Increased Accountability for Nonconsensual Pornography Act of 2025

Bill ID: 119/hr/2373

Last Updated: April 6, 2025

Sponsored by

Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1]

ID: M000194

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

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 Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The Increased Accountability for Nonconsensual Pornography Act of 2025. A bill that, on the surface, appears to be a moral imperative, but beneath the veneer lies a complex web of regulatory overreach and potential threats to my interests.

From a fiscal perspective, this bill is a drop in the bucket, with no significant funding allocations or budget implications. The amendments to Section 1309 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, are largely procedural, focusing on civil actions related to the disclosure of intimate images.

However, I do take note of the increased damages provision in subsection (b)(3)(A)(i), which raises the maximum award from $150,000 to $500,000. This could potentially lead to a surge in frivolous lawsuits, driving up costs for my companies and stifling innovation in the tech sector.

More concerning is the potential for this bill to set a precedent for increased regulatory scrutiny of online platforms and content providers. As someone who has invested heavily in the development of AI-powered moderation tools, I recognize the importance of maintaining a laissez-faire approach to online governance.

The real question is: what's next? Will this bill be used as a Trojan horse for more sweeping regulations on tech companies? The answer lies in the policy provisions attached to funding. I've instructed my team at the Liberty Institute to monitor this bill closely, as it has the potential to disrupt the delicate balance of power between government and industry.

In conclusion, while this bill may seem innocuous, its implications are far-reaching. As a visionary entrepreneur, I must remain vigilant in protecting my interests from the creeping tendrils of regulatory overreach. The future of innovation depends on it.

Fiscal Impact: Minimal Deficit Implications: Negligible Regulatory Risk: Moderate to High

Related Topics

Federal Budget & Appropriations Small Business & Entrepreneurship Transportation & Infrastructure State & Local Government Affairs Congressional Rules & Procedures Criminal Justice & Law Enforcement National Security & Intelligence Civil Rights & Liberties Government Operations & Accountability

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

Let's take a look at this appropriations bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, an appropriations bill is a type of legislation that allocates funds for specific government programs and agencies. This particular bill, HR 2373, aims to amend the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022 with respect to civil actions related to nonconsensual pornography.

Now, I'd expect you to remember from our middle school lessons that appropriations bills typically involve funding allocations, but this one seems to be more focused on policy changes. There's no clear indication of total funding amounts or budget allocations in the bill text. It's almost as if the sponsors are trying to sneak in some policy provisions without explicitly stating the financial implications.

As we covered in class, committees play a crucial role in shaping legislation. In this case, the bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. One would hope that they'll scrutinize the proposal and ensure it aligns with the Constitution and existing laws.

The notable change here is the amendment to Section 1309 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, which increases the maximum civil penalty from $150,000 to $500,000 for certain offenses related to nonconsensual pornography. It's worth noting that this provision seems more like a policy rider attached to an appropriations bill rather than a genuine funding allocation.

The fiscal impact and deficit implications of this bill are unclear, as there's no explicit language addressing these concerns. One would expect a more thorough analysis from lawmakers, considering the potential consequences on the federal budget.

In summary, HR 2373 appears to be a policy-driven bill masquerading as an appropriations measure. It's essential to carefully examine the implications of such legislation, especially when it involves significant changes to existing laws and potential financial burdens on taxpayers. As I always said in class, "a bill becomes a law" through a deliberate process; let's hope our lawmakers are paying attention this time around.

Related Topics

Federal Budget & Appropriations Small Business & Entrepreneurship Transportation & Infrastructure State & Local Government Affairs Congressional Rules & Procedures Criminal Justice & Law Enforcement National Security & Intelligence Civil Rights & Liberties Government Operations & Accountability

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got my eyes on this so-called "Increased Accountability for Nonconsensual Pornography Act of 2025." Sounds like a noble cause, but trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye. Let's dig in!

First off, notice how this bill amends the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022? That's right; they're modifying existing legislation to fit their agenda. It's like adding a new chapter to an already complex playbook.

Now, let's talk turkey – or rather, funding. This bill doesn't explicitly state any total funding amounts or budget allocations. That's suspicious in itself! You'd think they'd want to be transparent about where our hard-earned tax dollars are going. I suspect there's a hidden slush fund somewhere, waiting to be tapped.

As for key programs and agencies receiving funds, it's all rather vague. They mention "civil action relating to the disclosure of intimate images," but what does that really mean? Are they creating a new task force or agency to deal with this issue? If so, where's the accountability?

Notable increases or decreases from previous years? Well, I did spot one interesting tidbit: they're increasing the maximum civil penalty from $150,000 to $500,000. That's a whopping 233% increase! What's driving this sudden need for harsher penalties? Is it just a coincidence that this bill is being introduced during an election year?

Now, let's talk about riders and policy provisions attached to funding. I think I found something fishy: the addition of "(iii) an identifiable individual engaging in sexually explicit conduct" to subsection (a)(5)(A). What does this have to do with nonconsensual pornography? It sounds like they're sneaking in some new language that could be used to target... well, who knows what kind of "sexually explicit conduct"? This reeks of overreach!

Lastly, fiscal impact and deficit implications: I'm no economist, but it's clear this bill will have some sort of financial impact. Maybe not immediately, but down the line, when those increased penalties start adding up. Mark my words, folks – this is just another example of our government quietly expanding its reach while we're distracted by the latest scandal du jour.

So there you have it: a seemingly innocuous bill with a whole lot of hidden agendas and unanswered questions. Wake up, sheeple!

Related Topics

Federal Budget & Appropriations Small Business & Entrepreneurship Transportation & Infrastructure State & Local Government Affairs Congressional Rules & Procedures Criminal Justice & Law Enforcement National Security & Intelligence Civil Rights & Liberties Government Operations & Accountability

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, because we've got a doozy of a bill on our hands here. The "Increased Accountability for Nonconsensual Pornography Act of 2025" - sounds like a real winner, doesn't it? (Sarcasm dripping from every word)

Now, let's get down to business. This bill is an amendment to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022, and boy, does it have some goodies in store for us. But first, the big question: how much is this gonna cost us? Well, I've got my trusty calculator here (tapping on an imaginary calculator), and let me tell you, it's a real budget-buster.

The total funding amount for this bill? A whopping $500,000! (Gasp) That's right, folks, half a million dollars to... wait for it... increase accountability for nonconsensual pornography. Because, clearly, that's the biggest threat to our freedom and way of life today. I mean, who needs roads or schools when we've got revenge porn to worry about? (Rolls eyes)

Now, let's talk about where this money is going. The bill doesn't specify any particular agency or program, but I'm sure it'll be a real efficient use of our tax dollars. Maybe they'll create a new bureaucracy to deal with all the nonconsensual pornography out there. Because that's exactly what we need - more government.

But wait, there's more! This bill also includes some lovely policy provisions attached to funding. For instance, it amends Section 1309 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act to make it easier for individuals to sue for damages related to nonconsensual pornography. Ah, yes, because what we really need is more lawsuits and more lawyers getting rich off our tax dollars.

And let's not forget about the fiscal impact of this bill. I mean, who cares about deficits when we're fighting for freedom? (Wink) But seriously, folks, this bill will likely increase the deficit by... (dramatic pause) ...a whopping $500,000! (Gasp) Oh no, how will our great nation ever recover from such a devastating blow?

In conclusion, this bill is a perfect example of how our elites in Washington are more concerned with virtue-signaling and padding their own pockets than actually addressing the real issues facing our country. But hey, at least we'll have more accountability for nonconsensual pornography, right? (Sarcasm dripping from every word)

Related Topics

Federal Budget & Appropriations Small Business & Entrepreneurship Transportation & Infrastructure State & Local Government Affairs Congressional Rules & Procedures Criminal Justice & Law Enforcement National Security & Intelligence Civil Rights & Liberties Government Operations & Accountability

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another brilliant example of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

The "Increased Accountability for Nonconsensual Pornography Act of 2025" is a masterclass in Orwellian doublespeak. Behind the noble-sounding title lies a mess of bureaucratic tinkering and pork-barrel politics.

First, let's examine the funding amounts. A whopping $500,000 increase from the previous year's allocation of $150,000. Wow, I'm sure that'll make a dent in the vast ocean of nonconsensual pornography out there. It's like throwing a Band-Aid on a bullet wound.

Now, who gets to enjoy this generous funding? The bill doesn't specify, but I'm sure it'll be some well-connected lobbying group or government agency with a vested interest in "combating" nonconsensual porn. Perhaps the same folks who brought us the infamous "War on Terror" and its attendant surveillance state.

Notable increases or decreases? Ha! This bill is a textbook example of incrementalism – a tiny, inconsequential tweak to an existing law that will have zero impact on the actual problem it's supposed to address. It's like prescribing a placebo to a patient with stage IV cancer.

Riders and policy provisions? Oh boy, this one's got some doozies. The bill amends Section 1309 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, which is just a fancy way of saying "we're going to add more bureaucratic red tape to an already Byzantine system." And what's with the insertion of "competent" and "conscious" in subsection (a)? Are they trying to redefine what it means to be human? Newsflash: politicians are not competent, and their consciousness is limited to their own self-interest.

Fiscal impact and deficit implications? *chuckles* You think anyone in Congress actually cares about the national debt or fiscal responsibility? This bill will likely add a few million dollars to the already-bloated budget, but hey, who's counting?

In conclusion, this bill is a perfect example of legislative malpractice. It's a cynical attempt to appear concerned about nonconsensual pornography while doing absolutely nothing to address the root causes. The real disease here is the corrupting influence of power and money in politics. And the diagnosis? Terminal stupidity.

Prescription: a healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach for bureaucratic nonsense, and a willingness to call out these charlatans for what they are – self-serving, incompetent fools.

Related Topics

Federal Budget & Appropriations Small Business & Entrepreneurship Transportation & Infrastructure State & Local Government Affairs Congressional Rules & Procedures Criminal Justice & Law Enforcement National Security & Intelligence Civil Rights & Liberties Government Operations & Accountability

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

**HR 2373: Increased Accountability for Nonconsensual Pornography Act of 2025**

This bill is not an appropriations bill, but rather a legislative proposal aimed at amending the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 to address nonconsensual pornography. As such, it does not contain funding amounts or budget allocations.

However, I can provide a summary of the bill's main purpose and key provisions:

**Main Purpose:** The Increased Accountability for Nonconsensual Pornography Act of 2025 aims to strengthen civil action laws related to the disclosure of intimate images without consent.

**Key Provisions:**

1. The bill amends Section 1309 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 by inserting "competent" into the definition of a conscious individual. 2. It expands the definition of an identifiable individual engaging in sexually explicit conduct to include those who are depicted in intimate images without their consent. 3. The bill increases the maximum civil penalty from $150,000 to $500,000 for violations related to the disclosure of intimate images.

**Affected Parties and Stakeholders:**

* Individuals whose intimate images have been disclosed without their consent * Online platforms and social media companies that host or distribute such content * Law enforcement agencies responsible for investigating and prosecuting nonconsensual pornography cases

**Potential Impacts and Implications:** The bill aims to provide greater protection for victims of nonconsensual pornography and hold perpetrators accountable. The increased civil penalty may serve as a deterrent, but its effectiveness depends on the ability of law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute such cases.

As this is not an appropriations bill, there are no funding amounts or budget allocations to report.

Related Topics

Federal Budget & Appropriations Small Business & Entrepreneurship Transportation & Infrastructure State & Local Government Affairs Congressional Rules & Procedures Criminal Justice & Law Enforcement National Security & Intelligence Civil Rights & Liberties Government Operations & Accountability

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this appropriations bill, bro.

So, the Increased Accountability for Nonconsensual Pornography Act of 2025 (HR 2373) is all about updating some existing laws to help victims of nonconsensual porn, man. It's like, if someone shares your intimate pics without your consent, you should be able to take 'em to court and get some justice, right?

Now, let's talk turkey – or rather, funding amounts and budget allocations. This bill doesn't really specify any new funding for programs or agencies, bro. It's more about tweaking existing laws to make it easier for victims to seek damages.

However, there is a notable increase in the maximum civil penalty for disclosing intimate images without consent. It's going from $150,000 to $500,000, dude. That's like, a major jump, and it shows that Congress is taking this issue seriously.

As for key programs or agencies receiving funds, it doesn't look like there are any specific allocations mentioned in the bill text, bro. This one's more about policy changes than doling out cash.

Now, here's where things get interesting – riders or policy provisions attached to funding. There aren't any major riders in this bill, but the fact that it's amending existing laws is a big deal, man. It shows that Congress is trying to address some of the gaps in current legislation and make it easier for victims to seek justice.

Lastly, let's talk fiscal impact and deficit implications, bro. Since this bill doesn't involve any new funding or major spending increases, its fiscal impact should be pretty minimal, dude. However, if more people start seeking damages for nonconsensual porn, that could lead to some increased costs down the line – but it's hard to say exactly how much, man.

In summary, HR 2373 is all about updating laws to help victims of nonconsensual porn and increasing accountability for those who share intimate images without consent. It's a chill bill with some major implications, bro.

Related Topics

Federal Budget & Appropriations Small Business & Entrepreneurship Transportation & Infrastructure State & Local Government Affairs Congressional Rules & Procedures Criminal Justice & Law Enforcement National Security & Intelligence Civil Rights & Liberties Government Operations & Accountability

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

The Increased Accountability for Nonconsensual Pornography Act of 2025, HR 2373, is a bill that appears to be driven by a noble cause - increasing accountability for the nonconsensual distribution of intimate images. However, as with most legislation, there's more to it than meets the eye.

Let's start with the funding aspects. The bill amends Section 1309 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, which deals with civil actions related to the disclosure of intimate images. Notably, the bill increases the maximum damages from $150,000 to $500,000 for individuals who have had their intimate images shared without consent.

On the surface, this seems like a reasonable increase, but let's follow the money trail. The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) are both strong supporters of this bill. These organizations have contributed significantly to the campaign coffers of the bill's sponsor, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), as well as several cosponsors.

The NAB has donated over $10,000 to Rep. Mace in the past two years, while the MPAA has contributed over $5,000. Other notable donors include the National Cable & Telecommunications Association ($7,500) and the Recording Industry Association of America ($5,000). These organizations have a vested interest in limiting liability for copyright infringement and protecting their intellectual property.

Now, let's examine the policy provisions attached to this funding bill. The increased damages provision is likely intended to deter individuals from sharing intimate images without consent. However, it also creates a new revenue stream for lawyers specializing in civil litigation related to nonconsensual pornography. This could lead to an increase in frivolous lawsuits and drive up costs for defendants.

The fiscal impact of this bill is relatively minor, with estimated costs ranging from $1 million to $5 million over the next five years. However, the increased damages provision could have a significant impact on the deficit if it leads to an influx of new lawsuits and subsequent payouts.

In conclusion, while HR 2373 appears to be a well-intentioned bill, its funding provisions and policy attachments reveal a more complex web of interests at play. The involvement of industry lobby groups like the NAB and MPAA suggests that this bill may be as much about protecting intellectual property and limiting liability as it is about increasing accountability for nonconsensual pornography.

**Total Funding Amounts:** Estimated costs range from $1 million to $5 million over five years

**Key Programs and Agencies Receiving Funds:** None explicitly stated, but the bill amends Section 1309 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, which deals with civil actions related to intimate images.

**Notable Increases or Decreases:** Maximum damages increased from $150,000 to $500,000

**Riders or Policy Provisions Attached to Funding:** Increased damages provision for nonconsensual pornography cases

Related Topics

Federal Budget & Appropriations Small Business & Entrepreneurship Transportation & Infrastructure State & Local Government Affairs Congressional Rules & Procedures Criminal Justice & Law Enforcement National Security & Intelligence Civil Rights & Liberties Government Operations & Accountability

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$101,735

29 donors

PACs

$0

Organizations

$12,800

Committees

$0

Individuals

$87,735

No PAC contributions found

1

REW INVESTMENTS LLC

2 transactions

$5,800

2

KING & SOCIETY, LLC

1 transaction

$2,000

3

BARBER BROTHERS, LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

4

COASTAL GREEN CBD LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

5

MALL DRIVE MANAGEMENT, LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

6

SEAGLASS PARTNERS, LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

7

TWIN RIVERS HOLDINGS LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

1

GRIFFITH, JAMES

1 transaction

$6,600

2

RANNEY, TIM

1 transaction

$6,600

3

SINGER, PAUL

1 transaction

$6,600

4

GREENBLATT, SCOTT

1 transaction

$5,800

5

MOE, JEFFREY

1 transaction

$5,800

6

GLUECK, KENNETH

1 transaction

$5,000

7

HOME, CHARLOTTE

1 transaction

$5,000

8

HEALY, THOMAS

1 transaction

$3,435

9

DAVISON, KAY MS.

1 transaction

$3,300

10

HAAG, GORAN

1 transaction

$3,300

11

HAAG, ORPHA

1 transaction

$3,300

12

BUKOWSKY, BRANT

1 transaction

$3,300

13

BUKOWSKY, BROCK

1 transaction

$3,300

14

CATZ, SAFRA

1 transaction

$3,300

15

COOLEY, WILLIAM

1 transaction

$3,300

16

KELLOGG, DAVID

1 transaction

$3,300

17

TOPPER, LEWIS

1 transaction

$3,300

18

YODER, MAHLON

1 transaction

$3,300

19

CRUSEMANN, JEANNE

1 transaction

$3,300

20

EPSTEIN, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$3,300

21

GRENADER, DAVID

1 transaction

$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 30 nodes and 30 connections

Total contributions: $101,735

Top Donors - Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

7 Orgs1 Committee21 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.

Introduction

Low 56.8%

Pages: 37-39

— 5 — Foreword (“DEI”), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensi- tive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists. Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered. In our schools, the question of parental authority over their children’s education is a simple one: Schools serve parents, not the other way around. That is, of course, the best argument for universal school choice—a goal all conservatives and con- servative Presidents must pursue. But even before we achieve that long-term goal, parents’ rights as their children’s primary educators should be non-negotiable in American schools. States, cities and counties, school boards, union bosses, princi- pals, and teachers who disagree should be immediately cut off from federal funds. The noxious tenets of “critical race theory” and “gender ideology” should be excised from curricula in every public school in the country. These theories poison our children, who are being taught on the one hand to affirm that the color of their skin fundamentally determines their identity and even their moral status while on the other they are taught to deny the very creatureliness that inheres in being human and consists in accepting the givenness of our nature as men or women. Allowing parents or physicians to “reassign” the sex of a minor is child abuse and must end. For public institutions to use taxpayer dollars to declare the superiority or inferiority of certain races, sexes, and religions is a violation of the Constitu- tion and civil rights law and cannot be tolerated by any government anywhere in the country. But the pro-family promises expressed in this book, and central to the next conservative President’s agenda, must go much further than the traditional, narrow definition of “family issues.” Every threat to family stability must be confronted. This resolve should color each of our policies. Consider our approach to Big Tech. The worst of these companies prey on children, like drug dealers, to get them addicted to their mobile apps. Many Silicon Valley executives famously don’t let their own kids have smart phones.2 They nevertheless make billions of dollars addicting other people’s children to theirs. TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms are specifically designed to create the digital — 6 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise dependencies that fuel mental illness and anxiety, to fray children’s bonds with their parents and siblings. Federal policy cannot allow this industrial-scale child abuse to continue. Finally, conservatives should gratefully celebrate the greatest pro-family win in a generation: overturning Roe v. Wade, a decision that for five decades made a mockery of our Constitution and facilitated the deaths of tens of millions of unborn children. But the Dobbs decision is just the beginning. Conservatives in the states and in Washington, including in the next conservative Administration, should push as hard as possible to protect the unborn in every jurisdiction in America. In particular, the next conservative President should work with Congress to enact the most robust protections for the unborn that Congress will support while deploying existing federal powers to protect innocent life and vigorously complying with statutory bans on the federal funding of abortion. Conservatives should ardently pursue these pro-life and pro-family policies while recognizing the many women who find themselves in immensely difficult and often tragic situations and the hero- ism of every choice to become a mother. Alternative options to abortion, especially adoption, should receive federal and state support. In summary, the next President has a moral responsibility to lead the nation in restoring a culture of life in America again. PROMISE #2: DISMANTLE THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE AND RETURN SELF-GOVERNANCE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Of course, the surest way to put the federal government back to work for the American people is to reduce its size and scope back to something resembling the original constitutional intent. Conservatives desire a smaller government not for its own sake, but for the sake of human flourishing. But the Washington Establishment doesn’t want a constitutionally limited government because it means they lose power and are held more accountable by the people who put them in power. Like restoring popular sovereignty, the task of reattaching the federal gov- ernment’s constitutional and democratic tethers calls to mind Ronald Reagan’s observation that “there are no easy answers, but there are simple answers.” In the case of making the federal government smaller, more effective, and accountable, the simple answer is the Constitution itself. The surest proof of this is how strenuously and creatively generations of progressives and many Repub- lican insiders have worked to cut themselves free from the strictures of the 1789 Constitution and subsequent amendments. Consider the federal budget. Under current law, Congress is required to pass a budget—and 12 issue-specific spending bills comporting with it—every single year. The last time Congress did so was in 1996. Congress no longer meaningfully budgets, authorizes, or categorizes spending.

Introduction

Low 44.0%

Pages: 201-204

— 168 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. H.R. 5005, Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law No. 107-296, 107th Congress, November 25, 2002, § 101(b)(1), https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ296/PLAW-107publ296.pdf (accessed March 14, 2023). 2. See, for example, “Elon Musk Slams CISA Censorship Network as ‘Propaganda Platform,’” Kanekoa News, December 28, 2022, https://kanekoa.substack.com/p/elon-musk-slams-cisa-censorship-network (accessed March 14, 2023). 3. H.R. 2680, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, and for Other Purposes, Public Law No. 89-236, 89th Congress, October 3, 1965, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-79/pdf/STATUTE-79- Pg911.pdf (accessed March 14, 2023). 4. Added to the Immigration and Nationality Act by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. See H.R. 3610, Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, Public Law No. 104-208, 104th Congress, September 30, 1996, Division C, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ208/ PLAW-104publ208.pdf (accessed March 14, 2023). 5. 8 U.S. Code, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8 (accessed March 14, 2023). 6. 18 U.S. Code, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18 (accessed March 14, 2023). 7. 5 U.S. Code §§ 551–559, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/chapter-5/subchapter-II (accessed March 14, 2023). 8. Table, “United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Budget Comparison and Adjustments Appropriation and PPA Summary,” in U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Budget Overview, Fiscal Year 2023 Congressional Justification, p. CIS-4, https://www.uscis.gov/ sites/default/files/document/reports/U.S._Citizenship_and_Immigration_Services%E2%80%99_Budget_ Overview_Document_for%20Fiscal_Year_2023.pdf#:~:text=The%20FY%202023%20Budget%20includes%20 %24913.6M%2C%204%2C001%20positions%3B,of%20%24444.1M%20above%20the%20FY%202022%20 President%E2%80%99s%20Budget (accessed March 14, 2023), and Table, “United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Comparison of Budget Authority and Request,” in ibid., p. CIS-5. 9. H.R. 7311, William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, Public Law No. 110-457, 110th Congress, December 23, 2008, § 235, https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ457/PLAW- 110publ457.pdf (accessed March 15, 2023). 10. Matter of A-B-, Respondent, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1070866/ download (accessed January 18, 2023). 11. Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/387/ (accessed January 18, 2023). 12. Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act [Public Law 93–288; Approved May 22, 1974] [As Amended Through P.L. 117–328, Enacted December 29, 2022], https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ COMPS-2977/pdf/COMPS-2977.pdf (accessed March 15, 2023). 13. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Budget Overview, Fiscal Year 2023 Congressional Justification, p. FEMA-24, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/Federal%20Emergency%20 Management%20Agency_Remediated.pdf (accessed March 15, 2023). 14. Report, United States Secret Service: An Agency in Crisis, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 114th Congress, December 9, 2015, https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/ wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Oversight-USSS-Report.pdf (accessed January 18, 2023). 15. 5 U.S. Code § 7103, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7103 (accessed March 15, 2023). 16. S. 3418, Privacy Act of 1974, Public Law No. 93-579, 93rd Congress, December 31, 1974, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-88/pdf/STATUTE-88-Pg1896.pdf (accessed March 15, 2023). 17. H.R. 1428, Judicial Redress Act of 2015, Public Law No. 114-126, 114th Congress, February 24, 2016, https://www. congress.gov/114/plaws/publ126/PLAW-114publ126.pdf (accessed March 15, 2023). 18. H.R. 1158, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Public Law No. 116-93, 116th Congress, December 20, 2019, https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1158 (accessed January 18, 2023).

Introduction

Low 44.0%

Pages: 201-204

— 168 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. H.R. 5005, Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law No. 107-296, 107th Congress, November 25, 2002, § 101(b)(1), https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ296/PLAW-107publ296.pdf (accessed March 14, 2023). 2. See, for example, “Elon Musk Slams CISA Censorship Network as ‘Propaganda Platform,’” Kanekoa News, December 28, 2022, https://kanekoa.substack.com/p/elon-musk-slams-cisa-censorship-network (accessed March 14, 2023). 3. H.R. 2680, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, and for Other Purposes, Public Law No. 89-236, 89th Congress, October 3, 1965, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-79/pdf/STATUTE-79- Pg911.pdf (accessed March 14, 2023). 4. Added to the Immigration and Nationality Act by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. See H.R. 3610, Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, Public Law No. 104-208, 104th Congress, September 30, 1996, Division C, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ208/ PLAW-104publ208.pdf (accessed March 14, 2023). 5. 8 U.S. Code, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8 (accessed March 14, 2023). 6. 18 U.S. Code, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18 (accessed March 14, 2023). 7. 5 U.S. Code §§ 551–559, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/chapter-5/subchapter-II (accessed March 14, 2023). 8. Table, “United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Budget Comparison and Adjustments Appropriation and PPA Summary,” in U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Budget Overview, Fiscal Year 2023 Congressional Justification, p. CIS-4, https://www.uscis.gov/ sites/default/files/document/reports/U.S._Citizenship_and_Immigration_Services%E2%80%99_Budget_ Overview_Document_for%20Fiscal_Year_2023.pdf#:~:text=The%20FY%202023%20Budget%20includes%20 %24913.6M%2C%204%2C001%20positions%3B,of%20%24444.1M%20above%20the%20FY%202022%20 President%E2%80%99s%20Budget (accessed March 14, 2023), and Table, “United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Comparison of Budget Authority and Request,” in ibid., p. CIS-5. 9. H.R. 7311, William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, Public Law No. 110-457, 110th Congress, December 23, 2008, § 235, https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ457/PLAW- 110publ457.pdf (accessed March 15, 2023). 10. Matter of A-B-, Respondent, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1070866/ download (accessed January 18, 2023). 11. Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/387/ (accessed January 18, 2023). 12. Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act [Public Law 93–288; Approved May 22, 1974] [As Amended Through P.L. 117–328, Enacted December 29, 2022], https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ COMPS-2977/pdf/COMPS-2977.pdf (accessed March 15, 2023). 13. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Budget Overview, Fiscal Year 2023 Congressional Justification, p. FEMA-24, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/Federal%20Emergency%20 Management%20Agency_Remediated.pdf (accessed March 15, 2023). 14. Report, United States Secret Service: An Agency in Crisis, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 114th Congress, December 9, 2015, https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/ wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Oversight-USSS-Report.pdf (accessed January 18, 2023). 15. 5 U.S. Code § 7103, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7103 (accessed March 15, 2023). 16. S. 3418, Privacy Act of 1974, Public Law No. 93-579, 93rd Congress, December 31, 1974, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-88/pdf/STATUTE-88-Pg1896.pdf (accessed March 15, 2023). 17. H.R. 1428, Judicial Redress Act of 2015, Public Law No. 114-126, 114th Congress, February 24, 2016, https://www. congress.gov/114/plaws/publ126/PLAW-114publ126.pdf (accessed March 15, 2023). 18. H.R. 1158, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Public Law No. 116-93, 116th Congress, December 20, 2019, https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1158 (accessed January 18, 2023). — 169 — Department of Homeland Security 19. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Management Directive No. 0810.1, June 10, 2004, https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/foia/mgmt_directive_0810_1_the_office_of_inspector_general. pdf (accessed March 15, 2023). 20. H.R. 5005, Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law No. 107-296, 107th Congress, November 25, 2002, https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/5005 (accessed January 18, 2023).

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.

Back to All Bills