Washington, D.C. Admission Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/51
Last Updated: January 13, 2026

Sponsored by

Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC]

ID: N000147

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Introduced

📍 Current Status

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

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

âś…

Passed Senate

🏛️

House 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 legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Washington, D.C. Admission Act (HR 51) aims to grant statehood to the District of Columbia, rebranding it as the "State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth." The bill's sponsors claim this will provide full representation and voting rights to D.C. residents in Congress. How quaint.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill is a laundry list of bureaucratic adjustments, including:

* Admitting D.C. as the 51st state * Electing two senators and one representative * Issuing a presidential proclamation to formalize the admission process * Redefining the seat of government and its boundaries * Transferring federal property and authorities to the new state * Updating various laws and regulations to accommodate D.C.'s new status

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects:

* D.C. residents, who will supposedly gain full representation in Congress (though I'm sure they'll still find ways to complain) * Federal agencies and employees, who will need to adapt to the changed landscape * Lobbyists and special interest groups, who will salivate at the prospect of new opportunities for influence peddling

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Let's not pretend this bill is about anything other than politics and power. The real motivations behind HR 51 are:

* Democrat lawmakers seeking to add two more reliably liberal senators to their ranks * D.C. politicians angling for increased autonomy and federal funding * Special interest groups looking to exploit the new state's vulnerabilities

As for the actual impact on D.C. residents? Please, they'll still be stuck with the same incompetent local government and bureaucratic red tape. This bill is just a shell game, rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

In conclusion, HR 51 is a cynical exercise in legislative manipulation, designed to benefit politicians and special interests rather than the people of D.C. It's a classic case of "same old, same old" – more empty promises, more bureaucratic bloat, and more opportunities for corruption. How delightfully predictable.

Related Topics

National Security & Intelligence State & Local Government Affairs Federal Budget & Appropriations Transportation & Infrastructure Small Business & Entrepreneurship Congressional Rules & Procedures Criminal Justice & Law Enforcement Government Operations & Accountability Civil Rights & Liberties
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

đź’° Campaign Finance Network

No campaign finance data available for Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC]

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Jeffries, Hakeem S. [D-NY-8]

ID: J000294

Top Contributors

45

1
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
Organization SHELBYVILLE, MI
$3,300
Oct 18, 2024
2
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
Organization PRIOR LAKE, MN
$3,300
Nov 14, 2023
3
THE CHICKASAW NATION
Organization ADA, OK
$3,300
Oct 26, 2023
4
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
Organization MARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Mar 29, 2023
5
CS II, LLC
Organization NORTHLAKE, IL
$3,300
Mar 29, 2023
6
ONEIDA INDIAN NATION
Organization ONEIDA, NY
$3,300
Mar 29, 2023
7
ONEIDA INDIAN NATION
Organization ONEIDA, NY
$3,300
Mar 29, 2023
8
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
Organization TACOMA, WA
$3,300
Jun 25, 2024
9
CATAWBA INDIAN NATION
Organization ROCK HILL, SC
$3,300
Apr 19, 2024
10
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
Organization ATMORE, AL
$3,300
May 22, 2024

Rep. Clark, Katherine M. [D-MA-5]

ID: C001101

Top Contributors

71

1
CHEROKEE NATION
Organization TAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Dec 11, 2023
2
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
Organization ATMORE, AL
$3,300
Jun 27, 2023
3
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
Organization ATMORE, AL
$3,300
May 23, 2024
4
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
Organization LOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Aug 30, 2023
5
CHEROKEE NATION
Organization TAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Oct 2, 2024
6
TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA
Organization MARKSVILLE, LA
$2,500
Apr 12, 2023
7
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
Organization SANTA YNEZ, CA
$2,000
Jun 26, 2024
8
GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY
Organization SACATON, AZ
$1,000
Jun 14, 2023
9
GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY
Organization SACATON, AZ
$1,000
Jun 26, 2024
10
GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY
Organization SACATON, AZ
$500
Nov 1, 2023

Rep. Aguilar, Pete [D-CA-33]

ID: A000371

Top Contributors

74

1
UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE
Organization ARLINGTON, VA
$8,700
Apr 26, 2023
2
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
Organization LAKESIDE, CA
$3,300
Sep 13, 2023
3
MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT TRIBAL NATION
Organization MASHANTUCKET, CT
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023
4
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND
Organization BANNING, CA
$3,300
Sep 27, 2023
5
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS
Organization TEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Jul 1, 2023
6
VIEJAS BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS
Organization ALPINE, CA
$3,300
Sep 13, 2023
7
CHEROKEE NATION
Organization TAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Dec 12, 2023
8
CHEROKEE NATION
Organization TAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Sep 26, 2024
9
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
Organization MARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Mar 30, 2023
10
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
Organization ROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Mar 16, 2023

Rep. Adams, Alma S. [D-NC-12]

ID: A000370

Top Contributors

61

1
THE CHICKASAW NATION
Organization ADA, OK
$1,000
Dec 14, 2023
2
NORDHOFF, HENRY L
Individual HARRISON, ID
$3,300
Nov 27, 2023
3
BRUTTEN, MARC
BRIXTON CAPITAL • CHAIRMAN
Individual SOLANA BEACH, CA
$3,300
Jun 30, 2023
4
NORDHOFF, ROBIN THARP
RETIRED • RETIRED
Individual HARRISON, ID
$3,300
Apr 24, 2023
5
BROWN, REGINALD
KIRKLAND & ELLIS • LAWYER
Individual ALEXANDRIA, VA
$3,300
Aug 26, 2023
6
HAYDEN, RUFUS L
SELF EMPLOYED • INVESTOR
Individual ALHAMBRA, CA
$3,300
Sep 13, 2023
7
SWORTWOOD, DONALD
SELF EMPLOYED • INVESTOR
Individual SAN DIEGO, CA
$3,300
Sep 4, 2023
8
WERNER, RACHEL
CORNERSTONE LEGACY • SELF EMPLOYED
Individual VALLEY, NE
$3,300
Sep 11, 2023
9
JETT, ANN L
RETIRED • RETIRED
Individual SANTA YNEZ, CA
$2,500
Oct 6, 2023
10
JETT, THOMAS LAWRENCE
RETIRED • RETIRED
Individual SANTA YNEZ, CA
$2,500
Oct 6, 2023

Rep. Amo, Gabe [D-RI-1]

ID: A000380

Top Contributors

133

1
FRIENDS OF ANDRE SAYEGH
CITY OF PATERSON • ELECTED OFFICIAL
COM PATERSON, NJ
$250
Jun 28, 2024
2
COMITE WILLIAM VILLAFANE
CCM BAYAMON, PR
$3,300
Nov 4, 2024
3
CHEROKEE NATION
Organization TAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Oct 23, 2024
4
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
Organization PALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Dec 2, 2024
5
CHEROKEE NATION
Organization TAHLEQUAH, OK
$2,500
Dec 18, 2023
6
DUFURRENA SHEEP
Organization WINNEMUCCA, NV
$1,000
Nov 17, 2023
7
RENO-SPARKS INDIAN COLONY
Organization RENO, NV
$1,000
Apr 25, 2024
8
RENO-SPARKS INDIAN COLONY
Organization RENO, NV
$1,000
Sep 26, 2024
9
ELECTION FUND OF CRAIG J. COUGHLIN
Organization FORDS, NJ
$1,000
Jun 13, 2024
10
ELECTION FUND OF PATRICK COUNCIL
Organization NEWARK, NJ
$250
Jun 12, 2024

Rep. Balint, Becca [D-VT-At Large]

ID: B001318

Top Contributors

23

1
CHEROKEE NATION
Organization TAHLEQUAH, OK
$1,000
Jul 1, 2024
2
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
Organization BANNING, CA
$1,000
Jul 1, 2024
3
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
Organization BANNING, CA
$1,000
May 30, 2023
4
RECHNITZ, JOAN
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
Individual RED BANK, NJ
$6,600
Apr 22, 2024
5
COHEN, PETER
PARTNERSHIP FUND FOR NEW YORK CITY • ATTORNEY
Individual NEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Dec 12, 2023
6
WOHL, JANE E
Individual BRATTLEBORO, VT
$3,300
Dec 31, 2023
7
WOHL, ELIZABETH
LAW FIRM • ATTORNEY
Individual BRATTLEBORO, VT
$3,300
Dec 5, 2023
8
FERARI, KAIA
MUNOZ & CO • ADMIN
Individual GREENWICH, CT
$3,300
Dec 6, 2023
9
WISHIK, HEATHER
NONE • RETIRED
Individual WOODSTOCK, VT
$3,300
Dec 11, 2023
10
WOHL, BARRY
NORTHEAST WYOMING PEDIATRIC ASSOC PC • PHYSICIAN
Individual SHERIDAN, WY
$3,300
Dec 31, 2023

Rep. Barragán, Nanette Diaz [D-CA-44]

ID: B001300

Top Contributors

0

No contribution data available

Rep. Beatty, Joyce [D-OH-3]

ID: B001281

Top Contributors

30

1
EDWARDS, JEFFREY W.
INSTALLED BUILDING PRODUCTS/EDWARDS CO • PRESIDENT, CEO, CHAIRMAN
Individual COLUMBUS, OH
$5,000
Oct 9, 2024
2
BANFIELD, WILLIAM
QUICKEN LOANS • CHIEF RISK OFFICER
Individual ROCHESTER HILLS, MI
$3,300
May 1, 2024
3
COHEN, PHILIP
PRN FUNDING LLC • MANAGEMENT
Individual PEPPER PIKE, OH
$3,300
Apr 22, 2024
4
LAVINE, JEANNIE
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
Individual BOSTON, MA
$3,300
Jun 28, 2024
5
LAVINE, JONTHAN
BAIN CAPITAL • INVESTOR
Individual BOSTON, MA
$3,300
Jun 28, 2024
6
STOKES, RAVEN R
SELF • MOTHER
Individual BEXLEY, OH
$3,300
Jun 12, 2024
7
WALKER, KIRT A
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL • PRESIDENT & CEO
Individual NEW ALBANY, OH
$3,300
May 29, 2024
8
WILLIAMS, CLIFTON
TAFT LAW • LOBBYIST
Individual CHAGRIN FALLS, OH
$3,300
Aug 18, 2024
9
HUGHES, CARL F
CONLON PUBLIC STRATEGIES • PUBLIC STRATEGIES
Individual MARION, OH
$3,300
Oct 27, 2024
10
GILBERT, DAN
ROCKET MORTGAGE • CEO
Individual DETROIT, MI
$3,300
Nov 16, 2023

Rep. Bera, Ami [D-CA-6]

ID: B001287

Top Contributors

23

1
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PAC WASHINGTON, DC
$250
Nov 5, 2024
2
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PAC WASHINGTON, DC
$250
Oct 31, 2024
3
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
Organization SANTA YNEZ, CA
$2,000
Jun 30, 2024
4
DOERR, JOHN L. III
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
Individual SAN CARLOS, CA
$6,600
Sep 30, 2023
5
DOERR, JOHN L. III
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
Individual SAN CARLOS, CA
$6,600
Sep 30, 2023
6
DOERR, JOHN L. III
Individual SAN CARLOS, CA
$6,600
Sep 30, 2023
7
DOERR, JOHN L. III
Individual SAN CARLOS, CA
$6,600
Sep 30, 2023
8
DOERR, ANN HOWLAND
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
Individual SAN CARLOS, CA
$3,300
Sep 29, 2023
9
DOERR, ANN HOWLAND
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
Individual SAN CARLOS, CA
$3,300
Sep 29, 2023
10
DOERR, JOHN L. III
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
Individual SAN CARLOS, CA
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023

Rep. Beyer, Donald S. [D-VA-8]

ID: B001292

Top Contributors

24

1
TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA
Organization MARKSVILLE, LA
$3,300
Nov 10, 2023
2
TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA
Organization MARKSVILLE, LA
$1,700
Nov 10, 2023
3
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
Organization PRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Mar 26, 2024
4
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
Organization PRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Jun 7, 2023
5
CAFRITZ, JANE
CALVIN CAFRITZ ENTERPRISES • MANAGER
Individual WASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Oct 2, 2024
6
HIRST, THOMSON M
N/A • RETIRED
Individual ALEXANDRIA, VA
$3,300
Oct 11, 2024
7
MURTAGH, PAUL
PRECISION X-RAY INC. • BUSINESS OWNER
Individual ALEXANDRIA, VA
$3,300
Oct 5, 2024
8
TOMPKINS, GRAVES
GENERAL ATLANTIC • FINANCE
Individual BROOKLYN HGTS, NY
$3,300
Sep 29, 2024
9
MALLOY, GEOFFREY
MALLOY AUTO GROUP • PRESIDENT
Individual MCLEAN, VA
$3,300
Jul 10, 2024
10
ARNOLD, LAURA
ARNOLD VENTURES • CO-FOUNDER
Individual HOUSTON, TX
$3,300
Aug 16, 2024

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.

Introduction

Low 47.0%
Pages: 557-559

— 524 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Rulemaking. The following policy reversals require rulemaking: l Rescind the Biden rules and reinstate the Trump rules regarding: 1. BLM waste prevention; 2. The Endangered Species Act rules defining Critical Habitat and Critical Habitat Exclusions;41 3. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act;42 and 4. CEQ reforms to NEPA.43 l Reinstate President Trump’s plan for opening most of the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska to leasing and development. Personnel Changes. The new Administration should be able to draw on the enormous expertise of state agency personnel throughout the country who are capable and knowledgeable about land management and prove it daily. States are better resource managers than the federal government because they must live with the results. President Trump’s Schedule F proposal44 regarding accountability in hiring must be reinstituted to bring success to these reforms. Consistent with the theme of bringing successful state resource management examples to the forefront of federal policy, DOI should also look for opportunities to broaden state–federal and tribal–federal cooperative agreements. IMMEDIATE ACTIONS BLM Headquarters. BLM headquarters belongs in the American West. After all, the overwhelming majority of the 245 million surface acres (10 percent of the nation’s landmass) managed by the agency lies in the 11 western states and Alaska: A mere 50,000 surface acres lie elsewhere. Moreover, 97 percent of BLM employees are located in the American West. Thus, the Trump Administration’s decision to relocate BLM headquarters from Washington, D.C., to the West was the epitome of good governance: That is, it was not only well-informed, but it was also implemented efficiently, effectively, and with an eye toward affected career civil servants. Plus, despite overblown chatter from the inside-the-Beltway media, Congress, with bipartisan support, approved funding the move. Meanwhile, state, tribal, and local officials, the diverse collection of stakehold- ers who use public lands and western neighbors became accustomed to having top BLM decision-makers in Grand Junction, Colorado, rather than up to four

Introduction

Low 47.0%
Pages: 557-559

— 524 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Rulemaking. The following policy reversals require rulemaking: l Rescind the Biden rules and reinstate the Trump rules regarding: 1. BLM waste prevention; 2. The Endangered Species Act rules defining Critical Habitat and Critical Habitat Exclusions;41 3. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act;42 and 4. CEQ reforms to NEPA.43 l Reinstate President Trump’s plan for opening most of the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska to leasing and development. Personnel Changes. The new Administration should be able to draw on the enormous expertise of state agency personnel throughout the country who are capable and knowledgeable about land management and prove it daily. States are better resource managers than the federal government because they must live with the results. President Trump’s Schedule F proposal44 regarding accountability in hiring must be reinstituted to bring success to these reforms. Consistent with the theme of bringing successful state resource management examples to the forefront of federal policy, DOI should also look for opportunities to broaden state–federal and tribal–federal cooperative agreements. IMMEDIATE ACTIONS BLM Headquarters. BLM headquarters belongs in the American West. After all, the overwhelming majority of the 245 million surface acres (10 percent of the nation’s landmass) managed by the agency lies in the 11 western states and Alaska: A mere 50,000 surface acres lie elsewhere. Moreover, 97 percent of BLM employees are located in the American West. Thus, the Trump Administration’s decision to relocate BLM headquarters from Washington, D.C., to the West was the epitome of good governance: That is, it was not only well-informed, but it was also implemented efficiently, effectively, and with an eye toward affected career civil servants. Plus, despite overblown chatter from the inside-the-Beltway media, Congress, with bipartisan support, approved funding the move. Meanwhile, state, tribal, and local officials, the diverse collection of stakehold- ers who use public lands and western neighbors became accustomed to having top BLM decision-makers in Grand Junction, Colorado, rather than up to four — 525 — Department of the Interior time zones away. All of them also appreciated that the BLM’s top subject matter experts were located not in the District of Columbia, but in the western states that most need their knowledge and expertise. Westerners no longer had to travel cross country to address BLM issues. Neither did officials in the West, closest to the resources and people they manage. On July 16, 2019, Secretary of the Interior David L. Bernhardt delivered to Con- gress the proposal for the relocation of nearly 600 BLM headquarters employees. On August 10, 2020, Secretary Bernhardt formally established the Robert F. Burford headquarters—named after the longest-serving BLM director, a Grand Junction native—with a staff of 41 senior officials and assistants. Another 76 positions were assigned to BLM state offices in western communities such as Billings, Montana; Boise, Idaho; Reno, Nevada; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Cheyenne, Wyoming, to meet critical needs. Scores of other positions were assigned to the states that required BLM expertise. For example, wild horse and burro professionals were relocated to Nevada, home to nearly 60 percent of these western icons. Sixty-one positions were retained in Washington, D.C., to address public, congressional, and regulatory affairs, Freedom of Information Act compliance, and budget development. Despite the dislocating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the BLM success- fully filled hundreds of long-vacant positions, as well as those that opened because of the move West. The BLM saw notable numbers of applicants for these positions— so numerous that the BLM capped the number of eligible applicants to no more than 50. Obviously, reduced commuting times (often from hours to mere minutes), lower cost of living, and opportunity to access vast public lands for recreation made these jobs attractive to potential employees. Many, if not most, applicants stated they would not have applied had the positions been based in Washington, D.C. At the same time, western positions attracted those with the skills needed to meet the BLM’s multiple-use, sustained-yield mandate, disproving the claim that the BLM was suffering a “brain drain.” The Trump Administration recognized that, despite its attractions, not every- one employed by BLM in Washington, D.C., could move West. The Administration applied a hands-on approach, with all-employee briefing and question-and-answer sessions, regular email communications, and a website devoted to frequently asked questions. Two human resources teams aided employees wishing to remain in federal jobs in the D.C. area: All received new opportunities. The BLM’s move West incurred no legal challenges, no formal Equal Employ- ment Opportunity or U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board complaints, and no adverse union activity. It is hard to please everyone, but the Trump Administra- tion’s BLM did just that, putting the lie to assertions, by some, that the BLM was trying to “fire” federal employees. The total cost of $17.9 million for relocation incentives, permanent change-of- station moves, temporary labor, travel, printing, rent, supplies, equipment, and

Introduction

Low 46.9%
Pages: 229-231

— 197 — Department of State The ideas and recommendations herein are premised on the belief that a rigorous adherence to the national interest is the most enduring foundation for U.S. grand strategy in the 21st century. AUTHOR’S NOTE: Thanks to the entire State Department chapter team, the leaders and staff of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project, and my colleagues at The Heritage Foundation’s Davis Center. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the following colleagues: Russell Berman, Sarah Calvis, James Carafano, Spencer Chretien, Wesley Coopersmith, Paul Dans, Steven Groves, Simon Hankinson, Joseph Humire, Michael Pillsbury, Max Primorac, Reed Rubenstein, Brett Schaefer, Jeff Smith, Hillary Tanoff, Erin Walsh, and John Zadrozny. — 198 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of State, “About the U.S. Department of State: Our History,” https://www.state.gov/about/ (accessed March 9, 2023). 2. The balance of employment is 2,149 eligible family members and 50,223 locally employed staff. U.S. Department of State, “GTM Fact Sheet: Facts About Our Most Valuable Asset—Our People,” Global Talent Management, December 31, 2022, https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/GTM_Factsheet1222. pdf (accessed March 9, 2023). 3. U.S. Commission on National Security, Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change, Phase III Report, February 15, 2001, p. x, http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/nssg/PhaseIIIFR.pdf (accessed March 9, 2023). 4. See Brett D. Schaefer, “How to Make the State Department More Effective at Implementing U.S. Foreign Policy,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3115, April 20, 2016, https://www.heritage.org/political- process/report/how-make-the-state-department-more-effective-implementing-us-foreign. 5. Historically, roughly one-third of ambassadorial appointments have been political appointments, although Republican Administrations have generally had a higher ratio of political appointments than Democratic Administrations. 6. U.S. Constitution, art. 2, sec. 2, cl. 2. 7. News release, “Secretary Blinken Launches the Office of China Coordination,” U.S. Department of State, December 16, 2022, https://www.state.gov/secretary-blinken-launches-the-office-of-china-coordination/ (accessed March 9, 2023). 8. Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S. Code § 1101 et seq., § 1253. 9. See Michael Pillsbury, The Hundred Year Marathon: China’s Secret Strategy to Replace the United States as a Global Superpower (NY: St. Martin’s Griffin, 2016). 10. For additional context regarding how countering China fits in a more robust U.S. strategy, see James Jay Carafano et al., “Foreign Policy: Strategy for a Post-Biden Era,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3715, July 21, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/foreign-policy-strategy-post-biden-era. 11. The Article X for China would follow George Kennan’s Article X for U.S.–Soviet competition. See George F. Kennan, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” Foreign Affairs, July 1947, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ russian-federation/1947-07-01/sources-soviet-conduct (accessed March 22, 2023). 12. Dean Cheng et al., “Assessing Beijing’s Power: A Blueprint for the U.S. Response to China Over the Next Decades,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No. 221, February 20, 2010, https://www.heritage.org/asia/ report/assessing-beijings-power-blueprint-the-us-response-china-over-the-next-decades. 13. Eric W. Orts, “The Rule of Law in China,” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 34, No. 1 (January 2001), https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1686&context=vjtl (accessed March 9, 2023). 14. U.S. Department of Defense, Indo–Pacific Strategy Report: Preparedness, Partnerships, and Promoting a Networked Region, June 1, 2019, https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jul/01/2002152311/-1/-1/1/DEPARTMENT-OF- DEFENSE-INDO-PACIFIC-STRATEGY-REPORT-2019.PDF (accessed July 28, 2022). 15. See Jeff Smith, “South Asia: A New Strategy,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3721, August 29, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/asia/report/south-asia-new-strategy. 16. Emma Bryce, “Why Is There So Much Oil in the Arctic?” Live Science, August 3, 2019, https://www.livescience. com/66008-why-oil-in-arctic.html (accessed February 9, 2023). 17. “Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, updated January 26, 2021, p. 6, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R41153/177 (accessed March 9, 2023). 18. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology, “Snapshot: Overcoming the Tyranny of Distance in the Arctic,” April 20, 2020, https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/2020/04/20/ snapshot-overcoming-tyranny-distance-arctic (accessed February 9, 2023). 19. U.S. Department of State, “U.S. Contributions to International Organizations, 2021,” September 20, 2022, https://www.state.gov/u-s-contributions-to-international-organizations-2021/ (accessed March 9, 2023), and U.S. Department of State, “U.S. Contributions to International Organizations, 2015,” November 1, 2016, https:// www.state.gov/u-s-contributions-to-international-organizations-2015/ (accessed March 9, 2023). 20. U.S. Department of State, Report on the Commission of Inalienable Rights, https://www.state.gov/wp-content/ uploads/2020/07/Draft-Report-of-the-Commission-on-Unalienable-Rights.pdf (accessed March 9, 2023).

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.