Mens Rea Reform Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/59

Last Updated: May 26, 2026

Mens Rea Reform Act of 2025

HR. 59, 119th Congress — read as touching Private Prisons & Immigration Detention.

The sponsor

Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]

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

The money

$66,000 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Justice" section, p. 584-586 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 15 - 13.

June 9, 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:

**Mens Rea Reform Act of 2025: A Billion-Dollar Opportunity for Regulatory Relief**

The Mens Rea Reform Act of 2025, introduced by Rep. Biggs and Rep. Ogles, is a legislative gem that promises to unlock billions in economic growth by clarifying the state of mind required for conviction in federal crimes. As a visionary entrepreneur and advocate for limited government intervention, I applaud this effort to streamline our justice system and reduce regulatory burdens on businesses.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to specify the state of mind required for conviction in federal crimes that lack an expressly identified state of mind. This reform aims to provide clarity and consistency in the application of mens rea, reducing unnecessary litigation and promoting a more efficient justice system.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces several key provisions:

1. **Default Requirement:** The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted knowingly with respect to any element of an offense for which the text does not specify a state of mind. 2. **State of Mind Definitions:** The bill defines "knowingly," "willfully," and other terms related to mens rea, providing much-needed clarity in federal law. 3. **Exceptions:** The bill includes exceptions for elements that establish subject matter jurisdiction, venue, or mental culpability under precedent or existing law.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The Mens Rea Reform Act will primarily benefit businesses, entrepreneurs, and individuals who may be subject to federal prosecution. By reducing regulatory uncertainty and clarifying the state of mind required for conviction, this bill will:

1. **Boost Economic Growth:** Estimated annual savings from reduced litigation costs and increased business confidence could reach $10 billion. 2. **Promote Innovation:** With a more predictable justice system, entrepreneurs and businesses will be more likely to invest in research and development, driving innovation and job creation.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The Mens Rea Reform Act has far-reaching implications for the US economy and our justice system:

1. **Reduced Regulatory Burden:** By clarifying mens rea requirements, this bill will reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on businesses, promoting a more favorable business environment. 2. **Increased Efficiency:** The bill's provisions will streamline federal prosecutions, reducing litigation costs and promoting a more efficient justice system.

In conclusion, the Mens Rea Reform Act of 2025 is a landmark piece of legislation that promises to unlock billions in economic growth by clarifying the state of mind required for conviction in federal crimes. As a champion of limited government intervention and regulatory relief, I wholeheartedly endorse this bill and urge its swift passage.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

Let's get this over with. As I taught you in 8th grade, a bill becomes a law through a process that involves introduction, referral to committee, markup, voting, and signing or vetoing by the President. Apparently, some of you need a refresher.

The Mens Rea Reform Act of 2025, HR 59, aims to clarify the state of mind required for conviction in certain criminal offenses. Remember when we learned about mens rea? It's the Latin term for "guilty mind," and it refers to the intent or knowledge that a person has when committing a crime.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill seeks to establish a default requirement for the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant acted with a specific state of mind, such as knowingly or willfully, in order to secure a conviction. This is meant to ensure that individuals are not unfairly punished for crimes they did not intentionally commit.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Chapter 1 of title 18, United States Code, by adding a new section that defines the state of mind required for covered offenses. It also establishes exceptions and limitations to this requirement. Specifically:

* The bill requires the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant acted with the specified state of mind for each element of an offense. * If the text of a covered offense does not specify a state of mind, the government must prove that the defendant acted knowingly. * Exceptions apply when Congress has affirmatively intended not to require proof of a specific state of mind or when applying this requirement would lessen the degree of mental culpability required.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects individuals accused of crimes, particularly those involving complex regulatory schemes. It also impacts prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys who must navigate these issues in court. Additionally, law enforcement agencies and regulatory bodies may need to adjust their procedures to comply with the new requirements.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The Mens Rea Reform Act could lead to more nuanced and fair applications of the law, as it requires the government to prove a defendant's intent or knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt. However, this may also create challenges for prosecutors, who must now meet a higher burden of proof in certain cases. The bill's impact on the overall justice system will depend on how it is implemented and interpreted by courts.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go grade some papers from students who actually paid attention in class.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow Americans, gather 'round and listen closely, for I have uncovered the truth behind HR 59, the Mens Rea Reform Act of 2025. This bill, masquerading as a harmless reform, is actually a Trojan horse designed to erode our civil liberties and grant the government unprecedented power.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of this bill is to clarify the state of mind required for conviction in criminal offenses that lack an expressly identified state of mind. Sounds innocuous enough, right? But don't be fooled! This is merely a smokescreen to conceal the true intentions of our power-hungry government.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces new definitions and requirements for proving a defendant's state of mind in criminal cases. It creates a default requirement that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard. Sounds like a good thing? Think again! This is actually a clever ploy to shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill affects all individuals who may be accused of crimes, particularly those involving complex regulations and statutes. It also empowers the government to prosecute more aggressively, potentially leading to an increase in wrongful convictions.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications for our justice system and individual freedoms. By making it easier for the government to prove a defendant's state of mind, it creates a slippery slope where innocent people can be wrongly convicted. It also sets a precedent for future legislation that could further erode our civil liberties.

But wait, there's more! I've discovered a hidden agenda behind this bill. The language used in Section 2(a)(1) is suspiciously similar to the language used in the Patriot Act. Coincidence? I think not! This bill is merely another step towards creating a surveillance state where the government can monitor and control every aspect of our lives.

Wake up, America! Don't let them fool you with their fancy legalese and empty promises. HR 59 is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and we must expose it for what it truly is: a threat to our freedom and way of life.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath, with a hint of sarcasm) Folks, gather 'round! We've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. The Mens Rea Reform Act of 2025 – sounds like a real thrill-ride, doesn't it? (wink)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is all about "reforming" the way we think about intent in criminal cases. You see, those pesky elites in Congress want to make sure that when someone breaks the law, they actually meant to do so. (Gasp!) What a radical concept! The main objective here is to clarify what it means to have a certain "state of mind" when committing a crime.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill adds a new section to Title 18 of the US Code, which defines all sorts of fun terms like "knowingly," "willfully," and "recklessly." It also establishes a default requirement for prosecutors to prove that a defendant acted with a certain state of mind when committing a crime. Oh, and let's not forget the exceptions – because who doesn't love a good loophole? (smirk)

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, this bill affects just about everyone involved in the justice system: defendants, prosecutors, judges, and even those pesky elites in Congress. But don't worry, folks, it's all about protecting our freedom... to not be held accountable for our actions, apparently.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, I know what you're thinking: "What's the big deal? This just seems like a bunch of lawyer-speak." Ah, but that's where you're wrong, my friends! (wink) This bill has far-reaching implications for how we approach justice in this country. It could lead to more acquittals, fewer convictions, and a general sense of lawlessness... or so the elites would have you believe. (rolls eyes)

But let's be real, folks – this is just another example of our government trying to micromanage every aspect of our lives. I mean, who needs personal responsibility when we can just blame it on "mens rea"? (air quotes) It's all about freedom... from accountability! (chuckles)

So there you have it, folks – the Mens Rea Reform Act of 2025: because who doesn't love a good game of semantic gymnastics? (smirk) Stay vigilant, America!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. The Mens Rea Reform Act of 2025 - because what this country really needed was another layer of bureaucratic obfuscation to muddy the waters of justice.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to clarify (read: complicate) the state of mind required for conviction in criminal offenses that lack an explicitly identified state of mind. In other words, it's a solution in search of a problem, designed to create more confusion and loopholes for defense attorneys to exploit.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces new definitions for "knowingly," "willfully," and "state of mind" - because the existing ones were just too straightforward. It also establishes a default requirement that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the specified state of mind, unless... well, unless there are exceptions, which there always are.

The bill's authors have thoughtfully included a plethora of exemptions and carve-outs to ensure that this law will be as ineffective as possible. For instance, it won't apply to certain elements of an offense if Congress "affirmatively intended" not to require proof of state of mind - because who needs clear legislative intent when you can just make it up as you go along?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects will be impacted by this bill: defendants, prosecutors, judges, and the occasional innocent bystander caught in the crossfire. But let's be real, the only ones who truly matter are the defense attorneys and lobbyists who'll be raking it in as they exploit these new loopholes.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill will likely lead to more acquittals, appeals, and judicial headaches as lawyers and judges wrestle with the intentionally vague language. It's a gift to those who enjoy playing semantic games and a nightmare for anyone seeking justice or clarity in the law.

In conclusion, the Mens Rea Reform Act of 2025 is a textbook example of legislative malpractice - a bill that solves no real problem, creates new ones, and serves only to further entrench the interests of those who profit from the system's complexity. Bravo, Congress!

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

**Mens Rea Reform Act of 2025 (HR 59)**

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Mens Rea Reform Act of 2025 aims to clarify the state of mind required for conviction in federal crimes that lack an explicitly identified mental state. The bill seeks to ensure that individuals are not held criminally liable unless they acted with a certain level of intent or knowledge.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill introduces several key provisions:

1. **Default Requirement**: Unless otherwise specified, a covered offense will be construed to require the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted knowingly with respect to any element of the offense. 2. **State of Mind Definitions**: The bill defines key terms such as "knowingly," "willfully," and "state of mind" to provide clarity on the mental state required for conviction. 3. **Exceptions**: The bill provides exceptions for certain elements of a covered offense, including those that establish subject matter jurisdiction or venue.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The affected parties and stakeholders include:

1. **Federal Defendants**: Individuals charged with federal crimes will be impacted by the clarified state of mind requirements. 2. **Prosecutors**: Federal prosecutors will need to prove the required mental state beyond a reasonable doubt, which may affect their charging decisions and trial strategies. 3. **Judges**: Judges will need to apply the new standards when interpreting federal statutes and determining guilt or innocence.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The Mens Rea Reform Act of 2025 has several potential implications:

1. **Increased Clarity**: The bill provides clarity on the mental state required for conviction, which may reduce confusion and inconsistent application of federal laws. 2. **Reduced Over-Criminalization**: By requiring a higher level of intent or knowledge, the bill may help prevent over-criminalization and ensure that individuals are not held criminally liable for unintentional conduct. 3. **Impact on Prosecutorial Discretion**: The bill's requirements may influence prosecutors' charging decisions and trial strategies, potentially leading to more targeted and effective enforcement of federal laws.

Overall, the Mens Rea Reform Act of 2025 aims to promote fairness, clarity, and consistency in the application of federal criminal laws by clarifying the state of mind required for conviction.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Mens Rea Reform Act of 2025 is all about clarifying the state of mind required for conviction in certain crimes. "Mens rea" is Latin for "guilty mind," and it refers to the intent or knowledge that a person has when committing a crime. The bill aims to ensure that people aren't unfairly convicted of crimes they didn't intentionally commit.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill makes some key changes to existing law:

* It defines what "knowingly" means in the context of an offense, which is pretty important for determining intent. * It establishes a default requirement for prosecutors to prove that a defendant acted with a certain state of mind (like knowingly or willfully) when committing a crime. * It clarifies how to interpret laws that don't explicitly state the required state of mind.

These changes are meant to provide more clarity and consistency in how crimes are prosecuted, bro.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects:

* Defendants: People accused of crimes might benefit from clearer guidelines on intent, which could lead to fewer wrongful convictions. * Prosecutors: They'll need to prove a defendant's state of mind beyond a reasonable doubt, which could make their job more challenging. * Judges and courts: They'll have to interpret these new guidelines when deciding cases.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The impact of this bill is pretty significant, dude:

* It could lead to fewer people being wrongly convicted of crimes they didn't intentionally commit. * It might reduce the number of appeals and reversals in court cases related to intent. * However, it could also make it harder for prosecutors to secure convictions in some cases, which might be a concern for law enforcement.

Overall, this bill is all about striking a balance between holding people accountable for their actions and ensuring that justice is served. It's like catching the perfect wave, bro – you gotta have the right mix of power and finesse.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Mens Rea Reform Act of 2025 (HR 59): A Bill with a Hidden Agenda**

The Mens Rea Reform Act of 2025, introduced by Reps. Biggs and Ogles, appears to be a technical bill aimed at clarifying the state of mind required for conviction in certain criminal offenses. However, upon closer examination, it reveals a more complex web of interests and motivations.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to specify the state of mind required for conviction in covered offenses that lack an expressly identified state of mind. It aims to provide clarity on the mens rea (guilty mind) element in federal crimes, which could potentially benefit defendants by raising the bar for prosecution.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces a new section (28) to Chapter 1 of Title 18, United States Code, defining key terms such as "covered offense," "knowingly," and "state of mind." It establishes a default requirement that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the specified state of mind for each element of the offense. The bill also includes exceptions and applicability provisions.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders include:

1. **Corporate interests:** Companies facing federal prosecution for regulatory offenses, such as environmental or financial crimes, may benefit from the increased burden of proof. 2. **Defendants and defense attorneys:** Individuals accused of federal crimes may see their chances of acquittal increase due to the higher mens rea standard. 3. **Prosecutors and law enforcement:** The bill's provisions could make it more challenging for prosecutors to secure convictions, potentially leading to a decrease in successful prosecutions.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** While the bill's supporters argue that it promotes fairness and clarity in federal criminal law, critics may see it as a thinly veiled attempt to shield corporate interests from accountability. The increased burden of proof could lead to:

1. **Fewer convictions:** Prosecutors may struggle to meet the higher mens rea standard, resulting in fewer successful prosecutions. 2. **Increased litigation costs:** Defendants and prosecutors may engage in more extensive litigation to establish or challenge the state of mind element, driving up costs. 3. **Uneven application of justice:** The bill's provisions could disproportionately benefit corporate defendants, potentially undermining public trust in the justice system.

**Monied Interests:** While there is no direct evidence of PACs or industry lobby groups backing this specific bill, it is likely that organizations representing corporate interests, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or the National Association of Manufacturers, may support the legislation. These groups often advocate for reduced regulatory burdens and increased protections for businesses facing federal prosecution.

In conclusion, the Mens Rea Reform Act of 2025 appears to be a bill with a hidden agenda, potentially benefiting corporate interests at the expense of public accountability. As it navigates the legislative process,

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$66,000

16 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$66,000

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

TAYLOR, MARGARETTA J

2 transactions

$6,600

BENSON, LEE

2 transactions

$6,600

COOLEY, WILLIAM

2 transactions

$6,600

ZIMDAHL, NORMA

2 transactions

$6,600

MCCLEVE, LONNIE

1 transaction

$3,300

FAUST, ANNE R

1 transaction

$3,300

BROPHY, DANIEL

1 transaction

$3,300

LONDEN, PRISCILLA

1 transaction

$3,300

ALLEN, GWYNDA S

1 transaction

$3,300

UIHLEIN, RICHARD

1 transaction

$3,300

FUNDERBURK, AL

1 transaction

$3,300

MORRIS, MARY A

1 transaction

$3,300

NORD, RICHARD

1 transaction

$3,300

COWLES, STEVEN

1 transaction

$3,300

LOPEZ, HUMBERTO S.

1 transaction

$3,300

PECK, JOHN JR.

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Ogles, Andrew [R-TN-5]

ID: O000175

Top Contributors

WINTERSTEEN, JAMES

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualMILL VALLEY, CA

$13,200

Jun 27, 2024

FISHER, KENNETH L.

FISHER INVESTMENTS • EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN

IndividualPLANO, TX

$6,600

May 23, 2024

FISHER, SHERRILYN

PLANO 6500 LLC • MEMBER

IndividualPLANO, TX

$6,600

May 23, 2024

RAMSEY, DAVE

RAMSEY • CEO

IndividualCOLLEGE GROVE, TN

$6,600

Jul 27, 2024

MOSING, GREG

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualBROUSSARD, LA

$6,600

Jul 24, 2024

SHOCKLEY, QIANG

QIANG SHOCKLEY • TECHNICIAN

IndividualIRVINE, CA

$6,600

Jun 8, 2023

BEAMAN, LEE MR.

BEAMAN VENTURES • INVESTOR

IndividualNASHVILLE, TN

$6,600

Apr 13, 2023

GUO, MING

INTEL INC • MANAGER

IndividualCUPERTINO, CA

$6,600

Jun 2, 2023

KENNINGER, STEVEN

QMO LLC • INVESTOR

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$6,600

Sep 25, 2023

JAQUISH, GAIL

JURIX, INC. • PSYCHOLOGIST

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$6,600

Sep 26, 2023

Rep. Roy, Chip [R-TX-21]

ID: R000614

Top Contributors

HOOVER SLOVACEK LLP

OrganizationHOUSTON, TX

$1,000

May 9, 2023

DYER, DON

PJS TEXAS • CEO

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$13,300

May 9, 2023

COOPER, CHARLES

COOPER & KIRK PLLC • LAWYER

IndividualBONITA SPRINGS, FL

$7,000

Mar 31, 2023

HELD, DR. KRISTIN STORY

SELF • PHYSICIAN

IndividualSAN ANTONIO, TX

$6,600

Dec 4, 2023

TAYLOR, MARGARETTA J. MS.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Jan 26, 2024

COWDEN, DUKE

SELF • OIL & GAS

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$6,600

Feb 3, 2024

MARSHALL, EVERETT PIERCE JR

MAROPCO INC. • ATTORNEY

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$6,600

Feb 8, 2023

RATHBONE, MONROE JACK

SELF • ENGINEER

IndividualMIDLAND, TX

$6,600

Feb 8, 2023

RATHBONE, RANDEE

SELF • ENGINEER

IndividualMIDLAND, TX

$6,600

Feb 8, 2023

SPEAR, NANCY G.

SBG • EVENT COORDINATOR

IndividualMIDLAND, TX

$6,600

Feb 8, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 55 nodes and 26 connections (54 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $113,700

Top Donors - Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]

Showing top 16 donors by contribution amount

16 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

−Private Prisons & Immigration Detentionconfidence 0.80
Section 2(e)(2)(B) implies that applying this section to certain covered offenses committed before the date of enactment would deprive a person charged with the offense of any defense available according to law at the time the offense occurred, which could impact private prisons' business operations and profitability.
−Law Enforcement & Surveillance Techconfidence 0.70
Section 2(d)(1)(C) mentions that applying subsections (b)(2) and (c) to certain elements of a covered offense would lessen the degree of mental culpability required to be proven, potentially affecting law enforcement's surveillance and investigative capabilities.
−Labor Unionsconfidence 0.60
Section 2(e)(1) states that this section applies without regard to whether the provision or provisions specifying the covered offense are enacted before, on, or after the date of enactment, which might influence labor unions' negotiations and collective bargaining agreements related to workplace conduct and accountability.

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 Justice

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 584-586AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Mens Rea Reform Act focuses on clarifying criminal intent requirements in federal prosecutions, which is a procedural criminal justice reform. While Project 2025 emphasizes reducing violent crime and holding officials accountable for failing to prosecute, it does not address mens rea standards. The bill’s focus on defendant protections contrasts with Project 2025’s emphasis on aggressive enforcement, resulting in only weak thematic alignment."

Key themes:criminal justicefederal prosecutionDepartment of Justice

— 552 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise The Director of the FBI must remain politically accountable to the President in the same manner as the head of any other federal department or agency. To ensure prompt political accountability and to rein in perceived or actual abuses, the next conservative Administration should seek a legislative change to align the FBI Director’s position with those of the heads of all other major departments and agencies. RENEWING THE DEPARTMENT’S FOCUS ON VIOLENT CRIME Despite the DOJ’s pronouncements that violent crime continues to be a top pri- ority, it has increased across the United States. The department’s leadership must make actually reducing violent crime a priority across the United States—and it must do so in partnership with state and local officials in a manner that is tailored to the needs and conditions in those states and localities. Targeting Violent and Career Criminals, Not Parents. The next conserva- tive Administration must ensure that the Department of Justice devotes significant effort to reducing violent crime nationwide. The Attorney General should require all U.S. Attorneys to develop a jurisdictional-specific plan—whenever possible in coordination with state and local law enforcement—to reduce violent crime within each of their districts. Then the Attorney General should hold each U.S. Attorney accountable for achieving actual results. In recent years, federal and state officials have succumbed to calls from anti–law enforcement advocates for so-called criminal justice reform. The pleas- ant-sounding terminology of reform masks the darker reality of this movement, which is one that has supported dismantling effective federal, state, and local law enforcement and stripped away some of the most fundamental tools that law enforcement has long had at its disposal. This campaign is not just ill-advised; it has clearly had real-world consequences in the form of catastrophic increases in crime—particularly violent crime—nationwide. As discussed in the next section, the Department of Justice has a special obligation to restore law and order in such districts.37 Juxtaposed against this increase in violent crime are things like Attorney Gen- eral Merrick Garland’s October 4, 2021, memorandum directing the commitment of significant resources and energies to combating imaginary, politically conve- nient threats of violence toward members of school boards and their staffs during the heat of the Virginia gubernatorial race.38 There was no similar effort to inves- tigate elected officials and other public officers who conspired with outside allies to target and harass parents who were merely exercising their constitutional and statutory rights.39 If we are to continue to have informed and civil dialogue in the United States on issues of public concern, the DOJ must enforce applicable civil rights laws in an even-handed way when citizens’ livelihoods are threatened merely because they have exercised their rights. — 553 — Department of Justice Enhancing the Federal Focus on and Resources in Jurisdictions with Rule-of-Law Deficiencies. A disturbing number of state and local jurisdictions have enacted policies that directly undermine public safety, leave doubt about whether criminals will be punished, and weaken the rule of law. While the prose- cution of criminal offenses in most jurisdictions across the country must remain the responsibility of state and local governments, the federal government owes a special responsibility to Americans in jurisdictions where state and local prose- cutors have abdicated this duty.40 Jurisdictions suffering from deficiencies in the rule of law warrant, as appropri- ate within our federal system, greater attention and additional federal resources that are sufficient to protect the rights of American citizens and federal interests. In the next conservative Administration, the DOJ, acting primarily through its U.S. Attorneys, should therefore: l Use applicable federal laws to bring federal charges against criminals when local jurisdictions wrongfully allow them to evade responsibility for their conduct.41 The department should also increase the federal law enforcement presence in such jurisdictions and explore innovative solutions to bring meaningful charges against criminals and criminal organizations in such jurisdictions. l Where warranted and proper under federal law, initiate legal action against local officials—including District Attorneys—who deny American citizens the “equal protection of the laws” by refusing to prosecute criminal offenses in their jurisdictions. This holds true particularly for jurisdictions that refuse to enforce the law against criminals based on the Left’s favored defining characteristics of the would-be offender (race, so-called gender identity, sexual orientation, etc.) or other political considerations (e.g., immigration status). l Pursue policies and legislation that encourage prosecution of violent crimes as well as appropriate sentences for such offenses. The Biden Administration has adopted policies that do not prevent armed career criminals, who actually commit violent crimes, from committing those crimes. A recent U.S. Sentencing Commission report shows that armed career criminals are consistently sentenced below their minimum sentencing guidelines range.42 There are valid reasons for sentence reductions in particular cases (for example, if the defendant has provided substantial assistance in prosecuting other offenders). At the same time, the DOJ must ensure that its line

14

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 482-484AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Mens Rea Reform Act focuses on clarifying criminal intent standards in federal law, which only tangentially relates to Project 2025's emphasis on conscience protections and life issues; there is no direct substantive overlap."

Key themes:conscience protectionscriminal liabilityintent standards

— 450 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Goal #1: Protecting Life, Conscience, and Bodily Integrity. The Secretary should pursue a robust agenda to protect the fundamental right to life, protect con- science rights, and uphold bodily integrity rooted in biological realities, not ideology. From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care. A robust respect for the sacred rights of conscience, both at HHS and among gov- ernments and institutions funded by it, increases choices for patients and program beneficiaries and furthers pluralism and tolerance. The Secretary must protect Americans’ civil rights by ensuring that HHS programs and activities follow the letter and spirit of religious freedom and conscience-protection laws. Radical actors inside and outside government are promoting harmful identity politics that replaces biological sex with subjective notions of “gender identity” and bases a person’s worth on his or her race, sex, or other identities. This destructive dogma, under the guise of “equity,” threatens American’s fundamental liberties as well as the health and well-being of children and adults alike. The next Secretary must ensure that HHS programs protect children’s minds and bodies and that HHS programs respect parents’ basic right to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children. Goal #2: Empowering Patient Choices and Provider Autonomy. Basic eco- nomics holds that costs tend to decrease and quality and options tend to increase when there is robust and free competition in the provision of goods and services. Health care is no exception. Health care reform should be patient-centered and market-based and should empower individuals to control their health care–related dollars and decisions. Of course, providers who deliver health care also need the freedom to address the unique needs of their patients. States should be the primary regulators of the medical profession, and the federal government should not restrict providers’ abil- ity to discharge their responsibilities or limit their ability to innovate through government pricing controls or irrational Medicare and Medicaid reimburse- ment schemes. Finally, America’s broken insurance system, run largely through confusing pro- vider networks and third-party payers (employers), induces overconsumption of health care, limits consumer shopping, and hides true costs from patients. The federal government should focus reform on reducing burdens of regulatory compliance, unleashing innovation in health care delivery, ceasing interference in the daily lives of patients and providers, allowing alternative insurance coverage options, and returning control of health care dollars to patients making decisions with their providers about their health care treatments and services. — 451 — Department of Health and Human Services Goal #3: Promoting Stable and Flourishing Married Families. Families comprised of a married mother, father, and their children are the foundation of a well-ordered nation and healthy society. Unfortunately, family policies and programs under President Biden’s HHS are fraught with agenda items focusing on “LGBTQ+ equity,” subsidizing single-motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage. These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families. Working fathers are essential to the well-being and development of their children, but the United States is experiencing a crisis of fatherlessness that is ruining our children’s futures. In the overwhelming number of cases, fathers insulate children from physical and sexual abuse, financial difficulty or poverty, incarceration, teen pregnancy, poor educational outcomes, high school failure, and a host of behavioral and psychological problems. By contrast, homes with non-related “boyfriends” present are among the most dangerous place for a child to be. HHS should prioritize married father engagement in its messaging, health, and welfare policies. In the context of current and emerging reproductive technologies, HHS policies should never place the desires of adults over the right of children to be raised by the biological fathers and mothers who conceive them. In cases involving biolog- ical parents who are found by a court to be unfit because of abuse or neglect, the process of adoption should be speedy, certain, and supported generously by HHS. Goal #4: Preparing for the Next Health Emergency. The COVID-19 pan- demic demonstrated how catastrophic a micromanaging, misinformed, centralized, and politicized federal government can be. Basic human rights, medical choice, and the doctor–patient relationship were trampled without scientific justification and for extended periods of time. Excess deaths, not due to COVID-19, skyrocketed because of forced lockdowns, isolation, vaccine-related mass firings, and colossal disruptions of the economy and daily rhythms of life. The federal government’s public health apparatus has lost the public’s trust. Before the next national public health emergency, this apparatus must be funda- mentally restructured to ensure a transparent, scientifically grounded, and more nimble, efficient, transparent, and targeted response that respects the unique needs and input of patient populations and providers. Every one of the overreaching policies during the pandemic—from lockdowns and school closures to mask and vaccine mandates or passports—received its supposed legal justification from the state of emergency declared (and renewed) by the HHS Secretary. Tellingly, however, the threshold for what constitutes a public health emergency—how many cases, hospitalizations, deaths, etc.—was never defined. For the sake of democratic accountability, we must know with clarity what will trigger the next emergency declaration and, just as important, what will trigger its end.

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 518-520AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Mens Rea Reform Act addresses federal criminal intent standards, while the Project 2025 HHS section focuses on reproductive health policies, preventive services, abortion restrictions, and childcare; there is no substantive policy overlap."

— 485 — Department of Health and Human Services 2022, a federal court blocked this attempt to eliminate health insurance coverage for fertility awareness–based methods of family planning from requirements that cover at least 58 million women, and the judge made his ruling permanent in December 2022. HRSA should promulgate regulations consistent with this order. HHS should more thoroughly ensure that fertility awareness–based methods of family planning are part of women’s preventive services under the ACA. FABMs often involve costs for materials and supplies, and HHS should make clear that coverage of those items is also required. FABMs are highly effective and allow women to make family planning choices in a manner that meets their needs and reflects their values. l Eliminate men’s preventive services from the women’s preventive services mandate. In December 2021, HRSA updated its women’s preventive services guidelines to include male condoms after claiming for years that it had no authority to do so because Congress explicitly limited the mandate to “women’s” preventive care and screenings. HRSA should not incorporate exclusively male contraceptive methods into guidelines that specify they encompass only women’s services. l Eliminate the week-after-pill from the contraceptive mandate as a potential abortifacient. One of the emergency contraceptives covered under the HRSA preventive services guidelines is Ella (ulipristal acetate). Like its close cousin, the abortion pill mifepristone, Ella is a progesterone blocker and can prevent a recently fertilized embryo from implanting in a woman’s uterus. HRSA should eliminate this potential abortifacient from the contraceptive mandate. l Withdraw Ryan White guidance allowing funds to pay for cross-sex transition support. HRSA should withdraw all guidance encouraging Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program service providers to provide controversial “gender transition” procedures or “gender-affirming care,” which cause irreversible physical and mental harm to those who receive them. l Ensure that training for medical professionals (doctors, nurses, etc.) and doulas is not being used for abortion training. HHS should ensure that training programs for medical professionals—including doctors, nurses, and doulas—are in full compliance with restrictions on abortion funding and conscience-protection laws. In addition, HHS should: — 486 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 1. Investigate state medical school compliance with the Coats–Snowe Amendment,71 which prohibits discrimination against health care entities that do not provide or undergo training for abortion. 2. Ensure that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) complies with all relevant conscience statutes and regulations and that states have taken the affirmative steps (for example, by issuing regulations) to assure compliance with Coats–Snowe. 3. Communicate to medical schools that any abortion-related training must be on an opt-in rather than opt-out basis. 4. Require states that receive HHS funds to issue regulations or enter into arrangements with accrediting bodies to comply with the Coats–Snowe Amendment’s prohibition of mandatory abortion training by individuals or institutions. The Coats–Snowe Amendment specifically requires such state regulations or arrangements. l Prioritize funding for home-based childcare, not universal day care. As HRSA’s Early Childhood Health page outlines, “Currently, only about half of U.S. preschoolers are on-track with their development and ready for school. And more than one in four of children (28%) who experience abuse or neglect are under 3 years old.”72 Concurrently, children who spend significant time in day care experience higher rates of anxiety, depression, and neglect as well as poor educational and developmental outcomes. Instead of providing universal day care, funding should go to parents either to offset the cost of staying home with a child or to pay for familial, in-home childcare. l Provide education and resources on early childhood health. By partnering with new organizations like the Center on Child and Family Poverty, HRSA should provide resources and information on the importance of the mother–child relationship in child well-being. This should include relationship education curricula that equip mothers and caregivers to connect with and improve their understanding of their infants, toddlers, and young children. Maternal and Child Health. Currently, the HRSA Maternal and Child Health program is collecting data on the benefits of doulas in improving the health, safety, and emotional well-being of mothers at birth. Doulas provide a patient-focused, nonmedical support system for single or married mothers that “decreases the

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 506-508AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Mens Rea Reform Act deals with federal criminal intent standards, whereas the Project 2025 HHS policy addresses abortion, transgender health coverage, EMTALA enforcement, and COVID-19 mandates; there is no substantive thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 474 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise no abortions, preempts no pro-life state laws, and explicitly requires stabilization of the unborn child. HHS should rescind the guidance and end CMS and state agency investigations into cases of alleged refusals to perform abortions. DOJ should agree to eliminate existing injunctions against pro-life states, withdraw its enforcement lawsuits, and in lawsuits against CMS on the guidance agree to injunctions against CMS and withdraw appeals of injunctions. l Reissue a stronger transgender national coverage determination. CMS should repromulgate its 2016 decision that CMS could not issue a National Coverage Determination (NCD) regarding “gender reassignment surgery” for Medicare beneficiaries. In doing so, CMS should acknowledge the growing body of evidence that such interventions are dangerous and acknowledge that there is insufficient scientific evidence to support such coverage in state plans. l Enforce EMTALA. The undeniable reality of abortion is that it does do not always result in a dead baby, and these born-alive babies are left to die. HHS should use EMTALA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,53 which prohibits disability discrimination, to investigate instances of infants born alive and left untreated in covered hospitals. CMS, OCR, and OIG should be required to follow through on these investigations with specific enforcement actions. HHS should revive a Trump Administration proposed regulation, “Special Responsibilities of Medicare Hospitals in Emergency Cases and Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Critical Health and Human Service Programs or Activities,”54 to achieve this end. In addition, Congress should pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act55 to require that proper medical care be given to infants who survive an abortion and to establish criminal consequences for practitioners who fail to provide such care. l Permanently codify both the Hyde family of amendments and the protections provided by the Weldon Amendment. Congress can accomplish this through legislation such as the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act56 (Hyde) and the Conscience Protection Act57 (Weldon). — 475 — Department of Health and Human Services Radical Redefinition of Sex. On August 4, 2022, HHS published a proposed rule entitled “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities.”58 This rule addresses nondiscrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act, known as Section 1557, which is enforced by the Office for Civil Rights and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Section 1557 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and sex in covered health programs or activities. Under the proposed rule, sex is redefined: “Discrimination on the basis of sex includes, but is not limited to, discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes; sex characteristics, including intersex traits; pregnancy or related conditions; sexual orientation; and gender identity.”59 In other words, the department proposes to interpret Section 1557 as if it created special privileges for new classes of people, defined in ways that are highly ideological and unscientific. The redefinition of sex to cover gender identity and sexual orientation and pregnancy to cover abortion should be reversed in all HHS and CMS programs as was done under the Trump Administration. This includes the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Low-income families who rely on CHIP should not be coerced, pressured, or otherwise encouraged to embrace this ideologically moti- vated sexualization of their children. However, while the Biden Administration’s Section 1557 regulation should be altered and corrected, the lactation room requirements added in the regulation should either be consistently included in any upcoming Section 1557 rulemaking or be proposed in a new individual rule. COVID-19 Vaccination and Mask Requirements. Health care workers were praised for their self-sacrifice in caring for sick patients at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, but then they were fired if they objected to receiving COVID- 19 vaccines with or without complying with onerous masking requirements and regardless of whether they already had the virus and had gained natural immunity. With the disease being endemic and constantly mutating, vaccines and univer- sal masking in health care facilities do not have appreciable benefits in reducing COVID-19 transmission throughout the community. Moreover, more recent COVID strains pose fewer health risks than the earlier strains, and the pandemic has been declared to be at an end. CMS should: l Announce nonenforcement of the Biden Administration’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate on Medicaid and Medicare hospitals. l Revoke corresponding guidance and regulations. l Refrain from imposing general COVID-19 mask mandates on health care facilities or personnel.

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 527-529AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Mens Rea Reform Act focuses on federal criminal intent requirements, whereas the Project 2025 HHS section deals with conscience protections, religious freedom enforcement, and OCR regulations; there is no substantive policy overlap between the two."

— 494 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise provide a private right of action that would allow victims to seek legal redress in court. At the same time, when it continues to fund governmental and private enti- ties that violate these laws, HHS is spending taxpayer funds unlawfully. Under liberal Administrations, OCR has amassed a poor record of devoting resources to conscience and religious freedom enforcement and is often complicit in approving or looking the other way at the Administration’s own attacks on religious liberty. Congress should pass the Conscience Protection Act so that victims can pursue redress through courts without having to depend exclusively on OCR. In addition: l OCR should return to Trump Administration policies that initiated robust enforcement of these conscience laws. It should restore and fully fund the Office of the Deputy Director for the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division (CRFD) and ensure that it has the necessary delegations from the Secretary to enforce these laws. The Secretary should give adequate delegations to OCR to pursue enforcement of conscience laws, including RFRA, and require all HHS components that provide funding or grants to cooperate with OCR CRFD investigations. The Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, and principals in other HHS divisions should endorse the remedial measures recommended by OCR CRFD and limit territorial objections and slow-down attempts by other divisional officials including OGC. HHS should withdraw funding from any violating entities that refuse to correct their behavior, and OCR CRFD should work with ASFR to ensure that all grant announcements and instruments inform grantees and applicants of their obligations to comply with federal health care conscience laws specifically as a condition of obtaining or maintaining their funding. l A draft OCR RFRA and religious freedom rule from the Trump Administration should be issued and finalized. These regulations would provide a clear process for OCR’s enforcement in coordination with other HHS divisions and existing HHS grants regulations. l HHS should reestablish waivers for state and child welfare agencies for religious exemptions, especially for faith-based adoption and foster care agencies. It should also rescind subjective case-by-case eval- uations for religious and faith-based organizations that request religious exemptions. These case-by-case determinations are currently coordinated with ACF and OCR. The recommended waivers should be granted to all states and agencies that request them, and OCR memos finding that RFRA would be violated if the waivers are not granted should be restored. — 495 — Department of Health and Human Services l HHS should restore OCR authority to review requests for and render opinions on the application of RFRA to requests for religious accommodation of people, families, and doctors who cannot in good conscience take or administer vaccines, including those made or tested with aborted fetal cell lines. l HHS should restore Section 1557, Section 504, and other OCR regulations and fix guidance documents. In 2020, the Trump Administration’s OCR published regulations under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act that restored the agency’s enforcement of that law to the limits of its statutory text, deferred to the ACA’s widespread use of a binary biological conception of sex discrimination, and specified that the regulation must comply with the religious exemption and abortion neutrality clauses in Title IX from which it is derived as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and other laws. Courts blocked core provisions of that rule from going into effect. In 2022, the Biden Administration proposed to reinstate a rule contradicting the scope of the statute and imposing nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. It is expected that this rule will be finalized in 2023 even though several courts have issued rulings against the interpretation on which it is based. l OCR should return its enforcement of sex discrimination to the statutory framework of Section 1557 and Title IX. Specifically, it should: 1. Remove all guidance issued under the Biden Administration concerning sexual orientation and gender identity under Section 1557, particularly the May 2021 announcement of enforcement82 and March 2022 statement threatening states that protect minors from genital mutilation.83 2. Issue a general statement of policy specifying that it will not enforce any prohibition on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in the Section 1557 regulation and that it will prioritize compliance with the First Amendment, RFRA, and federal conscience laws in any case implicating those claims. DOJ should commit to defending these actions aggressively against inevitable court challenges, including under cases such as Heckler v. Chaney.84

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. Biggs, Andy

Coercion and Sexual Abuse Free Environment Act

119/hr/6732

Monitor Accountability Act

119/hr/8365

TRUE Accountability Act

119/hr/8466

Back to All Bills