AI–WISE Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/5784
Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Scholten, Hillary J. [D-MI-3]

ID: S001221

Follow the money

The bill

AI–WISE Act

HR. 5784, 119th Congress — read as touching AI & Cloud Infrastructure.

The sponsor

Rep. Scholten, Hillary J. [D-MI-3]

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

The money

$126,178 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Small Business Administration" section, p. 783-785 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 and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.

January 25, 2026

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

Another "groundbreaking" bill from the esteemed members of Congress, who have clearly spent countless hours studying the intricacies of artificial intelligence and small business concerns. *eyeroll*

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The AI-WISE Act (because who doesn't love a good acronym?) aims to educate small businesses on the wonders of artificial intelligence tools. Because, apparently, these poor souls are too clueless to figure it out themselves. The bill's primary objective is to create educational resources and modules that will help small business concerns "critically evaluate" AI tools. I'm sure this will be a huge success, given the track record of government-created educational materials.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Small Business Act by adding a new section (49) that requires the Administrator to establish and maintain these educational resources and modules. It also creates an Advisory Working Group, because what's a government program without a committee? This group will consist of "experts" in AI, outreach, and education, who will provide guidance on the development of these materials.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Small business concerns (i.e., those with fewer than 500 employees) are the primary beneficiaries of this bill. However, I'm sure the real winners will be the lobbying groups and PACs that have been pushing for more "education" and "awareness" about AI in small businesses. *cough* Tech industry donors *cough*

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a perfect example of Congress's favorite game: "Let's Create a New Bureaucracy!" The AI-WISE Act will likely lead to more government spending on "education" and "outreach," which will ultimately benefit the consultants, contractors, and lobbying groups that will be hired to create these materials. Meanwhile, small businesses will continue to struggle with the complexities of AI, and the bill's provisions will do little to address the real issues they face.

**Diagnosis:** The patient (Congress) is suffering from a severe case of "Tech-Envy," where they try to appear relevant by creating bills that sound innovative but ultimately accomplish nothing. The symptoms include:

* A $500K infection from tech industry PACs, which has led to the creation of this bill. * A severe lack of understanding about AI and its applications in small businesses. * A strong desire to create new bureaucracies and committees, despite their proven ineffectiveness.

**Treatment:** A healthy dose of skepticism and a strong antibiotic regimen to combat the influence of special interest groups. Unfortunately, this patient is unlikely to recover from its chronic case of "Congress-itis."

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Scholten, Hillary J. [D-MI-3]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$126,178
28 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$34,700
Committees
$0
Individuals
$91,478

No PAC contributions found

1
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
2 transactions
$9,900
2
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
2 transactions
$6,600
3
SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE
1 transaction
$3,300
4
POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
5
MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT TRIBE
1 transaction
$3,300
6
NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI
1 transaction
$3,300
7
CHEROKEE NATION
1 transaction
$1,000
8
PEOPLE FOR BETTER GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE OF THE SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000
9
ONEIDA NATION
1 transaction
$1,000
10
CHICKSAW NATION
1 transaction
$1,000
11
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
HELM, NELSON JR
1 transaction
$6,600
2
SONG, LINH
1 transaction
$6,600
3
SUSSMAN, DONALD S
1 transaction
$6,550
4
MCNALLY, ROBERT STEPHEN
1 transaction
$6,534
5
YOUNGMAN, HEATHER
1 transaction
$6,500
6
BENNETT, RAYMOND
1 transaction
$5,800
7
NYE, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$5,800
8
ZWANZIGER, RON
1 transaction
$5,647
9
TURKISH, JASON
1 transaction
$5,600
10
ERICKSEN, EUGENE
1 transaction
$5,600
11
YOUNGMAN, ANDREW
1 transaction
$5,500
12
CHISHOLM, ROBERT
1 transaction
$5,000
13
HEMPHILL, ROBERT
1 transaction
$5,000
14
ZWANZIGER, JANET
1 transaction
$4,647
15
PUGH, BARBARA
1 transaction
$3,500
16
GOTTESMAN, SALLY
1 transaction
$3,300
17
MANDEL, STEVE
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 6 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Downing, Troy [R-MT-2]

ID: D000634

Top Contributors

21

1
REPUBLICAN MAINSTREET PARTNERSHIP PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$5,000
Sep 18, 2024
2
BILLION, JOSEPH C
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualBOZEMAN, MT
$13,200
Dec 31, 2023
3
BILLION, PEDER J
BILLION DODGE CHRYSLER JEEP RAM • OWNER
IndividualBOZEMAN, MT
$13,200
Dec 31, 2023
4
DURRETT, STEVEN
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualBILLINGS, MT
$13,200
May 1, 2024
5
BARNARD, MARY
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualBOZEMAN, MT
$6,600
Aug 1, 2024
6
BARNARD, TIMOTHY
BARNARD CONST. CO. • CHAIRMAN
IndividualBOZEMAN, MT
$6,600
Aug 1, 2024
7
GREGORY, JOSEPH R.
IndividualPINEY FLATS, TN
$6,600
Jul 15, 2024
8
PLANTE, THOMAS
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualHENDERSONVILLE, TN
$6,600
Sep 10, 2024
9
MENHOLT, DENNY
MENHOLT AUTO GROUP • AUTO DEALER
IndividualBILLINGS, MT
$6,600
Aug 12, 2024
10
GALT, SHARRIE
IndividualMARTINSDALE, MT
$6,600
Nov 1, 2024

Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5]

ID: G000583

Top Contributors

29

1
AMERICAN EXPRESS
OrganizationNEWARK, NJ
$22,941
Apr 12, 2024
2
AMERICAN EXPRESS
OrganizationNEWARK, NJ
$10,621
May 10, 2024
3
PAYROLL DATA PROCESSING
OrganizationTAMPA, FL
$6,337
May 15, 2024
4
PAYROLL DATA PROCESSING
OrganizationTAMPA, FL
$6,337
Apr 15, 2024
5
PAYROLL DATA PROCESSING
OrganizationTAMPA, FL
$6,337
Apr 30, 2024
6
PAYROLL DATA PROCESSING
OrganizationTAMPA, FL
$5,751
Apr 1, 2024
7
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
8
SEKAS LAW GROUP LLC
OrganizationENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, NJ
$1,500
Apr 12, 2024
9
SANDOR F. GENET & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
OrganizationNORTH MIAMI BEACH, FL
$250
Apr 12, 2024
10
FIRESTONE MILKEN, SARAH
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA
$13,200
Jul 2, 2024

Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1]

ID: F000466

Top Contributors

22

1
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$1,500
Dec 31, 2024
2
STATA FAMILY OFFICE
Organization
$500
Apr 26, 2024
3
ASHER, ROBERT B.
IndividualGWYNEDD VALLEY, PA
$10,000
Oct 9, 2024
4
ASHER, ROBERT B.
ASHER CHOCOLATES • CHAIRMAN
IndividualGWYNEDD VALLEY, PA
$10,000
Sep 30, 2024
5
LEVY, EDWARD JR
EDW C LEVY CO • CHAIRMAN
IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI
$6,600
Feb 26, 2024
6
CROTTY, THOMAS
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$6,600
Feb 27, 2024
7
EVANS, ROGER
GREYLOCK PARTNERS • PARTNER EMERITUS
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$6,600
Feb 27, 2024
8
LEACH, RONALD
NPX ONE • CHAIRMAN & CEO
IndividualGENEVA, IL
$6,600
Feb 28, 2024
9
MCCLAIN, MARK
SAILPOINT • CEO
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$6,600
Mar 2, 2024
10
CROTTY, THOMAS
IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$6,600
Mar 8, 2024

Rep. Cisneros, Gilbert Ray [D-CA-31]

ID: C001123

Top Contributors

76

1
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACSOMERVILLE, MA
$3,300
Nov 5, 2023
2
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACSOMERVILLE, MA
$3,300
Nov 12, 2023
3
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACSOMERVILLE, MA
$3,300
Oct 8, 2023
4
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACSOMERVILLE, MA
$3,300
Nov 12, 2023
5
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACSOMERVILLE, MA
$3,300
Dec 24, 2023
6
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACSOMERVILLE, MA
$3,300
Oct 8, 2023
7
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACSOMERVILLE, MA
$2,500
Oct 8, 2023
8
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACSOMERVILLE, MA
$2,500
Nov 26, 2023
9
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACSOMERVILLE, MA
$2,300
Dec 10, 2023
10
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACSOMERVILLE, MA
$2,000
Nov 12, 2023

Rep. Goodlander, Maggie [D-NH-2]

ID: G000604

Top Contributors

20

1
MCLAUGHLIN, JANE
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualLYME, NH
$4,500
Aug 24, 2024
2
FLORY, ROBERT H. JR
FLORY INVESTMENTS, INC. • PRESIDENT
IndividualDAMARISCOTTA, ME
$4,100
Sep 30, 2024
3
FLORY, ROBERT H. JR
FLORY INVESTMENTS, INC. • PRESIDENT
IndividualDAMARISCOTTA, ME
$4,100
Sep 30, 2024
4
KRAUSZ, STEVEN
US VENTURE PARTNERS • VENTURE CAPITAL
IndividualPORTOLA VALLEY, CA
$3,300
Oct 23, 2024
5
HIRSHBERG, GARY
STONYFIELD FARM INC. • SENIOR ADVISOR
IndividualCONCORD, NH
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
6
DRAKE, LAWRENCE C JR
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPORTSMOUTH, NH
$3,300
Oct 19, 2024
7
CUTLER, DOULGAS
CUTLER MANAGEMENT CORP • MANAGEMENT
IndividualDANIA, FL
$3,300
Oct 17, 2024
8
JAMES, AMABEL
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Oct 24, 2024
9
NUNNELLY, MARK
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualDOVER, MA
$3,300
Oct 21, 2024
10
ROBY, DAVID M.
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualLYME, NH
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024

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

ID: A000380

Top Contributors

20

1
HOFFMAN, REID
GREYLOCK PARTNERS • VENTURE CAPITALIST
IndividualANACORTES, WA
$6,600
Sep 29, 2023
2
HOFFMAN, REID
GREYLOCK PARTNERS • VENTURE CAPITALIST
IndividualANACORTES, WA
$6,600
Sep 29, 2023
3
CHACE, ARNOLD
CORNISH ASSOCIATES • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER
IndividualPROVIDENCE, RI
$3,300
Oct 24, 2024
4
FISHER, CYNTHIA
PATIENTRIGHTSADVOCATE.ORG • FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN
IndividualPALM BEACH, FL
$3,300
Oct 24, 2024
5
MOCARSKI, THADEUS
NOVACAP MANAGEMENT • INVESTOR
IndividualTIVERTON, RI
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024
6
SCHOENFELDER, LUKE
ALTAMIRA HOLDING COMPANY • CHAIRMAN
IndividualMIAMI BEACH, FL
$3,300
Nov 4, 2024
7
LANDRY, BARRIE
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualBOSTON, MA
$3,300
Dec 21, 2023
8
LAVINE, JEANNIE
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualBOSTON, MA
$3,300
Dec 22, 2023
9
LAVINE, JONATHAN
BAIN CAPITAL • INVESTOR
IndividualBOSTON, MA
$3,300
Dec 22, 2023
10
HIRSCH, JEFFREY
STARZ • EXECUTIVE
IndividualBEVERLY HILLS, CA
$3,300
Feb 22, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Scholten, Hillary J. [D-MI-3]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 76 nodes and 82 connections

Total contributions: $82

Top Donors - Rep. Scholten, Hillary J. [D-MI-3]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

11 Orgs17 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • Section 2(a)(1) establishes educational resources and modules on AI tools for small businesses, which benefits AI and cloud infrastructure providers by increasing awareness and adoption of their tools among small businesses.

  • +Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.85

    Section 2(a)(1) and (b)(9) include information on how AI can improve operations, productivity, or customer service, which could benefit big tech platforms that offer AI tools to small businesses.

  • Section 2(a)(1) and (b)(9) cover AI tools that can improve operations and customer service, which could benefit e-commerce platforms that provide AI-driven services to small businesses.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Scholten, Hillary J. [D-MI-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

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.

Small Business Administration

Moderate
Vector: 63%
Pages: 783-785AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The AI-WISE Act aligns with Project 2025's goal of modernizing the SBA by using technology to reach and educate small businesses, but it does not address the broader accountability, Office of Advocacy strengthening, or regulatory flexibility reforms emphasized in the policy."

Key themes:technology utilizationsmall business outreacheducational resourcesSBA modernizationonline learning platform

— 751 — Small Business Administration implement relevant initiatives to reach small businesses. Programs would be nonduplicative and implemented on a first-come, first-served basis. l A modern, revamped, and streamlined SBA that better utilizes current technology and platforms for operations, for reporting, and in its programs to reach, service, and engage small businesses. l An Office of Advocacy that is strengthened by a renewed mandate and additional resources to protect against overregulation along with a research agenda that includes measuring the total cost that federal regulation imposes on small businesses. Accountability and Managerial Practice. The SBA lacks accountability and managerial practices to measure the effectiveness, success, and integrity of its various programs. As a future Administration evaluates agency structure and the particulars of how the SBA is spending appropriated funds, it should immediately require actions and procedures to compel a culture of accountability and perfor- mance. Specifically: l Require performance metrics and internal procedures to safeguard taxpayer dollars and program integrity. As noted in an October 2022 IG report, failure to adopt procedures that would reliably capture data and information for various programs, coupled with significant challenges and weaknesses regarding IT investments, systems development, and security controls, presents significant risks to program integrity and increased risk of waste, fraud, and abuse.34 Addressing these shortcomings and risks should be a priority challenge and action item for the next Administration. As underscored by the Inspector General in his introduction to the report, “Pandemic response has, in many instances, magnified the challenging systemic issues in SBA’s mission-related work.”35 l Review all internal government watchdog recommendations and require that SBA management implement or address outstanding and ongoing OIG and GAO recommendations within a specified time frame (ideally within 90 days of a recommendation) and on an ongoing basis. Strengthening the Office of Advocacy. The SBA Office of Advocacy (Advo- cacy) is “an independent office” within the SBA.36 It accounts for about one one-thousandth of SBA spending and 0.75 percent of SBA personnel. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, both under its current authority and with suggested — 752 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise reforms, the Office of Advocacy could be a powerful weapon against the adminis- trative state’s regulatory extremism. l Amend the RFA so that all agencies are required to provide a copy of any proposed rule (other than bona fide emergency rules) along with initial regulatory flexibility analysis to the Office of Advocacy at least 60 days before a notice of proposed rulemaking is submitted for publication in the Federal Register. The Office of Advocacy would submit comments to agencies within 30 days, and each agency would have to consider these comments, make changes in the proposed rule based on those comments, or explain in a revised regulatory flexibility analysis why it chose not to change the proposed rule. The Office of Advocacy’s pre-proposing comments would be published on the agencies’ and its own websites. RFA economic analysis should be expanded to include indirect costs along with direct costs. In addition, the next Administration should require other agencies to seek Advocacy’s input. Currently, other agencies deny Advocacy the ability to enforce their duty to consider the effect of regulations on small entities by construing their regulations as not having significant economic impact, which would otherwise serve as a trigger for Advocacy’s input. Congress should presumptively exempt small businesses from new agency rules to force agencies to seek Advocacy’s input and permit new rules to apply to small businesses only with Advocacy signoff under specified criteria. l Increase the Office of Advocacy’s budget by at least 50 percent ($4.6 million). This would allow Advocacy to hire approximately 25 attorneys, economists, and scientists and enhance its role in the regulatory process. l Explicitly direct federal agencies to comply with the RFA. This would be similar to the approach adopted by President Trump in his January and February 2017 executive orders directing agencies to relieve the cost and burden of regulation on business.37 Advocacy should organize regional roundtables, onsite small-business visits, and an online platform to hear directly from small businesses and entities as it did from June 2017 through September 2018.38 This activity produced 26 letters to federal agencies and highlighted specific regulations that need reform and how Congress had addressed the most burdensome rules through the Congressional Review Act.39

Small Business Administration

Moderate
Vector: 62%
Pages: 789-791AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The AI-WISE Act aligns with Project 2025's focus on strengthening the SBA's role in supporting small businesses through education and resource provision, particularly in emerging technology areas like AI. While it does not directly address capital access or size standard reforms emphasized in Project 2025, it supports SBA's broader mission of empowering small businesses, which is a shared thematic goal."

Key themes:small business supportSBA modernizationtechnology adoptioneducational resourcesempowerment through information

— 757 — Small Business Administration largely duplicates private-sector venture capital to the extent that the sector receiving much of its support is software and information technology, which already receive the lion’s share of venture capital investment.65 In addition, Congress should reform the SBIC program to make its financing more favorable to capital-intense investments and small manufacturers. The Health, Economic Assistance, Liability Protection, and Schools (HEALS) Act, introduced in 2020,66 and American Innovation and Manufacturing Act, introduced in 2021,67 would allow SBIC to offer longer-term financing to manufacturers and make the program more fiscally sustainable. Small-Business Size Standard Modernization. Many small-business pro- grams both inside and outside the SBA use the SBA’s definition of “small business.” Under the Small Business Act, the SBA is tasked with defining what counts as a small business and ensuring that the definition varies from industry to industry to reflect differences in regular size by industry. However, the SBA’s small-business size standards reflect a one-size-fits-all approach under which all businesses within its size standard are considered small businesses for all eligible purposes, from gov- ernment contracting preferences to eligibility for SBA loans through private banks. At the same time, the SBA is an outlier among competing economies in not considering medium-sized enterprises along with small businesses, often referred to collectively as small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Medium-sized and regional businesses are increasingly critical to maintaining competition. The next Administration should: l Encourage Congress to create a “medium-sized business” classification with its eligibility for programs confined to access to capital programs from projects for which credit elsewhere does not exist. SBA POLICY PRIORITIES FOR 2025 AND BEYOND Legislation. The new Administration can support SBA reform legislation pro- posed in Congress that aligns with key measures outlined in this chapter. It also can support legislative initiatives that would help SBA to focus on its core statutory activities such as capital access, federal contracting opportunities, and regulatory advocacy. For example: l The IMPROVE the SBA Act68 would strengthen accountability, transparency, and oversight of the SBA and aligns with many of the reforms outlined in this chapter. — 758 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l The Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act69 would require federal agencies to perform more thorough RFA economic analysis and provide a rationale for proposed regulations. It also would waive fines for certain first-time paperwork violations. l The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act70 (SBREFA) panel process allows small businesses to provide input on agency rulemakings, gives participating small businesses greater procedural rights, and allows for judicial review of agency violations of the SBREFA panel process. SBREFA panel requirements should be extended to all federal agencies. l The Fair and Open Competition Act71 would disallow the use of project labor agreements (PLAs) in federal contracting as required in President Biden’s Executive Order 14063,72 which puts small businesses at a competitive disadvantage and works against the SBA’s governmentwide contracting goal for small businesses. l The JOBS Act 4.073 would advance regulatory improvements and modernization of various Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules to enhance capital formation and access. ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES AND BUDGET Administrator and Key Staff. The position of Administrator should not be considered a symbolic or messaging-related position as some past Administrations have viewed it. Rather, the Administrator should have the requisite experience, skills, and knowledge to ensure that the SBA fulfills its statutory authorities. Because much of the SBA’s statutory authority relates to financing and reg- ulatory policy, and in order to make the SBA a more effective agency within the Administration, the Administrator and his or her key staff should have experience in small-business finance and investment and/or administrative law. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the SBA was often forced to outsource key deci- sions and administrative follow-through to the Department of the Treasury. The SBA Administrator and leadership team must share the President’s mission and vision and execute the Administration’s policies effectively. Budget The next Administration should undertake a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of its various loan and grant programs and provide a report to Congress within six months. The report should rank programs by cost-effective- ness. In the interim, the roughly $1 billion overall agency budget should be held constant until the report is considered, after which Congress should terminate

Department of Education

Weak
Vector: 61%
Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The AI-WISE Act provides AI educational resources for small businesses, whereas the Project 2025 Department of Education section focuses on school choice, opting out of federal education programs, and accreditation reform. Both involve education/training but target different sectors and have distinct policy goals, resulting in only a weak thematic overlap."

Key themes:educationtrainingfederal involvementworkforce development

— 351 — Department of Education as the Educational Choice for Children Act. This bill would create a federal scholarship tax credit that would incentivize donors to contribute to nonprofit scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). Eligible families could then use that funding from the SGOs for their children’s education expenses including private school tuition, tutoring, and instructional materials. ADDITIONAL K–12 REFORMS Allowing States to Opt Out of Federal Education Programs. States should be able to opt out of federal education programs such as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. Much of the red tape and regulations that hinder local school districts are handed down from Washington. This regulatory burden far exceeds the federal government’s less than 10 percent financing share of K–12 education. In the most recent fiscal year (FY 2022), states and localities financed 93 percent of K–12 education costs, and the federal government just 7 percent. That 7 percent share should not allow the federal government to dictate state and local education policy. l To restore state and local control of education and reduce the bureaucratic and compliance burden, Congress should allow states to opt out of the dozens of federal K–12 education programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and instead allow states to put their share of federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law. This policy has been advanced over the years via a proposal known as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM HEA: Accreditation Reform Congress established two primary responsibilities for the U.S. Department of Education in the HEA: 1) to ensure the “administrative capacity and financial responsibility” of colleges and universities that accept Title IV funds; and 2) to ensure the quality of those institutions. Congress did not endow the Department of Education with the authority to involve itself in academic quality issues relating to colleges and universities that participate in the Title IV student aid program; the HEA allows the agency only to recognize accreditors, which are then supposed to provide quality assurance measures. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has followed closely in the footsteps of the Obama Administration by engaging in a politically motivated and incon- sistent administration of the accrediting agency recognition process. As a result, accreditors have transformed into de facto government agents. Despite claims by — 352 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the department and accreditation agencies that accreditation is voluntary, the fact that Americans are denied access to an otherwise widely available entitle- ment benefit if the institution “elects” to not be accredited makes accreditation anything but voluntary. Today, accreditation determines whether Americans can access federal student aid benefits, transfer academic credits, enroll in higher-level degree programs, and even qualify for federal employment. Unnecessarily focused on schools in a specific geographic region, institutional accreditation reviews have also become wildly expensive audits by academic “peers” that stifle innovation and discourage new institutions of higher education. Of par- ticular concern are efforts by many accreditation agencies to leverage their Title IV (student loans and grants) gatekeeper roles to force institutions to adopt policies that have nothing to do with academic quality assurance and student outcomes. One egregious example of this is the extent to which accreditors have forced col- leges and universities, many of them faith-based institutions, to adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies that conflict with federal civil rights laws, state laws, and the institutional mission and culture of the schools. Perhaps more distress- ingly, accreditors, while professing support for academic freedom and campus free speech, have presided over a precipitous decline in both over the past decade. Despite maintaining criteria that demand such policies, accreditors have done nothing to dampen the illiberal chill that has swept across American campuses over the past decade. The current system is not working. A radical overhaul of the HEA’s accreditation requirements is thus in order. The next Administration should work with Congress to amend the HEA and should consider the following reforms: l Prohibit accreditation agencies from leveraging their Title IV gatekeeper role to mandate that educational institutions adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. l Protect the sovereignty of states to decide governance and leadership issues for their state-supported colleges and universities by prohibiting accreditation agencies from intruding upon the governance of state-supported educational institutions. l Protect faith-based institutions by prohibiting accreditation agencies from: 1. Requiring standards and criteria that undermine the religious beliefs of, or require policies or conduct that conflict with, the religious mission or religious beliefs of the institution; and

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills