, 2023
8
MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION
COMOKMULGEE, OK
$500
Dec 5, 2023
9
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationDURANT, OK
$3,300
Dec 24, 2023
10
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,300
May 22, 2024
Donor Network - Rep. Mann, Tracey [R-KS-1]
PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Loading...
Showing 32 nodes and 35 connections
Total contributions: $35
Top Donors - Rep. Mann, Tracey [R-KS-1]
Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount
2 Orgs17 Individuals
Industry Impact
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped, 1 harmed.
- +Law Enforcement & Surveillance Techconfidence 0.70
Section 2, Subtitle E: The bill allows State law enforcement agencies to access and share criminal history record information for the purpose of conducting background checks, which could enhance their ability to enforce laws and maintain public safety.
- −Private Prisons & Immigration Detentionconfidence 0.60
Section 2, Subtitle E: The bill restricts the sharing of criminal history record information, which could limit the ability of private prisons to access such information for their own purposes, potentially increasing their costs or administrative burdens.
- +Labor Unionsconfidence 0.50
Section 2, Subtitle E: The bill facilitates the sharing of criminal history record information for occupational licensing purposes, which could benefit labor unions by ensuring that workers are properly vetted and qualified for their jobs.
- +Teachers Unionsconfidence 0.50
Section 2, Subtitle E: The bill's provisions on sharing criminal history record information could apply to teacher licensing and certification, potentially benefiting teachers' unions by helping to maintain high standards for educators.
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.
Intelligence Community
Moderate
Vector: 59%Pages: 254-256AI Enhanced
AI Analysis:
"Both the bill and the Project 2025 excerpt emphasize improving information sharing to enhance security and efficiency, and they include safeguards on use and accountability. However, the bill concerns FBI criminal history data for occupational licensing, while the Project 2025 policy focuses on intelligence community sharing of cyber threat intelligence and strategic analysis, resulting in only moderate thematic overlap."
Key themes:information sharingobligation to sharedata security/privacy safeguardsinter-agency cooperationprocess efficiency
— 221 — Intelligence Community influence and the FBI’s warnings about continued efforts through the 2022 mid- terms highlight the folly of undue certainty without consideration of alternatives. On election influence and other controversial issues, such as the origin of COVID-19, analysts at the most powerful intelligence agencies have increasingly tended to use the leeway they have been given to insert their political views into their work in order to influence (if possibly even control) the analytic process. They do this in ways that attempt to squash dissent and impair the creation of a culture in which entrenched views are challenged and unpopular analytical lines can sur- vive or not according to their merits. To help the United States and its leaders to outcompete China across mul- tifaceted societal, economic, military, and technological threats, the IC’s capability to conduct strategic intelligence analysis that is relevant to policymak- ers in both parties must be rebuilt and strengthened. Because Beijing may be a peer or even exceed U.S. capabilities in some areas, the post-9/11 analytic focus on quick-turnaround secrets is not good enough. Strategic planning—informed by intelligence—must take place for the United States to stay ahead of whatever new threats China may pose. An incoming conservative President will have the opportunity to signal the demand for such strategic products and prioritize their production through communications to intelligence leaders and formal mechanisms such as shifting priorities within the National Intelligence Priority Framework and structuring the President’s Daily Brief. The incoming DNI should also emphasize implementing the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s report, especially regarding objectiv- ity, the inclusion of dissenting viewpoints, and more serious efforts to hold senior leaders accountable for backchannel attempts to change or suppress analytic views. Accounting for the long history of intelligence failures and surprises, an incom- ing conservative President must appreciate the ambiguity, complexity, limits, and assumptions inherent in intelligence assessments. Intelligence often deals with the human dimension in complex decision systems within a foreign country or organi- zation, and this makes consistently accurate predictions difficult if not impossible to develop. Seeing something and understanding what you are seeing are two dif- ferent things, so a President should consistently and patiently press the IC about its potential biases, assumptions, methodology, and sourcing. With regard to election-threat analysis and politically controversial topics, agency leaders should take seriously the Ombudsman’s admonition that we need to maintain tradecraft standards across all countries and topics by ensuring that equitable standards apply across all foreign threat actors. Analysis should be put forward without regard to the domestic political ramifications of intelligence conclusions. “Obligation to Share” and Real-Time Auditing Capability. The fed- eral government has made admirable progress in recent years by being more — 222 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise forward-leaning in sharing cyber threat intelligence with private-sector partners and the public, emphasizing that the protective nature of such information is of value only if put into the right hands at the right time. Since critical infrastructure and services are overwhelmingly owned, managed, and defended by the private sector in the United States, there has been an increasing emphasis on declassify- ing intelligence and sharing actionable information with private-sector partners, often through industry-specific Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs); regional meetings of government and private-sector experts called InfraGard, run by the FBI; direct public notification from the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and (increasingly) the NSA; and more discreet one-on-one engagements led by the collecting agencies. These programs properly recognize the private sector’s role in providing cyber- security for Americans; in practice, however, the intelligence shared by the U.S. government through these venues is too often already known or no longer relevant by the time it makes its way through the downgrade process for sharing. In addition, government-shared information often needs to take advantage of the opportunity to provide contexts, such as attribution, trends, and size of the observed cyber problem. As warranted, additional context should be provided to the private sector as a matter of routine. To continue improving the U.S. government’s ability to defend the country’s most vital networks, the IC must adopt an “obligation to share” policy process, including the capacity for “write to release” intelligence products whereby newly discovered technical indicators, targeting, and other intelligence relevant to cyber defense are automatically provided either to the public or to targeted entities within 48 hours of their collection—which is how counterterrorism intel- ligence has been managed for years when it comes to a “duty to warn.” Under this policy, agency heads should still have the flexibility to withhold intelligence for operational or counterintelligence reasons but would need to report regularly to Congress on the number of and justification for exceptions. This policy would make sharing intelligence and defending networks the default, as it already is in the rest of the cybersecurity community outside the IC, to improve the quantity, relevance, and timeliness of defensive information while ensuring accountability for top leaders when they must withhold this information. One of the most significant challenges within the IC is presented by the need to share information promptly among the 18 elements of the intelligence enterprise. The only long-term solution to the understandable tension between the need to share information and the need to protect intelligence sources and methods is a robust real-time auditing capability that electronically flags unauthorized access. Under an identity management system with real-time audit, even the most sensi- tive information acquired by America’s intelligence agencies can be shared, and the access to and use of that information are appropriately monitored. Establishing
Intelligence Community
Weak
Vector: 58%Pages: 254-256AI Enhanced
AI Analysis:
"Both the bill and the Project 2025 excerpt discuss mechanisms for sharing sensitive information across entities, but the bill concerns criminal history data for occupational licensing while the policy focuses on cyber threat intelligence sharing with the private sector and within the Intelligence Community, resulting only a tangential connection."
Key themes:information sharinginter-agency cooperationdata privacy/security considerations
— 222 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise forward-leaning in sharing cyber threat intelligence with private-sector partners and the public, emphasizing that the protective nature of such information is of value only if put into the right hands at the right time. Since critical infrastructure and services are overwhelmingly owned, managed, and defended by the private sector in the United States, there has been an increasing emphasis on declassify- ing intelligence and sharing actionable information with private-sector partners, often through industry-specific Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs); regional meetings of government and private-sector experts called InfraGard, run by the FBI; direct public notification from the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and (increasingly) the NSA; and more discreet one-on-one engagements led by the collecting agencies. These programs properly recognize the private sector’s role in providing cyber- security for Americans; in practice, however, the intelligence shared by the U.S. government through these venues is too often already known or no longer relevant by the time it makes its way through the downgrade process for sharing. In addition, government-shared information often needs to take advantage of the opportunity to provide contexts, such as attribution, trends, and size of the observed cyber problem. As warranted, additional context should be provided to the private sector as a matter of routine. To continue improving the U.S. government’s ability to defend the country’s most vital networks, the IC must adopt an “obligation to share” policy process, including the capacity for “write to release” intelligence products whereby newly discovered technical indicators, targeting, and other intelligence relevant to cyber defense are automatically provided either to the public or to targeted entities within 48 hours of their collection—which is how counterterrorism intel- ligence has been managed for years when it comes to a “duty to warn.” Under this policy, agency heads should still have the flexibility to withhold intelligence for operational or counterintelligence reasons but would need to report regularly to Congress on the number of and justification for exceptions. This policy would make sharing intelligence and defending networks the default, as it already is in the rest of the cybersecurity community outside the IC, to improve the quantity, relevance, and timeliness of defensive information while ensuring accountability for top leaders when they must withhold this information. One of the most significant challenges within the IC is presented by the need to share information promptly among the 18 elements of the intelligence enterprise. The only long-term solution to the understandable tension between the need to share information and the need to protect intelligence sources and methods is a robust real-time auditing capability that electronically flags unauthorized access. Under an identity management system with real-time audit, even the most sensi- tive information acquired by America’s intelligence agencies can be shared, and the access to and use of that information are appropriately monitored. Establishing — 223 — Intelligence Community a real-time auditing capability is essential to decreasing the risk for the heads of intelligence agencies in meeting their statutory requirements to ensure that they protect sources and methods associated with the classified information their agen- cies collect. Overclassification. There is broad consensus across the U.S. government and among stakeholders that the system for classifying, declassifying, and otherwise marking and handling sensitive information is at a crossroads. Exorbitant amounts of classified data are created daily, and agency personnel often mistakenly choose classification as the default selection to ensure national security. At the same time, the effectiveness of downgraded and carefully declassified information to support foreign policy efforts has been borne out in, for example, alerting the broader world of Russia’s buildup and likely plans for its invasion of Ukraine. Two executive orders principally govern how the U.S. government handles clas- sified and sensitive information. l Executive Order 13526, “Classified National Security Information,” issued in 2009,38 prescribes the classification levels and procedures for declassification. l Executive Order 13556, “Controlled Unclassified Information,” issued in 2010,39 aimed to establish a uniform program for managing all unclassified information that requires safeguarding or dissemination controls. The current system for declassifying classified national security information (CNSI) is extraordinarily analog, requiring experts’ review of individual records. Declassification policies are based on human review of paper and need to con- template and handle the proliferation and volume of digital records created by agencies. The U.S. government will soon reach the point at which manual review is impossible. The declassification of CNSI should support key U.S. national security objectives, reflect mission priorities, and not serve solely as a necessary procedural function. Reforms should include: l Tighter definitions and greater specificity for categories of information requiring protection. l More stringent policies to effect significant reductions in the number of Original Classification Authorities (OCAs). l Stricter accountability measures at the OCA level and more detailed security classification guides.
Executive Office of the President of the United States
Weak
Vector: 58%Pages: 99-102AI Enhanced
AI Analysis:
"The SHARE Act focuses on interstate sharing of FBI criminal history data for occupational licensing background checks, which does not directly align with the Project 2025 Executive Office of the President section's emphasis on federalism, regulatory reform, privacy protections, or reducing unfunded mandates. While both involve federal-state coordination and data sharing, the bill's narrow scope on law enforcement information exchange lacks clear connection to the broader administrative and const"
Key themes:federal-state cooperationinformation sharingregulatory efficiency
— 66 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 17. President William J. Clinton, Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” August 4, 1999, in Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 153 (August 10, 1999), pp. 43255–43259, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1999-08-10/pdf/99- 20729.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 18. President Ronald Reagan, Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” March 15, 1988, in Federal Register, Vol. 53, No. 53 (March 18, 1988), pp. 8859–8862, https://www.regulationwriters.com/downloads/Executive_Orders/EO_12630.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 19. Section 115 in H.R. 4577, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001, Public Law No. 106-544, 106th Congress, December 21, 2000, https://www.congress.gov/106/plaws/publ554/PLAW-106publ554.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 20. H.R. 6410, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public Law No. 96-511, 96th Congress, December 11, 1980, https:// www.congress.gov/96/statute/STATUTE-94/STATUTE-94-Pg2812.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 21. S. 3418, An Act to Amend Title 5, United States Code, by Adding a Section 552a, to Safeguard Individual Privacy from the Misuse of Federal Records, to Provide that Individuals Be Granted Access to Records Concerning Them Which Are Maintained by Federal Agencies, to Establish a Privacy Protection Study Commission, and for Other Purposes (Privacy Act of 1974), Public Law No. 93-579, 93rd Congress, December 31, 1974, https://www.congress.gov/93/statute/STATUTE-88/STATUTE-88-Pg1896.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 22. Office of Management and Budget, “Guidance for Grants and Agreements,” Final Guidance, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 157 (August 13, 2020), pp. 49506–49582, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-13/ pdf/2020-17468.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023), and “Guidance for Grants and Agreements,” Correcting Amendments, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 33 (February 22, 2021), pp. 10439–10440, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-02-22/pdf/2021-02969.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 23. H.R. 5, Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017, 115th Congress, introduced January 3, 2017, https://www. congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5 (accessed January 31, 20/23), and S. 951, Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017, 115th Congress, introduced April 26, 2017, https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th- congress/senate-bill/951 (accessed January 31, 2023). 24. S. 2314, Social Media Addiction Reduction Technology Act (SMART Act), 116th Congress, introduced July 30, 2019, https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/2314/text (accessed January 31, 2023). 25. H.R. 1605, Guidance Out of Darkness Act (GOOD Act), 117th Congress, introduced March 8, 2021, https://www. congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1605 (accessed January 31, 2023). 26. S. 2804, Early Participation in Regulations Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced September 22, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2804 (accessed January 31, 2023). 27. S. 170, Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act, 117th Congress, introduced February 2, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/170 (accessed January 31, 2023). 28. H.R. 277, Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2023 (REINS Act), 118th Congress, introduced January 11, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/277/all-info?r=217 (accessed January 31, 2023). 29. Subtitle E, “Congressional Review,” in H.R. 3136, Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-121, 104th Congress, March 29, 1996, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-104publ121/pdf/ PLAW-104publ121.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 30. H.R. 115, Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https://www.congress. gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/115/text?s=1&r=18 (accessed January 31, 2023). 31. See Federation of American Scientists, Intelligence Resource Program, “Presidential Directives and Executive Orders,” https://irp.fas.org/offdocs/direct.htm (accessed February 1, 2023), and Library of Congress, Researchers, Newspaper and Current Periodical Reading Room, “Presidential Directives and Where to Find Them,” March 30, 2022, https://www.loc.gov/rr/news/directives.html (accessed February 1, 2023). 32. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13803, “Reviving the National Space Council,” June 30, 2017, in Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 129 (July 7, 2017), pp. 31429–31432, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2017-07-07/pdf/2017-14378.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). — 67 — Executive Office of the President of the United States 33. H.R. 10230, National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976, Public Law No. 94-282, 94th Congress, May 11, 1976, https://www.congress.gov/94/statute/STATUTE-90/STATUTE-90-Pg459. pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 34. H.R. 4346, CHIPS [Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors] and Science Act, Public Law No. 117-167, 117th Congress, August 9, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ167/PLAW-117publ167.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 35. S. 169, Global Change Research Act of 1990, Public Law No. 101-606, 101st Congress, November 16, 1990, https://www.congress.gov/101/statute/STATUTE-104/STATUTE-104-Pg3096.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 36. S. 1075, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law No. 91-190, 91st Congress, January 1, 1970, https://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/91/190.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 37. Andrus v. Sierra Club, 442 U.S. 347, 358 (1979), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep442/ usrep442347/usrep442347.pdf (accessed March 7, 2023). 38. Title XLI (41) in H.R. 22, Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), Public Law No. 114-94, 114th Congress, December 4, 2015, https://www.congress.gov/114/statute/STATUTE-129/STATUTE-129-Pg1312.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 39. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” August 15, 2017, in Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 163 (August 24, 2017), pp. 40463–40469, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-08-24/ pdf/2017-18134.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 40. H.R. 5210, Anti-Drug Abuse of 1988, Public Law No. 100-690, 100th Congress, November 18, 1988, https://www. congress.gov/100/statute/STATUTE-102/STATUTE-102-Pg4181.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 41. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14020, “Establishment of the White House Gender Policy Council,” March 8, 2021, in Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 46 (March 11, 2021), pp. 13797–13801, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-03-11/pdf/2021-05183.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 42. U.S. Constitution, Amendment XXV, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv (accessed March 9, 2023). 43. 50 U.S.C. § 3021(c)(1), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3021 (accessed March 9, 2023). 44. 20 U.S.C. § 20(a), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/42#:~:text=The%20business%20of%20the%20 Institution%20shall%20be%20conducted,no%20two%20of%20them%20of%20the%20same%20State (accessed March 9, 2023). 45. Vice Presidents Gerald Ford and Lyndon Johnson assumed (Ford) or initially assumed (Johnson) the office of the presidency by a process of succession.
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.