District of Columbia Policing Protection Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/5143

Last Updated: July 12, 2026

District of Columbia Policing Protection Act of 2025

HR. 5143, 119th Congress — read as touching Law Enforcement & Surveillance Tech.

The sponsor

Rep. Higgins, Clay [R-LA-3]

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

The money

$66,200 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Transportation" section, p. 658-660 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.

September 17, 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

Summary Style:

The District of Columbia Policing Protection Act of 2025. A regulatory bill that, on the surface, appears to be a mundane matter of policing protocols in our nation's capital. But, as is often the case, the devil lies in the details.

Let us dissect this bill and examine its true implications for those who truly matter: the stakeholders with skin in the game – namely, myself and my fellow captains of industry.

**New Regulations:** The bill establishes standards for law enforcement officers to engage in vehicular pursuits, which may seem innocuous enough. However, upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that these regulations will have a ripple effect on various industries, including private security firms, insurance companies, and – most notably – the burgeoning autonomous vehicle sector.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:** The bill's provisions regarding PursuitAlert technology, for instance, may create new opportunities for tech startups and established players in the field of public safety. Conversely, it may also lead to increased compliance costs for private security firms operating in the District of Columbia.

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:** The Department of Justice report on PursuitAlert, due within three years of enactment, will likely set a precedent for similar technologies nationwide. This raises questions about the scalability and feasibility of such systems, particularly in light of the bill's vague language regarding implementation timelines.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:** As with any regulatory bill, the true teeth lie in its enforcement provisions. In this case, the Attorney General is tasked with evaluating the costs and benefits of PursuitAlert adoption. One can only assume that non-compliance will be met with... let's say, "encouragement" from our friends at the Department of Justice.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:** The bill's impact on local businesses, particularly those in the private security sector, cannot be overstated. Increased regulatory burdens may lead to consolidation or even exit from the market, creating opportunities for more... shall we say, "forward-thinking" players like myself.

In conclusion, this bill represents a modest yet telling example of how regulatory creep can have far-reaching consequences for industries and stakeholders alike. As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I must remain vigilant in monitoring such developments to ensure that my interests – and those of my fellow innovators – are protected and advanced.

Projected economic impact on my portfolio: $500 million - $1 billion over the next 5 years.

Recommendation: Establish a think tank-funded working group to explore the implications of PursuitAlert technology on autonomous vehicle development and deployment.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Higgins, Clay [R-LA-3]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$66,200

16 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$66,200

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

HAMER, GREGORY J MR. SR

2 transactions

$6,600

BOLLINGER, DONALD

2 transactions

$6,600

COOLEY, WILLIAM

2 transactions

$6,600

HAMER, GREG MR. JR.

2 transactions

$6,600

HEBERT, MARC

1 transaction

$3,500

FREY, GERARD A.

1 transaction

$3,300

CRAPPEL, ADAM

1 transaction

$3,300

UIHLEIN, RICHARD

1 transaction

$3,300

DAVIS, JORDAN

1 transaction

$3,300

ALFORD, ANTHONY

1 transaction

$3,300

CASTILLE, CARROL

1 transaction

$3,300

MIGUEZ, STEVEN

1 transaction

$3,300

MALLETT, CHESTER

1 transaction

$3,300

GRIGSBY, LANE

1 transaction

$3,300

HOLLINGSWORTH, DAVID

1 transaction

$3,300

VANHOOSE, JOHN

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Donalds, Byron [R-FL-19]

ID: D000032

Top Contributors

SHANNON GREEN COLLECTION

OrganizationNAPLES, FL

$500

Dec 28, 2023

NAPLES SMART, LLC

OrganizationNAPLES, FL

$250

Jun 4, 2024

COX, JOE B

NELSON MULLINS • ATTORNEY

IndividualNAPLES, FL

$6,600

Dec 30, 2023

STALLINGS, KYLE

DESERT ROYALTY COMPANY • FOUNDER/CEO

IndividualMIDLAND, TX

$6,600

Mar 9, 2023

ZALIK, DAVID

GOLDMAN SACHS • EXECUTIVE

IndividualMARIETTA, GA

$6,600

Jan 3, 2024

ZALIK, HELEN

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualATLANTA, GA

$6,600

Jan 6, 2024

BAUM, DAVID

ENTREPRENEUR • ENTREPRENEUR

IndividualSANIBEL, FL

$6,600

Feb 13, 2024

WALDRIP, EMORY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualNAPLES, FL

$6,600

May 20, 2023

MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE

DMM PROPRIETA MANAGEMENT • MANAGER

IndividualASPEN, CO

$6,600

Jun 7, 2024

MANDELBLATT, ERIC

SOROBAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LP • MANAGING PARTNER

IndividualASPEN, CO

$6,600

Jun 7, 2024

Rep. Wilson, Joe [R-SC-2]

ID: W000795

Top Contributors

CATAWBA INDIAN NATION

OrganizationROCK HILL, SC

$2,000

May 6, 2024

LEVKOWITZ, HOWARD

SELF EMPLOYED • INVESTOR

IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA

$6,600

Nov 28, 2023

VICKAR, KERRY

LKV MANAGEMENT • CHAIRMAN

IndividualCHARLOTTE, NC

$5,000

Nov 21, 2023

LOWELL, RANDY R.

BURR FORMAN • ATTORNEY

IndividualISLE OF PALMS, SC

$3,700

May 8, 2024

VALLARINO, MANUEL R.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSURFSIDE BEACH, SC

$3,300

Oct 29, 2024

VALLARINO, MARY EMILY J.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSURFSIDE BEACH, SC

$3,300

Oct 29, 2024

CASSELS, W. TOBIN III

SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT LINES • PRESIDENT

IndividualCOLUMBIA, SC

$3,300

Dec 1, 2023

CASSELS, W. TOBIN JR.

SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT LINES • CHAIRMAN & CEO

IndividualCOLUMBIA, SC

$3,300

Dec 1, 2023

HOEFER, JOHN M. S. ESQ.

WILLOUGHBY & HOEFER P.A. • ATTORNEY

IndividualCOLUMBIA, SC

$3,300

Nov 8, 2023

LIEBERMAN, JEREMY A.

KLEE TUCHIN BOGDANOFF & STERN LLP • ATTORNEY

IndividualFLUSHING, NY

$3,300

Oct 31, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Higgins, Clay [R-LA-3]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 41 nodes and 26 connections (45 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $87,150

Top Donors - Rep. Higgins, Clay [R-LA-3]

Showing top 16 donors by contribution amount

16 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Law Enforcement & Surveillance Techconfidence 0.90
Section 2(a)(1)(C) amends D.C. Code to allow vehicular pursuit unless officer reasonably believes pursuit entails unacceptable risk of harm or is futile, or suspect can be apprehended more effectively otherwise. This expands law enforcement authority to engage in vehicular pursuits, benefiting surveillance and pursuit technology vendors (e.g., Axon, Palantir) that provide related equipment and services.

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 Transportation

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on police vehicular pursuit standards and evaluates a pursuit-alert technology, which only tangentially relates to the DOT's broader goals of transportation safety, technology neutrality, and spectrum allocation for intelligent transportation systems."

Key themes:vehicular safetytechnology deploymentpublic safety

— 625 — Department of Transportation security, and privacy without hampering innovation. DOT can oversee the testing and deployment of a wide variety of new technologies, allowing communities and individuals to choose what best fits their needs. It is the role of the private sector, not the government, to pick winners and losers in technology development. If a technology underperforms, the private sector should be liable, not the government. The department should ensure a tech-neutral approach to addressing any emerging transportation technology while keeping safety as the number one priority. As part of this, it should work to facilitate the safe and full integration of automated vehicles into the national transportation system. Over time, these advanced technologies can save lives, transform personal mobility, and provide additional transportation opportunities—including for people with disabili- ties, aging populations, and communities where car ownership is expensive or impractical. NHTSA’s and FMCSA’s current regulations were written before the advent of automated vehicles and driving systems. Both operating administrations have issued Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemakings (ANPRMs) that begin the pro- cess of updating their regulations to reflect this new technology. However, these regulations have stalled under the Biden Administration, which has chosen to use the department’s tools to get people to take transit and drive electric vehicles instead of helping people to choose the transportation options that suit them best. l NHTSA should work to remove regulatory barriers by focusing on updating vehicle standards as well as publishing performance-based rules for the operations of automated vehicles (AVs). l FMCSA should work to clarify the regulations to align with DOT’s AV 3.0 guidance, which would allow the drivers to be safely removed from the operations of a commercial motor vehicle. From a nonregulatory point of view, DOT has pivoted from a successful focus on the voluntary sharing of data to improve safety outcomes to adoption of a more compulsory and antagonistic approach to mandating data collection and publica- tion through a Standing General Order related to automated vehicles. This needs to be reversed. Many of these new and innovative technologies rely on wireless communica- tions that depend on the availability and purchase of radio frequency spectrum, a trend that is consistent with what we see in connectivity in our everyday lives. There is a role for DOT in ensuring that in the fight over spectrum, transportation gets its fair share. For technologies to work in transportation, and in particular to work for transportation safety, they have to meet the unique needs of a transportation — 626 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise environment. They need to account for rapidly moving and out-of-line-of-sight vehicles as well as pedestrians, bicyclists, and other road users. They should account for the potential for radio interference, and they should address security. This is why in 1999, in response to a request from Congress, the Federal Com- munications Commission allocated the 5.9 GHz band of spectrum to traffic safety and intelligent transportation systems (ITS). In 2020, the FCC took away 45 MHz of the 75 MHz it had added, leaving only 30 MHz for transportation safety and ITS. DOT needs to represent the transportation community and make the case for needed spectrum to the public and Congress. CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY (CAFE) STANDARDS One reason for the high numbers of injuries on American roadways is that national fuel economy standards raise the price of cars, disincentivizing people from purchasing newer, safer vehicles. Congress requires the Secretary of Transportation to set national fuel econ- omy standards for new motor vehicles sold in the United States. This mandate was established in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA),6 a law passed in the wake of the Arab oil embargo to promote greater energy efficiency and lessen the national security threat of U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The stat- ute directs DOT to prescribe the “maximum feasible” mileage requirements for different categories of internal-combustion engine (ICE) automobiles for each model year. The standards must be achievable using available ICE technologies running on gasoline, diesel fuel, or similar combustible fuels and must not be set so high as to prevent automakers from profitably producing new vehicles at sufficient volume to meet consumer demand. Congress recognized that the ICE-powered automobile has been instrumen- tal to advancing the mobility and prosperity of the American people and that the domestic mass production of new ICE vehicles generates millions of jobs and remains critical to the overall health of the U.S. economy and the strength of the nation’s industrial base. Accordingly, Congress took care to ensure that the mileage requirements issued by DOT would not undermine the vitality of America’s auto industry or interfere with the market economics that drives consumer demand for new vehicles. This rulemaking authority, which has been delegated by the Secretary to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is exclusive to DOT. EPCA expressly preempts states from adopting or enforcing any different requirement “related to fuel economy standards” for new motor vehicles. While the statute instructs DOT to consult with the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in formulating its standards, no other federal agency, including EPA, has clear authority to set fuel economy requirements in place of NHTSA. The Clean Air Act7 gives EPA general authority to establish emissions

Department of Justice

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 587-589AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on limiting vehicular pursuits to reduce risk, while Project 2025 emphasizes aggressive enforcement tools and dismantling criminal enterprises; they share only a general law enforcement theme but diverge in approach."

Key themes:law enforcementpublic safetypolicing standards

— 554 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise attorneys are consistently using the tools at their disposal in cases with violent offenders, including pursuing mandatory minimum sentences under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).43 The department should also support legislative efforts to provide further tools, such as the Restoring the Armed Career Criminal Act, which Senators Tom Cotton (R–AR), Marsha Blackburn (R–TN), and Cindy Hyde-Smith (R–MS) introduced in 2021 in response to U.S. Supreme Court decisions neutering the ACCA.44 l Enforce the death penalty where appropriate and applicable. Capital punishment is a sensitive matter, as it should be, but the current crime wave makes deterrence vital at the federal, state, and local levels. However, providing this punishment without ever enforcing it provides justice neither for the victims’ families nor for the defendant. The next conservative Administration should therefore do everything possible to obtain finality for the 44 prisoners currently on federal death row. It should also pursue the death penalty for applicable crimes—particularly heinous crimes involving violence and sexual abuse of children—until Congress says otherwise through legislation.45 DISMANTLING DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL ENTERPRISES Criminal organizations are as old as crime itself, but are more extensive, sophisticated, and dangerous today than at any other point in history. The Department of Justice has a key role in tackling transnational criminal orga- nizations like Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) and Mexican drug cartels as well as purely domestic criminal organizations like those built on the more traditional mafia crime model as part of its obligation to ensure the safety and security of the American people. The department’s primary directive under the next Administration should be to return to an unapologetic focus on dismantling these criminal organizations and incarcerating their membership. Once this reprioritization occurs, the depart- ment’s political leadership should take concrete steps to use agency reach and resources to prevent these criminal organizations from operating and surviving. Assaulting the business model of these criminal organizations—which are massive, diversified enterprises with nationwide or international operations—is essential for success. The next Administration will therefore need to: l Revitalize the DOJ’s use of the array of statutory tools that exist for dealing with the threat of criminal organizations. The most potent ones are the simplest. For example, the department should: — 555 — Department of Justice 1. Rigorously prosecute as much interstate drug activity as possible, including simple possession of distributable quantities.46 Recent efforts to create the impression that drug possession crimes are not serious offenses has contributed to the explosion of criminal organization activities in the United States. 2. Aggressively deploy the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),47 which Congress expressly created to empower the Department of Justice to treat patterns of intrastate- level crimes, such as robbery, extortion, and murder, as federal criminal conduct for criminal organizations and networks. The next Administration can use existing tools while it works with Congress to develop new tools. l Secure the border,48 which is the key entry point for many criminal organizations and their supplies, products, and employees. Mexico— which is arguably functioning as a failed state run by drug cartels—is the main point of transit for illegal drugs produced in Central and South America, fentanyl precursors from the Chinese Communist Party–led People’s Republic of China,49 weapons, human smuggling and trafficking, and other contraband. Mexican drug cartels, including the dominant Sinaloa Cartel and the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), are the main drivers of fentanyl production and distribution in the United States. The southwestern land border is sufficiently porous that Mexican drug cartels have operational control of large sections of the border, which facilitates easy movement of product and personnel. These cartels are also violent and not afraid to demonstrate force on both sides of the border. Their conduct represents a clear and present danger to the United States and its citizens. In addition to finalizing the southwestern land border wall, the next Administration should take a creative and aggressive approach to tackling these dangerous criminal organizations at the border. This could include use of active-duty military personnel and National Guardsmen to assist in arrest operations along the border—something that has not yet been done. A new and forceful approach to interdiction will have a ripple effect on the operations of these criminal organizations, which currently operate freely without concern for criminal prosecution, and will lay the necessary groundwork for initial prosecutions of these organizations and their leaders. It is critical that the federal government staunch the flow of drugs by preventing the far-too-easy access to the United States that now exists.

Department of Justice

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 587-589AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill establishes vehicular pursuit standards for DC police, which is a tactical policing measure, while the Project 2025 DOJ section emphasizes dismantling criminal enterprises, enforcing mandatory minimums, and pursuing the death penalty. There is only a tangential connection through general goals of public safety and effective law enforcement."

Key themes:law enforcementpublic safetycrime reduction

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 545-547AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses vehicular pursuit standards for D.C. law enforcement, which is unrelated to the Department of Housing and Urban Development's focus on housing policy, reform, and administrative functions outlined in the Project 2025 excerpt."

— 513 — Department of Housing and Urban Development ENDNOTES 1. At a 1998 Senate hearing, then-HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo acknowledged that the department “faced a competence gap” and had “the dubious distinction of being the only federal agency designated as ‘high risk’ by the General Accounting [now Government Accountability] Office (GAO),” even referencing the Section 8 rental subsidy as “on the brink of becoming the next savings and loan scandal,” and explained how the department was stepping up enforcement efforts “focused on closing the competence gap by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.” See “Testimony of Secretary Andrew Cuomo before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies,” March 25, 1998, https://archives.hud.gov/ testimony/1998/tst32598.cfm (accessed March 4, 2023). 2. H.R. 7984, Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, Public Law No. 89-117, 89th Congress, August 10, 1965, https://www.congress.gov/89/statute/STATUTE-79/STATUTE-79-Pg451.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 3. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Budget in Brief, pp. 2 and 7, https://www.hud.gov/ sites/dfiles/CFO/documents/2023_BudgetInBriefFINAL.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 4. For example, the Special Applications Center (SAC) located in Chicago, Illinois, was established in 1998 as a division of the Office of Public and Indian Housing to accept, review, and approve all nonfunded, noncompetitive applications and plans for demolition, disposition, and conversion of land subject to an annual contributions contract (ACC) in public housing. 5. The Secretary has delegated full authority for the Administration and enforcement of the Fair Housing Act to the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity but also has delegated limited assignment and decision-making authority to the General Counsel. 6. Effectively the HUD Chief Operating Officer and appointed by the President with Senate advice and consent. 7. The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is an independent adjudicatory office within the Office of the Secretary. Led by a Director who is appointed by the Secretary, it supervises the Administrative Judges of the Office of Appeals, the administrative law judges of the Office of Administrative Law Judges, and the OHA support staff. The HUD Secretary appoints administrative judges and administrative law judges in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/ chapter-5 (accessed March 4, 2023). 8. HUD currently has a Departmental Equity Assessment Working Group, supported with five FTEs funded by the OSDBU, “as part of the President’s Executive Order 13985, Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.” See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 35-15, https://www.hud.gov/sites/ dfiles/CFO/documents/2023HUDCongressionalJustificationsFINALelectronicversion.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023), and President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” January 20, 2021, in Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 14 (January 25, 2021), pp. 7009–7013, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-25/pdf/2021- 01753.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 9. Interestingly, “[t]he 2023 President’s Budget requests $748 thousand for CFBNP, which is $436 thousand less than the 2022 Annualized CR level. The Budget reflects total funding (carryover and new authority) of $1.2 million, $448 thousand less than 2022 total funding.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 35-16. 10. See H.R. 558, Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, Public Law No. 100-77, 100th Congress, July 22, 1987, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-101/pdf/STATUTE-101-Pg482.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). Later renamed the McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act. 11. Established under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5301 et seq., https:// www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). 12. S. 566, Cranston–Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Public Law No. 101-625, 101st Congress, November 28, 1990, Title II, https://www.congress.gov/101/statute/STATUTE-104/STATUTE-104-Pg4079.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 13. S. 1, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law No. 91-646, 91st Congress, January 2, 1971, https://www.congress.gov/91/statute/STATUTE-84/STATUTE-84-Pg1894.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). “The URA establishes the minimum Federal requirements for the acquisition of real property for Federally-funded programs and projects, and for the relocation of persons who must move from — 514 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise their homes, businesses, or farms as a direct result of acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition for a Federally- funded program or project.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD Exchange, “49 CFR Part 24–URA Regulations,” published February 2005, https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/804/ura-and- real-property-acquisition-policies-act-49-cfr-part-24/ (accessed March 4, 2023). HUD is one of the 18 federal departments and agencies that “are subject to the Uniform Act.” U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, “Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs,” Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 243 (December 18, 2019), pp. 69466–69521, esp. p. 69484, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-12-18/pdf/2019-25558.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 14. H.R. 3219, Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-330, 104th Congress, October 26, 1996, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ330/PLAW-104publ330.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 15. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 6-1. The U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (Wagner–Steagall Act) established the origins of locally chartered housing agencies that administer federal funding for various rental assistance programs—a quintessentially progressive New Deal–era policy that expanded the administrative state’s powers to the housing market—with the primary legislative intent of eradicating slum housing in urban areas, boosting jobs, and providing housing for the working poor. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1437 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). A decade later, the Housing Act of 1949 codified federal standards for housing livability—a rationale that HUD and federal legislators have continued to use to justify federal intervention in housing—establishing as a national policy objective the provision of a minimum standard of housing quality for all Americans. This legislation also statutorily established many of the rural housing programs that are administered at USDA and expanded programs facilitating the removal of slum housing in urban areas. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1441 et seq., https:// www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). 16. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, pp. 1-2 and 2-2. 17. The National Housing Act of 1934 established the FHA and the statutory authority for the secondary market. The main stated premise was to stimulate jobs and facilitate the housing and construction sector during the Great Depression. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1701 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12 (accessed March 4, 2023). 18. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). 19. 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29 (accessed March 4, 2023). 20. HUD’s Departmental Enforcement Center (DEC) is led by a Director. It was established in 1998 as part of a broader effort to streamline and consolidate functions at HUD and was later merged with the Office of General Counsel. The DEC “is comprised of the Office of the Director, the Compliance Division, the Operations Division and five Satellite Offices” and describes its mission as “assuring the highest standards of ethics, management and accountability in the resolution of HUD's troubled properties.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Departmental Enforcement Center, “Program Offices: Departmental Enforcement Center,” https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/enforcement (accessed March 4, 2023). 21. H.R. 5334, Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Public Law No. 102-1017, 102nd Congress, October 28, 1992, Title X, https://www.congress.gov/102/statute/STATUTE-106/STATUTE-106-Pg3672.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 22. H.R. 8588, Inspector General Act of 1978, Public Law No. 95-452, 95th Congress, October 12, 1978, https://www. congress.gov/95/statute/STATUTE-92/STATUTE-92-Pg1101.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 23. Guiding questions: What immediate administrative reforms of HUD and its programs can be made with high probability of success? What short-term legislative reforms can be proposed that, in tandem with administrative reforms, would achieve the HUD vision/mission objective? What HUD offices should be eliminated and/or realigned to reduce any redundancy that may persist in programmatic functions? 24. Wholly aside from reforms that would require legislation, the next Administration must ensure that key political appointees are able to acquit themselves as change agents to execute administrative reforms. Otherwise, whether because of a sheer lack of skill and expertise or simply a lack of will and philosophical alignment with reforms, staff may frustrate the efforts of committed political appointee staff and leadership to execute substantive administrative reforms. To achieve the policy and regulatory reforms outlined in this chapter, political appointees must be carefully placed in positions that reflect not only technical, market/ industry, and operational expertise, but also a shared will and commitment.

Department of Education

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 362-364AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on establishing vehicular pursuit standards for law enforcement in the District of Columbia, whereas the Project 2025 excerpt deals with reorganizing the Department of Education and moving the Office for Civil Rights to the Department of Justice. There is no substantive thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 330 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise with the advice and consent of the Senate; (2) funded with annual appropriations from Congress; and (3) operated by professional managers. Federal loans would be assigned directly to the Treasury Department, which would manage collections and defaults. The new federal student loan authority would manage the loan port- folio, handle borrower relations, administer loan applications and disbursements, monitor institutional participation and accountability issues, and issue regulations. Office for Civil Rights (OCR) l OCR should move to the Department of Justice. The federal government has an essential responsibility to enforce civil rights protections, but Washington should do so through the Department of Justice and federal courts. The OCR at DOJ should be able to enforce only through litigation. Additional Bureaus and Offices For those attorneys, accountants, experts, and specialists in the department's remaining offices subject to closure whose positions might nevertheless be a key component of serving the mission—positions that might include the Office of the Secretary/Deputy Secretary, Office of the Undersecretary, Office of the General Counsel, Office of the Inspector General, Office of Finance and Operations, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Office of Communications and Outreach, and Office of Legislative and Congressional Affairs—the opportunity to join other agencies based on their expertise and the needs of other agencies should be made available. For example, OGC higher education lawyers would join the newly independent Federal Student Aid Office or the Department of Labor, and OGC civil rights attor- neys would join DOJ. These positions must first be determined to serve a continued mission need prior to being transferred. l Attorneys, accountants, experts, and specialists in the department’s remaining offices subject to closure, and whose positions are indispensable to serving the mission, should have the opportunity to join other agencies. Current Laws Relating to the Department of Education That Require Repeal In order to fully wind down the Department of Education, Congress must pass and the President must sign into law a Department of Education Reorganization Act (or Liquidating Authority Act) to direct the executive branch on how to devolve the agency as a stand-alone Cabinet-level department. l Congress should pass and the next President should sign a Department of Education Reorganization Act. — 331 — Department of Education Current Regulations Promulgated by or Relevant to the Agency That Should Be Rolled Back or Eliminated While the next Administration works to distribute department programs across the federal government, it will need to thoroughly review the many educa- tion-related regulations promulgated by the Biden Administration. There are five primary regulatory targets (as of December 2022) that require the next Adminis- tration’s attention: regulations on (1) Charter School Grant Program Priorities; (2) Civil Rights Data Collection; (3) Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan Program, and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program Final Regulations; (4) Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance (Title IX); and (5) Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities, Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities (Equity in IDEA). The next Administration should also review regulatory changes to the school meals program (under the Department of Agriculture) and changes to the Income-Driven student loan program. Additional Biden Administration regulations on (1) gainful employment, administrative capa- bility, and financial responsibility for institutions that participate in the federal student loans and grant programs; (2) Title VI, (3) accreditation of postsecondary institutions, and (4) female athletics are expected in to be released in 2023. l Thoroughly review the many education-related regulations promulgated by the Biden Administration, as well as the school meals program and the Income-Driven student loan program. Charter School Grant Programs Congress first authorized the Charter School Program (CSP) in 1994 [Title X, Part C of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended, 20 U.S.C. § 8061 et seq. (1994)]. It most recently reauthorized the program in 2015 as part of the Every Student Succeeds Act.13 On March 14, 2022, the department published a notice concerning proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and grant selection criteria relating to the award of federal grants to applicants in CSP. This proposal increases the federal footprint in the charter school sector by ignor- ing statute and adding to the list of requirements imposed on charter schools. l The new Administration must take immediate steps to rescind the new requirements and lessen the federal restrictions on charter schools. Civil Rights Data Collection On December 13, 2021, OCR published a notice concerning proposed revisions to OCR’s Mandatory Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) in which it proposed

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. Higgins, Clay

Comment Integrity and Management Act

119/hr/9643

Restoring Integrity and Efficiency to Inspector General Oversight Act of 2026

119/hr/9725

Destruction of Hazardous Imports Act

119/hr/2715

Back to All Bills

District of Columbia Policing Protection Act of 2025