Improving Disclosure for Investors Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/2441

Last Updated: October 28, 2025

Improving Disclosure for Investors Act of 2025

HR. 2441, 119th Congress — read as touching Investment Banking & Securities.

The sponsor

Rep. Huizenga, Bill [R-MI-4]

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

The money

$323,650 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Trade" section, p. 859-862 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. 105.

June 3, 2025

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

Summary Style:

**Analysis and Summary of HR 2441: Improving Disclosure for Investors Act of 2025**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this bill through the lens of its impact on my empire's wealth, influence, and control.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 2441 is to permit covered entities (investment companies, brokers, dealers, etc.) to deliver regulatory documents electronically, rather than in paper form. This shift aims to improve disclosure for investors while reducing costs and increasing efficiency.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

* The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) must propose rules within 180 days and finalize them within one year to allow electronic delivery of regulatory documents. * Covered entities can opt-out of paper delivery, but must provide an initial communication in paper form regarding electronic delivery. * Investors can opt-out of electronic delivery at any time and receive paper versions of regulatory documents.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* Investment companies * Brokers and dealers * Investment advisers registered with the SEC * Self-regulatory organizations (SROs) * Individual investors

**Potential Impact & Implications:** From my perspective, this bill presents a mixed bag. On one hand:

* Electronic delivery can reduce costs for covered entities, which may lead to increased profits and competitiveness. * Streamlined disclosure processes could facilitate more efficient capital markets.

On the other hand:

* The SEC's rulemaking process may introduce unnecessary regulatory hurdles, stifling innovation and increasing compliance burdens. * Mandatory electronic delivery could disadvantage certain investors who prefer or require paper documentation.

**My Verdict:** As a forward-thinking entrepreneur, I believe this bill has the potential to drive efficiency gains in the financial sector. However, its impact on my empire's bottom line will depend on how effectively we can navigate and influence the SEC's rulemaking process. I'll be keeping a close eye on developments and working with my think tanks to ensure that our interests are represented.

**Projected Impact on My Empire:** Assuming successful implementation, I estimate this bill could lead to:

* 5-10% reduction in compliance costs for covered entities * 2-5% increase in investor engagement due to electronic delivery * Potential for increased market share and competitiveness among covered entities

However, these projections are contingent upon the SEC's ability to strike a balance between regulatory oversight and innovation. As always, I'll be monitoring developments closely to ensure that my empire remains at the forefront of this evolving landscape.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process to become an actual law. This particular bill, HR 2441, aims to improve disclosure for investors by allowing certain regulatory documents to be delivered electronically.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to permit covered entities (such as investment companies, brokers, and dealers) to deliver regulatory documents required under the securities laws to investors using electronic delivery. The objective is to reduce paper waste, increase efficiency, and make it easier for investors to access important information.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill proposes several key provisions:

* The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) must finalize rules within one year of the bill's enactment to allow electronic delivery of regulatory documents. * Covered entities must provide an initial communication in paper form regarding electronic delivery, followed by a transition period not exceeding 180 days. * Investors can opt out of electronic delivery at any time and receive paper versions of regulatory documents. * The SEC must review its rules and regulations within 180 days to determine if any require written document delivery, and promulgate amendments to allow electronic delivery.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include:

* Covered entities (investment companies, brokers, dealers, etc.) * Investors who receive regulatory documents from these entities * The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) * Self-regulatory organizations that must adopt rules consistent with this Act

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill could lead to increased efficiency and reduced costs for covered entities. It may also make it easier for investors to access important information. However, there are potential implications:

* Some investors might prefer paper documents or have difficulty accessing electronic versions. * The SEC must ensure that electronic delivery methods are secure and reliable. * Self-regulatory organizations will need to adapt their rules and regulations to comply with the new law.

Now, I hope this summary has been enlightening. Remember when we learned about the legislative process in 8th grade? This is how it's supposed to work...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round and behold the "Improving Disclosure for Investors Act of 2025"! At first glance, this bill appears to be a harmless attempt to modernize the way regulatory documents are delivered to investors. But, my friends, don't be fooled. There's more to this bill than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of HR 2441 is to allow covered entities (investment companies, brokers, dealers, etc.) to deliver regulatory documents electronically, rather than in paper form. Sounds reasonable, right? But what's really going on here?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This bill proposes several key changes:

* The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will create rules for electronic delivery of regulatory documents within 180 days. * Covered entities can opt-out of electronic delivery if they choose to, but only after a transition period. * Investors who don't receive all regulatory documents electronically will get an initial paper communication explaining the new system. * The bill sets requirements for readability and retainability of electronic documents.

Now, here's where things get interesting:

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects not just investors but also covered entities like investment companies, brokers, and dealers. But what about the real stakeholders? I'm talking about the big players: Wall Street, the Federal Reserve, and the government itself. Who benefits from this new system?

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* Convenience for investors? Maybe. But what about those who can't access electronic documents or don't have reliable internet? * Cost savings for covered entities? Possibly. But will these costs be passed on to consumers in other ways? * Increased efficiency and transparency? Perhaps. Or is this just a way to further obscure the truth?

Here's my take: This bill is not about improving disclosure; it's about controlling the narrative. By moving regulatory documents online, the government can more easily manipulate information and limit access to sensitive data. It's a clever move, but I'm onto them!

Think about it: with electronic delivery, documents can be altered or deleted without leaving a paper trail. This bill is just another step towards a cashless society, where every transaction is monitored and controlled by the powers that be.

Wake up, sheeple! Don't let them pull the wool over your eyes. This bill may seem innocuous on the surface, but trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Outraged tone) Folks, we've got another one of those "bipartisan" bills that's just a Trojan horse for more government control and elitist manipulation! (Sarcastic smile) I mean, who doesn't love the sound of "Improving Disclosure for Investors Act of 2025"? Sounds like a real freedom-fighter's dream come true!

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill claims to improve disclosure for investors by allowing covered entities (think investment companies, brokers, and dealers) to deliver regulatory documents electronically. Because, you know, paper is just so last century. The main objective here is to "streamline" the process, making it easier for these entities to comply with securities laws while also reducing costs.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to propose rules within 180 days and finalize them within a year. These rules will govern electronic delivery of regulatory documents, including requirements for content, timing, and readability. The bill also provides an exemption from certain electronic signature requirements and allows covered entities to opt out of paper delivery if they choose.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Investors, investment companies, brokers, dealers, and self-regulatory organizations are all impacted by this bill. But let's be real, folks; the real stakeholders here are the elites who want to control every aspect of our lives, including how we invest our hard-earned money.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, I know what you're thinking: "What's the big deal? It's just electronic delivery." Well, my friends, this is where it gets interesting. By allowing electronic delivery, we're essentially giving these covered entities a free pass to bury investors under a mountain of digital paperwork. And don't even get me started on the potential for cybersecurity breaches and identity theft! (Dramatic music plays in the background)

But hey, who needs security when you've got "convenience" and "streamlined processes"? This bill is just another example of how our government is more interested in serving the interests of the elites than protecting the freedom and security of everyday Americans.

(Conspiratorial wink) Stay vigilant, folks. The deep state is always watching, waiting for its next opportunity to strike at the heart of our great nation.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce and expose its true intentions.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Improving Disclosure for Investors Act of 2025 (HR 2441) claims to "improve disclosure" by allowing covered entities to deliver regulatory documents electronically. How noble. In reality, this bill is a Trojan horse designed to benefit the financial industry at the expense of investors.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill allows covered entities (investment companies, brokers, dealers, and investment advisers) to deliver regulatory documents electronically, with some token provisions for opt-out and readability. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) must propose rules within 180 days and finalize them within a year. Oh, and there's an exemption from the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act because, you know, investor protection is overrated.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Investors, of course, are the supposed beneficiaries of this bill. But let's be real – they're just pawns in a game of regulatory capture. The true stakeholders are the financial industry giants who will save millions on paper and postage while further obscuring their activities from investors.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "regulatory relief" for the powerful at the expense of the vulnerable. By allowing electronic delivery, covered entities can:

1. Reduce costs and increase profits. 2. Make it harder for investors to access and understand regulatory documents. 3. Further entrench their dominance over the market.

Meanwhile, investors will be left with:

1. More complex and opaque financial disclosures. 2. Reduced ability to opt-out of electronic delivery. 3. Increased reliance on technology to access critical information.

In short, this bill is a disease masquerading as a cure. It's a symptom of a deeper illness – the corrupting influence of money in politics and the willingness of lawmakers to sacrifice investor protection for the sake of their corporate donors.

Diagnosis: Terminal Stupidity Syndrome (TSS) – a condition where politicians prioritize short-term gains over long-term consequences, ignoring the obvious harm caused by their actions. Treatment: None available; prognosis is poor.

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

**Improving Disclosure for Investors Act of 2025 (HR 2441)**

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Improving Disclosure for Investors Act of 2025 aims to modernize the delivery of regulatory documents required under securities laws by allowing covered entities to use electronic delivery methods. The bill seeks to improve investor access to information, reduce costs and environmental impact associated with paper-based delivery, and enhance the overall efficiency of the disclosure process.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill requires the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to propose rules within 180 days and finalize them within one year, allowing covered entities to deliver regulatory documents electronically. Key provisions include:

1. Initial communication: Covered entities must provide an initial paper notice to investors about electronic delivery. 2. Transition period: A 180-day transition period is allowed for investors who do not receive all regulatory documents electronically. 3. Annual notice: An annual paper notice will be sent to remind investors of their ability to opt out of electronic delivery. 4. Opt-out mechanism: Investors can opt out of electronic delivery at any time and receive paper versions of regulatory documents. 5. Confidentiality measures: Covered entities must ensure the confidentiality of personal information in electronically delivered documents.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

1. Covered entities: Investment companies, business development companies, registered brokers, dealers, investment advisers, and municipal securities dealers. 2. Investors: Individuals and institutions that receive regulatory documents from covered entities. 3. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC): Responsible for proposing and finalizing rules to implement electronic delivery.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

1. **Increased efficiency**: Electronic delivery can reduce costs and environmental impact associated with paper-based delivery. 2. **Improved investor access**: Investors will have easier access to regulatory documents, enabling more informed investment decisions. 3. **Enhanced compliance**: The bill promotes compliance with securities laws by providing clear guidelines for electronic delivery. 4. **Potential cost savings**: Covered entities may realize cost savings from reduced printing and mailing expenses.

However, some investors may face challenges in accessing electronically delivered documents, particularly those without reliable internet access or digital literacy skills. Additionally, the bill's implementation may require significant changes to existing systems and processes for covered entities.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Improving Disclosure for Investors Act of 2025 is all about modernizing the way regulatory documents are delivered to investors, man. The main goal is to allow covered entities (like investment companies and brokers) to send these docs electronically instead of on paper. This should make things more efficient, reduce costs, and help the environment, you know?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill requires the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to create rules for electronic delivery within 180 days, with some key provisions:

* Covered entities can start using electronic delivery after a transition period of up to 180 days. * Investors who don't opt out will get an initial paper notice about electronic delivery, followed by annual reminders. * The SEC must set requirements for the content and timing of these notices, as well as measures to ensure readability, retainability, and confidentiality. * Some entities (like brokers and investment advisers) are exempt from certain requirements.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects:

* Covered entities: Investment companies, registered brokers, dealers, and municipal securities dealers. * Investors: Anyone who receives regulatory documents from these covered entities. * The SEC: They'll be responsible for creating the rules and regulations. * Self-regulatory organizations: They'll need to adopt consistent rules and regulations.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill could have some gnarly implications, bro:

* Reduced costs for covered entities (no more printing and mailing). * Increased efficiency and speed of delivery. * Environmental benefits from reduced paper usage. * Potential for improved readability and retainability with electronic documents. * Investors might appreciate the convenience of electronic delivery.

However, there are also some potential drawbacks to consider:

* Some investors might not be tech-savvy or have access to reliable internet, which could create barriers to accessing these documents. * There's a risk that electronic delivery could lead to information overload or decreased engagement from investors.

Overall, this bill is trying to bring regulatory document delivery into the 21st century, man. It's all about finding a balance between convenience, efficiency, and investor protection.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Improving Disclosure for Investors Act of 2025 (HR 2441)**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill aims to modernize the delivery of regulatory documents required under securities laws by allowing covered entities to use electronic delivery methods, thereby reducing costs and increasing efficiency.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

* The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) must propose rules within 180 days and finalize them within one year to permit electronic delivery of regulatory documents. * Covered entities can satisfy their obligations by delivering documents electronically, with certain requirements for opt-out provisions, readability, and confidentiality. * The bill exempts electronic deliveries from the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (ESIGN). * Self-regulatory organizations must adopt rules consistent with this act.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* Covered entities: investment companies, business development companies, registered brokers, dealers, and municipal securities dealers. * Investors: individuals who receive regulatory documents from covered entities. * Securities industry associations and lobby groups, such as the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) and the Investment Company Institute (ICI).

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* Reduced costs for covered entities through electronic delivery methods. * Increased efficiency in document delivery and reduced environmental impact. * Potential benefits for investors, including easier access to regulatory documents and reduced clutter. * Industry lobby groups may have influenced the bill's language to favor their interests, such as SIFMA's advocacy for electronic delivery methods.

**Monied Interest Analysis:**

* The bill's sponsors, Reps. Huizenga (R-MI), Sherman (D-CA), Steil (R-WI), and Auchincloss (D-MA), have received significant campaign contributions from the securities industry. * SIFMA and ICI are likely to support this bill, as it aligns with their interests in reducing costs and increasing efficiency. * The SEC's rulemaking process will be crucial in shaping the final regulations, which may be influenced by industry lobby groups.

**Committee Capture:** The House Financial Services Committee, which reported the bill, has a history of being influenced by the securities industry. Rep. Huizenga, the bill's primary sponsor, is a member of this committee and has received significant campaign contributions from SIFMA and other industry groups.

Overall, while the bill appears to have benefits for both covered entities and investors, its passage may be driven more by industry interests than a genuine desire to improve disclosure for investors.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Huizenga, Bill [R-MI-4]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$323,650

24 donors

PACs

Organizations

$8,550

Committees

Individuals

$315,100

No PAC contributions found

POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

THALOP LLC

2 transactions

$2,000

BARREL DOG, LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

NOAH HOMES LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

B&B DAIRY

2 transactions

$1,000

STRAIGHT LINE RED ANGUS

1 transaction

$250

No committee contributions found

VAN ANDEL, AMY

1 transaction

$75,000

VAN ANDEL, STEPHEN

1 transaction

$75,000

HAWORTH, RICHARD G

1 transaction

$47,900

SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE H.

1 transaction

$11,600

SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN A

1 transaction

$11,600

HAWORTH, MATT R

1 transaction

$11,600

QUINTILIAN, JOSEPH

1 transaction

$11,600

HIBMA, DANIEL

2 transactions

$11,600

SHINELDECKER, SHAR

2 transactions

$10,200

KLINSKY, STEVEN B.

1 transaction

$6,600

DIPRISCO, GREGORY

1 transaction

$6,600

PAYNE, ROBERT

1 transaction

$5,800

BAKER, JEFFREY

1 transaction

$5,000

CARMICHAEL, CATHRYN B

1 transaction

$5,000

PETERS, JAMES

1 transaction

$5,000

LANTING, ARLYN

1 transaction

$5,000

LANTING, MARCIA

1 transaction

$5,000

WORKMAN, JOHN

1 transaction

$5,000

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Sherman, Brad [D-CA-32]

ID: S000344

Top Contributors

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$2,000

Oct 30, 2023

MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS

$2,000

Oct 5, 2023

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$2,000

Sep 30, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$1,300

Oct 21, 2024

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,000

Oct 28, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$700

Oct 21, 2024

AHMED, TAIMOOR

MARKHOR LOGISTICS • CEO

IndividualSACRAMENTO, CA

$3,300

Mar 30, 2023

GARHWAL, HARI

GARHWAL, CHAN & WILLIAMS • CPA

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Mar 23, 2023

GARHWAL, HARI

GARHWAL, CHAN & WILLIAMS • CPA

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Mar 23, 2023

GARHWAL, SANJEEV

WWMG • PHYSICIAN

IndividualSEATTLE, WA

$3,300

Mar 29, 2023

Rep. Steil, Bryan [R-WI-1]

ID: S001213

Top Contributors

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

OrganizationCRANDON, WI

$3,300

Apr 25, 2024

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

OrganizationCRANDON, WI

$3,300

Mar 22, 2023

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Sep 30, 2024

HO CHUNK NATION

OrganizationBLACK RIVER FALLS, WI

$3,300

Oct 30, 2024

HO CHUNK NATION

OrganizationBLACK RIVER FALLS, WI

$2,900

Mar 13, 2023

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$2,500

Dec 23, 2023

ONEIDA NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$2,000

Jun 30, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,500

Jun 30, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,500

Jun 30, 2024

ONEIDA NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$1,300

Jun 30, 2024

Rep. Auchincloss, Jake [D-MA-4]

ID: A000148

Top Contributors

SIDMAN, HOPE

H2O APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES • CEO

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$9,900

Nov 3, 2023

DIXON, CHRIS

ANDREESSEN HOROWITZ • GENERAL PARTNER

IndividualMENLO PARK, CA

$6,600

Nov 22, 2023

DIXON, CHRIS

IndividualMENLO PARK, CA

$6,600

Nov 27, 2023

SIDMAN, HOPE

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$6,600

Nov 28, 2023

SMITH, JOSEPH

CROSS COUNTRY MORTGAGE • MORTGAGE BANKER

IndividualBROOKLINE, MA

$6,200

Mar 2, 2024

BIZOZA, BRIAN

DEERFIELD MANAGEMENT COMPANY • FINANCIAL ANALYST

IndividualBROOKLYN, NY

$3,800

Apr 29, 2024

BOBBILI, PRIYANKA

ANALYSIS GROUP • VICE PRESIDENT

IndividualBROOKLINE, MA

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

HOLT, WILL

WILLIAM HOLT • MANAGER

IndividualWESTON, MA

$3,300

Nov 25, 2024

TYE, TED

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT • REAL ESTATE

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$3,300

Oct 26, 2024

BUCKLER, SHELDON A

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualNEWTON CENTRE, MA

$3,300

Dec 30, 2024

Rep. Pettersen, Brittany [D-CO-7]

ID: P000620

Top Contributors

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

OTOE-MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

OTOE-MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF NORTH DAKOTA

OrganizationBELCOURT, ND

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF NORTH DAKOTA

OrganizationBELCOURT, ND

$3,300

Jun 10, 2024

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Oct 16, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$2,300

Dec 21, 2023

BGR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, LLC

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$1,000

Oct 12, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,000

May 22, 2023

Rep. Wagner, Ann [R-MO-2]

ID: W000812

Top Contributors

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Aug 23, 2023

DEMOCRACY ENGINE, INC., PAC

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$2,000

Jul 14, 2023

DEMOCRACY ENGINE, INC., PAC

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Mar 15, 2023

WINRED

OrganizationARLINGTON, VA

May 9, 2024

WILHELM, MARK A MR.

SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORP. • CHAIRMAN & CEO

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$13,200

Dec 18, 2023

DRURY, TIM M.

DRURY DEVELOPMENT • PRESIDENT

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$13,200

Feb 27, 2023

DANFORTH, JOHN C

DOWD BENNETT LLP • ATTORNEY

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$13,200

Feb 17, 2023

TRACY, RICHARD L. MR.

DOT FOODS, INC. • PRESIDENT

IndividualDES PERES, MO

$13,200

Feb 17, 2023

RINEY, RODGER O. MR.

T.D. AMERITRADE • ADVISOR TO CEO

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$13,200

Mar 23, 2023

O'CONNELL, JOHN T.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$13,200

Mar 15, 2023

Rep. McClain, Lisa C. [R-MI-9]

ID: M001136

Top Contributors

A & ALL WASTE LLC

OrganizationOAKLAND TWP, MI

$1,000

Oct 21, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,000

Dec 31, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

Apr 20, 2023

SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$1,000

Apr 20, 2023

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$1,000

Sep 11, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,000

Sep 30, 2023

BANKE, BARBARA R.

IndividualGEYSERVILLE, CA

$6,600

Nov 16, 2023

SAMONA, MAZIN

WILD BILL'S TOBACCO • CEO

IndividualTROY, MI

$6,600

Sep 15, 2023

ALKHAFAJI, AMMAR

W INVESTORS GROUP • PRINCIPAL

IndividualSOUTHFIELD, MI

$6,600

Jul 24, 2023

YALDO, RUDI

PEARL TRADING LLC • CEO

IndividualBLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI

$6,600

Jul 21, 2023

Rep. Vindman, Eugene Simon [D-VA-7]

ID: V000138

Top Contributors

LUX FOR VIRGINIA

OrganizationLADYSMITH, VA

$500

Mar 29, 2024

LUX FOR VIRGINIA

OrganizationLADYSMITH, VA

$500

Mar 31, 2024

FORSTER-BURKE, DIANE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT

$4,000

Apr 20, 2024

FORSTER-BURKE, DIANE

IndividualCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT

$4,000

May 5, 2024

VON STEIN, THOMSON

IndividualROCKVILLE, MD

$3,500

Aug 7, 2024

HULL, MEGAN

SELF • ACTIVIST

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Nov 2, 2024

KAISER, GEORGE

GBK CORPORATION • EXECUTIVE

IndividualTULSA, OK

$3,300

Oct 25, 2024

PARSONS, KATHLEEN

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPOTOMAC, MD

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

STAPLE, HARISE

SELF • MD

IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

HOLMES, LAURA

SELF • REAL ESTATE INVESTOR

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Huizenga, Bill [R-MI-4]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 62 nodes and 43 connections (47 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $378,350

Top Donors - Rep. Huizenga, Bill [R-MI-4]

Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount

6 Orgs18 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.

+Investment Banking & Securitiesconfidence 0.90
Section 2(b)(1)-(7) and (f) require the SEC to finalize rules allowing covered entities (including brokers, dealers, investment advisers, investment companies, etc.) to deliver regulatory documents electronically, reducing paper delivery costs and administrative burden for firms in the investment banking and securities industry.
+Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.70
Section 2(g)(3)(B) and (g)(7) define electronic delivery to include posting documents to a website and delivering notice of availability, which could benefit big tech platforms that provide cloud hosting, website services, or digital infrastructure used for such electronic delivery.
+Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.60
Section 2(g)(3)(A) and (g)(7) include direct delivery to an electronic address and mobile applications as forms of electronic delivery, which could increase demand for broadband and wireless services used by investors to receive documents, benefiting telecom providers.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Huizenga, Bill [R-MI-4])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Investment Banking & Securities$8,755
from 15 contributions
- SACKETT, DEAN III$1,750
- BRACERAS, ROBERTO$1,000
- CHAN, DERRICK$1,000
- FEBEO, JIM$1,000
- WARD, BRIAN$1,000

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.

Trade

Strong

Vector: 63%

Pages: 859-862AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill's focus on modernizing and streamlining disclosure delivery aligns with Project 2025's call for a simplified, rationalized securities disclosure system that reduces impediments to capital formation."

Key themes:electronic disclosurecost reductioninvestor accessregulatory efficiencycapital formation

— 827 — Section 5: Independent Regulatory Agencies with government.” Under the Biden FTC, he writes, firms try “to get out of anti- trust liability by offering climate, diversity, or other forms of ESG-type offerings.” Candeub says that state AGs “are far more responsive to their constituents” than the federal government generally is, and he recommends that the FTC establish a position in the chairman’s office that is “focused on state AG cooperation and inviting state AGs to Washington, DC, to discuss enforcement policy in key sectors under the FTC’s jurisdiction: Big Tech, hospital mergers, supermarket mergers, and so forth.” — 829 — 27 FINANCIAL REGULATORY AGENCIES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION AND RELATED AGENCIES David R. Burton The primary purposes of the laws and regulations governing capital markets and of capital market regulators are to deter and punish fraud and other material misstatements to investors; foster reasonable, scaled disclosure of information that is material to investors’ financial outcomes and proxy voting decisions; and maintain fair, orderly, and efficient secondary capital markets. The Securities Act of 19331 and the Securities Exchange Act of 19342 reflect nearly nine decades of rushed and haphazard amendments. The securities laws are now extremely complex and do not constitute a coherent, rational regulatory regime. For example, the current SEC has proposed a climate change reporting rule that would quadruple the costs of being a public company.3 This would have a substantial adverse impact on existing companies. Over time, it would also sub- stantially reduce the number of public companies and therefore the number of investing options available to ordinary Americans. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) should be reducing impediments to capital formation, not rad- ically increasing them. The SEC and Congress should fundamentally reform the securities laws gov- erning issuers, broker–dealers, exchanges, and other market participants. Among other things, they should establish a simplified and rationalized securities disclo- sure system with:

Trade

Moderate

Vector: 63%

Pages: 863-865AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's goal of improving SEC efficiency and transparency by modernizing disclosure processes, though it does not directly address broader reforms like abolishing FINRA or PCAOB, or reducing regulatory burdens on small issuers as emphasized in the policy."

Key themes:SEC reformdisclosure modernizationinvestor accessregulatory efficiencycapital formation support

— 830 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Three basic categories of firm: private firms, an intermediate category of smaller firms,4 and public firms; l Reasonable, scaled disclosure requirements; and l Specified secondary markets for the securities of these firms.5 The SEC needs to be reformed to achieve its important core functions more effectively, to improve transparency and due process, and to reduce unnecessary regulatory impediments to capital formation.6 Under current law, the SEC Chair- man has the authority to make almost all of the necessary changes.7 Unfortunately, financial regulators, particularly the SEC and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), are poorly managed and organized. With regulatory authority delegated by the government, both the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and FINRA have proved to be ineffective, costly, opaque, and largely impervious to reform. To reduce costs and improve transparency, due process, congressional oversight, and responsiveness, PCAOB and FINRA should be abolished, and their regulatory functions should be merged into the SEC. Furthermore, Congress should establish an indepen- dent board or commission and charge it with producing a detailed report within 18 months that examines the degree to which the regulatory functions of the var- ious other so-called self-regulatory organizations (SROs), which are no longer self-regulatory in any meaningful sense, should be moved to the SEC.8 Discrimination based on immutable characteristics has no place in financial regulation. Offices at financial regulators that promote racist policies (usually in the name of “diversity, equity, and inclusion”) should be abolished, and regulations that require appointments on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, or sexual orientation should be eliminated. Equal protection of the law, equal opportunity, and individ- ual merit should govern regulatory decisions.9 Congress has given the SEC broad “general exemptive authority,”10 but the SEC has used this authority only rarely. It should use this authority significantly more often to reduce the regulatory burden on issuers, particularly smaller entrepreneurs. ENTREPRENEURIAL CAPITAL FORMATION Financial regulators should remove regulatory impediments to entrepreneur- ial capital formation.11 In the absence of the fundamental reform outlined above, the SEC should: l Simplify and streamline Regulation A (the small issues exemption)12 and Regulation CF (crowdfunding)13 and preempt blue sky registration and quali- fication requirements for all primary and secondary Regulation A offerings.14 — 831 — Financial Regulatory Agencies l Either democratize access to private offerings by broadening the definition of accredited investor for purposes of Regulation D or eliminate the accredited investor restriction altogether.15 l Allow traditional self-certification of accredited investor status for all Regulation D Rule 506 offerings. l Exempt small micro-offerings from registration requirements.16 l Exempt small and intermittent finders from broker–dealer registration requirements and provide a simplified registration process for private placement brokers.17 l Exempt peer-to-peer lending from federal and state securities laws and reduce the regulatory burden on Regulation CF debt securities. l Make the Title I Emerging Growth Company (EGC) exemptions permanent for all EGCs. l Reduce the regulatory burden on small broker–dealers and exempt privately held, non-custodial broker–dealers from the requirements to use a PCAOB- registered firm for their audits. Congress should: l Amend the Internal Revenue Code to disregard crowdfunding and Regulation A shareholders for purposes of the 100-shareholder limit for Subchapter S corporations.18 BETTER CAPITAL MARKETS To improve capital markets, the SEC should: l Preempt blue sky registration, qualification, and continuing reporting requirements for securities traded on established securities markets (including a national securities exchange or an alternative trading system).19 l Terminate the Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT) program.20 l Abolish Rule 144 and other regulations that restrict securities resales and instead require a company that has sold securities to provide sufficient current informa- tion to the market to permit reasonable investment decisions and secondary sales.

Trade

Weak

Vector: 67%

Pages: 863-865AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on modernizing electronic delivery of investor disclosures, which aligns tangentially with Project 2025's broader goal of reducing regulatory burdens and improving capital market efficiency, but does not directly address any specific Trade section policies such as accredited investor reform, EGC exemptions, or ESG disclosure prohibitions."

Key themes:regulatory efficiencycapital marketsSEC modernization

— 831 — Financial Regulatory Agencies l Either democratize access to private offerings by broadening the definition of accredited investor for purposes of Regulation D or eliminate the accredited investor restriction altogether.15 l Allow traditional self-certification of accredited investor status for all Regulation D Rule 506 offerings. l Exempt small micro-offerings from registration requirements.16 l Exempt small and intermittent finders from broker–dealer registration requirements and provide a simplified registration process for private placement brokers.17 l Exempt peer-to-peer lending from federal and state securities laws and reduce the regulatory burden on Regulation CF debt securities. l Make the Title I Emerging Growth Company (EGC) exemptions permanent for all EGCs. l Reduce the regulatory burden on small broker–dealers and exempt privately held, non-custodial broker–dealers from the requirements to use a PCAOB- registered firm for their audits. Congress should: l Amend the Internal Revenue Code to disregard crowdfunding and Regulation A shareholders for purposes of the 100-shareholder limit for Subchapter S corporations.18 BETTER CAPITAL MARKETS To improve capital markets, the SEC should: l Preempt blue sky registration, qualification, and continuing reporting requirements for securities traded on established securities markets (including a national securities exchange or an alternative trading system).19 l Terminate the Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT) program.20 l Abolish Rule 144 and other regulations that restrict securities resales and instead require a company that has sold securities to provide sufficient current informa- tion to the market to permit reasonable investment decisions and secondary sales. — 832 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Congress should: l Prohibit the SEC from requiring issuer disclosure of social, ideological, political, or “human capital” information that is not material to investors’ financial, economic, or pecuniary risks or returns. The proposed SEC climate change rule, which would quadruple the costs of being a public company, is particularly problematic.21 l Repeal the Dodd–Frank mandated disclosures relating to conflict minerals, mine safety, resource extraction, and CEO pay ratios.22 l Oppose efforts to redefine the purpose of business in the name of social justice; corporate social responsibility (CSR); stakeholder theory; environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria; socially responsible investing (SRI); sustainability; diversity; business ethics; or common- good capitalism. l Prohibit securities regulators, including SROs, from promulgating rules or taking other actions that discriminate, either favorably or unfavorably, on the basis of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group. SEC ADMINISTRATION To enable it to achieve its core mission more effectively, the SEC should:23 l Publish better data on securities offerings, securities markets, and securities law enforcement and publish an annual data book of time series data on these matters. Specifically, the SEC Division of Economic and Risk Analysis (DERA) needs to do a much better job of collecting and reporting fundamental data regarding offerings, regulatory costs, violations, enforcement, investors, state regulator taxes, fees and activities, and other matters. l Ensure that SEC resources flow toward its core functions and away from ancillary and support functions or from missions that do not fall within the SEC’s statutory charge. l Ensure that any three SEC Commissioners are empowered to place an item on the agenda and to receive adequate staff support to do so even without the Chairman’s support.

Intelligence Community

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 257-259AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 IC section advocate for electronic/digital modernization to improve efficiency, but they address entirely different domains (securities investor disclosure vs. intelligence classification and declassification), resulting only tangential thematic overlap."

Key themes:electronic deliveryIT modernizationefficiency improvementtechnology adoptiondata management

— 224 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Enhanced metrics for accuracy of classification. l A general simplification of the overall system for the benefit of users. On the back end, an ODNI-run declassification process that is faster, nimbler, default-to-automated, and larger-scale should be a priority. Additionally, investments in IT are required to deal with the growing volumes of CNSI collected and produced in the digital age, along with many years’ worth of existing analog and digital holdings that could provide valuable historical insights. An incoming Administration needs to explore options to prioritize funding for innovation in declassification management: for example, by establishing a budget line item specifically for the modernization of declassification or designating fund- ing for program classification management as a special-interest item. The Administration will also need to transition to using technology, including tools and services for managing Big Data (which provide a robust electronic record repository, making information within and across agencies easier to organize and locate and facilitating more rapid review and release capabilities for records of emerging interest); artificial intelligence/machine learning (which, when incor- porated into existing business practices, enables machine interpretation of unstructured text and data, applies decision support technology to enable more consistent classification decisions, and expedites reviews between agencies); and expansion of Commercial Cloud services (which facilitate the rapid testing and deployment of new tools and technologies). However, technology is not a panacea; human expertise in information holdings and routine validation of the technology will always be necessary. With or with- out machine assistance, agencies will require more people and more varied skill sets to improve their ability to meet the electronic records era’s classification and declassification demands and serve an incoming Administration’s goals. Broader U.S. Government and IC Intelligence Needs. Increasingly, con- flicts among U.S. adversaries such as China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are conducted in the realms of technology and finance.40 This challenge requires new tools, authorities, and technological expertise across the U.S. government, par- ticularly at the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which is housed at the Treasury Department. An incoming conservative President should task his DNI and Secretary of Commerce with increasing coordination, the resources needed for BIS and SCIF capacity, and proper and necessary intelligence sharing to counter the activities of multifaceted adversaries such as China. This would include additional work with private-sector expertise, granting clearances to niche sector experts and United States citizen commercial and financial partners as needed. — 225 — Intelligence Community Cover in the Digital Age. Even in the public domain, it is becoming increas- ingly clear that protecting the identities of undercover intelligence officers is difficult in the digital age.41 The truth is that as our daily activities are conducted predominantly in the digital domain, our antiquated system for providing cover to undercover officers has lagged woefully behind the threat from foreign adversaries. The DIA, CIA, and FBI are increasingly aware of this threat and are devoting resources to the problem. Their back-office infrastructure, however, is such that they are still using methods for providing cover from decades past that put valuable intelligence officers at unnecessary risk. How intelligence officers and their fami- lies are taught to use smartphones and social media, travel, conduct banking, and take and share pictures—even how and when they are paid—can make it difficult to protect identities.42 Legends, fake backstories, and identities are often weak, incomplete, and unable to stand up to a basic Google search.43 Officers operat- ing under nonofficial cover are offered even less protection and training to help them succeed. In addition, ubiquitous technical surveillance (UTS) techniques being refined by technologies emanating from the regimes in China and Russia will continue to be highly challenging for intelligence officers. An incoming Administration will need to double down on resourcing and training so that members of the IC will have the expertise they need to operate clandestinely (and successfully) against hard targets. Privacy Shield. For many years, the European Union (EU) has tried to force U.S. companies operating in Europe to follow its data privacy regulations. Misleading claims in the 2013 Snowden leaks destroyed the initial Safe Harbor Framework44 that allowed American companies to transfer data across the Atlantic; its succes- sor, the Privacy Shield Framework,45 was struck down by European courts on the grounds that it provides insufficient protections for EU citizens against hypothet- ical U.S. government surveillance. Those same European courts exempted the intelligence services of EU member states from the standards applied to the U.S., suggesting that trade protectionism may be the real motive behind data privacy regulations. In 2022, the Biden Administration negotiated a new agreement, the Trans-At- lantic Data Privacy Framework,46 intended to withstand European legal challenges. Given the fate of its predecessors, it is not certain that it will survive. Executive Order 14086, “Enhancing Safeguards for United States Signals Intelligence Activi- ties,”47 implements this new framework by attempting to align signals intelligence collection practices with European privacy regulations. At most, the executive order’s changes will be helpful support for the framework in future European litigation; at worst, they could throw sand in the gears of important intelli- gence programs. An incoming conservative President should reset Europe’s expectations. Brus- sels has always arbitraged the difference between being a military ally against, for

Intelligence Community

Minimal

Vector: 62%

Pages: 257-259AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on modernizing electronic disclosure for investors under SEC regulations, which is unrelated to the Project 2025 Intelligence Community policy objectives concerning undercover officer protection, data privacy frameworks with the EU, and intelligence oversight standards."

— 225 — Intelligence Community Cover in the Digital Age. Even in the public domain, it is becoming increas- ingly clear that protecting the identities of undercover intelligence officers is difficult in the digital age.41 The truth is that as our daily activities are conducted predominantly in the digital domain, our antiquated system for providing cover to undercover officers has lagged woefully behind the threat from foreign adversaries. The DIA, CIA, and FBI are increasingly aware of this threat and are devoting resources to the problem. Their back-office infrastructure, however, is such that they are still using methods for providing cover from decades past that put valuable intelligence officers at unnecessary risk. How intelligence officers and their fami- lies are taught to use smartphones and social media, travel, conduct banking, and take and share pictures—even how and when they are paid—can make it difficult to protect identities.42 Legends, fake backstories, and identities are often weak, incomplete, and unable to stand up to a basic Google search.43 Officers operat- ing under nonofficial cover are offered even less protection and training to help them succeed. In addition, ubiquitous technical surveillance (UTS) techniques being refined by technologies emanating from the regimes in China and Russia will continue to be highly challenging for intelligence officers. An incoming Administration will need to double down on resourcing and training so that members of the IC will have the expertise they need to operate clandestinely (and successfully) against hard targets. Privacy Shield. For many years, the European Union (EU) has tried to force U.S. companies operating in Europe to follow its data privacy regulations. Misleading claims in the 2013 Snowden leaks destroyed the initial Safe Harbor Framework44 that allowed American companies to transfer data across the Atlantic; its succes- sor, the Privacy Shield Framework,45 was struck down by European courts on the grounds that it provides insufficient protections for EU citizens against hypothet- ical U.S. government surveillance. Those same European courts exempted the intelligence services of EU member states from the standards applied to the U.S., suggesting that trade protectionism may be the real motive behind data privacy regulations. In 2022, the Biden Administration negotiated a new agreement, the Trans-At- lantic Data Privacy Framework,46 intended to withstand European legal challenges. Given the fate of its predecessors, it is not certain that it will survive. Executive Order 14086, “Enhancing Safeguards for United States Signals Intelligence Activi- ties,”47 implements this new framework by attempting to align signals intelligence collection practices with European privacy regulations. At most, the executive order’s changes will be helpful support for the framework in future European litigation; at worst, they could throw sand in the gears of important intelli- gence programs. An incoming conservative President should reset Europe’s expectations. Brus- sels has always arbitraged the difference between being a military ally against, for — 226 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise example, Russia and conducting a full-blown trade conflict with the United States. Restrictions on data exports have been part of the trade conflict, but now they could seriously harm our military and intelligence capabilities. Moreover, restrictions on U.S. intelligence collection hurt the Europeans themselves, especially as the United States shares unprecedented amounts of intelligence on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine with Europeans.48 Europe is telling the United States to meet intelligence oversight standards that no European country meets. At the same time, exports of data to China are unexamined and (so far) free from legal challenges. That violates World Trade Organization agreements as an arbitrary and discriminatory data protection stan- dard. It is a betrayal by a nominally allied jurisdiction. European court rulings that struck down prior data privacy frameworks were grounded not in constitutional law but in a treaty among European nations. If the EU accepted an international agreement that data may flow to the United States under a more reasonable stan- dard than the one adopted by the court, that interpretation would be binding, at least as a gloss on the earlier treaty. The United States has never seriously pushed back against the EU; now is the time. An incoming President should ask for an immediate study of the implemen- tation of Executive Order 14086 and suspend any provisions that unduly burden intelligence collection. At the same time, in negotiations with the Europeans, the United States should make clear that the continued sharing of intelligence with EU member states depends on successful resolution of this issue within the first two years of a President’s term. It is time for a real solution, not the 30 years of stopgaps imposed by Brussels. President’s Daily Brief (PDB). An incoming conservative President should make clear what the President’s Daily Brief is and is not. The PDB should be for the President specifically, with a much narrower distribution and addressing areas of strategic concern. During the transition, the future National Security Advisor, along with the DNI, should conduct a review of current PDB recipients and deter- mine which should remain recipients when the President’s term begins. Instead of being used as the statement of record for the agencies, the PDB often misses the areas of interest for Presidents and their senior advisers. The President should want the PDB to focus on providing the information needed for the often imperfect and complex decisions that a President needs to make, which should always be based on the best intelligence that can be gathered. Where consensus and agreement are possible, an IC-coordinated product is excellent, but insights provided by properly channeled dissent can lead a President to ask relevant ques- tions of his DNI and IC. A future DNI determines the PDB briefer based on recommendations made by the Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Mission Integration (MI). His- torically, briefers have come from the CIA, but a future President and DNI should

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Huizenga, Bill

Chip Security Act

119/hr/3447

Deterring American AI Model Theft Act of 2026

119/hr/8283

Data Driven Diplomacy Act

119/hr/7036

Back to All Bills