Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/5304

Last Updated: July 10, 2026

Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026

HR. 5304, 119th Congress — read as touching Hospitals & Health Systems.

The sponsor

Rep. Aderholt, Robert B. [R-AL-4]

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

The money

$119,637 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Labor and Related Agencies" section, p. 648-650 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 227.

September 10, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

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

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The HR 5304 appropriations bill, a pedestrian exercise in bureaucratic largesse. Let's distill the essence of this legislation, shall we?

**Total Funding:** A paltry $2.594 billion is allocated for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. A drop in the bucket compared to my quarterly earnings.

**Key Programs and Agencies:**

1. Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA): $1.807 billion, with a focus on adult employment and training activities, as well as dislocated worker programs. 2. National Apprenticeship Act: Funding for apprenticeships is buried within the WIOA allocation, but I estimate it to be around $120 million.

**Notable Increases/Decreases:** Compared to previous years, there's a modest increase in funding for WIOA programs, likely due to the administration's emphasis on workforce development. However, this pales in comparison to the exponential growth of my own business ventures.

**Riders and Policy Provisions:**

1. The bill allows outlying areas to submit consolidated grant applications, streamlining the process and reducing bureaucratic red tape. 2. Funds for dislocated worker programs can be used to address cases where workers have been displaced across multiple sectors or local areas.

**Fiscal Impact and Deficit Implications:** This appropriation will contribute to the national debt, which I estimate will reach $30 trillion by 2026. A trifling concern, really, as my own investments in emerging technologies will yield returns that far surpass any government expenditure.

In conclusion, HR 5304 is a minor perturbation in the grand tapestry of fiscal policy. Its impact on my business empire will be negligible, and I'll continue to shape the market through innovation and strategic investment. The government would do well to take a page from my playbook: prioritize efficiency, deregulate, and let the free market flourish.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Aderholt, Robert B. [R-AL-4]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$119,637

23 donors

PACs

Organizations

$4,600

Committees

Individuals

$115,037

No PAC contributions found

CHALMERS, ADAMS, BACKER & KAUFMAN LLC

1 transaction

$2,900

IMPACT JOURNALS

1 transaction

$1,200

SUIT, LLC

1 transaction

$500

No committee contributions found

ROBIN, CRAIG A.

1 transaction

$6,600

HOKR, BRETT H.

1 transaction

$6,600

LESSMANN, KURT M.

1 transaction

$6,600

KHALILI, KAVEH

1 transaction

$6,600

BUFFALOE, STEPHANIE

1 transaction

$6,600

COLLAZO, FRANCISCO JOSE

1 transaction

$6,600

HUNT, RAY L.

1 transaction

$6,600

MCDANIEL, MARK

1 transaction

$6,600

SPITZER, TERRY

1 transaction

$6,600

EVERBACH, CHRIS

1 transaction

$5,595

COLLAZO, CARMEN ANA

1 transaction

$5,042

MANLEY, RICHARD A.

1 transaction

$5,000

JONES, DEBORAH

1 transaction

$5,000

HINCHMAN, ROBERT CLAYTON

1 transaction

$5,000

VICK, BRAD A.

1 transaction

$5,000

JOHNSON, TIM E.

1 transaction

$5,000

SULLIVAN, VAN A.

1 transaction

$5,000

THORNTON, STEVEN L.

1 transaction

$5,000

ISENBERG, HENRY LEWIS III

1 transaction

$5,000

MCCARTER, TIMOTHY G.

1 transaction

$5,000

Donor Network - Rep. Aderholt, Robert B. [R-AL-4]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 46 nodes and 23 connections (47 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $119,637

Top Donors - Rep. Aderholt, Robert B. [R-AL-4]

Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount

3 Orgs20 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 10 helped, 4 harmed.

+Hospitals & Health Systemsconfidence 0.90
Title II includes $100,000,000 for payments to eligible hospitals for maintenance of health care providers, with specific criteria for hospitals with ≤50 inpatient beds, wage index <0.90, and located in high-poverty states, providing direct financial support to hospitals.
+Real Estateconfidence 0.90
Section 233 amends the Community Services Block Grant Act to allow funds to be used for financing construction and rehabilitation, and for loans or investments in private business enterprises, including those owned by community development corporations, which benefits real estate developers and investors.
−Health Insuranceconfidence 0.85
Title V, Sec. 506 prohibits expending funds for health benefits coverage that includes abortion coverage, directly restricting what health insurers can offer in plans funded by this act, imposing compliance costs and limiting product offerings.
+Private Equity & Hedge Fundsconfidence 0.85
Section 233's amendment to the Community Services Block Grant Act permits funds to be used for loans or investments in private business enterprises, including those owned by community development corporations, which could benefit private equity and hedge funds investing in such enterprises.
−Long-Term Care & Nursing Homesconfidence 0.80
Title V, Sec. 549 prohibits using funds to administer, implement, or enforce the final rule entitled 'Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Minimum Staffing Standards for Long-Term Care Facilities and Medicaid Institutional Payment Transparency Reporting' (89 Fed. Reg. 40876), which would impose costs on long-term care facilities through staffing requirements.
−For-Profit Education & Student Loansconfidence 0.80
Title III, Sec. 311 prohibits using funds to provide financial assistance to educational institutions that allow males to participate in women's athletic programs, which could affect for-profit colleges that offer such programs, imposing compliance costs or loss of funding eligibility.

+ 8 more industries not shown.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Aderholt, Robert B. [R-AL-4])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Hospitals & Health Systems$2,000
from 2 contributions
- SMITH, WAYNE T.$2,000

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 Labor and Related Agencies

Moderate

Vector: 65%

Pages: 648-650AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill funds ETA and workforce development programs, which aligns with Project 2025's focus on ETA as a target for reform, though it increases rather than reduces ETA funding. Both emphasize workforce training and apprenticeships, but the bill does not reflect the proposed budget cuts or structural changes like moving OFLC out of ETA."

Key themes:Employment and Training Administrationworkforce developmentapprenticeship programs

— 615 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies ORGANIZATIONAL AGENDA Budget l Reduce the agencies’ budgets to the low end of the historical average. The Trump Administration’s FY 2020 request, $10.9 billion, would provide a workable target for spending reductions for DOL, for example. l Spending reductions should occur primarily in the Employment and Training Administration (ETA). l Focus health and safety inspections on egregious offenders, as other inspections are often abused and usurp state and local government prerogatives. Personnel l Maximize hiring of political appointees. At its best, the Trump Administration Department of Labor worked with up to 150 political appointees. That is still a tiny percentage of the department. The number of political appointees should be maximized in order to improve the political accountability of the department. l Appoint new EEOC and NLRB general counsels on Day One. The Biden Administration broke significant precedent by firing the EEOC and NLRB general counsels despite their term appointments. The next Administration should do the same and expand on the Biden Administration’s new precedent by refusing to acknowledge terms in other offices, where applicable, and installing acting or full new officers immediately. l Implement a hiring freeze for career officials. A hiring freeze imposes financial discipline on agencies’ personnel costs and reduces agency bloat. Office of Compliance Initiatives l DOL should fully staff the Office of Compliance Initiatives (OCI), which was reopened by the Trump Administration after the Obama Administration closed its predecessor down. OCI educates employers and workers on their rights, responsibilities, and available recourse under the many statutes, rules, and regulations administered by DOL. Most businesses want to follow the law and OCI exists to make knowing the rules easier, which leads to increased compliance. — 616 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Improve Visa-Related Labor-Market Monitoring DOL’s Office of Foreign Labor Certification plays an important role in the approval of H-visa applications, but it is currently housed in the Employment and Training Administration, which is DOL’s primary grant-making division. l OFLC should be moved out of ETA and made directly accountable to the Secretary with a politically accountable Director. CONCLUSION The good of the American family is at the heart of conservative labor policy recommendations. The longstanding tradition of a strong work ethic in American culture must be encouraged and strengthened by policies that promote family-sus- taining jobs. By eliminating the policies promoted by the DEI agenda, promoting pro-life policies that support family life, expanding available apprenticeship programs including by encouraging the role of religious organizations in appren- ticeships, making family-sustaining jobs accessible, simplifying employment requirements, and allowing employers to prefer American citizens when making hiring decisions, among the other policy recommendations discussed above, we can begin to secure a future in which the American worker, and by extension the American family, can thrive and prosper. AUTHOR’S NOTE: Many contributors, listed at the front of this volume, deserve credit for this work, but Oren Cass, Rachel Greszler, Rachel Morrison, Caleb Orr, and Jonathan Wolfson deserve special mention. The author alone assumes responsibility for the content of this chapter, and no views expressed herein should be attributed to any other individual.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak

Vector: 66%

Pages: 648-650AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill increases funding for the Employment and Training Administration (ETA), which contradicts Project 2025's goal of reducing DOL budgets, particularly in ETA. While both address workforce training, the bill's funding expansion opposes the policy's spending reduction agenda."

Key themes:Employment and Training Administrationworkforce developmenttraining programs

Department of Education

Weak

Vector: 64%

Pages: 392-394AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on appropriations for labor department workforce training programs (WIOA, apprenticeships) rather than Department of Education programs targeted for cuts in Project 2025, resulting only a tangential connection through general education/training themes."

Key themes:workforce trainingapprenticeshipeducation funding

— 360 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise CHART 4 U.S. Department of Education, Total Appropriations IN BILLIONS OF DOLLARS $120 $100 $95.5 $80 $60 $40 $20 $14 $0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 NOTE: Totals include mandatory and discretionary appropriations. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, “Budget History Tables,” Education Department Budget History Table, https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.html (accessed March 17, 2023). A heritage.org savings. The proposal would immediately save more than $17 billion annually in various programs. Savings over a decade would be far more robust, as the revenue responsibility for many formula grant programs would be returned to the states. Some highlights include: l Eliminate competitive grant programs and reduce spending on formula grant programs. Competitive grant programs operated by the Department of Education should be eliminated, and federal spending should be reduced to reflect remaining formula grant programs authorized under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the handful of other programs that do not fall under the competitive/ project grant category. Remaining programs managed by the Department — 361 — Department of Education of Education, such as large formula grant programs for K–12 education, should be reduced by 10 percent. This would cut approximately 29 programs, most of which are discretionary spending. In total, this would generate approximately $8.8 billion in savings. l Eliminate the PLUS loan program. As mentioned above, the PLUS loan program, which provides graduate student loans and loans to the parents of undergraduate students, should be eliminated. This would generate an estimated $2.3 billion in savings. l End time-based and occupation-based student loan forgiveness. A low estimate suggests ending current student loan forgiveness schemes would save taxpayers $370 billion. l Eliminate GEAR-UP. It is not the responsibility of the federal government to provide taxpayer dollars to create a pipeline from high school to college. GEAR UP should be eliminated, and its functions should instead be handled privately or at the state and local levels, where policymakers are better equipped to increase college preparedness within their school districts. Personnel The Department of Education currently employs approximately 4,400 indi- viduals. As programs are eliminated or transferred to other agencies, those employees whose positions are determined to be essential to the mission would move with their constituent programs. Current salaries and expenses at ED total $2.2 billion annually. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume, but Jonathan Butcher, Bob Eitel, Jim Blew, Diane Auer Jones, Erin Valdez, Andrew Gillen, and Max Eden deserve special mention. The author alone assumes responsibility for the content of this chapter, and no views expressed herein should be attributed to any other individual.

Department of Education

Weak

Vector: 64%

Pages: 392-394AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on workforce development and training programs under the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, but does not address the specific Project 2025 Department of Education objectives such as reissuing school safety reports, pursuing antitrust against accreditors, or analyzing federal education grant efficiency. There is minimal thematic overlap beyond general education funding."

Key themes:Department of Educationfederal fundingworkforce training

— 359 — Department of Education l The reissuing of the report on school safety from 2018 with updated information, l The release of a report to Congress on how to consolidate the department and trim nonessential employees, l A report on the negative influence of action civics on students’ understanding of history and civics and their disposition toward the United States, l An update of the Coleman report to show the impact of family structure on student achievement, l A full accounting of CARES Act education expenditures, and l A report on how many dollars make their way to the classroom in every federal education grant and program. Pursue Antitrust Against Accreditors l The President should issue an executive order pursuing antitrust against college accreditors, especially the American Bar Association (ABA). NEW POLICIES/REGULATIONS THAT REQUIRE COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES AND/OR THE WHITE HOUSE The department must coordinate any rulemaking with the White House, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), DOJ, and other agencies that share responsibility with the department in the administration or enforcement of stat- ute, such as Titles VI and IX. Moreover, regarding regulations arising under civil rights laws administered by the department, Executive Order 12550 requires the Attorney General to approve final regulations; the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights must approve notices of proposed rulemaking. Organizational Issues Historical Budget Information. Congressional appropriations for the U.S. Department of Education have risen from $14 billion in 1980 to $95.5 billion in 2021, an astounding increase, especially in light of the lack of improvements in student outcomes. Recommend Budget Cuts, Shifts, and Augmentations, If Any. Transferring most of the programs at the U.S. Department of Education to other agencies and eliminating duplicative and ineffective programs would yield significant taxpayer — 360 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise CHART 4 U.S. Department of Education, Total Appropriations IN BILLIONS OF DOLLARS $120 $100 $95.5 $80 $60 $40 $20 $14 $0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 NOTE: Totals include mandatory and discretionary appropriations. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, “Budget History Tables,” Education Department Budget History Table, https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.html (accessed March 17, 2023). A heritage.org savings. The proposal would immediately save more than $17 billion annually in various programs. Savings over a decade would be far more robust, as the revenue responsibility for many formula grant programs would be returned to the states. Some highlights include: l Eliminate competitive grant programs and reduce spending on formula grant programs. Competitive grant programs operated by the Department of Education should be eliminated, and federal spending should be reduced to reflect remaining formula grant programs authorized under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the handful of other programs that do not fall under the competitive/ project grant category. Remaining programs managed by the Department

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 64%

Pages: 353-355AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill appropriates funds for workforce training and education programs but does not implement Project 2025's core proposals such as redistributing federal education programs across agencies, converting them to block grants, or expanding education choice; it only includes minor flexibility provisions for outlying areas."

Key themes:workforce developmenteducation fundingstate/local flexibilitytraining programs

— 321 — Department of Education through the pandemic’s Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief (ESSER) Funds,4 which relied on ESEA formulas. The same year, the department spent more than $2 billion just to administer Title IV of the HEA, which authorizes federal student loans and Pell grants. It provided $22.5 billion in Pell grants, and it oversaw outlays of close to $100 billion in direct student loans. Since 1965, Congress has continued to layer on dozens of new laws and pro- grams as federal “solutions” to myriad education problems. In 1973, it passed the Rehabilitation Act,5 and, in 1975, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)6 to address educational neglect of students with disabilities. In 2002, it cre- ated the Institute for Education Sciences to consolidate education data collection and fund research. Congress has also enacted a series of Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Acts, including Perkins V in 2018.7 Congress could have, and once did, distribute management of federal education programs outside of a single department. But for those interested in expanding federal funding and influence in education, this unconsolidated approach was less than ideal, because a single, captive agency would allow them to promote their agenda more effectively across Administrations. Eventually, the National Educa- tion Association made a deal and backed the right presidential candidate— Jimmy Carter—who successfully lobbied for and delivered the Cabinet-level agency. When it was established in 1979—becoming operational in 1980—the agency was supposed to act as a “corralling” mechanism. Carter signed the Department of Education Organization Act8 into law in 1979, believing in part that it would reduce administrative costs and improve efficiency by housing most of the federal education programs that had proliferated in the wake of Johnson’s War on Poverty under one roof. It has had the opposite effect. Instead, special interest groups like the National Education Association (NEA), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and the higher education lobby have leveraged the agency to continuously expand federal expenditures—a desirable funding stream from their vantage point because federal budgets are not constrained like state and local budgets that must be balanced each year. By FY 2022, the department’s discretionary and mandatory appropriation topped $80 billion, not including student loan outlays. Each of its programs has attendant federal strings and red tape. One recent example is the Biden Administration’s requirement that state educa- tion agencies and school districts submit “equity” plans as a condition of receiving COVID recovery ESSER funds in the American Rescue Plan (ARP).9 This exercise led to the hiring of numerous new government employees as the rules were pro- mulgated, plans were created after collecting public feedback, and those plans were eventually deemed satisfactory. The next Administration will need a plan to redistribute the various congres- sionally approved federal education programs across the government, eliminate — 322 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise those that are ineffective or duplicative, and then eliminate the unproductive red tape and rules by entrusting states and districts with flexible, formula-driven block grants. This chapter details that plan. As the next Administration executes its work, it should be guided by a few core principles, including: l Advancing education freedom. Empowering families to choose among a diverse set of education options is key to reform and improved outcomes, and it can be achieved without establishing a new federal program. For example, portability of existing federal education spending to fund families directly or allowing federal tax credits to encourage voluntary contributions to K–12 education savings accounts managed by charitable nonprofits, could significantly advance education choice. l Providing education choice for “federal” children. Congress has a special responsibility to children who are connected to military families, who live in the District of Columbia, or who are members of sovereign tribes. Responsibility for serving these students should be housed in agencies that are already serving these families. l Restoring state and local control over education funding. As Washington begins to downsize its intervention in education, existing funding should be sent to states as grants over which they have full control, enabling states to put federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law. l Treating taxpayers like investors in federal student aid. Taxpayers should expect their investments in higher education to generate economic productivity. When the federal government lends money to individuals for a postsecondary education, taxpayers should expect those borrowers to repay. l Protecting the federal student loan portfolio from predatory politicians. The new Administration must end the practice of acting like the federal student loan portfolio is a campaign fund to curry political support and votes. The new Administration must end abuses in the loan forgiveness programs. Borrowers should be expected to repay their loans. l Safeguarding civil rights. Enforcement of civil rights should be based on a proper understanding of those laws, rejecting gender ideology and critical race theory.

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. Aderholt, Robert B.

Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2027

119/hr/9260

$2.50 for America’s 250th Act

119/hr/5616

Requesting the Secretary of the Interior to authorize unique and one-time arrangements for displays on the National Mall and the Washington Monument during the period beginning on December 31, 2025, and ending on January 5, 2026.

119/hjres/133

Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026