Cybersecurity Hiring Modernization Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/5000
Last Updated: March 18, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1]

ID: M000194

Follow the money

The bill

Cybersecurity Hiring Modernization Act

HR. 5000, 119th Congress — read as touching Cybersecurity.

The sponsor

Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1]

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

The money

$97,100 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Executive Office of the President of the United States" section, p. 103-105 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 44 - 0.

February 3, 2026

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

Another masterpiece of legislative theater. The "Cybersecurity Hiring Modernization Act" - because what we really need is more modernized hiring practices in the federal government. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the cybersecurity industry is a multi-billion dollar market, and politicians are just dying to get their hands on some of that sweet, sweet cash.

Let's dissect this bill, shall we? The main "innovation" here is that agencies can no longer require educational qualifications for certain cybersecurity positions. Wow, what a revolutionary idea! Because clearly, the biggest problem in cybersecurity is that people with degrees are just too darn qualified. I mean, who needs actual knowledge and skills when you've got... um, passion? And a willingness to learn on the job?

But wait, there's more! The bill also requires agencies to publish data on educational attainment for these positions. Because what we really need is more bureaucratic busywork and pointless reporting requirements. I'm sure this will be a huge boon to the cybersecurity industry - just think of all the exciting new opportunities for data analysts and paperwork shufflers!

Now, let's talk about compliance requirements and timelines. Agencies have one year to implement these changes, which is plenty of time for them to figure out how to game the system and find ways to circumvent the "requirements". And by "requirements", I mean the vague, poorly defined guidelines that will inevitably lead to more confusion and bureaucratic red tape.

Enforcement mechanisms? Ha! Don't make me laugh. The bill relies on the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to police itself, which is like asking a fox to guard the henhouse. Penalties for non-compliance? Oh boy, I can barely contain my excitement - agencies might face... um, "adverse personnel actions"! Wow, that's some serious punishment right there.

As for economic and operational impacts, let's just say this bill will be a huge boon to the cybersecurity consulting industry. Because what we really need is more expensive consultants telling us how to do our jobs. And of course, it'll also create new opportunities for politicians to take credit for "modernizing" the hiring process - all while doing absolutely nothing to address the actual problems facing the cybersecurity industry.

In short, this bill is a classic case of legislative malpractice. It's a symptom of a deeper disease: politicians' addiction to grandstanding and their complete lack of understanding of the issues they're trying to "solve". But hey, at least it'll create some new jobs for bureaucrats and consultants - that's what really matters, right?

Related Topics

National Security & IntelligenceCybersecurity & Data Privacy
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$97,100
27 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$12,800
Committees
$0
Individuals
$84,300

No PAC contributions found

1
REW INVESTMENTS LLC
2 transactions
$5,800
2
KING & SOCIETY, LLC
1 transaction
$2,000
3
BARBER BROTHERS, LLC
1 transaction
$1,000
4
COASTAL GREEN CBD LLC
1 transaction
$1,000
5
MALL DRIVE MANAGEMENT, LLC
1 transaction
$1,000
6
SEAGLASS PARTNERS, LLC
1 transaction
$1,000
7
TWIN RIVERS HOLDINGS LLC
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
GRIFFITH, JAMES
1 transaction
$6,600
2
RANNEY, TIM
1 transaction
$6,600
3
SINGER, PAUL
1 transaction
$6,600
4
GREENBLATT, SCOTT
1 transaction
$5,800
5
MOE, JEFFREY
1 transaction
$5,800
6
GLUECK, KENNETH
1 transaction
$5,000
7
HOME, CHARLOTTE
1 transaction
$5,000
8
DAVISON, KAY MS.
1 transaction
$3,300
9
HAAG, GORAN
1 transaction
$3,300
10
HAAG, ORPHA
1 transaction
$3,300
11
BUKOWSKY, BRANT
1 transaction
$3,300
12
BUKOWSKY, BROCK
1 transaction
$3,300
13
CATZ, SAFRA
1 transaction
$3,300
14
COOLEY, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$3,300
15
KELLOGG, DAVID
1 transaction
$3,300
16
TOPPER, LEWIS
1 transaction
$3,300
17
YODER, MAHLON
1 transaction
$3,300
18
CRUSEMANN, JEANNE
1 transaction
$3,300
19
EPSTEIN, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$3,300
20
GRENADER, DAVID
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Brown, Shontel M. [D-OH-11]

ID: B001313

Top Contributors

10

1
MORRIS-SINGER, ANDREW
SELF-EMPLOYED • MANAGEMENT
IndividualPORTLAND, OR
$6,600
Jan 24, 2024
2
MORRIS-SINGER, COREY
SELF-EMPLOYED • RESEARCH
IndividualPORTLAND, OR
$6,600
Jan 24, 2024
3
STEIN, KEVIN M
TRANSDIGM • CEO
IndividualCHAGRIN FALLS, OH
$3,300
Feb 15, 2023
4
MOSS, KAREN
NICOLAS GUDBRANSON & COOPER • ATTORNEY
IndividualCLEVELAND, OH
$3,300
Feb 24, 2023
5
SUMMERS, MICHAEL P.
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualLAKEWOOD, OH
$3,300
Feb 28, 2023
6
JOHNSON, ALEX B
TRI-C • COLLEGE PRESIDENT
IndividualBEACHWOOD, OH
$3,300
Mar 7, 2023
7
SINITO, FRANK T
MILLENIA HOUSING COMPANIES • PRESIDENT
IndividualCLEVELAND, OH
$3,300
Mar 13, 2023
8
EMERSON, WILLIAM
ROCK HOLDINGS • VICE CHAIRMAN
IndividualBLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI
$3,300
Apr 14, 2023
9
JURVETSON, KARLA
SELF • PHYSICIAN
IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA
$3,300
May 11, 2023
10
RATNER, ALBERT B.
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualLYNDHURST, OH
$3,300
Jun 13, 2023

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

ID: V000138

Top Contributors

10

1
LUX FOR VIRGINIA
OrganizationLADYSMITH, VA
$500
Mar 29, 2024
2
LUX FOR VIRGINIA
OrganizationLADYSMITH, VA
$500
Mar 31, 2024
3
FORSTER-BURKE, DIANE
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT
$4,000
Apr 20, 2024
4
FORSTER-BURKE, DIANE
IndividualCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT
$4,000
May 5, 2024
5
VON STEIN, THOMSON
IndividualROCKVILLE, MD
$3,500
Aug 7, 2024
6
HULL, MEGAN
SELF • ACTIVIST
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Nov 2, 2024
7
KAISER, GEORGE
GBK CORPORATION • EXECUTIVE
IndividualTULSA, OK
$3,300
Oct 25, 2024
8
PARSONS, KATHLEEN
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPOTOMAC, MD
$3,300
Oct 18, 2024
9
STAPLE, HARISE
SELF • MD
IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA
$3,300
Oct 18, 2024
10
HOLMES, LAURA
SELF • REAL ESTATE INVESTOR
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 65 nodes and 34 connections (58 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $118,600

Top Donors - Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

7 Orgs20 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • +Cybersecurityconfidence 0.90

    Section 2(b)(1)(A) limits educational requirements for cybersecurity positions, making hiring easier and expanding the talent pool, which benefits cybersecurity firms and employers seeking to fill such roles.

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.

Executive Office of the President of the United States

Strong
Vector: 65%
Pages: 103-105AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 excerpt seek to strengthen merit-based hiring in the federal government by emphasizing knowledge, skills, and abilities over arbitrary credentials, thereby improving the ability to select qualified personnel and modernize OPM hiring practices."

Key themes:merit hiringcompetency-based selectionOPM reformreducing educational barriersKSA assessment

— 71 — Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy progressives have sought a system that could effectively select, train, reward, and guard from partisan influence the neutral scientific experts they believe are required to staff the national government and run the administrative state. Their U.S. system was initiated by the Pendleton Act of 188310 and institutionalized by the 1930s New Deal to set principles and practices that were meant to ensure that expert merit rather than partisan favors or personal favoritism ruled within the federal bureaucracy. Yet, as public frustration with the civil service has grown, generating calls to “drain the swamp,” it has become clear that their project has had serious unintended consequences. The civil service was devised to replace the amateurism and presumed corrup- tion of the old spoils system, wherein government jobs rewarded loyal partisans who might or might not have professional backgrounds. Although the system appeared to be sufficient for the nation’s first century, progressive intellectuals and activists demanded a more professionalized, scientific, and politically neutral Administration. Progressives designed a merit system to promote expertise and shield bureaucrats from partisan political pressure, but it soon began to insulate civil servants from accountability. The modern merit system increasingly made it almost impossible to fire all but the most incompetent civil servants. Complying with arcane rules regarding recruiting, rating, hiring, and firing simply replaced the goal of cultivating competence and expertise. In the 1970s, Georgia Democratic Governor Jimmy Carter, then a political unknown, ran for President supporting New Deal programs and their Great Soci- ety expansion but opposing the way they were being administered. The policies were not actually reducing poverty, increasing prosperity, or improving the envi- ronment, he argued, and to make them work required fundamental bureaucratic reform. He correctly charged that almost all government employees were rated as “successful,” all received the same pay regardless of performance, and even the worst were impossible to fire—and he won the presidency. President Carter fulfilled his campaign promise by hiring Syracuse University Dean Alan Campbell, who served first as Chairman of the U.S. Civil Service Com- mission and then as Director of the OPM and helped him devise and pass the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA)11 to reset the basic structure of today’s bureau- cracy. A new performance appraisal system was devised with a five rather than three distribution of rating categories and individual goals more related to agency missions and more related to employee promotion for all. Pay and benefits were based directly on improved performance appraisals (including sizable bonuses) for mid-level managers and senior executives. But time ran out on President Carter before the act could be fully executed, so it was left to President Ronald Reagan and his new OPM and agency leadership to implement. Overall, the new law seemed to work for a few years under Reagan, but the Carter– Reagan reforms were dissipated within a decade. Today, employee evaluation is back — 72 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise to pre-reform levels with almost all rated successful or above, frustrating any rela- tion between pay and performance. An “outstanding” rating should be required for Senior Executive Service (SES) chiefs to win big bonuses, but a few years ago, when it was disclosed that the Veterans Administration executives who encouraged false reporting of waiting lists for hospital admission were rated outstanding, the Senior Executive Association justified it, telling Congress that only outstanding performers would be promoted to the SES in the first place and that precise ratings were unnec- essary.12 The Government Accountability Office (GAO), however, has reported that pay raises, within-grade pay increases, and locality pay for regular employees and executives have become automatic rather than based on performance—as a result of most employees being rated at similar appraisal levels.13 OPM: Merit Hiring in a Merit System. It should not be impossible even for a large national government to hire good people through merit selection. The government did so for years, but it has proven difficult in recent times to select personnel based on their knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA) as the law dictates. Yet for the past 34 years, the U.S. civil service has been unable to distinguish con- sistently between strong and unqualified applicants for employment. As the Carter presidency was winding down, the U.S. Department of Justice and top lawyers at the OPM contrived with plaintiffs to end civil service IQ exam- inations because of concern about their possible impact on minorities. The OPM had used the Professional and Administrative Career Examination (PACE) gen- eral intelligence exam to select college graduates for top agency employment, but Carter Administration officials—probably without the President’s informed con- currence—abolished the PACE through a legal consent court decree capitulating to demands by civil rights petitioners who contended that it was discriminatory. The judicial decree was to last only five years but still controls federal hiring and is applied to all KSA tests even today. General ability tests like the PACE have been used successfully to assess the use- fulness and cost-effectiveness of broad intellectual qualities across many separate occupations. Courts have ruled that even without evidence of overt, intentional discrimination, such results might suggest discrimination. This doctrine of dispa- rate impact could be ended legislatively or at least narrowed through the regulatory process by a future Administration. In any event, the federal government has been denied the use of a rigorous entry examination for three decades, relying instead on self-evaluations that have forced managers to resort to subterfuge such as preselecting friends or associates that they believe are competent to obtain qual- ified employees. In 2015, President Barack Obama’s OPM began to introduce an improved merit examination called USAHire, which it had been testing quietly since 2012 in a few agencies for a dozen job descriptions. The tests had multiple-choice questions with only one correct answer. Some questions even required essay replies: questions

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Strong
Vector: 65%
Pages: 627-629AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill directly implements the Project 2025 'Federal BA Box' goal of skills-based hiring by limiting unnecessary educational requirements for federal cybersecurity positions, aligning with the broader push to reduce degree-based barriers and focus on competencies."

Key themes:skills-based hiringcompetency-based qualificationsreducing degree requirementsfederal hiring modernizationBA box

— 595 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies l Congress should expand apprenticeship programs outside of the RAP model, re-creating the IRAP system by statute and allowing approved entities such as trade associations and educational institutions to recognize and oversee apprenticeship programs. In addition, religious organizations should be encouraged to participate in apprenticeship programs. America has a long history of religious organizations working to advance the dignity of workers and provide them with greater opportunity, from the many prominent Christian and Jewish voices in the early labor movement to the “labor priests” who would appear on picket lines to support their flocks. Today, the role of religion in helping workers has diminished, but a country committed to strengthening civil society must ask more from religious organizations and make sure that their important role is not impeded by regulatory roadblocks or the bureaucratic status quo. l Encourage and enable religious organizations to participate in apprenticeship programs, etc. Both DOL and NLRB should facilitate religious organizations helping to strengthen working families via apprenticeship programs, worker organizations, vocational training, benefits networks, etc. Hazard-Order Regulations. Some young adults show an interest in inherently dangerous jobs. Current rules forbid many young people, even if their family is running the business, from working in such jobs. This results in worker shortages in dangerous fields and often discourages otherwise interested young workers from trying the more dangerous job. With parental consent and proper training, certain young adults should be allowed to learn and work in more dangerous occupations. This would give a green light to training programs and build skills in teenagers who may want to work in these fields. l DOL should amend its hazard-order regulations to permit teenage workers access to work in regulated jobs with proper training and parental consent. Workforce Training Grant Program. The federal government spends more than $100 billion per year subsidizing higher education but close to zero supporting people on non-college pathways. l Congress should create an employer grant worth up to $10,000 per year or pro-rated portion thereof for each worker engaged in — 596 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise on-the-job training, defined as some share of paid time spent in a formal training program. To qualify, a program—whether run by the employer, an industry consortium, a community college, or a union—would need to define program length, curriculum, career path, and credential and to report regularly on outcomes for participants. Programs that fail to deliver promised results would be disqualified from continued funding. Funding for employer grants should come from existing higher education subsidies that are currently disadvantaging alternative education options. Federal “BA Box.” The American labor market continues to experience a glut of college degrees. The country produces more college graduates than suitable jobs for them to fill. Meanwhile, employers exacerbate the problem, fueling demand for college by needlessly requiring degrees for many jobs. In 2020, the Trump Administration took an important step toward pro-worker, skills-based hiring practices. Executive Order 13932, Modernizing and Reforming the Assessment and Hiring of Federal Job Candidates,13 directed the Office of Personnel Management to reduce degree-based practices in the federal civil service. Maryland’s Governor Larry Hogan issued an executive order in 2022 to adopt this rule for Maryland state employees, and Utah’s Governor Spencer Cox in December of 2022 announced that Utah would do the same. Today, federal civil service job descriptions must “be based on the specific skills and competencies required to perform those jobs,” and may prescribe a “minimum educational requirement” only if it is otherwise legally required. The same policies do not extend beyond the civil service. Federal agencies continue to require college degrees for contract employees, and federal contractors are rarely able to place workers without four-year degrees on federal projects, regardless of their qualifications. Private employers consistently impose a BA requirement on jobs even when existing workers in the role do not have one. l Adopt the civil service’s skills-based hiring standards for federal contractors. The President should direct the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy to adopt the civil service’s skills-based hiring standards for federal contractors and issue waivers from degree-based staffing requirements in existing contracts. l Prohibit the use of a BA requirement in job descriptions. Congress should prohibit the inclusion of a BA requirement in job descriptions for all private sector employers, or the use of a BA requirement to screen applicants using algorithms, except where a BA from a particular type of institution or in a particular field is a bona fide requirement of the position.

Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy

Strong
Vector: 65%
Pages: 106-108AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 excerpt focus on OPM-led reform of federal hiring practices to prioritize knowledge, skills, and abilities over formal educational credentials, aiming to improve merit-based selection and reduce unnecessary barriers."

Key themes:OPMhiring reformcompetency-based qualificationsmerit-based hiringreducing educational barriers

— 73 — Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy that would change regularly to depress cheating. President Donald Trump’s OPM planned to implement such changes but was delayed because of legal concerns over possible disparate impact. Courts have agreed to review the consent decree if the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures setting the technical requirements for sound exams are reformed. A government that is unable to select employees based on KSA-like test qualifications cannot work, and the OPM must move forward on this very basic personnel management obligation. The Centrality of Performance Appraisal. In the meantime, the OPM must manage the workforce it has. Before they can reward or discipline federal employees, managers must first identify who their top performers are and who is performing less than adequately. In fact, as Ludwig von Mises proved in his classic Bureaucracy,14 unlike the profit-and-loss evaluation tool used in the private sector, government performance measurement depends totally on a functioning appraisal system. If they cannot be identified in the first place within a functioning appraisal system, it is impossible to reward good performance or correct poor performance. The problem is that the collegial atmosphere of a bureaucracy in a multifaceted appraisal system that is open to appeals makes this a very challenging ideal to implement successfully. The GAO reported more recently that overly high and widely spread perfor- mance ratings were again plaguing the government, with more than 99 percent of employees rated fully successful or above by their managers, a mere 0.3 percent rated as minimally successful, and 0.1 percent actually rated unacceptable.15 Why? It is human nature that no one appreciates being told that he or she is less than outstanding in every way. Informing subordinates in a closely knit bureaucracy that they are not performing well is difficult. Rating compatriots is even consid- ered rude and unprofessional. Moreover, managers can be and often are accused of racial or sexual discrimination for a poor rating, and this discourages honesty. In 2018, President Trump issued Executive Order 1383916 requiring agen- cies to reduce the time for employees to improve performance before corrective action could be taken; to initiate disciplinary actions against poorly performing employees more expeditiously; to reiterate that agencies are obligated to make employees improve; to reduce the time for employees to respond to allegations of poor performance; to mandate that agencies remind supervisors of expiring employee probationary periods; to prohibit agencies from entering into settlement agreements that modify an employee’s personnel record; and to reevaluate proce- dures for agencies to discipline supervisors who retaliate against whistleblowers. Unfortunately, the order was overturned by the Biden Administration,17 so it will need to be reintroduced in 2025. The fact remains that meaningfully evaluating employees’ performance is a critical part of a manager’s job. In the Reagan appraisal process, managers were evaluated on how they themselves rated their subordinates. This is critical to

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