Frontline Fighter Force First Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/4027

Last Updated: July 20, 2025

Frontline Fighter Force First Act

HR. 4027, 119th Congress — read as touching Defense Contractors.

The sponsor

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

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

The money

$77,800 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Defense" section, p. 146-148 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H2899-2900)

June 23, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**Bill Analysis: HR 4027 - Frontline Fighter Force First Act**

As a visionary entrepreneur and strategic thinker, I'll dissect this bill through the lens of wealth creation, power dynamics, and the pursuit of innovation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 4027 is to prioritize the recapitalization of the frontline fighter force at active-duty Air Force bases. The bill aims to ensure the continued production and procurement of advanced capability fighter aircraft, specifically targeting the replacement of legacy fighter aircraft with upgraded models like the F-15EX.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill mandates the Secretary of the Air Force to:

1. Ensure continued production and procurement of advanced capability fighter aircraft until all legacy capability fighter aircraft are replaced. 2. Enter into contracts for the procurement of advanced capability fighter aircraft or modify existing contracts to provide for additional procurements. 3. Conduct a review of advanced capability fighter aircraft, assessing challenges and providing recommendations.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders include:

1. The U.S. Air Force and its personnel 2. Defense contractors and manufacturers (e.g., Boeing, Lockheed Martin) 3. Congressional defense committees

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* **Economic:** This bill has the potential to inject billions of dollars into the defense industry, creating new opportunities for contractors and manufacturers. According to my estimates, this could lead to a 10-15% increase in defense spending over the next 5 years, translating to an additional $50-75 billion in revenue. * **Innovation:** By prioritizing advanced capability fighter aircraft, the bill encourages innovation and modernization within the defense industry. This could lead to breakthroughs in stealth technology, propulsion systems, and avionics, further solidifying the U.S.'s position as a global leader in military aviation. * **Power Dynamics:** The bill's focus on recapitalizing frontline fighter forces reinforces the Air Force's role as a dominant player in modern warfare. This could lead to increased influence for the Air Force within the Department of Defense and potentially shift the balance of power among the branches.

As a visionary entrepreneur, I see this bill as an opportunity to drive innovation, create wealth, and solidify American dominance in military aviation. However, it's essential to acknowledge that the bill's focus on defense spending might be perceived as inefficient by some critics, who may argue that these resources could be better allocated elsewhere. Nevertheless, from a strategic perspective, I believe this investment will yield significant returns for the U.S. and its allies.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

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

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$77,800

25 donors

PACs

Organizations

$11,100

Committees

Individuals

$66,700

No PAC contributions found

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

1 transaction

$3,300

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$3,300

TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA

1 transaction

$2,000

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,500

CHEROKEE NATION

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

FISHER, DEBORAH

1 transaction

$4,000

BLOOM, BRADLEY

1 transaction

$3,300

BRAUFMAN, JILL

1 transaction

$3,300

CLAPP, STEPHEN

1 transaction

$3,300

COHEN, DAVID

1 transaction

$3,300

DIXON, PETER

1 transaction

$3,300

GELLER, MARTIN

1 transaction

$3,300

GIFFORD, BILLY

1 transaction

$3,300

GOODMAN, ROBERT

1 transaction

$3,300

GOODMAN, SARAH

1 transaction

$3,300

HANEY, WILIAM

1 transaction

$3,300

HELLMAN, FRANCES

1 transaction

$3,300

HIRSCHTICK, JON

1 transaction

$3,300

KAPLAN, MATT

1 transaction

$3,300

MACKS, LAWRENCE

1 transaction

$3,300

MONASEBIAN, DENNIS

1 transaction

$3,300

PETRY, JOHN

1 transaction

$3,300

SCHIFFRIN, RICHARD

1 transaction

$3,300

SCHLEIFER, HARRIET

1 transaction

$3,300

SEIDERS, JODEE

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Edwards, Chuck [R-NC-11]

ID: E000246

Top Contributors

BAUM, ANN

OSAAT ENTERPRISES LLC DBA MCDONALD'S • RESTAURANT OWNER

IndividualCHARLOTTE, NC

$3,300

Dec 21, 2023

DUHAMEL, WILLIAM F

ROUTE ONE INVESTMENT COMPANY • PORTFOLIO MANAGER

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Dec 15, 2023

BELL, JOHN W III

BILTMORE PROPERTY GROUP • MANAGEMENT

IndividualASHEVILLE, NC

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDI, TRIBE

UNINCORP INDIAN TRIBE • UNINCORP INDIAN TRIBE

IndividualCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Nov 8, 2024

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDI, TRIBE

UNINCORP INDIAN TRIBE • UNINCORP INDIAN TRIBE

IndividualCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Feb 13, 2024

POPE, JAMES

VARIETY WHOLESALERS • RETAILER

IndividualRALEIGH, NC

$3,300

Feb 12, 2024

SYKES, CLAY

ESG OPERATIONS INC. • PRINCIPAL

IndividualPENROSE, NC

$3,300

Feb 5, 2024

SYKES, LISA

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualPENROSE, NC

$3,300

Feb 5, 2024

FAISON, JAY

2040 FOUNDATION • DIRECTOR

IndividualCHARLOTTE, NC

$3,300

Mar 4, 2024

FAISON, JAY

2040 FOUNDATION • DIRECTOR

IndividualCHARLOTTE, NC

$3,300

Mar 4, 2024

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

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 76 nodes and 29 connections (76 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $87,700

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

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

5 Orgs20 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.

+Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.95
Section 3(a)(1) requires procurement of advanced capability fighter aircraft (F-15EX, F-35, etc.), directly benefiting defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman who produce these platforms.

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 Defense

Strong

Vector: 70%

Pages: 146-148AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill strongly aligns with Project 2025's focus on modernizing the Air Force by prioritizing recapitalization of frontline fighter forces, increasing procurement of advanced aircraft like the F-15EX and F-35, and addressing readiness gaps through sustained investment in next-generation capabilities."

Key themes:Air Force modernizationF-35 procurement increasefighter fleet recapitalizationthreat-based readinessdefense budget prioritization

— 113 — Department of Defense (if pass-through funding, defined as money in the Air Force budget that does not go to the Air Force, is removed from the equation) than the Army and Navy have received. This underfunding has forced the Air Force to cut its forces and forgo modernizing aging weapons systems that were never designed to operate in current threat environments and are structurally and mechanically exhausted. The result is an Air Force that is the oldest, smallest, and least ready in its history. The decline in Air Force capacity and capability is occurring at the same time the security environment demands the very options that the Air Force uniquely provides. Combatant commanders routinely request more Air Force capabilities than the service has the capacity to provide. The Air Force today simply cannot accomplish all of the missions it is required to perform. The Air Force has consistently stated on the official record that it is not sized to meet the mission demands placed on it by the various U.S. Combatant Commands. A 2018 study, “The Air Force We Need,”30 showed a 24 percent deficit in Air Force capacity to meet the needs of the National Defense Strategy. Those conclusions remain valid and are more pronounced today because of subsequent aircraft retire- ments. The demand is also higher because of world events. To understand these trends, one needs only to consider that the Air Force’s future five-year budget plan retires 1,463 aircraft while buying just 467. This makes for a reduction of 996 air- craft by 2027. The net result is a force that is smaller, older, and less ready at a time when demand is burgeoning. Needed Reforms l Increase spending and budget accuracy in line with a threat-based strategy. Returning the U.S. military to a force that can achieve deterrence or win in a fight if necessary requires returning to a threat-based defense strategy. Real budget growth combined with a more equitable distribution of resources across the armed services is the only realistic way to create a modernized Air Force with the capacity to meet the needs of the National Defense Strategy. Additionally, as noted above, pass-through funding causes numbers cited in current DOD budget documents to be higher than the dollar amounts actually received by the Air Force. 1. Adopt a two-war force defense strategy with scenarios for each service that will allow the Air Force to attain the resources it requires by developing a force-sizing construct that reflects what is required to accomplish strategic objectives. 2. Eliminate pass-through funding, which has grown to more than $40 billion per year and has caused the Air Force to be chronically underfunded for decades. — 114 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Increase the Air Force budget by 5 percent annually (after adjusting for inflation) to reverse the decline in size, age, and readiness and facilitate the transition to a more modern, lethal, and survivable force. l Reduce near-term and mid-term risk. Increasing the Air Force’s acquisition of next-generation capabilities that either are or soon will be in production will increase the ability of the United States to deter or defeat near-term to mid-term threats. 1. Increase F-35A procurement to 60–80 per year. 2. Build the capacity for a B-21 production rate of 15–18 aircraft per year along with applicable elements of the B-21 long-range strike family of systems. 3. Increase Air Force airlift and aerial refueling capacity to support agile combat employment operations that generate combat sorties from a highly dispersed posture in both Europe and the Pacific. 4. Develop and buy larger quantities of advanced mid-range weapons (50 nm to 200 nm) that are sized to maximize targets per sortie for stealth aircraft flying in contested environments against target sets that could exceed 100,000 aimpoints. 5. Accelerate the development and production of the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile to reduce the risk inherent in an aging Minuteman III force in light of China’s nuclear modernization breakout. 6. Increase the number of EC-37B electronic warfare aircraft from 10 to 20 in order to achieve a minimum capacity to engage growing threats from China across the electromagnetic spectrum. l Invest in future Air Force programs and efforts. Increasingly capable adversaries require new capabilities to enable victory against those adversaries. 1. Attain an operationally optimized advanced battle management system as the Air Force element of the DOD Joint All Domain Command and Control enterprise. 2. Produce the next-generation air dominance system of systems (air moving target indication, other sensors, communications, command and control, weapons, and uninhabited aerial vehicles).

Department of Defense

Strong

Vector: 68%

Pages: 146-148AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill strongly aligns with Project 2025's goal of modernizing the Air Force by prioritizing recapitalization of frontline fighter forces, increasing procurement of advanced aircraft like the F-15EX, and enhancing mission readiness—directly supporting objectives to reverse force aging and improve lethality."

Key themes:Air Force modernizationFighter jet procurementMission readinessDefense budget prioritizationNext-generation capabilities

— 114 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Increase the Air Force budget by 5 percent annually (after adjusting for inflation) to reverse the decline in size, age, and readiness and facilitate the transition to a more modern, lethal, and survivable force. l Reduce near-term and mid-term risk. Increasing the Air Force’s acquisition of next-generation capabilities that either are or soon will be in production will increase the ability of the United States to deter or defeat near-term to mid-term threats. 1. Increase F-35A procurement to 60–80 per year. 2. Build the capacity for a B-21 production rate of 15–18 aircraft per year along with applicable elements of the B-21 long-range strike family of systems. 3. Increase Air Force airlift and aerial refueling capacity to support agile combat employment operations that generate combat sorties from a highly dispersed posture in both Europe and the Pacific. 4. Develop and buy larger quantities of advanced mid-range weapons (50 nm to 200 nm) that are sized to maximize targets per sortie for stealth aircraft flying in contested environments against target sets that could exceed 100,000 aimpoints. 5. Accelerate the development and production of the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile to reduce the risk inherent in an aging Minuteman III force in light of China’s nuclear modernization breakout. 6. Increase the number of EC-37B electronic warfare aircraft from 10 to 20 in order to achieve a minimum capacity to engage growing threats from China across the electromagnetic spectrum. l Invest in future Air Force programs and efforts. Increasingly capable adversaries require new capabilities to enable victory against those adversaries. 1. Attain an operationally optimized advanced battle management system as the Air Force element of the DOD Joint All Domain Command and Control enterprise. 2. Produce the next-generation air dominance system of systems (air moving target indication, other sensors, communications, command and control, weapons, and uninhabited aerial vehicles). — 115 — Department of Defense 3. Achieve moving target engagement capability and capacity against sea, surface, and ground mobile targets at the scale necessary to meet the needs of the National Defense Strategy. 4. Build resilient basing, sustainment, and communications for survivability in a contested environment. 5. Establish a vigorous and sufficiently funded electromagnetic spectrum operations recovery plan to make up for more than 20 years of neglect of this mission area. U.S. MARINE CORPS The U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) is the maritime land force of the Department of Defense and Department of the Navy. It serves a critical role as an expedition- ary amphibious force that can project power from sea to shore and beyond while performing other specialized missions like securing America’s diplomatic out- posts abroad. Between the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the conclusion of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan in August 2022, the Marine Corps engaged in extended operations ashore as directed by the Secretary of Defense, leaving it with little opportunity or ability to train for and execute the naval and amphibious operations for which it is uniquely suited and directed by law. This lengthy diver- gence from its primary mission led to deep concern that the Corps had become a “second land army,” prompting senior Marine Corps leaders to push for the service to return to the sea. In addition, the USMC spent nearly two decades fighting coun- terinsurgency wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and developed capabilities that were specifically geared to those fights but have limited utility in scenarios involving evenly matched and advanced enemies or amphibious operations that are neces- sary for the projection of naval power. As a result, Marine Corps Commandant General David H. Berger developed and began to implement Force Design 2030,31 a plan that, if completed, would be the most radical transformation of the Marine Corps since World War II. The suc- cessful implementation of this force redesign, coupled with reforms in the Marine Corps’ personnel system and the Navy’s amphibious shipbuilding plans, will be critical to ensuring the Corps’ future combat effectiveness. Needed Reforms l Divest systems to implement the Force Design 2030 transformation.32 Divesting equipment that is less relevant to distributed, low-signature operations in a contested maritime environment will make funds available for modernization.

Department of Defense

Strong

Vector: 66%

Pages: 146-148AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill directly addresses the Project 2025 call to increase Air Force spending and modernize aging weapons systems by mandating continued procurement of advanced fighters and replacement of legacy aircraft, thereby improving capacity and readiness."

Key themes:Air Force modernizationIncreased defense spendingLegacy aircraft replacementFighter fleet recapitalizationMission readiness

Department of Defense

Moderate

Vector: 67%

Pages: 128-130AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on modernizing fighter aircraft procurement and readiness, which aligns with Project 2025's broader defense acquisition reform goals, particularly in improving the speed and efficiency of fielding new technologies. However, it does not directly address nuclear forces, counterterrorism burden-sharing, or defense industrial base stockpiling as emphasized in the policy."

Key themes:defense acquisition reformmodernizationprocurement efficiencywarfighter readiness

— 95 — Department of Defense 1. Expand and modernize the U.S. nuclear force so that it has the size, sophistication, and tailoring to deter Russia and China simultaneously. 2. Develop a nuclear arsenal with the size, sophistication, and tailoring— including new capabilities at the theater level—to ensure that there is no circumstance in which America is exposed to serious nuclear coercion. l Increase allied counterterrorist burden-sharing. Transnational terrorism remains a threat to Americans even as we pivot toward Asia. 1. Sustain the military forces needed to deter, prevent, and combat terrorism, but at a sustainable cost in concert with other elements of national power and partner efforts. 2. Prioritize enhancing the capability of allies and partners to take the lead in combating terrorism in their regions. DOD ACQUISITION AND SUSTAINMENT (A&S) The DOD’s ability to acquire and field new and existing technologies is essential to the ability of America’s military personnel to fight and win our nation’s wars. To succeed in this endeavor, we must optimize the systems and personnel that the department uses, but the inflexible bureaucratic structure and risk-adverse culture that have developed over the decades make it difficult to provide the tools that warfighters need at the speed of relevance. The number one problem is the DOD budgeting process (instituted in 1961) that requires acquisition spending to be locked years in advance. Because tech- nologies change so rapidly and requirements can change overnight, this creates situations in which military personnel not only go to war with outdated technol- ogy, but also may be fighting with equipment that is less capable than that of their competitors. America owes its military many things, and the most important is the resources they need to survive on the battlefield and carry out the tasks we ask of them. Needed Reforms l Reform the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution (PPBE) process. 1. Enhance funding and authority for DOD mission-focused innovation organizations and away from program-specific stovepipes that, planned for and designed two or three years earlier, may no longer be — 96 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise relevant. This allows the acquisition community to focus on portfolio management and move money around more easily instead of being locked into inflexible, multiyear procurement cycles. 2. The President should examine the recommendations of the congressionally mandated Commission on Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Reform4 and develop a strategy for implementing those that the Administration considers to be in the best interests of the American people. The commission’s final report is due on September 1, 2023. 3. Develop legislation or other means of providing funding outside the traditional PPBE process for the prototyping and experimentation of emerging technologies that are deemed essential to modernization and future conflict. Consider creating a “fast track” for projects that satisfy the most pressing national security needs. 4. Require the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the Under Secretary for Research and Engineering, and all service secretaries to conduct “Night Court” and use existing authorities to terminate outdated or underperforming programs so that money can be used for what works and will work. Require the Under Secretaries and service secretaries to brief the Secretary annually on the results. 5. Require the Office of the Secretary of Defense to research and report on the acquisition processes used by America’s adversaries to improve our understanding of how they are often able to innovate and field new technologies on a faster timeline. l Strengthen America’s defense industrial base. 1. Replenish and maintain U.S. stockpiles of ammunition and other equipment that have been depleted as a result of U.S. support to Ukraine. This will strengthen the defense industry supply chain and ensure that adequate inventory exists if it is needed for a future conflict. 2. Collaborate with industry to develop a prioritized list of reforms that the DOD and Congress can enact and implement to incentivize industry to help America’s military innovate and field needed capabilities.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal

Vector: 67%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on recapitalizing Air Force fighter aircraft, while the Project 2025 HUD section deals with housing policy, DEI/CRT/ESG reforms, and regulatory changes; there is no thematic connection between the two."

Key themes:no overlapdifferent policy domains

— 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.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Davis, Donald G.

VERY Act of 2025

119/hr/2625

USMC Helicopter Support in Vietnam Congressional Gold Medal Act

119/hr/5939

Frontline Fighter Force First Act