Indian Trust Asset Reform Amendment Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/5515

Last Updated: January 13, 2026

Indian Trust Asset Reform Amendment Act

HR. 5515, 119th Congress — read as touching Agribusiness.

The sponsor

Rep. Hurd, Jeff [R-CO-3]

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

The money

$73,400 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of the Interior" section, p. 569-571 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Subcommittee Hearings Held

November 18, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

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 Indian Trust Asset Reform Amendment Act (HR 5515) is a bill that seeks to amend the Indian Trust Asset Reform Act, primarily focusing on the management of trust assets held by the Federal Government for Indian tribes and individual Indians.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The main purpose of this bill is to provide greater flexibility and autonomy to Indian tribes in managing their trust assets. The objectives include:

* Allowing tribal organizations to participate in the Indian Trust Asset Management Project on behalf of an Indian tribe * Expanding the definition of "Indian tribe" to include Alaska Native tribes, bands, nations, pueblos, villages, or communities * Providing a framework for the development and approval of Indian trust asset management plans

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill makes several key changes to existing law:

* Amends Section 202 of the Indian Trust Asset Reform Act to include Alaska Native tribes in the definition of "Indian tribe" * Adds a new definition of "tribal organization" and allows such organizations to participate in the Indian Trust Asset Management Project * Modifies Section 203 of the Indian Trust Asset Reform Act to allow tribal organizations to submit proposed Indian trust asset management plans on behalf of an Indian tribe * Amends Section 204 of the Indian Trust Asset Reform Act to provide a framework for the development and approval of Indian trust asset management plans

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The affected parties and stakeholders include:

* Indian tribes and Alaska Native tribes, bands, nations, pueblos, villages, or communities * Tribal organizations that participate in the Indian Trust Asset Management Project * The Federal Government, particularly the Department of the Interior and other federal agencies responsible for managing trust assets

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The potential impact and implications of this bill are:

* Increased autonomy and flexibility for Indian tribes in managing their trust assets * Potential for more efficient management of trust assets through tribal organizations * Possible increased competition for federal funding among Indian tribes with approved Indian trust asset management plans * Potential for greater control over natural resources, including forests, by Indian tribes

From a wealth and power perspective, this bill may provide opportunities for consolidation and deregulation in the management of trust assets. However, it is essential to monitor the implementation of this bill to ensure that it does not create unintended consequences or exacerbate existing inequalities.

As a self-serving billionaire, I will be keeping a close eye on this bill's progress and exploring ways to leverage its provisions to further my business interests. The potential for increased autonomy and flexibility in trust asset management may present opportunities for strategic partnerships or investments with Indian tribes and tribal organizations.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Hurd, Jeff [R-CO-3]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$73,400

26 donors

PACs

Organizations

$5,700

Committees

Individuals

$67,700

No PAC contributions found

OTERO COUNTY REPUBLICAN WOMEN

1 transaction

$2,000

GARY DOEHLING PC

1 transaction

$2,000

MESA COUNTY REPUBLICAN MEN'S CLUB

1 transaction

$500

DEARMAN CONSULTING LLC

1 transaction

$500

L BAR SLASH RANCH

1 transaction

$500

MONTEZUMA COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE

1 transaction

$200

No committee contributions found

BENSON, BRUCE

1 transaction

$5,000

ABBOTT, DEBRA

1 transaction

$3,300

ABBOTT, SARAH

1 transaction

$3,300

ABBOTT, THOMAS

1 transaction

$3,300

ABBOTT, WESLEY

1 transaction

$3,300

ADAMS, SCARLETT

1 transaction

$3,300

ANDREWS, SHARON

1 transaction

$3,300

ARMSTRONG, KRISTY

1 transaction

$3,300

ARMSTRONG, WIL

1 transaction

$3,300

BANCROFT, CLARA

1 transaction

$3,300

BANCROFT, JOHN R.

1 transaction

$3,300

BANCROFT, MARGE

1 transaction

$3,300

BANCROFT, PAUL

1 transaction

$3,300

BRAUER, CAMILLA

1 transaction

$3,300

BRAUER, STEPHEN

1 transaction

$3,300

BROWN, ABBY

1 transaction

$3,300

BROWN, DON

1 transaction

$3,300

BROWN, PEGGY

1 transaction

$3,300

CAGLE, BILL

1 transaction

$3,300

CARTER, JOE

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 4 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Randall, Emily [D-WA-6]

ID: R000621

Top Contributors

JAMESTOWN S'KLALLAM TRIBE

OrganizationSEQUIM, WA

$3,300

Dec 31, 2023

JAMESTOWN S'KLALLAM TRIBE

OrganizationSEQUIM, WA

$3,300

Oct 16, 2024

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationAUBURN, WA

$3,300

Nov 4, 2024

SNOQUALMIE TRIBE

OrganizationSNOQUALMIE, WA

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON

OrganizationTULALIP, WA

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

QUINAULT INDIAN NATION

OrganizationTAHOLAH, WA

$1,500

Jul 30, 2024

SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE

OrganizationSHELTON, WA

$1,000

Apr 26, 2024

SAMISH TYEE

OrganizationANACORTES, WA

$1,000

Oct 30, 2024

JACOBS, IRWIN

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualLA JOLLA, CA

$3,300

Dec 5, 2024

ANAND, SHELLY

SUR LEGAL COLLABORATIVE INC • ATTORNEY

IndividualDECATUR, GA

$3,300

Nov 21, 2023

Rep. Strickland, Marilyn [D-WA-10]

ID: S001159

Top Contributors

SWINOMISH TRIBAL COMMUNITY

OrganizationLA CONNER, WA

$3,300

Dec 31, 2023

SWINOMISH TRIBAL COMMUNITY

OrganizationLA CONNER, WA

$3,300

Dec 31, 2023

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$3,300

Mar 29, 2023

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationAUBURN, WA

$3,300

May 16, 2023

NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationOLYMPIA, WA

$3,300

Jun 27, 2023

THE TULALIP TRIBES

OrganizationTULALIP, WA

$3,300

May 2, 2023

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationAUBURN, WA

$3,300

Jun 28, 2024

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationTACOMA, WA

$3,300

Jun 28, 2024

THE TULALIP TRIBES

OrganizationTULALIP, WA

$3,300

Jun 18, 2024

Rep. Hoyle, Val T. [D-OR-4]

ID: H001094

Top Contributors

COQUILLE INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationNORTH BEND, OR

$3,300

Mar 26, 2024

COW CREEK BAND OF UMPQUA TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationROSEBURG, OR

$3,300

Mar 26, 2024

TOLOWA DEE-NI NATION

OrganizationSMITH RIVER, CA

$3,300

Mar 31, 2024

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

May 25, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

May 25, 2023

TOLOWA DEE-NI NATION

OrganizationSMITH RIVER, CA

$3,300

May 17, 2023

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS

OrganizationSILETZ, OR

$3,300

Aug 22, 2023

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS

OrganizationSILETZ, OR

$3,300

Aug 22, 2023

COQUILLE INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationNORTH BEND, OR

$3,000

Dec 31, 2023

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF GRAND RONDE

OrganizationGRAND RONDE, OR

$2,000

Mar 23, 2023

Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1]

ID: L000578

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

LEECH LAKE BAND OF OJIBWE

OrganizationCASS LAKE, MN

$2,000

Nov 4, 2024

VANN BROTHERS

UNINCORPORATED • PARTNERSHIP

OrganizationWILLIAMS, CA

$1,500

Jun 27, 2023

ONEIDA NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$1,000

Oct 31, 2024

SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA, .

SOVEREIGN NATION • INDIAN TRIBE

IndividualLEMORE, CA

$6,600

May 6, 2024

NECHAY, JULIA

N/A • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualROSEVILLE, CA

$5,000

Oct 26, 2024

OSAGE NATION, .

SOVEREIGN NATION • INDIAN TRIBE

IndividualPAWHUSKA, OK

$3,300

Oct 8, 2024

MCLAUGHLIN, RANDY

OLD DURHAM WOOD • ORCHARD TEMOVAL

IndividualDURHAM, CA

$3,300

Oct 13, 2024

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA, .

SOVEREIGN NATION • INDIAN TRIBE

IndividualDURANT, OK

$3,300

Oct 16, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Hurd, Jeff [R-CO-3]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 56 nodes and 38 connections (44 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $111,700

Top Donors - Rep. Hurd, Jeff [R-CO-3]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

6 Orgs20 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.

+Agribusinessconfidence 0.80
Section 205(c) allows Indian tribes to manage their trust assets, including natural resources, which could benefit agribusiness companies working with these tribes.
+Construction & Engineeringconfidence 0.70
Section 203(b) and Section 205(c) imply potential construction and engineering activities related to trust asset management, such as forest land management, which could benefit companies in this industry.
+Pipelines & Energy Infrastructureconfidence 0.60
Section 204(d) mentions amendment of approved plans, which might include energy infrastructure projects on tribal lands, potentially benefiting energy infrastructure companies.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Hurd, Jeff [R-CO-3])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

Construction & Engineering$9,900
from 4 contributions
- SANTO, MICHAEL$6,600
- ROSS, MICHAEL$3,000
- BECHTEL, BETTY$300

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 the Interior

Strong

Vector: 61%

Pages: 569-571AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns strongly with Project 2025's goal of restoring tribal self-governance and economic development by enhancing tribal control over trust assets, including energy and mineral resources on Indian lands, which directly supports the policy's emphasis on fulfilling federal trust responsibilities and enabling tribal resource development."

Key themes:tribal self-governancetrust asset managementenergy and mineral developmentfederal trust responsibilitytribal economic development

— 536 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 2. Engaging in real-time monitoring of operations. l Reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies by consolidating federal water working groups. l Implement actions identified in the Federal Action Plan for Improving Fore- casts of Water Availability,93 especially by adopting improvements related to: 1. Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations; and 2. Arial Snow Observation Systems. l Clarify the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act94 to ensure consistent application with other federal infrastructure loan programs under the Federal Credit Reform Act. This should be done to foster opportunities for locally led investment in water infrastructure. l Reinstate Presidential Memorandum on Promoting the Reliable Supply and Delivery of Water in the West.95 AMERICAN INDIANS AND U.S. TRUST RESPONSIBILITY The Biden Administration has breached its federal trust responsibilities to American Indians. This is unconscionable. Specifically, the Biden Administra- tion’s war on domestically available fossil fuels and mineral sources has been devastating. To wit: l The ability of American Indians and tribal governments to develop their abundant oil and gas resources has been severely hampered, depriving them of the revenue and profits to which they are entitled during a time of increasing worldwide energy prices, forcing American Indians—who are among the poorest Americans—to choose between food and fuel. l Indian nations with significant coal resources have some of the highest quality and cleanest-burning coal in the world, but the Biden Administration has sought to destroy the market for their coal by eliminating coal-fired electricity in the country and to prevent the transport of their coal for sale internationally. Meanwhile, the Biden Administration, at great public expense, artificially boosted the demand for electric vehicles, which, because of their remote locations, the absence of increased electricity demands for charging electric vehicles nearby, and the distances to be traveled, are not a choice for Indian communities. — 537 — Department of the Interior l A significant percentage of critical minerals needed by the United States is on Indian lands, but the Biden Administration has actively discouraged development of critical mineral mining projects on Indian lands rather than assisting in their advancement. l Despite Indian nations having primary responsibility for their lands and environment and responsibility for the safety of their communities, the Biden Administration is reversing efforts to put Indian nations in charge of environmental regulation on their own lands. Moreover, Biden Administration policies, including those of the DOI, have dis- proportionately impacted American Indians and Indian nations. l By its failure to secure the border, the Biden Administration has robbed Indian nations on or near the Mexican border of safe and secure communities while permitting them to be swamped by a tide of illegal drugs, particularly fentanyl. l When ending COVID protocols at Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools, Biden’s DOI failed to ensure an accurate accounting of students returning from school shutdowns, which presents a significant danger to the families that trust their children to that federal agency. l The BIE is not reporting student academic assessment data to ensure parents and the larger tribal communities know their children are learning and are receiving a quality education. The new Administration must take the following actions to fulfill the nation’s trust responsibilities to American Indians and Indian nations: l End the war on fossil fuels and domestically available minerals and facilitate their development on lands owned by Indians and Indian nations. l End federal mandates and subsidies of electric vehicles. l Restore the right of tribal governments to enforce environmental regulation on their lands. l Secure the nation’s border to protect the sovereignty and safety of tribal lands.

Department of the Interior

Strong

Vector: 60%

Pages: 569-571AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on correcting federal trust responsibility failures by enhancing tribal self-governance and economic development through improved trust asset management, directly addressing the policy's criticism of the Biden Administration's undermining of tribal resource development."

Key themes:tribal self-governancetrust responsibilityeconomic developmentresource managementfederal-tribal relations

Department of the Interior

Moderate

Vector: 60%

Pages: 563-565AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on improving tribal trust asset management and self-governance, which aligns with Project 2025's broader theme of reducing federal overreach and empowering state and local control over natural resources, particularly in Alaska. While the bill does not directly address Alaska-specific wildlife, water, or land policies outlined in Project 2025, it shares the underlying objective of transferring management authority from federal agencies to tribal entities, reflecting a similar dec"

Key themes:tribal self-governancefederal land managementresource authority transferreduced federal bureaucracyAlaska Native inclusion

— 531 — Department of the Interior Wildlife and Waters. Throughout Alaska’s history, the federal government has treated Alaska as less than a sovereign state. This is especially the case when it comes to two of Alaska’s most valued resources, its wildlife and its waters. Immediate action is required to end, at least in part, this injustice. A new Admin- istration should: l Revoke National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rules regarding predator control and bear baiting, which are matters for state regulation. Such revocation is permitted under the 2017 Congressional Review Act.62 l Recognize Alaska’s authority to manage fish and game on all federal lands in accordance with ANILCA as during the Reagan Administration, when each DOI agency in Alaska signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game ceding to the state the lead on fish and wildlife management matters.63 l Issue a secretarial order declaring navigable waters in Alaska to be owned by the state so that the lands beneath these waters belong to Alaska. This will force the BLM to prove that water is not navigable, since in the case of non-navigability, any submerged lands belong to the BLM. Currently, BLM requires Alaska to prove navigability at its own expense—including the BLM’s preposterous assertion that the mighty Yukon River is non-navigable. l Reinstate President Trump’s 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule64 for the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, which was replaced by a Biden Roadless Rule that continues a 2001 Clinton rule affecting 9.37 million of the forest’s 16.7 million acres.65 The Clinton rule affects an area where communities are in small islands with no road access. It has prevented multiple infrastructure projects, including roads, electric transmission lines, and water and sewer projects, and it forces residents to use a heavily subsidized ferry system. Logging has been shut down to the extent that New York harvests more timber than does all of Alaska. OTHER ACTIONS The 30 by 30 Plan.66 President Biden’s Executive Order 14008 (30 by 30 plan)67 requires that the federal government, which already owns one-third of the country: (1) remove vast amounts of private property from productive use; and (2) end congressionally mandated uses of all federal land. The end result will be “total federal control of an additional 440 million acres of land or oceans in the U.S. by 2030.”68 — 532 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Although the new President should vacate that order, DOI under a conservative President must take immediate action on the 30 by 30 plan by vacating a secre- tarial order issued by the Biden DOI69 that eliminated the Trump Administration’s requirement for the approval of state and local governments before federal acquisi- tion of private property with monies from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.70 National Monument Designations. As has every Democratic President before him beginning with Jimmy Carter, Joe Biden has abused his authority under the Antiquities Act of 1906. Like the outrageous, unilateral withdrawals from public use of multiple use federal land under the Carter, Clinton, and Obama Administrations, Biden’s first national monument was one in Colorado—adopted over the objections of scores of local groups and at least one American Indian tribe.71 In the days before the 2024 election, Biden will likely designate more western monuments. Although President Trump courageously ordered a review of national mon- ument designations, the result of that review was insufficient in that only two national monuments in one state (Utah) were adjusted.72 Monuments in Maine and Oregon, for example, should have been adjusted downward given the finding of Secretary Ryan Zinke’s review that they were improperly designated. The new Administration’s review will permit a fresh look at past monument decrees and new ones by President Biden. Furthermore, the new Administration must vigorously defend the downward adjustments it makes to permit a ruling on a President’s authority to reduce the size of national monuments by the U.S. Supreme Court. Finally, the new Administration must seek repeal of the Antiquities Act of 1906, which permitted emergency action by a President long before the statutory author- ity existed for the protection of special federal lands, such as those with wild and scenic rivers, endangered specials, or other unique places. Moreover, in recent years, Congress has designated as national monuments those areas deserving of such congressional action. Oregon and California Lands Act. One national monument worthy of down- ward adjustment is in Oregon, where its designation and subsequent expansion interfere with the federal obligation to residents to harvest timber on its BLM lands. A federal district court ruled in 2019 that land subject to the Oregon and California (O&C) Grant Lands Act of 193773 was set aside by Congress to be har- vested for the benefit of the people of Oregon. Specifically, those federal lands are to be “managed…for permanent forest production” and its timber “sold, cut, and removed in conformity with the princip[le] of sustained yield.”74 As the district court concluded,75 beginning in 1990, the federal government erected a trifecta of illegal barriers to the accomplishment of the congressional mandate, beginning with a response to the listing of the northern spotted owl,76 continuing a decade later with the designation of the Cascade–Siskiyou National Monument,77 and concluding in 2017 with an expansion of that monument.78 In

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on reforming tribal trust asset management and enhancing tribal self-governance, whereas the Project 2025 HUD section addresses homelessness policy, specifically ending Housing First approaches. These policy areas are largely unrelated, resulting only a weak thematic connection through broader tribal self-determination concepts."

Key themes:tribal self-governancefederal trust responsibilityeconomic development

— 516 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 37. HUD should implement administrative changes in regulation and guidance and seek statutory authority to end all Housing First directives of Continuum of Care (CoC) grantees and contract homelessness providers in addition to establishing restrictions on local Housing First policies where HUD grant funds are used. 38. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) was established in the 1990s, and numerous Administrations have devoted enormous resources to the Housing First model, experimenting with various ways to provide federally financed rapid rehousing and permanent housing opportunities. Housing First is a far-left idea premised on the belief that homelessness is primarily circumstantial rather than behavioral. The Housing First answer to homelessness is to give someone a house instead of attempting to understand the underlying causes of homelessness. Federal intervention centered on Housing First has failed to acknowledge that resolving the issue of homelessness is often a matter of resolving mental health and substance abuse challenges. Instead of the permanent supportive housing proffered by Housing First, a conservative Administration should shift to transitional housing with a focus on addressing the underlying issues that cause homelessness in the first place. 39. The Senate Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers (LIFT) Act would address this policy goal. See S. 2797, Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers Act of 2021 (LIFT Homebuyers Act of 2021), 117th Congress, introduced September 22, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/s2797/BILLS-117s2797is.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 40. FHA did not facilitate the widespread use of 30-year mortgages until the 1950s when, interacting with Federal Reserve policies, federal agencies began broader adoption of the mortgages, which, despite lowering the monthly repayment terms, result in slow equity accumulation and wealth-building opportunities. 41. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 fundamentally revised the scope of federal regulation in the nation’s housing finance system, placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the purview of a newly established Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and establishing a Housing Trust Fund (HTF) that is administered in the HUD Office of Community Planning and Development. See H.R. 3221, Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Public Law No. 110-289, 110th Congress, July 30, 2008, https://www.congress. gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 42. Guiding questions: What reforms should be proposed that could be accomplished within five years? What reforms can be done administratively, and what reforms would need legislative authorization? Are there functions that HUD administers that could be achieved more effectively at another department or agency? What big-picture reforms should be proposed that might take more than five years that would reorganize HUD and its programs to meet the objectives in the vision or mission? What would occur in the absence of these public finance subsidies? How much crowd-out do these subsidies create in the market? Would America be a seriously underhoused nation without these subsidies? Who are the policies intended to benefit? What organizational changes must be made? 43. The Faircloth Amendment (Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998) amended the Housing Act of 1937 to maintain public housing units at 1999 levels, preventing housing authorities from maintaining more public housing than they did then. H.R. 4194, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law No. 105-276, 105th Congress, October 21, 1998, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ276/PLAW-105publ276.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). In recent years, the statutory restriction on new construction of public housing units has been circumvented through some narrow uses of preservation programs such as the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, initially authorized in 2012 and reauthorized several times since under higher program unit conversion caps. Congress also provided paths for renewal and continuation of a portion of existing public housing; project/site-based housing stock (refinancing with long-term HAP contract commitments); and Section 8 units through the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (MAHRA). H.R. 2158, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Public Law No. 105-65, 105th Congress, October 27, 1997, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ65/PLAW-105publ65.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 44. As the evolution of HUD rental assistance transitions away from the public housing model toward housing choice vouchers, there should be adequate landlord participation to ensure that the supply of housing units for rent in these programs meets the demand for rent among eligible tenants. This issue has been addressed in various ways, including by a task force instituted at the department during the Trump Administration, but could likely remain a challenge in the administration of the program. — 517 — 16 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR William Perry Pendley The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) oversees, manages, and protects the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and other information about those resources; and honors the nation’s trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities. AGENCY OVERVIEW DOI’s purview encompasses more than 500 million acres of federal lands, including national parks and national wildlife refuges; 700 million acres of sub- surface minerals; 1.7 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS); 23 percent of the nation’s energy; water in 17 western states; and trust responsibilities for 566 Indian tribes and Alaska Natives. DOI’s 2024 budget request totals $18.9 billion, an increase of $2 billion, or 12 percent, more than the 2023 enacted level. The budget also provides an estimated $12.6 billion in permanent funding in 2024. In 2024, DOI will generate receipts of $19.6 billion. A “Home Department” had been considered in 1789 and urged by Presidents over the decades until DOI’s creation in 1849. The variety of its early responsibil- ities—the Indian Bureau, the General Land Office, the Bureau of Pensions, and the Patent Office, among others—earned it various nicknames, including “Great Miscellany,” “hydra-headed monster,” and “Mother of Departments.”1 Its mission became more focused on natural resources with the rise of the conservation move- ment in the early 20th century; however, it kept its historic (since the days of the Founding Fathers) role as overseer of vast working landscapes involving grazing,

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal

Vector: 63%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Indian Trust Asset Reform Amendment Act focuses on tribal trust asset management and self-governance, while the Project 2025 HUD section addresses housing market regulation, DEI/ESG reforms, homelessness policy, and federal housing programs. There is no substantive overlap in subject matter, objectives, or policy mechanisms between the two."

— 515 — Department of Housing and Urban Development 25. Process must prioritize where political leadership can implement administrative reforms through regulatory action and subregulatory guidance reforms. 26. China and other foreign nations should not be able to disrupt our nation’s housing markets, including by artificially driving up prices and reducing affordability and access to housing for Americans who are crowded out of the market by such market participation. 27. These initiatives are maintained under such designations as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); critical race theory (CRT); black, indigenous, Pacific Islander, and other people of color (BIPOC); and environmental, social, and governance (ESG). 28. At a minimum, these efforts duplicate what the federal government already collects and assesses; at worst, they institute arbitrary procedures in real estate appraisal practices that undermine integrity and perversely introduce arbitrary biases into what should be an unbiased system for determining financial value. 29. Revise regulatory and subregulatory guidance, where applicable within statutory authorities, that adds unnecessary delay and costs to the construction and development of new housing and has been estimated to account for about 40 percent of new housing unit costs in multifamily housing. 30. The Biden Administration has issued a proposed rule to replace the Trump Administration’s “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice” rule that had repealed earlier rules expanding AFFH enforcement. See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing, “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 153 (August 7, 2020), pp. 47899–47912, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-07/pdf/2020-16320.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023), and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 27 (February 9, 2023), pp. 8516–8590, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-07-16/pdf/2015-17032.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 31. Certain pilot initiatives may encourage greater take-up of loan products designed for faster equity accumulation, including loans with shorter terms and accelerated amortization schedules. In concept, the FHA’s Home Equity Accelerator Loan (HEAL) and Good Neighbor Next Door (GNND) pilot initiatives might lead to meaningful wealth generation for first-time buyers, but they should be available to all eligible households only when they do not arbitrarily discriminate based on race or other characteristics. 32. Housing supply does remain a problem in the U.S., but constructing more units at the low end of the market will not solve the problem. Investors and developers can deliver at more efficient cost new units that will allow for greater upward mobility of rental and ownership housing stock and better target increased construction of mid-tier rental units. Further, and more fundamental to the housing supply challenge in markets across the U.S., localities can consider revising land use, zoning, and building regulations that constrict new housing development, adding time delays and costs that impede construction. Federal housing policy should get out of the way where possible and minimize the distortive impact that stimulating greater demand through loose lending can have in driving up housing prices for households that are looking for affordable entry into the housing market. 33. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Housing and Community Development Act of 1980: Verification of Eligible Status,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 91 (May 10, 2019), pp. 20589–20595, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-05-10/pdf/2019-09566.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 34. Reforms should contemplate rent payment flexibilities, allow escrow savings, and set maximum term limits that can reduce implicit penalties for increasing household incomes over eligibility terms for housing assistance and reweight waiting-list prioritization for two-parent households. 35. Some PHAs have been able to implement work requirements and term limit policies in various congressionally authorized demonstration programs, notably the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program established in 1996 for 39 PHAs (Congress has since authorized another 100 PHAs) in which participating MTW PHAs were given authority to implement rent reforms, work requirements and other experimental policies in rental assistance programs along with flexibilities in the use of capital and operating appropriations. 36. The FSS program has a general five-year term with a possible two-year extension, which could be applied at the term limit for overall benefits, and certain PHAs have imposed five-year to seven-year term limits. Families in these programs build escrow savings during their term eligibility that helps to facilitate successful transitions to family self-sufficiency and unassisted housing. — 516 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 37. HUD should implement administrative changes in regulation and guidance and seek statutory authority to end all Housing First directives of Continuum of Care (CoC) grantees and contract homelessness providers in addition to establishing restrictions on local Housing First policies where HUD grant funds are used. 38. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) was established in the 1990s, and numerous Administrations have devoted enormous resources to the Housing First model, experimenting with various ways to provide federally financed rapid rehousing and permanent housing opportunities. Housing First is a far-left idea premised on the belief that homelessness is primarily circumstantial rather than behavioral. The Housing First answer to homelessness is to give someone a house instead of attempting to understand the underlying causes of homelessness. Federal intervention centered on Housing First has failed to acknowledge that resolving the issue of homelessness is often a matter of resolving mental health and substance abuse challenges. Instead of the permanent supportive housing proffered by Housing First, a conservative Administration should shift to transitional housing with a focus on addressing the underlying issues that cause homelessness in the first place. 39. The Senate Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers (LIFT) Act would address this policy goal. See S. 2797, Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers Act of 2021 (LIFT Homebuyers Act of 2021), 117th Congress, introduced September 22, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/s2797/BILLS-117s2797is.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 40. FHA did not facilitate the widespread use of 30-year mortgages until the 1950s when, interacting with Federal Reserve policies, federal agencies began broader adoption of the mortgages, which, despite lowering the monthly repayment terms, result in slow equity accumulation and wealth-building opportunities. 41. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 fundamentally revised the scope of federal regulation in the nation’s housing finance system, placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the purview of a newly established Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and establishing a Housing Trust Fund (HTF) that is administered in the HUD Office of Community Planning and Development. See H.R. 3221, Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Public Law No. 110-289, 110th Congress, July 30, 2008, https://www.congress. gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 42. Guiding questions: What reforms should be proposed that could be accomplished within five years? What reforms can be done administratively, and what reforms would need legislative authorization? Are there functions that HUD administers that could be achieved more effectively at another department or agency? What big-picture reforms should be proposed that might take more than five years that would reorganize HUD and its programs to meet the objectives in the vision or mission? What would occur in the absence of these public finance subsidies? How much crowd-out do these subsidies create in the market? Would America be a seriously underhoused nation without these subsidies? Who are the policies intended to benefit? What organizational changes must be made? 43. The Faircloth Amendment (Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998) amended the Housing Act of 1937 to maintain public housing units at 1999 levels, preventing housing authorities from maintaining more public housing than they did then. H.R. 4194, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law No. 105-276, 105th Congress, October 21, 1998, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ276/PLAW-105publ276.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). In recent years, the statutory restriction on new construction of public housing units has been circumvented through some narrow uses of preservation programs such as the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, initially authorized in 2012 and reauthorized several times since under higher program unit conversion caps. Congress also provided paths for renewal and continuation of a portion of existing public housing; project/site-based housing stock (refinancing with long-term HAP contract commitments); and Section 8 units through the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (MAHRA). H.R. 2158, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Public Law No. 105-65, 105th Congress, October 27, 1997, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ65/PLAW-105publ65.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 44. As the evolution of HUD rental assistance transitions away from the public housing model toward housing choice vouchers, there should be adequate landlord participation to ensure that the supply of housing units for rent in these programs meets the demand for rent among eligible tenants. This issue has been addressed in various ways, including by a task force instituted at the department during the Trump Administration, but could likely remain a challenge in the administration of the program.

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. Hurd, Jeff

Wetlands Conservation and Access Improvement Act of 2025

119/hr/2316

Snow Water Supply Forecasting Reauthorization Act of 2025

119/hr/3857

Geothermal Energy Advancement Act

119/hr/5631