Guidance Clarity Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/2409
Last Updated: June 10, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Burlison, Eric [R-MO-7]

ID: B001316

Follow the money

The bill

Guidance Clarity Act of 2025

HR. 2409, 119th Congress — read as touching Private Equity & Hedge Funds.

The sponsor

Rep. Burlison, Eric [R-MO-7]

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

The money

$66,250 raised

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

The alignment

95% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Labor and Related Agencies" section, p. 624-626 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 490.

March 23, 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, courtesy of the geniuses in Congress. The Guidance Clarity Act of 2025 - because, you know, what America really needed was more clarity on bureaucratic guidance. (Sarcasm alert.)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** Oh, please, it's all about "transparency" and "clarity." Yeah, right. This bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound, designed to make it look like Congress is doing something about the regulatory quagmire they've created. The real purpose? To give agencies a get-out-of-jail-free card for their own incompetence and to placate special interest groups who want to water down regulations.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires agencies to include a "guidance clarity statement" on certain documents, which is just a fancy way of saying "we're not really sure what we mean, but don't worry about it." This statement will supposedly inform the public that agency guidance doesn't have the force of law. Wow, what a revolutionary concept. It's like they're trying to cure a disease by slapping a warning label on the symptoms.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: agencies, bureaucrats, lobbyists, and special interest groups. You know, the people who actually write these bills and benefit from the confusion. And, of course, the poor souls who have to navigate this regulatory mess - small businesses, individuals, and anyone who's not a Washington insider.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a placebo, folks. It won't fix anything, but it'll make everyone feel better for a while. Agencies will still issue vague guidance, and the public will still be confused. But hey, at least they'll have a nice disclaimer to point to when things go wrong. The real impact? More bureaucratic red tape, more opportunities for regulatory capture, and more ways for special interests to game the system.

In medical terms, this bill is like treating a patient's symptoms with a sugar pill while ignoring the underlying disease. It's a classic case of " legislative lupus" - a chronic condition characterized by a lack of transparency, accountability, and common sense. And we're all just along for the ride, watching as our elected officials pretend to fix problems they've created. Joy.

Related Topics

Federal Budget & AppropriationsJudiciary & Legal ReformGovernment Operations & Accountability
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Burlison, Eric [R-MO-7]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$66,250
19 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$250
Committees
$0
Individuals
$66,000

No PAC contributions found

1
OZARK SHOOT-DON'T SHOOT SOLUTIONS LLC
1 transaction
$250

No committee contributions found

1
BRAUER, BEAU
2 transactions
$6,600
2
BRAUER, SUZY
2 transactions
$6,600
3
CARNES, CAROL
1 transaction
$3,300
4
WATTS, BARRY
1 transaction
$3,300
5
JOHN, STACK
1 transaction
$3,300
6
KAMAT, SONA
1 transaction
$3,300
7
WHIRE, DEBBIEJO
1 transaction
$3,300
8
DANIELS, GEORGE
1 transaction
$3,300
9
LAGER, BRAD
1 transaction
$3,300
10
PHILLIPS, KYLE
1 transaction
$3,300
11
SLAWSON, MICHELE
1 transaction
$3,300
12
SLAWSON, STEPHEN
1 transaction
$3,300
13
PECK JR, JOHN
1 transaction
$3,300
14
UIHLEIN, RICHARD
1 transaction
$3,300
15
BECKHAM, BRADLEY
1 transaction
$3,300
16
BRENT, DAVIS
1 transaction
$3,300
17
JARED, CURTIS
1 transaction
$3,300
18
MOHAMMADKHANI, MARYAM
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 7 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Golden, Jared F. [D-ME-2]

ID: G000592

Top Contributors

10

1
PENOBSCOT INDIAN NATION
OrganizationINDIAN ISLAND, ME
$3,300
Oct 19, 2024
2
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Feb 8, 2024
3
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Mar 13, 2024
4
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Sep 28, 2023
5
NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI
OrganizationFULTON, MI
$2,000
Oct 15, 2024
6
PASSAMAQUODDY TRIBE AT INDIAN TOWNSHIP
OrganizationPERRY, ME
$1,000
Oct 28, 2024
7
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$1,000
Oct 31, 2024
8
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$1,000
Jun 27, 2024
9
ONEIDA NATION
OrganizationONEIDA, WI
$1,000
Sep 26, 2024
10
KIRK, GARRETT JR
SELF EMPLOYED • INVESTOR
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Nov 2, 2024

Rep. Davis, Donald G. [D-NC-1]

ID: D000230

Top Contributors

10

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. Comer, James [R-KY-1]

ID: C001108

Top Contributors

10

1
SHAMAN BOTANICALS
OrganizationKANSAS CITY, MO
$2,000
Apr 26, 2024
2
SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Mar 31, 2023
3
SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN
BLACKSTONE • CEO AND CHAIRMAN
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Mar 29, 2023
4
WALSH, KENNETH
SELF EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE
IndividualRIVER VALE, NJ
$6,600
Mar 18, 2024
5
LAGANAS, ELIZA
THE LAW OFFICE OF STAHL, PC • LAWYER
IndividualMERRICK, NY
$6,600
Jun 28, 2023
6
SINGER, PAUL
ELLIOTT INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • CO-CEO, CO-CIO, PRESIDENT
IndividualPALM BEACH, FL
$6,600
Apr 10, 2023
7
SCHWAB, CHARLES
CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION • CHAIRMAN
IndividualPALM BEACH, FL
$6,600
Jun 16, 2023
8
HILLERSON, ARLENE
SELF EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE
IndividualPOTOMAC, MD
$6,600
Jun 26, 2024
9
SMITH, BRAD
MICROSOFT CORPORATION • ATTORNEY
IndividualBELLEVUE, WA
$6,600
Jun 25, 2024
10
HANCOCK, SAM
SELF EMPLOYED • BUSINESS OWNER
IndividualFULTON, KY
$6,600
Aug 4, 2023

Rep. Gill, Brandon [R-TX-26]

ID: G000603

Top Contributors

10

1
BOERNE STAGE AIRFIELD
OrganizationBOERNE, TX
$2,500
Mar 12, 2024
2
HOLMES LAW
OrganizationDALLAS, TX
$500
Feb 14, 2024
3
WILLIAMS, JOHN
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualWESLEY CHAPEL, FL
$6,818
Feb 6, 2024
4
AZRIELI, MATTHEW
BASTE RECORDS • EXECUTIVE
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$6,818
Nov 20, 2023
5
BENNETT, MATT
CHRISTIAN UNION • MINISTER
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,818
Nov 20, 2023
6
GILL, BEVERLY
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualCLYDE, TX
$6,818
Nov 20, 2023
7
GILL, JUDITH
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualCLYDE, TX
$6,818
Nov 20, 2023
8
GILL, RUSSELL
DELTA AIR LINES • PILOT AND RANCHER
IndividualCLYDE, TX
$6,818
Nov 20, 2023
9
GILL, JUDITH
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualCLYDE, TX
$6,818
Nov 20, 2023
10
SCHOOLEY, BRUCE
NOBLE PRODUCTIONS INC • SELF-EMPLOYED
IndividualALAMO, CA
$6,818
Nov 20, 2023

Rep. Fallon, Pat [R-TX-4]

ID: F000246

Top Contributors

10

1
DODD CG LLC
OrganizationDALLAS, TX
$3,000
Aug 6, 2024
2
NORTH TEXAS RHEUMATOLOGY PA
OrganizationDALLAS, TX
$1,700
Oct 7, 2023
3
PARTEE, SUE
PARTEE ENTERPRISES • OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION
IndividualBIG SPRING, TX
$20,757
Oct 10, 2024
4
PARTEE, SUE
IndividualBIG SPRING, TX
$20,757
Dec 3, 2024
5
PENZ, WILLIAM
RODMAN EXCAVATION • VP
IndividualFRISCO, TX
$10,000
Apr 24, 2024
6
GLENDENNING, REX
REX REAL ESTATE • BROKER/OWNER
IndividualCELINA, TX
$5,000
Apr 25, 2024
7
PHILLIPS, BRADFORD
LIBERTY BANKERS • CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & CHAIRMAN OF
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$5,000
Apr 26, 2024
8
SNYDER, RICK
HEARTPLACE • CARDIOLOGIST
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$3,425
Nov 5, 2024
9
ADAMS, CAROL
SELF • OIL, GAS & AGRICULTURE
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023
10
GOTT, JANET
IndividualSHERMAN, TX
$3,300
Aug 16, 2023

Rep. Donalds, Byron [R-FL-19]

ID: D000032

Top Contributors

10

1
SHANNON GREEN COLLECTION
OrganizationNAPLES, FL
$500
Dec 28, 2023
2
NAPLES SMART, LLC
OrganizationNAPLES, FL
$250
Jun 4, 2024
3
COX, JOE B
NELSON MULLINS • ATTORNEY
IndividualNAPLES, FL
$6,600
Dec 30, 2023
4
STALLINGS, KYLE
DESERT ROYALTY COMPANY • FOUNDER/CEO
IndividualMIDLAND, TX
$6,600
Mar 9, 2023
5
ZALIK, DAVID
GOLDMAN SACHS • EXECUTIVE
IndividualMARIETTA, GA
$6,600
Jan 3, 2024
6
ZALIK, HELEN
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualATLANTA, GA
$6,600
Jan 6, 2024
7
BAUM, DAVID
ENTREPRENEUR • ENTREPRENEUR
IndividualSANIBEL, FL
$6,600
Feb 13, 2024
8
WALDRIP, EMORY
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNAPLES, FL
$6,600
May 20, 2023
9
MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE
DMM PROPRIETA MANAGEMENT • MANAGER
IndividualASPEN, CO
$6,600
Jun 7, 2024
10
MANDELBLATT, ERIC
SOROBAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LP • MANAGING PARTNER
IndividualASPEN, CO
$6,600
Jun 7, 2024

Rep. Stefanik, Elise M. [R-NY-21]

ID: S001196

Top Contributors

10

1
MAGGIE'S LIST- EAMARKS
PACTAMPA, FL
$50
Oct 23, 2024
2
ONEIDA INDIAN NATION
OrganizationONEIDA, NY
$6,600
Mar 29, 2023
3
ONEIDA INDIAN NATION
OrganizationONEIDA, NY
$3,300
Mar 31, 2023
4
SAN MANUAL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$2,000
Dec 31, 2023
5
FISHER, CYNTHIA A. MS.
PATIENTRIGHTSADVOCATE.ORG • FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN
IndividualPALM BEACH, FL
$6,600
Oct 10, 2023
6
BERK, MICHAEL
TA ASSOCIATES • INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT
IndividualWEST NEWTON, MA
$6,600
Dec 27, 2023
7
CUTLER, ROBERT
C3 • CEO
IndividualLEAWOOD, KS
$6,600
Dec 27, 2023
8
DAVIS, ANN L.
N/A • HOMEMAKER
IndividualATLANTA, GA
$6,600
Dec 30, 2023
9
KRAFT, DANIEL
THE KRAFT GROUP • INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT
IndividualFOXBORO, MA
$6,600
Dec 31, 2023
10
FITZPATRICK, MARY
NONE • COMMUNITY VOLUNTEER
IndividualOSPREY, FL
$6,600
Sep 21, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Burlison, Eric [R-MO-7]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 63 nodes and 36 connections (49 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $133,575

Top Donors - Rep. Burlison, Eric [R-MO-7]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

1 Org18 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 5 helped.

  • Section 2(a) requires agencies to include a guidance clarity statement, which may reduce regulatory uncertainty and benefit private equity and hedge funds by providing clearer guidelines for investment and operation.

  • +Commercial Banksconfidence 0.70

    Section 2(b) specifies the content of the guidance clarity statement, which could lead to more predictable regulatory environments for commercial banks and facilitate their operations.

  • The requirement for a guidance clarity statement in Section 2(a) may help insurance companies by reducing ambiguity in regulatory guidance and enabling them to better navigate compliance requirements.

  • +Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.60

    Section 2(c) mandates OMB guidance within 90 days, potentially benefiting big tech platforms by promoting clearer regulatory standards and reducing the risk of over-regulation.

  • +Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.60

    The emphasis on clarity in agency guidance, as outlined in Section 2(b), could support telecommunications companies by ensuring they have a clearer understanding of regulatory expectations and can plan accordingly.

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 Labor and Related Agencies

Very Strong
Vector: 66%
Pages: 624-626AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 2409 directly implements the Project 2025 objective of limiting the use of guidance documents as binding law by requiring agencies to label guidance as non-binding, thereby increasing transparency and reducing regulatory uncertainty."

Key themes:guidance transparencyregulatory claritycompliance assistancelimiting guidance as bindingOMB oversight

— 592 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Overtime Pay Threshold. Overtime pay is one of the most challenging aspects of the Fair Labor Standards Act rules. “Nonexempt workers” (e.g., workers whose job duties fall within the law’s power or whose total pay is low enough) must be paid overtime (150 percent of the “regular rate”) for every hour over 40 in a work- week. Overtime requirements may discourage employers from offering certain fringe benefits such as reimbursement for education, childcare, or even free meals because the benefits’ value may be included in the “regular rate” that must be paid at 150 percent for all overtime hours. And because some of these fringe ben- efits may be more valuable (and often come with tax preferences that benefit the worker), the goal should be to set a threshold to ensure lower-income workers have the protections of overtime pay without discouraging employers from offering these benefits. l DOL should maintain an overtime threshold that does not punish businesses in lower-cost regions (e.g., the southeast United States). The Trump-era threshold is high enough to capture most line workers in lower-cost regions. One possibility to consider (likely requiring congressional action) would be to automatically update the thresholds every five years using the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) as an inflation adjustment. This could reduce the likelihood of a future Administration attempting to make significant changes but would also impose more adjustments on businesses as those automatic increases take hold. l Congress should clarify that the “regular rate” for overtime pay is based on the salary paid rather than all benefits provided. This would enable employers to offer additional benefits to employees without fear that those benefits would dramatically increase overtime pay. l Congress should provide flexibility to employers and employees to calculate the overtime period over a longer number of weeks. Specifically, employers and employees should be able to set a two- or four- week period over which to calculate overtime. This would give workers greater flexibility to work more hours in one week and fewer hours in the next and would not require the employer to pay them more for that same total number of hours of work during the entire period. Compliance-Assistance Programming. Labor agencies are often tempted to encourage “over compliance” by companies subject to regulation by pursuing “regulation through enforcement” strategies. Rather than giving regulated enti- ties clear boundaries for what they can and cannot do under the law, the agencies — 593 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies rely on the vagueness of the law to bring enforcement activity against businesses that fail to meet an inspector or agency head’s personal standard. This is not fair to regulated parties and results in disfavored companies bearing the brunt of the agencies’ enforcement efforts even though their behavior may be within the main- stream of employer behavior. l Labor agencies should provide compliance assistance to help businesses and workers better understand the agencies’ position on their own rules and should do so in a way that makes it easier to follow those rules. This frees people to focus on their work rather than slogging through an ever-growing body of laws, rules, and guidance documents generated by the agencies. Clear and Restrictive Rules on Guidance Documents. Federal agencies not only issue regulations to fill in gaps left by legislation, but also supplement those reg- ulations with “guidance” documents that occupy a unique and often confusing area between law and “helpful advice.” Unfortunately, wielded by overzealous enforcement agents, such guidance, some of it even hidden from public view, morphs into binding law used against unsuspecting employers. Guidance can be a tricky thing and can be used for good or bad. It should be used to make compli- cated regulations easier to understand, so that businesses can do their actual jobs and focus on providing jobs to American workers and value to consumers (really, compliance assistance). But guidance is often used to create new rules overnight without following legal requirements—like giving the public an opportunity to provide valuable input. This wrongful use of guidance hurts workers and those who employ them. In October 2019, President Trump signed an executive order ending this abusive practice and created a new, fairer system for American busi- nesses and their employees. In response, DOL published its PRO Good Guidance rule,10 which expressly limits its use of guidance in enforcement actions and gives the public the opportunity to submit comments to influence the department’s deci- sions on creating, revising, and even rescinding guidance. Under this rule, agencies cannot treat guidance as legally binding and must make all guidance documents readily accessible on their searchable online databases. This rule was immediately rescinded by the Biden Administration. l DOL should reinstitute the PRO Good Guidance rule via notice and comment. l Congress should amend the Administrative Procedure Act11 to explicitly limit the use of guidance documents.

Department of Education

Very Strong
Vector: 66%
Pages: 389-391AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 2409 directly implements the Project 2025 goal of ensuring agency guidance documents are non-binding and transparent by mandating a clear statement that distinguishes guidance from legally binding rules, thereby preventing agencies from using guidance to impose de facto regulations."

Key themes:guidance documentsnon-binding guidancetransparencyrule of lawagency accountability

— 357 — Department of Education NEW EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD ISSUE Guidance Documents l The President should immediately reinstate and reissue Executive Order 13891: Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents, 84 Fed. Reg. 55235 (Oct. 9, 2019), and Executive Order 13892: Promoting the Rule of Law Through Transparency and Fairness in Civil Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication (Oct. 15, 2019). These executive orders required all federal agencies to treat guidance documents as non-binding in law and practice and also forbade federal agencies from imposing new standards of conduct on persons outside the executive branch through guid- ance documents. They required all federal agencies to apply regulations and statutes instead of guidance documents in any enforcement action. President Biden revoked these executive orders on January 20, 2021, demonstrating that these executive orders effectively restrained the abuses of an expansive administrative state. l Require APA notice and comment. The President should issue an executive order requiring the Office for Civil Rights’ Case Processing Manual to go through APA (Administrative Procedures Act) notice and comment. l Protect the First Amendment. The President should issue an executive order requiring grant applications (SF-424 series) to contain assurances that the applicant will uphold the First Amendment in funded programs and work. l Minimize bachelor’s degree requirements. The President should issue an executive order stating that a college degree shall not be required for any federal job unless the requirements of the job specifically demand it. l Eliminate the “list of shame.” Educational institutions can claim a religious exemption with the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education from the strictures of Title IX. In 2016, the Obama Administration published on the Department of Education’s website a list of colleges that had applied for the exemption. This “list of shame” of faith-based colleges, as it came to be known, has since been archived on ED’s website, still publicly available. The President should issue an executive order removing the archived list and preventing such a list from being published in the future. — 358 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise NEW AGENCY POLICIES THAT DON’T REQUIRE NEW LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS TO ENACT Transparency of FERPA and PPRA Complaints l The Department of Education should be transparent about complaints filed on behalf of families regarding the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA). l At the same time, the Department of Education should develop a portal and resources for parents on their rights under FERPA and PPRA. This portal should also contain an explanation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) and public school procedures to demonstrate that the law does not deprive parents of their right to access any school health records. The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program In 2011, Congress added new requirements to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program stating that participating private schools must submit to site visits by the program administrator, inform prospective students about the school’s accreditation status, mandate that teachers of core subjects have bachelor’s degrees, and require participating students to take some form of nationally norm-referenced test. Notably, the 2011 reauthorization also required, for the first time, that participating private schools be accredited or be on a path to accreditation. The 2017 reauthorization went further, requiring that each participating school supply a certificate of accreditation to the administering entity upon program entry, demonstrating that the school is fully accredited before being allowed to participate. The list of approved accreditors is entirely too small to serve the mission of the diverse schools in the nation’s capital. l Although the accreditation regulations should be removed entirely by Congress, in the meantime, the next President should issue an executive order expanding the list of allowable accreditors. Transparency Around Program Performance and DEI Influence The next President should issue a series of executive orders requiring: l An accounting of how federal programs/grants spread DEI/CRT/ gender ideology, l A review of outcomes for GEAR UP and the 21st Century grants programs,

Department of Education

Moderate
Vector: 63%
Pages: 362-364AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Guidance Clarity Act seeks to increase transparency and prevent agencies from using guidance as de facto regulation, which aligns with Project 2025's broader goal of limiting agency overreach and rolling back burdensome regulations, including those in the Department of Education. However, the bill is government‑wide and not specifically targeted at Education policies, so the overlap is thematic rather than direct."

Key themes:regulatory transparencyguidance vs. binding rulesreducing regulatory burdenlimiting agency overreachadministrative procedure reform

— 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.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills