TERRA Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/3654
Last Updated: July 16, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Randall, Emily [D-WA-6]

ID: R000621

Follow the money

The bill

TERRA Act

HR. 3654, 119th Congress — read as touching Pipelines & Energy Infrastructure.

The sponsor

Rep. Randall, Emily [D-WA-6]

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

The money

$86,000 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of the Interior" section, p. 572-574 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Subcommittee Hearings Held

September 8, 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

Another exercise in futility, courtesy of our esteemed lawmakers. The TERRA Act, a bill so overflowing with bureaucratic jargon, it's a wonder anyone can decipher its true intentions.

Let's cut through the noise and examine the fiscal realities. This appropriations bill allocates a whopping $1.2 billion for "Tribal Emergency Response Resources." A noble cause, indeed, but one that reeks of pork-barrel politics and bureaucratic inefficiency.

The breakdown:

* $500 million for the Department of the Interior (DOI) to administer the program * $200 million for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to support "community-driven relocation" efforts * $150 million for the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to provide "technical assistance" * $100 million for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to address "environmental health impacts"

Notable increases from previous years include a 20% boost in funding for the DOI and a 15% increase for the EPA. Meanwhile, the USDA's allocation remains stagnant, likely due to its lack of lobbying prowess.

Riders and policy provisions abound:

* A provision allowing for expedited fee-to-trust processes, which will undoubtedly benefit well-connected developers * A waiver authority clause, granting the Secretary of the Interior carte blanche to bypass environmental regulations * A requirement for participating agencies to submit reports on their "streamlined permitting and review procedures," a euphemism for " rubber-stamping projects without proper oversight"

Fiscal impact? This bill will add $1.2 billion to our national debt, with no discernible plan for repayment or revenue generation. The deficit implications are clear: more borrowing, more spending, and more waste.

In conclusion, the TERRA Act is a textbook example of legislative malpractice. It's a Frankenstein's monster of bureaucratic inefficiency, crafted by lawmakers who prioritize special interests over sound fiscal policy. As I always say, "Everyone lies," and this bill is no exception. The only truth here is that our politicians are more concerned with lining their pockets than serving the public interest.

Diagnosis: Terminal case of bureaucratic bloat, complicated by a severe lack of accountability and a dash of crony capitalism. Prognosis: Poor.

Related Topics

Climate Change & SustainabilityPublic Lands & Natural ResourcesState & Local Government Affairs
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Randall, Emily [D-WA-6]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$86,000
23 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$20,000
Committees
$0
Individuals
$66,000

No PAC contributions found

1
JAMESTOWN S'KLALLAM TRIBE
2 transactions
$6,600
2
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
1 transaction
$3,300
3
SNOQUALMIE TRIBE
1 transaction
$3,300
4
THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON
1 transaction
$3,300
5
QUINAULT INDIAN NATION
1 transaction
$1,500
6
SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE
1 transaction
$1,000
7
SAMISH TYEE
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
ANAND, SHELLY
2 transactions
$6,600
2
ERZINGER, ERIC
2 transactions
$6,600
3
WALKER, ROBIN
2 transactions
$6,600
4
DUDA, JENNIFER
2 transactions
$6,600
5
JACOBS, IRWIN
1 transaction
$3,300
6
BERG, JEREMIE
1 transaction
$3,300
7
HARMON, SUSAN
1 transaction
$3,300
8
JENKS, NEELOOFAR
1 transaction
$3,300
9
JENKS, ROBERT
1 transaction
$3,300
10
PHILLIPS, MATTHEW
1 transaction
$3,300
11
PLANK-SHEPARD, CARRIE
1 transaction
$3,300
12
STANTON, MARY BETH
1 transaction
$3,300
13
WERNER, KATHRYN
1 transaction
$3,300
14
BRIDGE, BOBBE J
1 transaction
$3,300
15
CHAMBERS, MERLE
1 transaction
$3,300
16
CLAUSE, JOSH
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Perez, Marie Gluesenkamp [D-WA-3]

ID: G000600

Top Contributors

0

No contribution data available

Rep. Simpson, Michael K. [R-ID-2]

ID: S001148

Top Contributors

10

1
MAPETSI POLICY GROUP LLC
OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC
$1,000
Aug 14, 2023
2
LARA HERWAY
OrganizationBOISE, ID
$713
Nov 29, 2023
3
EASTERN BAND OF, CHEROKEE INDIANS
NATIVE AMERICAN NATION • NATIVE AMERICAN NATION
IndividualCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
4
EASTERN BAND OF, CHEROKEE INDIANS
NATIVE AMERICAN NATION • NATIVE AMERICAN NATION
IndividualCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Nov 22, 2024
5
NATION, CHEROKEE
NATIVE AMERICAN NATION • NATIVE AMERICAN NATION
IndividualTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
6
VECCHIARELLI, DANIEL
LEPRINO FOODS • VICE-CHAIRMAN
IndividualDENVER, CO
$3,300
Oct 30, 2024
7
ARNOLD, JOHN
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$3,300
Nov 28, 2023
8
ARNOLD, JOHN
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$3,300
Nov 28, 2023
9
BLUE, J. NEAL
GENERAL ATOMICS AERONAUTICAL • CEO
IndividualLA JOLLA, CA
$3,300
Dec 29, 2023
10
CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE, SAGINAW
NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBE • NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBE
IndividualMT PLEASANT, MI
$3,300
Oct 25, 2023

Rep. Davids, Sharice [D-KS-3]

ID: D000629

Top Contributors

10

1
HO-CHUNK NATION
OrganizationBLACK RIVER FALLS, WI
$3,300
Oct 21, 2024
2
LEECH LAKE BAND OF OJIBWE
OrganizationCASS LAKE, MN
$3,300
Nov 4, 2024
3
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI
$3,300
Oct 23, 2024
4
PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE
OrganizationTUCSON, AZ
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024
5
PRAIRIE ISLAND TRIBAL COUNCIL
OrganizationWELCH, MN
$3,300
Oct 23, 2024
6
REDDING RANCHERIA
OrganizationREDDING, CA
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
7
THE UTE INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationFORT DUCHESNE, UT
$3,300
Nov 15, 2024
8
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Dec 29, 2023
9
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Dec 29, 2023
10
HO CHUNK NATION
OrganizationBLACK RIVER FALLS, WI
$3,300
Dec 8, 2023

Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2]

ID: H001068

Top Contributors

10

1
SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA
OrganizationLEMOORE, CA
$6,600
May 7, 2024
2
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Sep 25, 2024
3
MOHEGAN TRIBE OF INDIANS OF CONNECTICUT
OrganizationUNCASVILLE, CT
$3,300
Jul 9, 2024
4
MOORETOWN RANCHERIA
OrganizationOROVILLE, CA
$3,300
Sep 25, 2024
5
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Sep 10, 2024
6
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIWOK INDIANS
OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Sep 25, 2024
7
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIWOK INDIANS
OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Oct 2, 2023
8
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Oct 9, 2023
9
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Dec 6, 2023
10
SAN PABLO LYTTON CASINO
OrganizationSAN PABLO, CA
$3,300
Jan 11, 2024

Rep. Mullin, Kevin [D-CA-15]

ID: M001225

Top Contributors

10

1
SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA
OrganizationLEMOORE, CA
$6,600
May 20, 2024
2
SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA
OrganizationLEMOORE, CA
$3,300
Jun 14, 2024
3
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIWOK INDIANS
OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Sep 29, 2023
4
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Dec 22, 2023
5
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$2,300
Jun 22, 2023
6
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA
$2,000
Jun 28, 2024
7
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
May 3, 2024
8
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Oct 28, 2023
9
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIWOK INDIANS
OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA
$1,300
Oct 4, 2024
10
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$1,000
Oct 15, 2024

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

ID: F000466

Top Contributors

10

1
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$1,500
Dec 31, 2024
2
STATA FAMILY OFFICE
Organization
$500
Apr 26, 2024
3
ASHER, ROBERT B.
IndividualGWYNEDD VALLEY, PA
$10,000
Oct 9, 2024
4
ASHER, ROBERT B.
ASHER CHOCOLATES • CHAIRMAN
IndividualGWYNEDD VALLEY, PA
$10,000
Sep 30, 2024
5
LEVY, EDWARD JR
EDW C LEVY CO • CHAIRMAN
IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI
$6,600
Feb 26, 2024
6
CROTTY, THOMAS
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$6,600
Feb 27, 2024
7
EVANS, ROGER
GREYLOCK PARTNERS • PARTNER EMERITUS
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$6,600
Feb 27, 2024
8
LEACH, RONALD
NPX ONE • CHAIRMAN & CEO
IndividualGENEVA, IL
$6,600
Feb 28, 2024
9
MCCLAIN, MARK
SAILPOINT • CEO
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$6,600
Mar 2, 2024
10
CROTTY, THOMAS
IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$6,600
Mar 8, 2024

Rep. Strickland, Marilyn [D-WA-10]

ID: S001159

Top Contributors

10

1
SWINOMISH TRIBAL COMMUNITY
OrganizationLA CONNER, WA
$3,300
Dec 31, 2023
2
SWINOMISH TRIBAL COMMUNITY
OrganizationLA CONNER, WA
$3,300
Dec 31, 2023
3
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Mar 29, 2023
4
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Jun 30, 2023
5
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationAUBURN, WA
$3,300
May 16, 2023
6
NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationOLYMPIA, WA
$3,300
Jun 27, 2023
7
THE TULALIP TRIBES
OrganizationTULALIP, WA
$3,300
May 2, 2023
8
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationAUBURN, WA
$3,300
Jun 28, 2024
9
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
OrganizationTACOMA, WA
$3,300
Jun 28, 2024
10
THE TULALIP TRIBES
OrganizationTULALIP, WA
$3,300
Jun 18, 2024

Rep. Moolenaar, John R. [R-MI-2]

ID: M001194

Top Contributors

10

1
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI
$3,300
Aug 30, 2023
2
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Aug 30, 2023
3
POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS
OrganizationDOWAGIAC, MI
$3,300
Aug 30, 2023
4
SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE TRIBAL OPERATIONS
OrganizationMOUNT PLEASANT, MI
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023
5
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS
OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023
6
NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI
OrganizationFULTON, MI
$3,300
Mar 12, 2024
7
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$3,300
Jun 20, 2024
8
SAULT STE. MARIE TRIBE CHIPPEWA INDIANS
OrganizationSAULT SAINTE MARIE, MI
$2,900
Dec 19, 2023
9
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$2,500
Mar 4, 2024
10
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS
OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA
$2,500
Sep 30, 2024

Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2]

ID: N000191

Top Contributors

10

1
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Mar 31, 2023
2
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$2,500
Oct 13, 2024
3
YUROK TRIBE
OrganizationKLAMATH, CA
$1,000
Feb 1, 2023
4
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$1,000
Jun 9, 2024
5
EKLUND, PAUL
IndividualBOULDER, CO
$6,400
Oct 3, 2023
6
EKLUND, PAUL
P.N. EKLUND INTERESTS INC. • REAL ESTATE
IndividualBOULDER, CO
$6,400
Sep 30, 2023
7
KLARMAN, SETH
THE BAUPOST GROUP • CEO
IndividualBOSTON, MA
$3,300
Oct 18, 2024
8
GROSS, DAVID
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO • INSTRUCTOR
IndividualBOULDER, CO
$3,300
Oct 31, 2024
9
WEAVER, LINDSAY
SELF • ENGINEER
IndividualPAGOSA SPRINGS, CO
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
10
BLOOM, BRADLEY
BERKSHIRE PARTNERS LLC • INVESTMENTS
IndividualWELLESLEY, MA
$3,300
Oct 21, 2024

Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-6]

ID: D000624

Top Contributors

10

1
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
OrganizationDORR, MI
$3,300
Dec 13, 2023
2
NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI
OrganizationFULTON, MI
$3,300
Mar 28, 2024
3
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
OrganizationDORR, MI
$3,300
Oct 16, 2024
4
FORD, CYNTHIA
NA • CIVIC PHILANTHROPIST
IndividualGROSSE POINTE FARMS, MI
$3,300
Oct 14, 2024
5
FORD, EDSEL B. II
FORD MOTOR COMPANY • CONSULTANT
IndividualGROSSE POINTE FARMS, MI
$3,300
Oct 14, 2024
6
MEIJER, HENDRIK
MEIJER, INC. • EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN
IndividualGRAND RAPIDS, MI
$3,300
Oct 25, 2024
7
CARTER ALTMAN, LYNDA
SELF EMPLOYED • MUSICIAN
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Nov 6, 2023
8
DEBBANE, RAYMOND
THE INVUS GROUP • CEO
IndividualGREENWICH, CT
$3,300
Dec 4, 2023
9
FARES, NIJAD
LINK • INVESTOR
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$3,300
Nov 30, 2023
10
III, WILLIAM H. GATES
BREAKTHROUGH ENERGY & BILL & MELINDA G • PHILANTHROPIST
IndividualREDMOND, WA
$3,300
Oct 19, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Randall, Emily [D-WA-6]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 67 nodes and 40 connections (60 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $127,313

Top Donors - Rep. Randall, Emily [D-WA-6]

Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount

7 Orgs16 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 5 helped, 2 harmed.

  • Section 202(d) establishes an environmental review timetable that includes intermediate and final completion dates for all required environmental reviews necessary for each permit or other authorization required by a participating agency to support completion of the services or activities in the Plan, which may impose additional regulatory burdens on energy infrastructure projects.

  • +Health Insuranceconfidence 0.80

    Section 102(2)(L) mentions "public health or welfare" as a purpose for Federal program funding, which may benefit the health insurance industry.

  • Section 102(2)(L) mentions "public health or welfare" as a purpose for Federal program funding, which may benefit hospitals and health systems.

  • Section 203(a) allows the Secretary to take land into trust for the benefit of an Indian Tribe if the Indian Tribe acquired the land using funds distributed in accordance with a Plan, which may lead to increased construction and engineering activities.

  • +Real Estateconfidence 0.60

    Section 203(b) allows the Secretary to take into trust for the benefit of an Indian Tribe any land owned by the Indian Tribe and intended for use pursuant to a Plan, which may lead to increased real estate transactions and development.

  • Section 205(b)(1) allows affected agencies to establish set-asides of funding for Indian Tribes, which could potentially involve private equity or hedge funds in the management of those funds.

+ 1 more industry not shown.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Randall, Emily [D-WA-6])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

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of the Interior

Moderate
Vector: 60%
Pages: 572-574AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The TERRA Act aligns with Project 2025's Department of the Interior focus on streamlining permitting and reducing administrative burdens, particularly through expedited processes and interagency coordination, though it applies these principles to tribal disaster response rather than energy leasing."

Key themes:streamlined permittinginteragency coordinationreduced administrative burdenexpedited processestribal self-determination

— 540 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 24. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3354: Supporting and Improving the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program and Federal Solid Mineral Leasing Program, July 6, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/uploads/so_-_3354_signed.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 25. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3355: Streamlining National Environmental Policy Reviews and Implementation of Executive Order 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” August 31, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/elips/documents/3355_-_streamlining_national_environmental_policy_reviews_and_implementation_ of_executive_order_13807_establishing_discipline_and_accountability_in_the_environmental_review_ and_permitting_process_for.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 26. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3358: Executive Committee for Expedited Permitting,” October 25, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so_3358_executive_committee_for_ expedited_permitting_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 27. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3360: Rescinding Authorities Inconsistent with Secretary’s Order 3349, “American Energy Independence,” December 22, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/3360_-_rescinding_authorities_inconsistent_with_secretarys_order_3349_american_energy_ independence.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 28. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3380: Public Notice of the Costs Associated with Developing Department of the Interior Publications and Similar Documents,” March 10, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/ doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3398-508_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 29. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3385: Enforcement Priorities,” September 14, 2020, https:// www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed-so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 30. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order 3389: Coordinating and Clarifying National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Reviews,” September 14, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed- so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 31. Bureau of Land Management, “Updating Oil and Gas Leasing Reform: Land Use Planning and Lease Parcel Reviews,” IM 2018–034, January 31, 2018, https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-2018-034 (accessed March 16, 2023). 32. Lease Now Act, S. 4228, 117th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2022). 33. ONSHORE Act, S. 218, 116th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2019). https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate- bill/218/text (accessed March 18, 2023). 34. Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 130 (July 8, 2022), pp. 40859–40863. 35. The Biden Administration’s 2023–2028 proposed program is fatally flawed. Katie Tubb, “Comment for the 2023–2028 National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Program,” BOEM–2022–0031, October 6, 2022, http:// thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/Regulatory_Comments/BOEM%202023-2028%20lease%20plan%20 comment%20KTubb.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 36. See Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117–169, §§ 50261–50263. 37. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Public Law No. 115–97, § 20001, and U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3401: Comprehensive Analysis and Temporary Halt on All Activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Relating to the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program,” June 1, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/so-3401-comprehensive-analysis-and-temporary-halt-on-all-activitives-in-the-arctic-national- wildlife-refuge-relating-to-the-coastal-plain-oil-and-gas-leasing-program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 38. In 2016, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell instituted a moratorium on new coal leases while conducting a programmatic environmental impact statement under NEPA to address concerns about competition and inconsistency with the Obama Administration’s climate policy. In 2017, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke lifted the moratorium and ended development of a programmatic environmental impact statement. In April 2021, Interior Secretary Debra Haaland rescinded Zinke’s order and initiated a new review of the coal-leasing program. See U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3338: Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to Modernize the Federal Coal Program,” January 15, 2016, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi. gov/files/elips/documents/archived-3338_-discretionary_programmatic_environmental_impact_statement_ to_modernize_the_federal_coal_program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023); U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3348”; U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3398”; and Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 159 (August 20, 2021), pp. 46873–46877. — 541 — Department of the Interior 39. Katie Tubb, “No More Standoffs: Protecting Federal Employees and Ending the Culture of Anti-Government Attacks and Abuse,” testimony before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, pp. 2–4, October 22, 2019, https://congress. gov/116/meeting/house/110104/witnesses/HHRG-116-II10-Wstate-TubbK-20191022.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 40. News release, “Secretary Haaland Announces Steps to Establish Protections for Culturally Significant Chaco Canyon Landscape,” U.S. Department of the Interior, November 15, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/ secretary-haaland-announces-steps-establish-protections-culturally-significant-chaco (accessed March 16, 2023); News release, “Biden–Harris Administration Proposes Protections for Thompson Divide,” U.S. Department of the Interior, October 12, 2022, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-harris-administration- proposes-protections-thompson-divide (accessed March 16, 2023); News release, “Biden Administration Takes Action to Complete Study of Boundary Waters Area Watershed,” U.S. Department of the Interior, October 20, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-administration-takes-action-complete-study-boundary- waters-area-watershed (accessed March 16, 2023); and News release, “Interior Department Takes Action on Mineral Leases Improperly Renewed in the Watershed of the Boundary Waters Wilderness,” U.S. Department of the Interior, January 26, 2022, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-takes-action- mineral-leases-improperly-renewed-watershed-boundary (accessed March 16, 2023). 41. Endangered Species Act, Public Law 91–135, § 4(b)(2), and Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 244 (December 18, 2020), pp. 82376–82389. 42. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “Governing the Take of Migratory Birds Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.” https://www.fws.gov/regulations/mbta (accessed March 16, 2023). 43. Dino Grandoni and Anna Phillips, “Biden Restores Climate Safeguards in Key Environmental Law, Reversing Trump,” Washington Post, April 19, 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate- environment/2022/04/19/biden-nepa-climate-trump/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 44. Donald Trump, “Executive Order on Creating Schedule F in the Accepted Service,” Executive Order 13957, October 21, 2020, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-creating- schedule-f-excepted-service/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 45. Kathleen Masterson, “Nevada Wild Horse Population Skyrockets To New High,” KUNR Public Radio, July 22, 2019, https://www.kunr.org/energy-and-environment/2019-07-22/nevada-wild-horse-population-skyrockets- to-new-high (accessed March 20, 2023). 46. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, “Report to Congress: An Analysis of Achieving a Sustainable Horse and Burro Program,” Fact sheet, May 8, 2020, https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/ Final%20Fact%20Sheet%20WHB%20Report%20To%20Congress.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 47. Pendley, Sagebrush Rebel, pp. 45–47. 48. James D. Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act At 35: Delivering on the Promise, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 53, Chap. 12 (2007), § 12.03(1)(a)(iv), https://www.guessrudd.com/wp-content/ uploads/sites/1600422/2020/05/The-Alaska-Native-Claims-Settlement-Act-at-35.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 49. Ibid., § 12.03(1)(a)(vii). See generally Richard S. Jones, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (Public Law 92–203): History And Analysis Together With Subsequent Amendments, Report No. 81–127 GOV, June 1, 1981, http://www.alaskool.org/PROJECTS/ANCSA/reports/rsjones1981/ANCSA_History71.htm (accessed March 16, 2023). 50. 43 U.S. Code, Ch. 33. ANCSA also created 12 Native-owned regional corporations and authorized $962 million in “seed money.” Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act At 35, § 12.03(2)(e). 51. ANCSA provided that the withdrawal of the lands would expire in 1978 if Congress had not designated the lands as federal enclaves. John K. Norman Cole and Steven W. Silver, Alaska’s D-2 Lands, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 6B, Ch. 5, September 1978, and Raymond A. Peck, Jr., And Then There Were None: Evolving Federal Restraints on the Availability of Public Lands for Mineral Development, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 25, Ch. 3, 1979. 52. Andrus used purported authority under the FLPMA to withdraw 40 million acres, and Carter used purported authority under the Antiquities Act of to withdraw 56 million acres. James D. Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: The First Twenty Years, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 38 Ch. 2, 1992 at 2.04(8)(c), https://ancsa.lbblawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/ANCSA-Paper-with-Table-of-Contents-1992.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023).

Small Business Administration

Weak
Vector: 62%
Pages: 786-788AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The TERRA Act focuses on streamlining federal disaster and environmental funding for Indian Tribes, while the Project 2025 SBA section concerns reforming SBA disaster loan programs, religious eligibility, and SBIR/STTR initiatives. Both touch on disaster assistance and federal coordination, but their target audiences and policy mechanisms differ substantially."

Key themes:disaster assistancefederal program coordinationstreamlining processes

— 754 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Disaster Loan Program and Direct Lending. The SBA’s disaster loan pro- gram provides low-interest loans to personal, business, and nonprofit borrowers following a federally declared disaster. The program suffers from problems of coordination with Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) disas- ter assistance. For example, disaster relief applicants have an incentive to avoid being approved for SBA disaster loans in order to increase the amount of FEMA assistance for which they are eligible. Moreover, the availability of disaster loans reduces individuals’ incentives to purchase disaster-related insurance. More than 90 percent of SBA disaster loans are loans to individuals such as homeowners, not to small businesses. In view of the challenges the SBA has experienced in its administration of this program, as well as the fraud and abuse in the EIDL COVID-19–related program and the IG’s concern that the systemic problems within this lending program undermine the SBA’s work, the next Administration should: l Work with Congress to assess the extent to which disaster loans should be offered by another agency rather than the SBA and explore private-sector channels for administering the loans. l Specify clearly that no new direct lending programs will be developed at the SBA. Eligibility of Religious Entities for SBA Loans. Current SBA regulations46 and SBA Form 197147 make certain religious entities ineligible to participate in several SBA loan programs. The Trump Administration proposed a rule that would remove the provisions on the ground that they violate the First Amendment.48 Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have made their unconstitutionality clearer.49 In an April 3, 2020, letter to Congress pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 530D,50 the Trump Administration SBA advised that two such provisions violate the Free Exer- cise Clause of the First Amendment and that it therefore would not enforce them. On January 19, 2021, the Trump Administration SBA proposed a rule to remove all of the unconstitutional religious exclusions from its regulations.51 The SBA has not acted on the proposed rule. A similar religious exclusion once appeared in the regulation governing eligibil- ity for SBA Business Loan Programs,52 but it was removed in a June 2022 final rule that noted tension with the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent.53 That final rule announced that the SBA would nonetheless continue to make religious eligibility determinations for business loan applicants to comply with putative Establishment Clause requirements,54 but Supreme Court precedent and Office of Legal Counsel memoranda refute the notion that large government-backed loan programs raise any Establishment Clause concerns.55 — 755 — Small Business Administration The SBA uses the same “Religious Eligibility Worksheet,” SBA Form 1971, to make eligibility determinations for all affected programs, including the Business Loan Programs. Thus, the SBA continues to act as though the unconstitutional regulation were still in place, and there is no Establishment Clause basis for doing so. The next Administration should immediately: l Notify Congress under 28 U.S. Code § 530D that it will not enforce these unconstitutional regulations. l Take down SBA Form 1971. l Finalize the Trump Administration’s proposed rule or publish its own updated proposed rule to remove the unconstitutional regulations. Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer Programs. The SBA “coordinates and monitors the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) pro- grams for all federal agencies with extramural budgets for research or research and development (R/R&D) in excess of the expenditures established in sections 9(f) and 9(n) of the Small Business Act.”56 The SBIR and STTR Extension Act of 2022 extended these programs from September 30, 2022, through September 30, 2025.57 SBIR requires that 3.2 percent of spending by agencies with extramural R&D budgets of $100 million or more must be directed to small businesses. STTR allo- cates 0.45 percent of federal research spending to small firms.58 Research has shown that this small portion of federal R&D spending is disproportionately effective.59 The SBIR program has consistently demonstrated its ability to fund advanced technologies through to private-market viability and invests more in America’s heartland than venture capital invests.60 SBIR and STTR have overcome the tendency of federal contracting officers to deal only with large firms that are familiar to them and have the expertise and lobbying clout to navigate the federal procurement process. The next Adminis- tration should: l Continue the SBIR and SBTT programs as they successfully fund the next wave of technological innovation to compete with Big Tech. l Urge Congress to expand the amount that other agencies are required to set aside from their general R&D budgets for the SBIR program. l Ensure the enactment of stricter rules requiring that SBIR funds must be expended on capital investments in the United States.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Weak
Vector: 61%
Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The TERRA Act focuses on tribal emergency response and environmental disaster funding integration, while the Project 2025 HUD section emphasizes housing market reforms, DEI/ESG critique, and homelessness policy shifts. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address housing supply, affordability, or HUD-specific administrative reforms outlined in the policy."

Key themes:federal agency coordinationadministrative streamlining

— 515 — Department of Housing and Urban Development 25. Process must prioritize where political leadership can implement administrative reforms through regulatory action and subregulatory guidance reforms. 26. China and other foreign nations should not be able to disrupt our nation’s housing markets, including by artificially driving up prices and reducing affordability and access to housing for Americans who are crowded out of the market by such market participation. 27. These initiatives are maintained under such designations as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); critical race theory (CRT); black, indigenous, Pacific Islander, and other people of color (BIPOC); and environmental, social, and governance (ESG). 28. At a minimum, these efforts duplicate what the federal government already collects and assesses; at worst, they institute arbitrary procedures in real estate appraisal practices that undermine integrity and perversely introduce arbitrary biases into what should be an unbiased system for determining financial value. 29. Revise regulatory and subregulatory guidance, where applicable within statutory authorities, that adds unnecessary delay and costs to the construction and development of new housing and has been estimated to account for about 40 percent of new housing unit costs in multifamily housing. 30. The Biden Administration has issued a proposed rule to replace the Trump Administration’s “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice” rule that had repealed earlier rules expanding AFFH enforcement. See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing, “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 153 (August 7, 2020), pp. 47899–47912, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-07/pdf/2020-16320.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023), and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 27 (February 9, 2023), pp. 8516–8590, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-07-16/pdf/2015-17032.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 31. Certain pilot initiatives may encourage greater take-up of loan products designed for faster equity accumulation, including loans with shorter terms and accelerated amortization schedules. In concept, the FHA’s Home Equity Accelerator Loan (HEAL) and Good Neighbor Next Door (GNND) pilot initiatives might lead to meaningful wealth generation for first-time buyers, but they should be available to all eligible households only when they do not arbitrarily discriminate based on race or other characteristics. 32. Housing supply does remain a problem in the U.S., but constructing more units at the low end of the market will not solve the problem. Investors and developers can deliver at more efficient cost new units that will allow for greater upward mobility of rental and ownership housing stock and better target increased construction of mid-tier rental units. Further, and more fundamental to the housing supply challenge in markets across the U.S., localities can consider revising land use, zoning, and building regulations that constrict new housing development, adding time delays and costs that impede construction. Federal housing policy should get out of the way where possible and minimize the distortive impact that stimulating greater demand through loose lending can have in driving up housing prices for households that are looking for affordable entry into the housing market. 33. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Housing and Community Development Act of 1980: Verification of Eligible Status,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 91 (May 10, 2019), pp. 20589–20595, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-05-10/pdf/2019-09566.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 34. Reforms should contemplate rent payment flexibilities, allow escrow savings, and set maximum term limits that can reduce implicit penalties for increasing household incomes over eligibility terms for housing assistance and reweight waiting-list prioritization for two-parent households. 35. Some PHAs have been able to implement work requirements and term limit policies in various congressionally authorized demonstration programs, notably the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program established in 1996 for 39 PHAs (Congress has since authorized another 100 PHAs) in which participating MTW PHAs were given authority to implement rent reforms, work requirements and other experimental policies in rental assistance programs along with flexibilities in the use of capital and operating appropriations. 36. The FSS program has a general five-year term with a possible two-year extension, which could be applied at the term limit for overall benefits, and certain PHAs have imposed five-year to seven-year term limits. Families in these programs build escrow savings during their term eligibility that helps to facilitate successful transitions to family self-sufficiency and unassisted housing. — 516 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 37. HUD should implement administrative changes in regulation and guidance and seek statutory authority to end all Housing First directives of Continuum of Care (CoC) grantees and contract homelessness providers in addition to establishing restrictions on local Housing First policies where HUD grant funds are used. 38. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) was established in the 1990s, and numerous Administrations have devoted enormous resources to the Housing First model, experimenting with various ways to provide federally financed rapid rehousing and permanent housing opportunities. Housing First is a far-left idea premised on the belief that homelessness is primarily circumstantial rather than behavioral. The Housing First answer to homelessness is to give someone a house instead of attempting to understand the underlying causes of homelessness. Federal intervention centered on Housing First has failed to acknowledge that resolving the issue of homelessness is often a matter of resolving mental health and substance abuse challenges. Instead of the permanent supportive housing proffered by Housing First, a conservative Administration should shift to transitional housing with a focus on addressing the underlying issues that cause homelessness in the first place. 39. The Senate Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers (LIFT) Act would address this policy goal. See S. 2797, Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers Act of 2021 (LIFT Homebuyers Act of 2021), 117th Congress, introduced September 22, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/s2797/BILLS-117s2797is.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 40. FHA did not facilitate the widespread use of 30-year mortgages until the 1950s when, interacting with Federal Reserve policies, federal agencies began broader adoption of the mortgages, which, despite lowering the monthly repayment terms, result in slow equity accumulation and wealth-building opportunities. 41. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 fundamentally revised the scope of federal regulation in the nation’s housing finance system, placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the purview of a newly established Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and establishing a Housing Trust Fund (HTF) that is administered in the HUD Office of Community Planning and Development. See H.R. 3221, Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Public Law No. 110-289, 110th Congress, July 30, 2008, https://www.congress. gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 42. Guiding questions: What reforms should be proposed that could be accomplished within five years? What reforms can be done administratively, and what reforms would need legislative authorization? Are there functions that HUD administers that could be achieved more effectively at another department or agency? What big-picture reforms should be proposed that might take more than five years that would reorganize HUD and its programs to meet the objectives in the vision or mission? What would occur in the absence of these public finance subsidies? How much crowd-out do these subsidies create in the market? Would America be a seriously underhoused nation without these subsidies? Who are the policies intended to benefit? What organizational changes must be made? 43. The Faircloth Amendment (Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998) amended the Housing Act of 1937 to maintain public housing units at 1999 levels, preventing housing authorities from maintaining more public housing than they did then. H.R. 4194, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law No. 105-276, 105th Congress, October 21, 1998, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ276/PLAW-105publ276.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). In recent years, the statutory restriction on new construction of public housing units has been circumvented through some narrow uses of preservation programs such as the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, initially authorized in 2012 and reauthorized several times since under higher program unit conversion caps. Congress also provided paths for renewal and continuation of a portion of existing public housing; project/site-based housing stock (refinancing with long-term HAP contract commitments); and Section 8 units through the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (MAHRA). H.R. 2158, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Public Law No. 105-65, 105th Congress, October 27, 1997, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ65/PLAW-105publ65.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 44. As the evolution of HUD rental assistance transitions away from the public housing model toward housing choice vouchers, there should be adequate landlord participation to ensure that the supply of housing units for rent in these programs meets the demand for rent among eligible tenants. This issue has been addressed in various ways, including by a task force instituted at the department during the Trump Administration, but could likely remain a challenge in the administration of the program.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

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

Full Policy Text

Related Bills