Federal Maritime Commission Reauthorization Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/4183
Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Johnson, Dusty [R-SD-At Large]

ID: J000301

Follow the money

The bill

Federal Maritime Commission Reauthorization Act of 2025

HR. 4183, 119th Congress — read as touching Surface Transportation.

The sponsor

Rep. Johnson, Dusty [R-SD-At Large]

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

The money

$88,830 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Financial Regulatory Agencies" section, p. 879-881 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

December 15, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

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 thrilling episode of "Congressional Theater" brought to you by the Federal Maritime Commission Reauthorization Act of 2025! *yawn*

Let's get down to business, shall we? This bill is a masterclass in bureaucratic doublespeak, but I'll try to decipher the code for you.

**Total Funding Amounts and Budget Allocations:** The bill authorizes appropriations of $49.2 million for fiscal year 2026, increasing to $57.016 million by 2029. A whopping 16% increase over four years! I'm sure it's just a coincidence that this aligns perfectly with the average annual salary increase for congressional staffers.

**Key Programs and Agencies Receiving Funds:** The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) is the primary beneficiary of this bill, receiving funding for its various programs, including:

1. Shipping exchange regulation 2. Complaint investigation and resolution 3. Data collection and analysis

**Notable Increases or Decreases from Previous Years:** Compared to the previous reauthorization act in 2022, this bill increases funding by a whopping $16 million over four years. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that this increase coincides with the FMC's growing regulatory scope.

**Riders or Policy Provisions Attached to Funding:** Section 5 of the bill introduces new definitions for "controlled carriers" and expands the FMC's authority to investigate complaints against shipping exchanges. Because, you know, the free market can't possibly regulate itself without the benevolent guidance of our esteemed lawmakers.

**Fiscal Impact and Deficit Implications:** This bill will add a paltry $57 million to the national debt by 2029. Just a drop in the ocean (pun intended) compared to the trillions of dollars in annual deficits we've grown accustomed to. But hey, who needs fiscal responsibility when you can have more bureaucratic red tape?

**Diagnosis:** This bill is a classic case of "Regulatory Capture Syndrome" – a disease where government agencies and special interest groups collude to expand regulatory powers, increase funding, and line their own pockets.

The symptoms are clear:

* Increased funding for the FMC * Expanded regulatory authority over shipping exchanges * New definitions that conveniently benefit certain industries

The underlying cause? A toxic mix of corruption, cowardice, and stupidity. The same disease that afflicts our entire political system.

**Treatment:** A strong dose of transparency, accountability, and fiscal responsibility would be a good starting point. But let's be real – this is Congress we're talking about. They'll just prescribe more of the same old medicine: more regulations, more spending, and more special interest favors.

In conclusion, the Federal Maritime Commission Reauthorization Act of 2025 is just another example of our government's addiction to bureaucratic bloat and regulatory overreach. But hey, at least it creates jobs for congressional staffers and lobbyists!

Related Topics

Federal Budget & Appropriations
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Johnson, Dusty [R-SD-At Large]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$88,830
26 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$32,700
Committees
$0
Individuals
$56,130

No PAC contributions found

1
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
2 transactions
$6,600
2
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
2 transactions
$5,300
3
CONFEDERATED TRIBES COLVILLE RESERVATION
1 transaction
$3,300
4
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
5
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
2 transactions
$3,300
6
MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
1 transaction
$3,000
7
SISSETON-WAHPETON OYATE
2 transactions
$3,000
8
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
1 transaction
$2,900
9
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
1 transaction
$2,000

No committee contributions found

1
SATHER, DUANE
1 transaction
$3,330
2
BERKLEY, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$3,300
3
BURT, ROBERT
1 transaction
$3,300
4
BURWELL, BLAKE
1 transaction
$3,300
5
CARSON, RUSSELL
1 transaction
$3,300
6
GAFFNEY, CHRIS
1 transaction
$3,300
7
GROSSMAN, JAY
1 transaction
$3,300
8
HUNT, WOODY
1 transaction
$3,300
9
JOHNSON, JAMES
1 transaction
$3,300
10
NEWMAN, HOWARD
1 transaction
$3,300
11
NEWMAN, MARYAM RAZAVI
1 transaction
$3,300
12
OBERNDORF, SUSAN
1 transaction
$3,300
13
OBERNDORF, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$3,300
14
PULLMAN, DUSTIN
1 transaction
$3,300
15
SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE
1 transaction
$3,300
16
VECCHIARELLI, DANIEL
1 transaction
$3,300
17
ZUBATY, AARON
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Garamendi, John [D-CA-8]

ID: G000559

Top Contributors

28

1
SAN PABLO LYTTON
OrganizationSAN PABLO, CA
$5,000
Aug 28, 2024
2
YOCHA DEHE WINTUN NATION
OrganizationBROOKS, CA
$3,300
Dec 18, 2023
3
YOCHA DEHE WINTUN NATION
OrganizationBROOKS, CA
$3,300
Dec 18, 2023
4
ONE LAKE HOLDING,LLC
OrganizationWALNUT CREEK, CA
$2,500
Nov 6, 2023
5
UNITED AUBURN INDIAN COMMUNITY OF AUBURN RANCHERIA
OrganizationSACRAMENTO, CA
$2,500
Oct 22, 2024
6
SAN PABLO LYTTON
OrganizationSAN PABLO, CA
$1,700
Aug 28, 2024
7
NAPA SOLANO BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL
OrganizationFAIRFIELD, CA
$1,500
May 13, 2024
8
BAINS FARMING LP
OrganizationYUBA CITY, CA
$1,000
May 15, 2024
9
GRUPE, GREENLAW JR.
THE GRUPE CO. • REAL ESTATE
IndividualLODI, CA
$5,800
Nov 7, 2023
10
HALL, CRAIG
HALL FINANCIAL GROUP • INVESTOR
IndividualFRISCO, TX
$3,683
Dec 5, 2023

Rep. Ezell, Mike [R-MS-4]

ID: E000235

Top Contributors

29

1
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC - ALEX HINSON, PARTNER AND CHIEF EXEC. OFFICER
OrganizationBIRMINGHAM, AL
$2,500
Nov 2, 2023
2
ALLY TELECOM GROUP LLC - PARTNERSHIP - MITCH KALIFEH
OrganizationMETAIRIE, LA
$2,500
Aug 30, 2023
3
MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS
$1,000
Apr 25, 2023
4
GONC LTC, LLC
OrganizationJACKSON, MS
$1,000
Sep 14, 2023
5
STEED'S COLLISION CTR, LLC - LAURA STEED MANAGER
OrganizationBILOXI, MS
$1,000
Aug 30, 2023
6
WATKINS & EAGER PLLC - GRANT SELLERS, PARTNER
OrganizationJACKSON, MS
$1,000
Aug 30, 2023
7
TEN ONE STRATEGIES - JOHN HUGHES, MANAGING PARTNER
OrganizationJACKSON, MS
$500
Aug 25, 2023
8
GULF PRIDE COMPANIES, LLC - ERICH N. NICHOLS, MANAGER
OrganizationGULFPORT, MS
$250
Aug 30, 2023
9
WATKINS & EAGER PLLC - GRANT SELLERS, PARTNER
OrganizationJACKSON, MS
$250
Aug 25, 2023
10
DUNAGIN, MELINDA
DUNAGIN PEST SOLUTIONS • OFFICE MANAGER
IndividualHATTIESBURG, MS
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024

Rep. Carbajal, Salud O. [D-CA-24]

ID: C001112

Top Contributors

38

1
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Oct 18, 2023
2
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationHIGHLAND, CA
$3,300
Dec 18, 2023
3
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Jan 11, 2024
4
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$3,300
Feb 24, 2023
5
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$3,300
Feb 24, 2023
6
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Jun 30, 2023
7
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Jun 30, 2023
8
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA
$2,000
Jun 26, 2024
9
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$2,000
Sep 21, 2023
10
MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS
$1,500
Dec 19, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Johnson, Dusty [R-SD-At Large]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 68 nodes and 73 connections

Total contributions: $73

Top Donors - Rep. Johnson, Dusty [R-SD-At Large]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

9 Orgs17 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • Section 13 requires the Federal Maritime Commission to develop containerized freight indexes for shippers, which could improve transparency and efficiency in freight logistics, benefiting surface transportation industries involved in freight rail, trucking, shipping, and logistics.

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.

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Weak
Vector: 62%
Pages: 879-881AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill concerns the Federal Maritime Commission's funding and maritime regulatory activities, while the Project 2025 excerpt focuses on the Federal Communications Commission's goals such as reining in Big Tech, national security, and FCC accountability. There is only a tangential connection through general themes of regulatory oversight and promoting fair competition."

Key themes:regulatory oversightmarket competitionagency accountability

— 846 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise into office—though this is not required by law. By resigning, the exiting Commis- sioner enables the President to nominate someone from his own political party to the FCC, and this typically shifts the political balance on the FCC toward the President’s political party. The President generally designates one of the existing Commissioners of the President’s same political party as Chairperson—either on an acting or a permanent basis—on or shortly after Inauguration Day. Under a tradition that dates back a few decades, when a relevant vacancy arises, the President allows the leader of the opposite political party in the Senate to select the person who will serve in the minority Commissioner role. The President then formally nominates the person identified by Senate leadership. This also is not required by law. As specified in the Communications Act of 1934, the FCC’s Chairperson serves as the agency’s CEO and is empowered with significant authority that is not shared with other Commissioners.6 For instance, the Chairperson sets the FCC’s agenda, decides what matters the agency will vote on and when, and has authority to orga- nize and coordinate the FCC’s work.7 There is no separate Senate confirmation process for the position of FCC Chairperson; the President designates one of the Commissioners to serve as Chairperson through a short one-sentence or two-sen- tence letter.8 There are no limits on the number of terms that a person can serve as an FCC Commissioner, though Commissioners need to be nominated and con- firmed for each five-year term. FCC Budget and Structure. In recent years, the FCC has employed between 1,300 and 1,500 people.9 The FCC’s fiscal year 2023 budget request is for approx- imately $390.2 million.10 While Congress appropriates funds for the FCC, the agency’s budget is offset by what are known as regulatory fees—fees the FCC col- lects from the licensees and other entities that it regulates and uses to offset its budget request. The FCC also raises revenue for the government by auctioning spectrum licenses. In fact, the FCC has generated more than $200 billion for the U.S. Treasury through spectrum auctions.11 The FCC is organized into a series of bureaus and offices based on function. These include an Office of General Counsel, Office of Inspector General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Media Bureau, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Wireline Competition Bureau, Enforcement Bureau, and more.12 High-Profile FCC Matters. The FCC addresses a number of important mat- ters. For instance, Section 230 is codified in the Communications Act,13 and the FCC has authority to interpret that law and thus provide courts with guidance about the proper application of the statutory language.14 The FCC has addressed “net neutrality” rules and the regulatory framework that should apply to broadband offerings. Any merger that involves a wireless company, broadcaster, or similar entity that holds an FCC license must obtain FCC approval (assuming that the merger will involve the transfer of the FCC license). — 847 — Federal Communications Commission The FCC has facilitated the transition from 3G to 4G and now 5G offerings in two ways. First, it has freed spectrum—the airwaves needed to deliver wireless ser- vices. Second, it has preempted state and local siting and permitting laws that could otherwise slow down the buildout of next-generation infrastructure. One of the FCC’s great success stories from 2017 to 2020 was securing U.S. leadership in 5G. The FCC also administers an approximately roughly $9 billion-a-year program called the Universal Service Fund (USF), which has been funded by a line-item charge that traditional telephone companies add to consumers’ monthly bills. Expenditures from this fund subsidize rural broadband networks and low-income programs as well as connections for schools, libraries, and rural health care facil- ities. Through various COVID-era laws, Congress has also provided the FCC with a one-time $24 billion appropriation for various low-income initiatives. POLICY PRIORITIES The FCC needs to change course and bring new urgency to achieving four main goals: l Reining in Big Tech, l Promoting national security, l Unleashing economic prosperity, and l Ensuring FCC accountability and good governance.15 Reining in Big Tech. The FCC has an important role to play in addressing the threats to individual liberty posed by corporations that are abusing dominant positions in the market. Nowhere is that clearer than when it comes to Big Tech and its attempts to drive diverse political viewpoints from the digital town square. Today, a handful of corporations can shape everything from the information we consume to the places we shop. These corporate behemoths are not merely exercising market power; they are abusing dominant positions. They are not simply prevailing in the free market; they are taking advantage of a landscape that has been skewed—in many cases by the government—to favor their business models over those of their competitors. It is hard to imagine another industry in which a greater gap exists between power and accountability. That is why a new Adminis- tration should support FCC action on several fronts. Specifically, the FFC should: l Eliminate immunities that courts added to Section 230. The FCC should issue an order that interprets Section 230 in a way that eliminates the expansive, non-textual immunities that courts have read into the statute.

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Weak
Vector: 62%
Pages: 879-881AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on reauthorizing the Federal Maritime Commission and addressing maritime shipping exchanges, which is unrelated to the FCC-focused Project 2025 goals of reining in Big Tech, Section 230 reform, and national security. The only tangential connection is the general aim of promoting economic competitiveness and improving data transparency."

Key themes:economic prosperitydata transparencyregulatory oversight

— 847 — Federal Communications Commission The FCC has facilitated the transition from 3G to 4G and now 5G offerings in two ways. First, it has freed spectrum—the airwaves needed to deliver wireless ser- vices. Second, it has preempted state and local siting and permitting laws that could otherwise slow down the buildout of next-generation infrastructure. One of the FCC’s great success stories from 2017 to 2020 was securing U.S. leadership in 5G. The FCC also administers an approximately roughly $9 billion-a-year program called the Universal Service Fund (USF), which has been funded by a line-item charge that traditional telephone companies add to consumers’ monthly bills. Expenditures from this fund subsidize rural broadband networks and low-income programs as well as connections for schools, libraries, and rural health care facil- ities. Through various COVID-era laws, Congress has also provided the FCC with a one-time $24 billion appropriation for various low-income initiatives. POLICY PRIORITIES The FCC needs to change course and bring new urgency to achieving four main goals: l Reining in Big Tech, l Promoting national security, l Unleashing economic prosperity, and l Ensuring FCC accountability and good governance.15 Reining in Big Tech. The FCC has an important role to play in addressing the threats to individual liberty posed by corporations that are abusing dominant positions in the market. Nowhere is that clearer than when it comes to Big Tech and its attempts to drive diverse political viewpoints from the digital town square. Today, a handful of corporations can shape everything from the information we consume to the places we shop. These corporate behemoths are not merely exercising market power; they are abusing dominant positions. They are not simply prevailing in the free market; they are taking advantage of a landscape that has been skewed—in many cases by the government—to favor their business models over those of their competitors. It is hard to imagine another industry in which a greater gap exists between power and accountability. That is why a new Adminis- tration should support FCC action on several fronts. Specifically, the FFC should: l Eliminate immunities that courts added to Section 230. The FCC should issue an order that interprets Section 230 in a way that eliminates the expansive, non-textual immunities that courts have read into the statute. — 848 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise As one of the FCC’s previous General Counsels noted, the FCC has authority to take this action because Section 230 is codified in the Communications Act.16 The FCC’s Section 230 reforms should track the positions outlined in a July 2020 Petition for Rulemaking filed at the FCC near the end of the Trump Administration.17 Any new presidential Administration should consider filing a similar or new petition. As Justice Clarence Thomas has made clear, courts have construed Section 230 broadly to confer on some of the world’s largest companies a sweeping immunity that is found nowhere in the text of the statute.18 They have done so in a way that nullifies the limits Congress placed on the types of actions that Internet companies can take while continuing to benefit from Section 230. One way to start correcting this error is for the FCC to remind courts how the various portions of Section 230 operate. At the outset, the FCC can clarify that Section 230(c)(1) does not apply broadly to every decision that a platform makes. Rather, its protections apply only when a platform does not remove information provided by someone else. In contrast, the FCC should clarify that the more limited Section 230(c)(2) protections apply to any covered platform’s decision to restrict access to material provided by someone else. Combined, these actions will appropriately limit the number of cases in which a platform can censor with the benefit of Section 230’s protections. Such clarifications might also include drawing out the traditional legal distinction between distributor and publisher liability; Section 230 did not do away with the former, nor does it collapse into the latter. l Impose transparency rules on Big Tech. Today, Big Tech offers a black box. After Google manipulates search results, a small business can see its web traffic drop precipitously overnight for no apparent reason, potentially flipping its outlook from black to red. On Facebook, social media posts are left up or taken down, accounts suspended or permanently banned, without any apparent consistency. Out of the blue, YouTube can demonetize individuals who have risked their capital and invested their labor to build online businesses. At present, the FCC requires broadband providers to comply with a transparency rule that can provide a good baseline for Big Tech. Under the FCC’s rule, broadband providers must provide detailed disclosures about practices that would shape Internet traffic—from blocking to prioritizing or discriminating against content. The FCC could take a similar approach to

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Minimal
Vector: 64%
Pages: 437-439AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on reauthorizing the Federal Maritime Commission and maritime regulatory activities, whereas the Project 2025 policy section addresses FERC's role in electric transmission, natural gas pipelines, and related energy market reforms; there is no substantive thematic or policy overlap."

— 405 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions l End undue discrimination that allows subsidized resources to distort price formation in RTOs. l Affirm its commitment that states will decide whether to join an RTO instead of imposing RTOs on regions that do not want them. FERC should also consider allowing states to enter into non-RTO power pools with alternative structures for the sharing of resources and electric generation. FERC: ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION Mission/Overview Under the Federal Power Act, FERC has the authority to regulate the rates, terms, and conditions of interstate electric transmission. (Pursuant to court cases, interstate transmission can be entirely within a state, although the part of Texas served by ERCOT is not under FERC transmission jurisdiction.) Needed Reforms FERC has been considering how to plan for and allocate costs for new trans- mission lines and how new generation resources will be interconnected to the transmission grid. (Transmission expansion and replacement decisions are usu- ally made by local utilities or by an RTO or regional planning entity). Through two major rulemakings,118 FERC is attempting to facilitate the building of more long-range transmission lines and to socialize more of the costs of transmission buildouts to more customers in order to make it cheaper for renewable develop- ers (primarily) to interconnect to the grid and sell their power. Socializing such costs is a form of subsidy for generators and will cause further price distortions in RTOs and ISOs that will make it less economical for reliable, dispatchable resources like coal, nuclear, and natural gas to stay operational and support reliability.119 Also, under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, DOE and FERC are granted authority to site and permit high-priority transmission lines as National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETCs). The Inflation Reduction Act provides funding to DOE to support transmission expansion.120 These initiatives will undermine state input and decision-making. FERC will consider rules on how NIETC transmission applications are to be made. New Policies FERC should either change course on its existing transmission rulemakings (if still in progress) or issue a new rulemaking to: — 406 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Ensure that transmission planning and interconnection processes are resource neutral. l Prevent socializing costs for customers who do not benefit from the projects or justifying such cost shifts as advancing vague “societal benefits” such as climate change. l Stop cost allocation from becoming a subsidy for generators, such as renewables. With respect to NIETCs, FERC and the new DESAS should ensure that state interests are respected and not allow such NEITC transmission lines to be devel- oped as a mere subsidy to renewable developers. Furthermore, much of the transmission buildout (including its attendant costs) is being driven by renewable developers seeking market share. These projects are causing rates for customers to go up and hurting reliability. FERC needs to ensure that transmission buildouts are planned for the benefit of customers. FERC: NATURAL GAS PIPELINES Mission/Overview FERC permits, sites, and authorizes the construction and operation of inter- state natural gas pipelines.121 It also regulates the rates for the shipping of natural gas122 (but not the price of the natural gas commodity, which is market based). FERC is charged with ensuring that natural gas pipelines are approved if they are required by the “public convenience and necessity.”123 Pipeline permitting is sub- ject to environmental reviews under NEPA, and the rate for the pipeline and the shipping of the commodity is set by FERC under a just and reasonable standard. Once FERC approves a project, the holder of the certificate has the sovereign’s power of eminent domain. Needed Reforms Natural gas pipelines are vital for the economy, manufacturing, heating, and electric generation. Opposition from “Keep it in the ground” environmentalists has made it harder to gain approvals for natural gas pipelines. Under Democrat leadership, FERC has proposed official policies to consider upstream and down- stream GHG emissions from the use of the natural gas that would be shipped in the pipeline to be part of FERC’s public-interest determination when deciding whether to approve a pipeline. There is conflicting direction from the D.C. Circuit on the GHG issue, which also could be seen as a “major questions” issue under the U.S. Supreme Court’s West Virginia v. EPA decision.124

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