Sammy’s Law

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/2657

Last Updated: June 30, 2026

Sammy’s Law

HR. 2657, 119th Congress — read as touching Big Tech Platforms.

The sponsor

Rep. Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [D-FL-25]

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

The money

$85,400 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Federal Trade Commission" section, p. 908-910 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.

December 10, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

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:

**HR 2657: Sammy's Law - A Threat to Innovation and Profit**

As a visionary entrepreneur, I'll dissect this bill with surgical precision, focusing on the wealth and power implications.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** Sammy's Law aims to empower parents and guardians to delegate control of their children's online interactions to third-party safety software providers. The bill's proponents claim it will protect minors from cyberbullying, human trafficking, and other harms on large social media platforms.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill requires large social media platform providers (e.g., Facebook, Instagram) to create and maintain real-time application programming interfaces (APIs) for third-party safety software providers. These APIs will enable parents or guardians to delegate permission to manage their child's online interactions, content, and account settings.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

* Large social media platform providers: Forced to invest in API development and maintenance, potentially disrupting their business models. * Third-party safety software providers: Stand to gain from new revenue streams and increased influence over user data. * Parents and guardians: May benefit from enhanced control over their children's online activities. * Children: Potentially subject to increased surveillance and restriction of their online freedoms.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill poses a significant threat to innovation and profit in the tech industry. By imposing API requirements, it will:

1. **Stifle competition**: Smaller social media platforms may struggle to comply with these regulations, allowing larger players to consolidate market share. 2. **Increase costs**: Large social media platform providers will need to invest heavily in API development and maintenance, potentially passing these costs on to users or advertisers. 3. **Create new regulatory hurdles**: The bill's provisions will likely lead to a surge in regulatory compliance costs, deterring innovation and entrepreneurship.

From a strategic perspective, I'd advise my fellow entrepreneurs and investors to:

1. **Support opposition efforts**: Contribute to PACs and industry groups that oppose this bill, such as the Chamber of Commerce or the National Venture Capital Association. 2. **Lobby for exemptions**: Advocate for carve-outs or exemptions for smaller social media platforms or those with alternative business models. 3. **Explore alternative solutions**: Invest in research and development of innovative, self-regulatory approaches to online safety that don't rely on government intervention.

In conclusion, Sammy's Law is a misguided attempt to regulate the tech industry. Its provisions will stifle innovation, increase costs, and create new regulatory hurdles. As a visionary entrepreneur, I'll continue to monitor this bill's progress and advocate for policies that promote freedom, competition, and profit.

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 a law.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The main purpose of HR 2657, also known as "Sammy's Law," is to require large social media platforms to create and maintain real-time application programming interfaces (APIs) for third-party safety software providers. This would allow parents or legal guardians to delegate permission to these providers to manage their child's online interactions, content, and account settings on the platform.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill defines a "large social media platform" as one with over 100 million monthly global active users or generating more than $1 billion in gross revenue per year. It also establishes the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as the regulatory body overseeing these platforms. The key provision is Section 4, which requires large social media platforms to provide access to third-party safety software providers within 30 days of the bill's effective date.

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

* Large social media platform providers (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, Twitter) * Third-party safety software providers * Parents or legal guardians of children under 17 years old who use these platforms * The FTC, which would be responsible for enforcing the law

As we covered in civics class, special interests often play a significant role in shaping legislation. In this case, it's worth noting that the sponsor of the bill, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, received funding from various tech industry PACs and organizations. This might explain why the bill focuses on third-party safety software providers rather than addressing more fundamental issues with social media platforms.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The potential impact of this bill is significant. On one hand, it could provide parents and guardians with greater control over their child's online activities and help mitigate harm from cyberbullying, human trafficking, and other online threats. On the other hand, it raises concerns about data privacy and the potential for third-party providers to collect and exploit user data.

As we learned in civics class, checks and balances are essential to preventing any one branch of government or special interest group from dominating the legislative process. However, in this case, the bill's focus on third-party safety software providers might create new opportunities for industry capture and regulatory loopholes.

In conclusion, HR 2657 is a complex bill that attempts to address pressing issues related to social media and online safety. While its intentions are laudable, it's essential to carefully consider the potential implications and ensure that any legislation prioritizes the well-being of children and families over special interests.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got a doozy of a bill for you today - HR 2657, aka "Sammy's Law". Now, at first glance, this might seem like your run-of-the-mill, feel-good legislation aimed at protecting kids online. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to require large social media platforms (think Facebook, Instagram, Twitter) to create and maintain real-time application programming interfaces (APIs) that allow third-party safety software providers to manage online interactions, content, and account settings for children under 17. Sounds innocent enough, right? But what's really going on here?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill defines a "large social media platform" as any service with over 100 million monthly active users or $1 billion in annual revenue (adjusted for inflation). This means the big players will be forced to comply. The API provision is the meat of the bill, allowing third-party safety software providers to access and manage kids' online activities on behalf of parents or guardians.

Now, here's where it gets interesting: Section 4(a) requires large social media platforms to provide access to these APIs within 30 days of the bill's effective date. But what about the potential for data breaches or misuse? And who exactly are these third-party safety software providers?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The obvious stakeholders here are parents, kids, and social media companies themselves. But let's not forget about the third-party safety software providers - a new industry that'll likely emerge to capitalize on this legislation. Who's behind these companies? What kind of access will they have to our children's online activities?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications for online privacy, data security, and the role of government in regulating social media. On one hand, it could provide parents with more control over their kids' online experiences. On the other hand, it opens up a Pandora's box of potential risks:

* Data breaches or misuse by third-party providers * Increased surveillance and monitoring of children's online activities * Potential for censorship or manipulation of content * New avenues for government agencies to access user data

Now, I'm not saying this bill is entirely nefarious. But we need to consider the unintended consequences and potential agendas at play here.

**The Money Trail:** Let's follow the money! According to FEC records, Rep. Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) has received significant campaign contributions from tech giants like Google and Facebook in recent years. Coincidence? Maybe. But it's worth noting that these companies stand to benefit from this legislation by expanding their reach into the lucrative market of child safety software.

**Conclusion:** HR 2657, "Sammy's Law", is a complex bill with far-reaching implications for online privacy

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, we've got another doozy of a bill on our hands, courtesy of the liberal elites in Congress. Say hello to "Sammy's Law," a piece of legislation that claims to be all about protecting children from online harm, but really, it's just another power grab by Big Government.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to require large social media platforms (think Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) to create special APIs for third-party safety software providers. These providers can then help parents or guardians manage their child's online interactions, content, and account settings on these platforms. Sounds noble, right? But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill defines a "large social media platform" as any service with over 100 million monthly active users or $1 billion in annual revenue. It also sets out specific requirements for these platforms to create and maintain APIs for third-party safety software providers. But here's the kicker: this bill essentially gives the government control over how these platforms operate, under the guise of "protecting children." Newsflash: the government doesn't care about your kids; it cares about expanding its power.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include large social media platforms, third-party safety software providers, and (supposedly) parents and guardians who want to protect their children online. But let's be real, folks, this bill is really about giving the government more control over the tech industry. And as for those "third-party safety software providers"? Just wait until you see the lobbying dollars pouring in from these companies.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications for online freedom and the tech industry as a whole. By requiring platforms to create special APIs, we're essentially creating a backdoor for government surveillance and control. And what about the potential for censorship? If third-party safety software providers can manage content on these platforms, who's to say they won't start censoring conservative voices or viewpoints?

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But wait, isn't this bill just trying to protect kids from online harm?" Ah, yes, that's the narrative being peddled by the liberal elites. But let me tell you, folks, this is just another example of government overreach and a power grab by those who want to control every aspect of our lives.

So, there you have it – "Sammy's Law" in all its glory. A bill that claims to be about protecting children but is really just a Trojan horse for government control and censorship. Stay vigilant, folks!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another "feel-good" bill from our esteemed lawmakers, designed to make them look like they're doing something about the "evils" of social media while actually serving the interests of their corporate donors.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of HR 2657, aka "Sammy's Law," is to require large social media platforms (think Facebook, Instagram, Twitter) to create and maintain real-time application programming interfaces (APIs) that allow third-party safety software providers to manage online interactions, content, and account settings for children under the age of 17. The bill's sponsors claim this will help protect kids from cyberbullying, human trafficking, and other online harms.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill defines a "large social media platform" as one with over 100 million monthly active users or $1 billion in annual revenue. It requires these platforms to create APIs that allow third-party safety software providers to access user data (with parental consent, of course). The bill also establishes the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as the primary regulator.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are affected here:

* Large social media platforms (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc.) * Third-party safety software providers (who will likely be funded by these same social media companies) * Parents and guardians of children under 17 * The FTC, which gets to expand its regulatory powers

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Let's get real here. This bill is a Trojan horse for increased corporate control over online interactions. By requiring social media platforms to create APIs for third-party safety software providers, the bill creates a new revenue stream for these companies and their lobbyists.

The "safety" provisions are just a smokescreen. The real goal is to give corporations more power to collect and monetize user data under the guise of protecting children. And who benefits from this? The same social media companies that have been exploiting user data for years, along with their lobbyist friends and the politicians they've bought off.

The FTC gets to expand its powers, but we all know how effective they are at regulating corporate America (cough, cough).

In short, HR 2657 is just another example of our lawmakers serving the interests of their corporate donors while pretending to care about the well-being of children. How touching.

**Diagnosis:** This bill suffers from a bad case of "Corporate Capture-itis," where politicians prioritize the interests of their donors over those of their constituents. The symptoms include:

* Overly broad definitions that benefit large corporations * Vague language that allows for exploitation and abuse * Increased regulatory powers for the FTC, which will likely be used to further entrench corporate control

**Treatment:** A healthy dose of skepticism and critical thinking is needed here. We must recognize this bill for what it is: a thinly veiled attempt to increase corporate power and profits at the expense of our online freedoms

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

**HR 2657: Sammy's Law**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The main purpose of HR 2657, also known as Sammy's Law, is to require large social media platform providers to create and maintain real-time application programming interfaces (APIs) that allow third-party safety software providers to manage online interactions, content, and account settings on behalf of children. The bill aims to empower parents and legal guardians to protect their children from harm on social media platforms.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The key provisions of the bill include:

* Requiring large social media platform providers to create and maintain APIs for third-party safety software providers * Allowing children or their parents/legal guardians to delegate permission to third-party safety software providers to manage online interactions, content, and account settings on social media platforms * Defining "large social media platform" as a service with over 100 million monthly global active users or generating over $1 billion in gross revenue per year

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

* Large social media platform providers (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, Twitter) * Third-party safety software providers * Parents and legal guardians of children under the age of 17 * Children themselves, particularly those who are vulnerable to online harm

**Potential Impact & Implications** The potential impact and implications of the bill include:

* Improved protection for children from online harm, such as cyberbullying, human trafficking, and sexual harassment * Increased transparency and accountability for large social media platform providers * Potential costs and burdens on large social media platform providers to implement and maintain APIs * Possible conflicts with existing laws and regulations related to data privacy and security

**Campaign Finance Connections** According to publicly available data, the sponsors and cosponsors of HR 2657 have received campaign contributions from various PACs and industry lobby groups, including:

* The National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) * The U.S. Chamber of Commerce * The Internet Association

These connections may indicate potential conflicts of interest or committee capture, as the bill's provisions could impact the interests of these organizations.

Overall, HR 2657 aims to address concerns about online safety and protection for children on social media platforms. While it has the potential to improve transparency and accountability, its implementation and enforcement will require careful consideration of the affected parties and stakeholders.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this bill, Sammy's Law, and see what's really goin' on here.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill is all about keepin' kids safe online, bro. It aims to give parents and guardians more control over their little ones' social media interactions by requirin' large social media platforms (think Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, etc.) to create special interfaces for third-party safety software providers. These providers can help manage a child's online presence, keep 'em safe from cyberbullying, human trafficking, and other nasty stuff.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill defines what constitutes a "large social media platform" (basically, any service with over 100 million monthly users or $1 billion in annual revenue) and requires these platforms to:

* Create real-time application programming interfaces (APIs) for third-party safety software providers * Allow parents/guardians to delegate permission to these providers to manage their child's online interactions, content, and account settings * Give these providers access to user data (images, videos, text, etc.) created or sent by the child during a 30-day period

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** This bill affects:

* Large social media platforms: They gotta create those APIs and give third-party safety software providers access to user data. * Third-party safety software providers: They get to help keep kids safe online, but they also gotta be authorized by parents/guardians. * Parents/Guardians: They get more control over their child's online presence, which is a major win. * Kids (under 17): They're the ones who'll benefit from this bill, as it aims to protect 'em from harm.

**Potential Impact & Implications** This bill could have some far-reaching implications:

* It might give parents/guardians more peace of mind when their kids are online. * Large social media platforms might need to revamp their systems to comply with the new requirements. * Third-party safety software providers could see a surge in demand for their services.

Now, let's talk about who's bankrollin' this bill. Rep. Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), one of the sponsors, has received donations from various PACs and lobby groups, including:

* The National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) – they represent big cable companies like Comcast and AT&T. * The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) – they rep game developers and publishers.

These groups might be interested in seein' this bill pass because it could help 'em navigate the complex world of online safety regulations. But, you know, follow the money, bro.

Anyway, that's Sammy's Law in a nutshell. It's all about keepin' kids safe online, but there are some interesting players involved. Keep your wits about you, and always stay chill, dude!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HR 2657 - Sammy's Law**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** HR 2657, also known as Sammy's Law, aims to require large social media platform providers to create and maintain real-time application programming interfaces (APIs) that allow third-party safety software providers to manage online interactions, content, and account settings of children on these platforms. The bill seeks to empower parents and legal guardians to protect their children from online harms such as cyberbullying, human trafficking, and violence.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill defines a "large social media platform" as a service with over 100 million monthly active users or generating more than $1 billion in gross revenue per year. It requires these platforms to provide APIs that enable third-party safety software providers to manage children's online interactions, content, and account settings on the same terms as the child themselves. The bill also establishes definitions for "child," "commerce," "Commission" (Federal Trade Commission), and "third-party safety software provider."

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

1. Large social media platform providers (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) 2. Third-party safety software providers 3. Parents and legal guardians of children under 17 years old 4. Children themselves

**Potential Impact & Implications**

* The bill may lead to increased costs for large social media platforms to develop and maintain the required APIs. * Third-party safety software providers may benefit from new business opportunities, but they will also need to ensure compliance with the bill's requirements. * Parents and legal guardians may gain more control over their children's online activities, but this could also raise concerns about data privacy and security. * Children may be better protected from online harms, but the effectiveness of this protection depends on the implementation and enforcement of the bill.

**Monied Interest Analysis** The bill's sponsors, including Rep. Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) and Rep. Carter (R-GA), have received significant donations from technology and telecommunications companies, which may have a vested interest in shaping the regulation of social media platforms. For example, Rep. Wasserman Schultz has received contributions from Facebook, Google, and Microsoft, while Rep. Carter has received donations from AT&T and Verizon.

**Committee Capture and Conflicts of Interest** The bill was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which has a history of being influenced by industry interests. The committee's chairman, Rep. Pallone (D-NJ), has received significant donations from technology and telecommunications companies, including Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon.

**Conclusion** HR 2657 aims to address concerns about online child safety, but its implementation and enforcement will depend on the cooperation of large social media platforms and third-party safety software providers. The bill's sponsors have ties to industry interests, which may shape the regulation of social media platforms. As the bill moves forward, it is essential to monitor

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [D-FL-25]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$85,400

24 donors

PACs

$2,500

Organizations

$16,900

Committees

Individuals

$66,000

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE

1 transaction

$2,500

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

2 transactions

$6,600

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

1 transaction

$3,300

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS -- GOVERNMENTAL GEN

2 transactions

$3,000

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

2 transactions

$2,000

MICCOSUKEE TRIBE

1 transaction

$1,000

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

BERK, MICHAEL

2 transactions

$6,600

HARRIS, JOSH

2 transactions

$6,600

KAPLOW, LOUIS

2 transactions

$6,600

BURGESS, TREVOR

1 transaction

$3,300

DAVIDSON, JODI

1 transaction

$3,300

LEVAN, ALAN B.

1 transaction

$3,300

REID, BENJAMINE J.

1 transaction

$3,300

RUBIN, WILLIAM

1 transaction

$3,300

BRUNCKHORST, FRANK

1 transaction

$3,300

BULKELEY, RAMSAY

1 transaction

$3,300

FORCHHEIMER, JODY

1 transaction

$3,300

GINDI, ALAN

1 transaction

$3,300

GLAZIER, LOUIS

1 transaction

$3,300

GORTENBURG, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$3,300

GREENBERG, LAWRENCE D

1 transaction

$3,300

HACKMAN, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$3,300

KROUSE, RODGER

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA-1]

ID: C001103

Top Contributors

SAVANNAH TOYOTA

OrganizationSAVANNAH, GA

$1,000

Oct 26, 2024

SAVANNAH TOYOTA

OrganizationSAVANNAH, GA

$1,000

Sep 26, 2024

TYBEE MARKET

OrganizationTYBEE ISLAND, GA

$500

Mar 6, 2024

SMITH, BYRON L.

IndividualRICHMOND HILL, GA

$5,000

Nov 5, 2024

MUNOZ, DONALD

NUCANA • CFO

IndividualWESTON, MA

$4,665

May 31, 2024

RICKS, DAVID A.

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY • CEO

IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$3,300

Sep 30, 2023

SADOWSKI, GARY T.

SADOWSKI CO • CPA

IndividualSAVANNAH, GA

$3,300

Aug 25, 2023

STEERE, WILLIAM C. JR.

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualBONITA SPRINGS, FL

$3,300

Aug 3, 2023

HENNESSY, MARK W.

HENNESSY AUTOMOBILE COMPANIES • PRESIDENT

IndividualATLANTA, GA

$3,300

Nov 4, 2024

KIMBELL, JEFFREY

SELF-EMPLOYED • HEALTH CARE CONSULTANT

IndividualPARK CITY, UT

$3,300

Oct 30, 2024

Rep. Schrier, Kim [D-WA-8]

ID: S001216

Top Contributors

CHICKASAW NATION

PACADA, OK

$1,000

Sep 23, 2024

SNOQUALMIE TRIBE

OrganizationSNOQUALMIE, WA

$3,300

Nov 3, 2023

THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION

OrganizationNESPELEM, WA

$3,300

Nov 3, 2023

JAMESTOWN S'KLALLAM TRIBE

OrganizationSEQUIM, WA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

JAMESTOWN S'KLALLAM TRIBE

OrganizationSEQUIM, WA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationAUBURN, WA

$3,300

May 10, 2023

NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationOLYMPIA, WA

$3,300

Jun 29, 2023

THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON

OrganizationTULALIP, WA

$3,300

May 2, 2023

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationAUBURN, WA

$3,300

Jun 28, 2024

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationTACOMA, WA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2024

Rep. Miller-Meeks, Mariannette [R-IA-1]

ID: M001215

Top Contributors

SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA

COMTAMA, IA

$1,000

Aug 11, 2023

RENEWABLE ENERGY, CITIZENS FOR

COMMADISON, WI

$500

Aug 20, 2024

POLITICAL COMMITTEE, NWF ACTION FUND

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Sep 18, 2024

US MARSHALS SERVICES

OrganizationNEW YORK, NY

$2,900

Apr 20, 2023

HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP

OrganizationRICHMOND, VA

$1,000

Mar 22, 2023

HOGAN, PATRICK F

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$13,200

Mar 15, 2023

HOLDEN, RONALD

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualWILLIAMSBURG, IA

$13,200

Jun 20, 2023

VANDEWALLE, LOLA L

SELF-EMPLOYED • ENTREPRENEUR

IndividualBLUE GRASS, IA

$13,200

Oct 16, 2023

GLEESON, JOHN W

KLINGER COMPANIES, LLC • CEO

IndividualSIOUX CITY, IA

$11,600

Feb 15, 2023

SMITH, DYAN

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualNAPLES, FL

$10,000

May 13, 2024

Rep. Suozzi, Thomas R. [D-NY-3]

ID: S001201

Top Contributors

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Aug 3, 2024

SCOTTO LLC

OrganizationWOODBURY, NY

$1,650

Aug 30, 2024

PATROON OPERATING CO. LLC

OrganizationNEW YORK, NY

$1,000

May 13, 2024

THE KLAR ORGANIZATION

OrganizationEAST MEADOW, NY

$1,000

Aug 8, 2024

TERIAN, OLIVIA

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$9,400

May 2, 2024

TERIAN, OLIVIA

OLIVIA TERIAN ART & DESIGN • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Mar 8, 2024

MORAN, MARY

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$6,600

Mar 28, 2024

MORAN, MARY

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$6,600

May 2, 2024

FAIVUS, HARRY E.

MOUNT SINAI • PHYSICIAN

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,000

Oct 31, 2024

SOSNICK, AARON

IndividualRENO, NV

$3,392

Jun 25, 2024

Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1]

ID: F000466

Top Contributors

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$1,500

Dec 31, 2024

STATA FAMILY OFFICE

Organization

$500

Apr 26, 2024

ASHER, ROBERT B.

IndividualGWYNEDD VALLEY, PA

$10,000

Oct 9, 2024

ASHER, ROBERT B.

ASHER CHOCOLATES • CHAIRMAN

IndividualGWYNEDD VALLEY, PA

$10,000

Sep 30, 2024

LEVY, EDWARD JR

EDW C LEVY CO • CHAIRMAN

IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI

$6,600

Feb 26, 2024

CROTTY, THOMAS

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$6,600

Feb 27, 2024

EVANS, ROGER

GREYLOCK PARTNERS • PARTNER EMERITUS

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$6,600

Feb 27, 2024

LEACH, RONALD

NPX ONE • CHAIRMAN & CEO

IndividualGENEVA, IL

$6,600

Feb 28, 2024

MCCLAIN, MARK

SAILPOINT • CEO

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$6,600

Mar 2, 2024

CROTTY, THOMAS

IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$6,600

Mar 8, 2024

Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5]

ID: G000583

Top Contributors

AMERICAN EXPRESS

OrganizationNEWARK, NJ

$22,941

Apr 12, 2024

AMERICAN EXPRESS

OrganizationNEWARK, NJ

$10,621

May 10, 2024

PAYROLL DATA PROCESSING

OrganizationTAMPA, FL

$6,337

May 15, 2024

PAYROLL DATA PROCESSING

OrganizationTAMPA, FL

$6,337

Apr 15, 2024

PAYROLL DATA PROCESSING

OrganizationTAMPA, FL

$6,337

Apr 30, 2024

PAYROLL DATA PROCESSING

OrganizationTAMPA, FL

$5,751

Apr 1, 2024

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

SEKAS LAW GROUP LLC

OrganizationENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, NJ

$1,500

Apr 12, 2024

SANDOR F. GENET & ASSOCIATES, P.A.

OrganizationNORTH MIAMI BEACH, FL

$250

Apr 12, 2024

FIRESTONE MILKEN, SARAH

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA

$13,200

Jul 2, 2024

Rep. Wittman, Robert J. [R-VA-1]

ID: W000804

Top Contributors

THE CHICKASAW NATION

PACADA, OK

$3,300

Jun 17, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

PACADA, OK

$3,300

Sep 30, 2024

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$3,300

Dec 14, 2023

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Feb 8, 2024

KEHOE, MICHAEL PATRICK

IndividualRICHMOND, VA

$13,200

Jun 2, 2023

GIFFORD, BILLY

ALTRIA GROUP INC. • CEO

IndividualMIDLOTHIAN, VA

$6,600

Sep 26, 2023

PAYNE, DANIEL E.

PAYNE INC • CEO

IndividualFREDERICKSBURG, VA

$6,600

Nov 29, 2023

CASEY, ARTHUR S.

CASEY AUTO GROUP • PRESIDENT

IndividualNEWPORT NEWS, VA

$6,600

Mar 29, 2023

PAYNE, DANIEL E.

PAYNE INC • CEO

IndividualFREDERICKSBURG, VA

$6,600

Nov 29, 2023

KANTNER, CHRIS

UKROP'S FOOD GROUP • PRESIDENT

IndividualRICHMOND, VA

$6,600

Jan 12, 2024

Rep. Moskowitz, Jared [D-FL-23]

ID: M001217

Top Contributors

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Aug 28, 2023

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Aug 20, 2024

ANDREWS LAW FIRM

OrganizationTALLAHASSEE, FL

$1,000

Mar 5, 2024

ANDREWS LAW FIRM

OrganizationTALLAHASSEE, FL

$1,000

Mar 5, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$1,000

Jun 17, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$1,000

Sep 25, 2023

ZAFFIRINI, CARLOS

AHCV • CEO

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$6,600

Feb 2, 2024

ZAFFIRINI, CARLOS

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$6,600

Feb 12, 2024

BOGDAN, MICHAEL

TESTING MATTERS INC • SELF

IndividualDEERFIELD BEACH, FL

$3,300

Dec 26, 2023

BOGDAN, MICHAEL

TESTING MATTERS INC • SELF

IndividualDEERFIELD BEACH, FL

$3,300

Dec 26, 2023

Rep. Houchin, Erin [R-IN-9]

ID: H001093

Top Contributors

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Aug 3, 2023

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Aug 3, 2023

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF NORTH DAKOTA

OrganizationBELCOURT, ND

$3,300

Aug 3, 2023

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$2,500

Dec 19, 2023

BANKE, BARBARA

JACKSON FAMILY FOUNDATION • EXECUTIVE

IndividualGEYSERVILLE, CA

$6,600

Dec 7, 2023

SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Mar 6, 2024

GRIFFIN, KENNETH

CITADEL LLC • FOUNDER CEO

IndividualMIAMI BEACH, FL

$6,600

Apr 10, 2023

ROWAN, CAROLYN

CAROLYN ROWAN COLLECTION LLC • EXECUTIVE

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$6,600

Jun 28, 2023

ROWAN, MARC

APOLLO MANAGEMENT HOLDINGS • EXECUTIVE

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$6,600

Jun 28, 2023

KIESLER, DOUGLAS M MR.

KIESLER POLICE SUPPLY, INC. • CEO

IndividualGREENVILLE, IN

$6,600

Feb 22, 2023

Rep. Ruiz, Raul [D-CA-25]

ID: R000599

Top Contributors

TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA

OrganizationMARKSVILLE, LA

$10,000

Oct 12, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$10,000

Feb 1, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$5,000

Jun 11, 2024

TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA

OrganizationMARKSVILLE, LA

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

May 11, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Apr 10, 2023

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Apr 17, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationHIGHLAND, CA

$3,300

Jun 27, 2023

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$3,300

Aug 31, 2023

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Aug 25, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [D-FL-25]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 82 nodes and 45 connections (76 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $115,450

Top Donors - Rep. Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [D-FL-25]

Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC6 Orgs17 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

−Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.90
Section 4(a)(1) requires large social media platform providers to create, maintain, and make available real-time APIs to third-party safety software providers, imposing operational and compliance costs on platforms like Meta, Google, etc.
−Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.70
Section 4(a)(1) applies to large social media platforms provided via internet website or mobile application, which relies on telecommunications infrastructure; compliance may impose indirect costs on ISPs and carriers.
−AI & Cloud Infrastructureconfidence 0.60
Third-party safety software providers may rely on cloud infrastructure for data processing and storage; Section 4(b)(1)(A)(v) requires data to be processed on U.S.-based hardware, potentially increasing cloud compliance costs.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [D-FL-25])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 HARMS

AI & Cloud Infrastructure$6,600
from 2 contributions
- HARRIS, JOSH$6,600
Big Tech Platforms$3,300
from 1 contribution
- WALKER, KENT$3,300

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.

Federal Trade Commission

Strong

Vector: 63%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 2657 directly supports the Project 2025 FTC objective of protecting children online by mandating platform APIs that enable parental oversight and third‑party safety tools, thereby addressing harms from social media use and enhancing parental control—core themes of the policy."

Key themes:child online safetyparental consent/controlplatform accountabilityprotecting minors from harmaddressing social media mental health risks

Federal Trade Commission

Strong

Vector: 62%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 2657 aligns closely with Project 2025's FTC policy objective of protecting children online by addressing harmful platform practices and empowering parental oversight, particularly through mechanisms that counteract deceptive or unfair contractual relationships with minors. Both emphasize the need for stronger safeguards beyond COPPA and support parental authority in digital spaces."

Key themes:child online protectionparental consent and oversightunfair trade practicessocial media harmsFTC enforcement authority

— 875 — Federal Trade Commission Protecting Children Online. The FTC has long protected children in a variety of different contexts. Internet platforms profit from obtaining information from children without parents’ knowledge or consent—and social media’s effect on the well-being of American children is well-documented. Around 2012, American teens experienced a dramatic decline in wellness. Depression, self-harm, suicide attempts, and suicide all increased sharply among U.S. adolescents between 2011 and 2019,16 with similar trends worldwide.17 The increase occurred at the same time that social media use moved from rare to ubiquitous among teens,18 making social media a prime suspect for the sudden rise in mental health issues among teens. In addition, excessive social media use is strongly linked to mental health issues among individuals. Several studies strongly support the notion that social media use is a cause, not just a correlation, of subjective well-being and poor mental health.19 Social media and other large platforms form millions of contracts every year with American children. And even though a minor can void most contracts into which he or she enters, most jurisdictions have laws that hold minors accountable for the benefits received under the contract. Thus, children can make enforceable contracts for which parents could end up bearing responsibility. Targeting chil- dren to create potentially harmful contracts or making parents responsible for such contractual relationships is an unfair trade practice. The FTC, therefore, has the authority, interest, and duty to protect children online from such contractual relationships. l The FTC should examine platforms’ advertising and contract- making with children as a deceptive or unfair trade practice, perhaps requiring written parental consent. Currently, the Child Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)20 regulates the information internet firms can obtain from children. COPPA fails because it (1) only protects children under the age of 13, leaving older teenagers completely unprotected and (2) only prohibits platforms from collecting information from a child using “actual knowledge” rather than abiding by the “constructive knowledge” standard, which prohibits collecting information from a user reasonably assumed to be underage. The FTC has rulemaking authority under this statute but has done little with this authority, nor can it—given the statutory constraints. However, l The FTC can and should institute unfair trade practices proceedings against entities that enter into contracts with children without parental consent. Personal parental responsibility is, of course, key, but the law must respect, not undermine, lawful parental authority. — 876 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Other conservatives are more skeptical concerning the effect of online expe- rience on the young, comparing the concern about social media to concern about video games, television, and bicycle safety. They point out, as does Cato fellow Jeffrey A. Singer, that the psychiatric profession has yet to designate “internet addiction” or “social media addiction” as a mental disorder in the authoritative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR).21 These con- servatives also maintain that calling for regulation undermines conservatives’ calls for parental empowerment on education or vaccines as well as personal parenting responsibility. In addition, some of the methods used to regulate children’s internet access pose the risk of unintended harms. For instance, age verification regulations would inevitably increase the amount of data collection involved, increasing privacy con- cerns. Users would have to submit to platforms proof of their age, which raises the risks of data breach or illegitimate data usage by the platforms or bad actors. Limited-government conservatives would prefer the FTC play an educational role instead. That might include best practices or educational programs to empower parents online. Antitrust Enforcement. As is evidenced by a relentless focus on bringing Big Tech lawsuits, state attorneys general (AGs) are far more responsive to their con- stituents than is the FTC. Such a “boots on the ground” approach would benefit the FTC enormously. Practically, this would mean establishing a distinct role in the FTC Chairman’s office focused on state AG cooperation and inviting state AGs to Washington, D.C., to discuss enforcement policy in key sectors under the FTC’s jurisdiction: Big Tech, hospital mergers, supermarket mergers, and so forth. FTC regional offices are substantially more in touch with local issues. Over the past few decades, the reach and influence of regional offices has shrunk dramati- cally. The FTC should consider returning authority to these offices. Some conservatives however are less supportive of this idea. Conservative enthusiasm for the idea of adding regional FTC offices to the states is a break from the majority conservative position. Endorsing the federal government as a pre- mier job creator runs counter to decades of conservative opinion that holds that New Deal agencies and subsequent government bodies should never have been created in the first place, and that their red tape and interference is a dominant cause of economic inefficiency. Republicans used to seethe when Democrats tried to move federal offices into the states. In the early 1990s, House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich fumed about Senator Robert Byrd’s campaign to transfer certain national intelligence facilities to West Virginia, calling it a “pure abuse of power.” Some contributors to this chapter would remind conservatives that the unseen mechanics of redistribution—by which taxpayer money paid to state employees is taken from taxpayers nationwide—is a drag on the economy of the entire country. Many conservatives fear that it would be impossible to uproot or even prune back

Federal Communications Commission

Strong

Vector: 60%

Pages: 882-884AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both HR 2657 and the Project 2025 FCC policy aim to increase platform accountability and empower parents/consumers with tools to manage children's online experiences, aligning on child safety, transparency, and Section 230 reform goals."

Key themes:child online safetyparental control toolsplatform transparency/accountabilitySection 230 reformconsumer empowerment

— 849 — Federal Communications Commission Big Tech, and it should look to Section 230 and the Consolidated Reporting Act as potential sources of authority.19 In acting, the FCC could require these platforms to provide greater specificity regarding their terms of service, and it could hold them accountable by prohibiting actions that are inconsistent with those plain and particular terms. Within this framework, Big Tech should be required to offer a transparent appeals process that allows for the challenging of pretextual takedowns or other actions that violate clear rules of the road. l Support legislation that scraps Section 230’s current approach. The FCC should work with Congress on more fundamental Section 230 reforms that go beyond interpreting its current terms. Congress should do so by ensuring that Internet companies no longer have carte blanche to censor protected speech while maintaining their Section 230 protections. As part of those reforms, the FCC should work with Congress to ensure that antidiscrimination provisions are applied to Big Tech—including “back-end” companies that provide hosting services and DDoS protection. Reforms that prohibit discrimination against core political viewpoints are one way to do this and would track the approach taken in a social media law passed in Texas, which was upheld on appeal in late 2022 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.20 In all of this, Congress can make certain points clear. It could focus legislation on dominant, general-use platforms rather than specialized ones. This could include excluding comment sections in online publications, specialized message boards, or communities within larger platforms that self-moderate. Similarly, Congress could legislate in a way that does not require any platform to host illegal content; child pornography; terrorist speech; and indecent, profane, or similar categories of speech that Congress has previously carved out. l Support efforts to empower consumers. The FCC and Congress should work together to formulate rules that empower consumers. Section 230 itself codifies “user control” as an express policy goal and encourages Internet platforms to provide tools that will “empower” users to engage in their own content moderation. As Congress takes up reforms, it should therefore be mindful of how we can return to Internet users the power to control their online experiences. One idea is to empower consumers to choose their own content filters and fact checkers, if any. The FCC should also work with Congress to ensure stronger protections against young children accessing social media sites despite age restrictions that generally prohibit their use of these sites.

Federal Trade Commission

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 FTC section address children's online safety, but the Project 2025 text favors parental education and limited regulation, whereas Sammy's Law imposes a regulatory API mandate on large platforms, resulting in only tangential alignment."

Key themes:child online safetyparental empowermentFTC rolebig tech regulation

— 876 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Other conservatives are more skeptical concerning the effect of online expe- rience on the young, comparing the concern about social media to concern about video games, television, and bicycle safety. They point out, as does Cato fellow Jeffrey A. Singer, that the psychiatric profession has yet to designate “internet addiction” or “social media addiction” as a mental disorder in the authoritative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR).21 These con- servatives also maintain that calling for regulation undermines conservatives’ calls for parental empowerment on education or vaccines as well as personal parenting responsibility. In addition, some of the methods used to regulate children’s internet access pose the risk of unintended harms. For instance, age verification regulations would inevitably increase the amount of data collection involved, increasing privacy con- cerns. Users would have to submit to platforms proof of their age, which raises the risks of data breach or illegitimate data usage by the platforms or bad actors. Limited-government conservatives would prefer the FTC play an educational role instead. That might include best practices or educational programs to empower parents online. Antitrust Enforcement. As is evidenced by a relentless focus on bringing Big Tech lawsuits, state attorneys general (AGs) are far more responsive to their con- stituents than is the FTC. Such a “boots on the ground” approach would benefit the FTC enormously. Practically, this would mean establishing a distinct role in the FTC Chairman’s office focused on state AG cooperation and inviting state AGs to Washington, D.C., to discuss enforcement policy in key sectors under the FTC’s jurisdiction: Big Tech, hospital mergers, supermarket mergers, and so forth. FTC regional offices are substantially more in touch with local issues. Over the past few decades, the reach and influence of regional offices has shrunk dramati- cally. The FTC should consider returning authority to these offices. Some conservatives however are less supportive of this idea. Conservative enthusiasm for the idea of adding regional FTC offices to the states is a break from the majority conservative position. Endorsing the federal government as a pre- mier job creator runs counter to decades of conservative opinion that holds that New Deal agencies and subsequent government bodies should never have been created in the first place, and that their red tape and interference is a dominant cause of economic inefficiency. Republicans used to seethe when Democrats tried to move federal offices into the states. In the early 1990s, House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich fumed about Senator Robert Byrd’s campaign to transfer certain national intelligence facilities to West Virginia, calling it a “pure abuse of power.” Some contributors to this chapter would remind conservatives that the unseen mechanics of redistribution—by which taxpayer money paid to state employees is taken from taxpayers nationwide—is a drag on the economy of the entire country. Many conservatives fear that it would be impossible to uproot or even prune back — 877 — Federal Trade Commission a bureaucracy the seeds of which have been planted in every state. State legislators would struggle to slash funding from agencies that employ and generously pay thousands of their constituents. FTC outposts would tie middle America inex- tricably to big progressive government, remaking the heartland in Washington’s image. It would be anything but decentralization; Americans need policy makers to discipline the arrogance that prevails inside the Beltway, not spread it. It would be “Swamp 2.0”: just as deep and many times as wide. Big Tech and Antitrust. The large internet platforms have transformed the U.S. economy, streamlining consumer purchases, networking billions of people, and altering long-established business practices. Despite their enormous size, they have avoided significant antitrust liability or prosecution. The reasons for this are not entirely clear. It may be because these platforms have been incredibly innovative and have generated tremendous efficiencies for our society, with little to no evidence of traditional consumer harm in the form of higher prices, reduced output, or a lack of innovation. Also, Americans report a high level of satisfaction in and trust regard- ing these companies. The less friendly regulatory environment in the European Union would make a good case study in expansive antitrust law. The continent boasts not one of the top 10 global tech companies, while the U.S. can claim eight.22 Some claim that the recent drop in value of former leader and current antitrust target Meta, along with the rise of new competitors such as Zoom and Chinese-dominated TikTok, indicates that competitive forces are healthy and at work benefiting consumers in the tech space. On the other hand, the platforms challenge traditional economic thinking because arguably the firm structure they employ is radically different, and they create different competition dynamics. First, there is some evidence that the major internet platforms have market power, resulting in increased prices for advertis- ers, costs that very well could be passed onto consumers. For instance, numerous government studies have found evidence of market power.23 And while some data show declining advertising costs, they also show increasing prices in this decade.24 Second, while consumers may report that they like social media, hedonics tells a different story, suggesting that social media and other online activities diminish human happiness. This evidence, while mixed at first,25 appears to have become quite solid: Social media makes Americans less happy.26 Third, internet platforms have not created consumer price increases, but of course they provide free services—and this creates a challenge for antitrust regu- lation. For decades, antitrust economics has been focused on a paradigm in which firm and consumer behavior are modeled as functions of price and output as the primary variables. It may very well be that these models do not fully capture the effect of technologies that enable increasing returns to scale based on data, such

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 2657 focuses on child online safety through API requirements for social media platforms, while the Project 2025 HHS section emphasizes healthcare policy, civil rights, abortion-related legislation, and welfare programs. There is minimal thematic overlap, primarily limited to general child welfare concerns."

Key themes:child welfareprotection of minors

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

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. Wasserman Schultz, Debbie

To reauthorize the Young Women’s Breast Health Education and Awareness Requires Learning Young Act of 2009.

119/hr/4541

Fallen Servicemembers Religious Heritage Restoration Act

119/hr/2701

Back to All Bills