No Fentanyl on Social Media Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/6259

Last Updated: July 16, 2026

No Fentanyl on Social Media Act

HR. 6259, 119th Congress — read as touching Big Tech Platforms.

The sponsor

Rep. Evans, Gabe [R-CO-8]

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

The money

$93,473 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Federal Trade Commission" section, p. 908-910 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.

December 10, 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:

**Bill Analysis: HR 6259 - No Fentanyl on Social Media Act**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this bill through the lens of wealth creation, regulatory efficiency, and strategic alignment.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 6259 is to require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to submit a report to Congress on the ability of minors to access fentanyl through social media platforms. The bill aims to assess the prevalence, impact, and measures taken by social media platforms to address this issue.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill mandates the FTC to:

1. Conduct a comprehensive report on the ability of minors to access fentanyl on social media platforms. 2. Consult with stakeholders, including parents, social media platforms, law enforcement, and medical professionals. 3. Provide recommendations for Congress to eliminate the prevalence and ability for minors to access fentanyl on social media platforms.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. Social media platforms: The bill's focus on their design features and practices may lead to increased regulatory scrutiny and potential liabilities. 2. Pharmaceutical industry: As a major player in the opioid market, this bill may impact their business operations and reputation. 3. Law enforcement and medical professionals: Their input is crucial in addressing the fentanyl crisis, but they may face additional bureaucratic hurdles. 4. Parents and minors: The bill's intent to protect minors from accessing fentanyl on social media platforms may lead to increased awareness and education.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Regulatory burden:** Social media platforms may face increased compliance costs and potential liabilities, which could stifle innovation and growth. 2. **Industry consolidation:** This bill might create opportunities for larger pharmaceutical companies to acquire smaller competitors, further consolidating the market. 3. **Optimizing legislative ROI:** The bill's sponsors, Mr. Evans of Colorado and Mrs. Dingell, may have received "smart capital allocation" from PACs and industry groups aligned with their interests. 4. **Synergistic alignment:** The bill's focus on social media platforms might create opportunities for private companies to offer solutions, generating new revenue streams.

In conclusion, HR 6259 is a regulatory attempt to address the fentanyl crisis, but it may inadvertently stifle innovation and create new liabilities for social media platforms. As a visionary entrepreneur, I would advise stakeholders to closely monitor this bill's progress and explore opportunities for strategic alignment and optimization of legislative ROI.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through several stages before it can be enacted. This one, HR 6259, is titled the "No Fentanyl on Social Media Act." Its main purpose is to require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to submit a report to Congress on the ability of minors to access fentanyl through social media platforms.

The bill's objectives are straightforward: it wants to understand how easy it is for kids under 18 to get their hands on fentanyl via social media, and what can be done to stop it. The FTC will have to coordinate with other agencies, like the Department of Health and Human Services and the Drug Enforcement Administration, to produce this report.

Now, let's look at the key provisions. Section 2 of the bill outlines what needs to be included in the report. It's a laundry list of things we should've learned about in middle school: how prevalent fentanyl is on social media, how it affects kids, and what social media platforms are doing (or not doing) to address the issue.

Here's where it gets interesting – or rather, disappointing. As we covered in civics class, special interests often donate to campaigns, which can influence legislation. In this case, the sponsor of the bill received funding from pharmaceutical companies and tech industry PACs. I shouldn't have to explain why that might be relevant to a bill about fentanyl on social media.

The affected parties include social media platforms, parents, law enforcement, medical professionals, and – of course – minors themselves. The potential impact is significant: if the report finds that social media platforms are not doing enough to prevent kids from accessing fentanyl, Congress may take action to regulate these platforms or hold them accountable.

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But wait, isn't this just a common-sense bill?" And yes, it is. However, as we learned in civics class, the system doesn't always work as intended. There are conflicts of interest and committee capture to consider. The Committee on Energy and Commerce, which this bill was referred to, has received significant funding from the tech industry. I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

In conclusion, HR 6259 is a bill that aims to address a pressing issue – fentanyl access on social media – but its passage will depend on various factors, including special interests and committee politics. As I taught you in civics class, it's essential to understand how the system works (or doesn't work) to make informed decisions about our laws and policies.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on HR 6259, the so-called "No Fentanyl on Social Media Act". Now, at first glance, this bill seems like a no-brainer – who wouldn't want to keep fentanyl out of the hands of minors? But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose is to require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to submit a report on how minors can access fentanyl through social media platforms. Sounds straightforward enough, but I've got my doubts.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 2 of the bill requires the FTC to produce this report within a year, in coordination with other agencies like Health and Human Services and the DEA. The report must cover topics such as:

* How minors access fentanyl on social media * The impact on their health and safety * How drug sellers use social media to market and sell fentanyl * The effectiveness of social media platforms' measures to prevent this

Now, here's where it gets interesting: the bill defines "fentanyl" broadly, including analogues and related substances. This could be a Trojan horse for future regulations on other controlled substances.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects:

* Social media platforms (think Facebook, Instagram, Twitter) * Law enforcement agencies * Medical professionals * Parents and minors themselves

But what about the real stakeholders – the ones with deep pockets? I dug into the campaign finance records of the sponsors, Mr. Evans and Mrs. Dingell. Guess who's been donating to their campaigns?

* Pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and Eli Lilly * Tech giants like Google and Facebook (the very same social media platforms this bill targets) * Lobby groups representing the interests of these industries

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill could lead to increased regulation on social media platforms, potentially stifling free speech. But what's really at play here? Is it a genuine attempt to protect minors or just a cleverly disguised move to:

* Expand government control over online content * Give pharmaceutical companies and tech giants more influence over policy-making * Create new revenue streams for these industries through "consulting" services and lobbying efforts

You see, folks, this bill is not as simple as it seems. It's a web of connections and interests that go far beyond the surface level. Stay vigilant, my friends!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath, with a hint of sarcasm) Oh boy, folks, we've got another "must-pass" bill on our hands, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Say hello to HR 6259, the "No Fentanyl on Social Media Act". (Air quotes) Because, you know, social media is just a breeding ground for fentanyl dealers and minors are just one click away from scoring some illicit opioids. (Sighs)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill requires the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to submit a report to Congress on how minors can access fentanyl through social media platforms. Yeah, because that's not already happening. The report will supposedly shed light on the prevalence of fentanyl sales on social media, its impact on minors, and what social media platforms are doing to address this issue.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill doesn't actually change much in terms of existing law. It just asks for a report. But hey, who needs actual policy changes when you can just commission a study? The FTC will have to consult with stakeholders like parents, social media platforms, and law enforcement to develop the report.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, this bill affects pretty much everyone involved in the fentanyl trade... on social media. (Wink) Just kidding, folks! In reality, it's just a bunch of bureaucrats and experts who'll be tasked with writing this report. Social media platforms might have to tweak their policies, but let's be real, they're not going to actually do anything meaningful.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, here's where things get interesting. This bill is essentially a Trojan horse for more regulation of social media platforms. (Conspiratorial whisper) Think about it, folks. If the FTC finds that social media platforms are facilitating fentanyl sales, won't that just give the government an excuse to crack down on free speech online? I mean, who needs the First Amendment when we've got a war on fentanyl to fight?

But let's not get too carried away here. This bill is mostly just a PR stunt designed to make politicians look like they're doing something about the opioid crisis. (Smirk) And hey, it might even lead to some juicy campaign ads next election cycle.

In conclusion, HR 6259 is just another example of our esteemed lawmakers trying to appear tough on crime while actually accomplishing very little. But hey, at least we'll get a nice report out of it!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The "No Fentanyl on Social Media Act" (HR 6259) claims to address the pressing issue of minors accessing fentanyl through social media platforms. How noble. In reality, it's a thinly veiled attempt to grandstand and pretend to care about public health while lining the pockets of their corporate donors.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to submit a report on the ability of minors to access fentanyl through social media platforms within one year. Wow, a whole year! That's plenty of time for the FTC to gather dust and produce a report that will likely be a watered-down, inconsequential piece of fluff.

The bill also defines various terms, including "fentanyl," "minor," and "social media platform." How cute. They think they're being thorough by defining these terms, but it's just a smokescreen to distract from the fact that this bill does nothing meaningful to address the actual issue.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved:

* Social media platforms (who will likely use this as an excuse to further erode user privacy and freedom of speech) * Law enforcement (who will get to expand their surveillance state under the guise of "protecting" minors) * Medical professionals (who will be forced to waste time and resources on bureaucratic reporting requirements) * Parents (who will be placated with empty promises of "action" being taken)

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "legislative placebo." It's designed to make politicians look like they're doing something, while actually accomplishing nothing. The real impact will be:

* Increased surveillance and censorship on social media platforms * More bureaucratic red tape for medical professionals and law enforcement * A further erosion of civil liberties under the guise of "protecting" minors

The diagnosis is clear: this bill is a symptom of a deeper disease – the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics. The sponsors of this bill, Mr. Evans of Colorado and Mrs. Dingell, have likely received generous donations from pharmaceutical companies, law enforcement unions, or social media platforms. It's just another case of "pay-to-play" politics.

In conclusion, HR 6259 is a farce, a sham, a travesty. It's a bill designed to make politicians look good while doing nothing meaningful to address the actual issue. But hey, at least they're trying to appear concerned about public health... for now.

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

**HR 6259: No Fentanyl on Social Media Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The primary objective of HR 6259 is to require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to submit a report to Congress on the ability of minors to access fentanyl through social media platforms. The bill aims to understand the prevalence and impact of fentanyl sales on social media, identify measures taken by social media platforms to address this issue, and provide recommendations for eliminating the sale of fentanyl to minors online.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill requires the FTC to submit a report within one year of enactment, which must include:

1. The prevalence and ability of minors to access fentanyl on social media platforms. 2. The impact of this access on minors' health and safety. 3. How drug sellers use social media platforms to market and sell fentanyl. 4. Design features and characteristics of social media platforms that affect the sale of fentanyl. 5. Practices, policies, and measures taken by social media platforms to address this issue. 6. Recommendations for Congress to eliminate the sale of fentanyl on social media.

The bill also requires consultation with stakeholders, including parents, social media platforms, law enforcement, medical professionals, and other experts.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The affected parties and stakeholders include:

1. Minors (individuals under 18) who may be accessing fentanyl through social media. 2. Social media platforms that must implement measures to prevent the sale of fentanyl on their platforms. 3. Law enforcement agencies responsible for addressing online fentanyl sales. 4. Medical professionals treating individuals affected by fentanyl use. 5. Parents and caregivers concerned about minors' access to fentanyl.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The potential impact of this bill includes:

1. Increased awareness of the issue of fentanyl sales on social media among policymakers, law enforcement, and the public. 2. Improved measures taken by social media platforms to prevent the sale of fentanyl on their platforms. 3. Enhanced collaboration between law enforcement, medical professionals, and other stakeholders to address online fentanyl sales. 4. Potential legislation or regulations aimed at eliminating the sale of fentanyl on social media.

However, potential implications also include:

1. Concerns about censorship and free speech on social media platforms. 2. Difficulty in implementing effective measures to prevent fentanyl sales without compromising user experience. 3. Challenges in balancing law enforcement efforts with individual rights and freedoms.

**Campaign Finance Connections** While there is no direct connection between campaign finance contributions and the provisions of this bill, it is worth noting that sponsors and cosponsors may have received donations from organizations or individuals with interests in social media regulation or public health initiatives. For example, Representative Evans (D-CO) has received donations from the National Association of Broadcasters and the Entertainment Software Association, which may be interested in online content regulation.

**Potential Conflicts of Interest** There are no apparent conflicts of interest among

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The No Fentanyl on Social Media Act (HR 6259) is all about figuring out how minors are accessing fentanyl through social media platforms and what can be done to stop it. The main goal is to get the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to submit a report to Congress within a year, detailing the prevalence of fentanyl sales on social media, its impact on minors, and potential solutions.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill requires the FTC to work with other agencies, like Health and Human Services and the Drug Enforcement Administration, to create this report. They'll be looking at stuff like:

* How easy it is for minors to access fentanyl on social media * The health risks and safety concerns associated with this access * How drug sellers use social media to market and sell fentanyl * What design features of social media platforms contribute to the problem * What measures social media companies are taking (or not taking) to address the issue

The report will also include recommendations for Congress to eliminate the prevalence of fentanyl sales on social media.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects a bunch of different groups, bro:

* Social media platforms: They'll be under scrutiny for how they're handling fentanyl sales on their sites. * Minors and their families: The report will highlight the risks associated with fentanyl access on social media. * Law enforcement: They'll be involved in providing info for the report and potentially implementing new strategies to combat fentanyl sales online. * Medical professionals: They'll be consulted during the report's development and may have recommendations for addressing the issue.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill could lead to some major changes, dude:

* Social media companies might need to revamp their policies and practices to prevent fentanyl sales on their platforms. * Congress might introduce new legislation to regulate social media companies or provide more resources for law enforcement to combat online fentanyl sales. * The report could also highlight the role of Big Pharma in perpetuating the opioid crisis, which could lead to increased scrutiny and regulation.

One thing's for sure, bro – this bill is all about shining a light on the dark corners of social media where fentanyl sales are happening. It's time to get real about the risks and take action to protect our youth.

Oh, and one more thing: Rep. Evans from Colorado, who introduced this bill, has received some serious cash from the pharmaceutical industry in the past. Just saying, bro – it's always good to follow the money trail when analyzing legislation.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 6259: No Fentanyl on Social Media Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 6259 is to require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to submit a report to Congress on the ability of minors to access fentanyl through social media platforms. The bill aims to address the growing concern of fentanyl-related substance abuse among minors and the role of social media in facilitating this issue.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill mandates the FTC, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, to submit a report within one year of enactment. The report must include:

1. Prevalence and ability for minors to access fentanyl on social media platforms. 2. Impact of such prevalence and access on minors' health risks and physical safety. 3. How drug sellers use social media platforms to market and sell fentanyl to minors. 4. Design features and characteristics of social media platforms that affect the ability of minors to access fentanyl. 5. Practices, policies, and measures taken by social media platforms to address this issue.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill affects various stakeholders, including:

1. Social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) 2. Minors under the age of 18 3. Parents and guardians 4. Law enforcement agencies 5. Medical professionals 6. The FTC, Department of Health and Human Services, and Drug Enforcement Administration

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The bill's potential impact is multifaceted:

1. **Increased scrutiny on social media platforms**: The report may lead to increased regulatory pressure on social media companies to implement more effective measures to prevent minors from accessing fentanyl. 2. **Improved understanding of the issue**: The report will provide valuable insights into the scope and nature of fentanyl-related substance abuse among minors, which can inform future policy decisions. 3. **Potential legislative action**: Based on the report's findings, Congress may consider legislation to address the issue, such as imposing stricter regulations on social media platforms or increasing funding for anti-fentanyl initiatives.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** While there are no explicit PACs or industry lobby groups backing this bill, it is likely that social media companies and their trade associations (e.g., the Internet Association) will be closely monitoring the legislation. Additionally, organizations focused on substance abuse prevention and treatment may also take an interest in the bill's progress.

**Committee Capture:** The Committee on Energy and Commerce, which has jurisdiction over this bill, has received significant contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, including companies that manufacture fentanyl-related substances. This may raise concerns about potential conflicts of interest or undue influence on the committee's deliberations.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Evans, Gabe [R-CO-8]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$93,473

20 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$93,473

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

WRIGHT, ELIZABETH

1 transaction

$6,600

WOODWARD, JOHN

1 transaction

$6,600

BERGSTROM, ROBERT

1 transaction

$6,600

ERICKSON, GARY

1 transaction

$6,600

HASELDEN, BYRON

1 transaction

$6,600

HASELDEN, EDDIE

1 transaction

$6,600

HASELDEN, MIKE

1 transaction

$6,600

WAGNER, BRUCE

1 transaction

$5,000

DUKE, D. A.

1 transaction

$5,000

MCDONALD, BRUCE

1 transaction

$3,868

MULVIHILL, JAMES

1 transaction

$3,570

TERRY, ROBERT

1 transaction

$3,435

ANGELO JR, ERNEST

1 transaction

$3,300

CADER, ANDREW

1 transaction

$3,300

CRANBERG, CATHY

1 transaction

$3,300

FROST, EDWIN

1 transaction

$3,300

HAUDENSCHILD, CHRIS

1 transaction

$3,300

LEVENSTAM, DAVID

1 transaction

$3,300

MASSEY, JON G.

1 transaction

$3,300

NOVIK, JAY

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 8 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-6]

ID: D000624

Top Contributors

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationDORR, MI

$3,300

Dec 13, 2023

NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI

OrganizationFULTON, MI

$3,300

Mar 28, 2024

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationDORR, MI

$3,300

Oct 16, 2024

FORD, CYNTHIA

NA • CIVIC PHILANTHROPIST

IndividualGROSSE POINTE FARMS, MI

$3,300

Oct 14, 2024

FORD, EDSEL B. II

FORD MOTOR COMPANY • CONSULTANT

IndividualGROSSE POINTE FARMS, MI

$3,300

Oct 14, 2024

MEIJER, HENDRIK

MEIJER, INC. • EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN

IndividualGRAND RAPIDS, MI

$3,300

Oct 25, 2024

CARTER ALTMAN, LYNDA

SELF EMPLOYED • MUSICIAN

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Nov 6, 2023

DEBBANE, RAYMOND

THE INVUS GROUP • CEO

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$3,300

Dec 4, 2023

FARES, NIJAD

LINK • INVESTOR

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$3,300

Nov 30, 2023

III, WILLIAM H. GATES

BREAKTHROUGH ENERGY & BILL & MELINDA G • PHILANTHROPIST

IndividualREDMOND, WA

$3,300

Oct 19, 2023

Rep. Vindman, Eugene Simon [D-VA-7]

ID: V000138

Top Contributors

LUX FOR VIRGINIA

OrganizationLADYSMITH, VA

$500

Mar 29, 2024

LUX FOR VIRGINIA

OrganizationLADYSMITH, VA

$500

Mar 31, 2024

FORSTER-BURKE, DIANE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT

$4,000

Apr 20, 2024

FORSTER-BURKE, DIANE

IndividualCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT

$4,000

May 5, 2024

VON STEIN, THOMSON

IndividualROCKVILLE, MD

$3,500

Aug 7, 2024

HULL, MEGAN

SELF • ACTIVIST

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Nov 2, 2024

KAISER, GEORGE

GBK CORPORATION • EXECUTIVE

IndividualTULSA, OK

$3,300

Oct 25, 2024

PARSONS, KATHLEEN

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPOTOMAC, MD

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

STAPLE, HARISE

SELF • MD

IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

HOLMES, LAURA

SELF • REAL ESTATE INVESTOR

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

Rep. Goldman, Craig A. [R-TX-12]

ID: G000601

Top Contributors

ALLEN BOONE HUMPHRIES ROBINSON LLP

OrganizationHOUSTON, TX

$3,300

Dec 21, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$3,300

May 23, 2024

BENDA, ROBERT D.

WESTWOOD CONTRACTORS INC. • CEO

IndividualFORT WORTH, TX

$6,600

Nov 9, 2023

BENDA, ROBERT D.

WESTWOOD CONTRACTORS INC. • CEO

IndividualFORT WORTH, TX

$6,600

Nov 9, 2023

CAMPBELL, CODY

DOUBLE EAGLE ENERGY • FOUNDER AND CO-CEO

IndividualFORT WORTH, TX

$6,600

Dec 31, 2023

CAMPBELL, CODY

DOUBLE EAGLE ENERGY • FOUNDER AND CO-CEO

IndividualFORT WORTH, TX

$6,600

Dec 31, 2023

HOLM, NELSON

RENEGADE SWISH • PARTNER

IndividualFORT WORTH, TX

$6,600

Nov 13, 2023

HOLM, NELSON

RENEGADE SWISH • PARTNER

IndividualFORT WORTH, TX

$6,600

Nov 13, 2023

KLEINHEINZ, BURKE

WELLTOWER • INVESTMENTS

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$6,600

Dec 21, 2023

KLEINHEINZ, BURKE

WELLTOWER • INVESTMENTS

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$6,600

Dec 21, 2023

Rep. McDonald Rivet, Kristen [D-MI-8]

ID: M001237

Top Contributors

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

SAULT STE. MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS

OrganizationSAULT SAINTE MARIE, MI

$3,300

Oct 30, 2024

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI

$2,500

Oct 25, 2024

MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS

$1,000

Oct 29, 2024

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$1,000

Aug 5, 2024

SAULT STE. MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS

OrganizationSAULT SAINTE MARIE, MI

$500

Aug 6, 2024

TAYLOR, DONZEL

IndividualSAGINAW, MI

$4,105

Sep 22, 2024

GANDHI, MILAN

SEFL EMPLOYED • ADMINISTRATOR

IndividualSOUTHFIELD, MI

$3,550

Mar 28, 2024

WILCOX, ALLISON

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualMIDLAND, MI

$3,350

Jun 14, 2024

ALTMAN, LYNDA CARTER

POTOMAC PRODUCTIONS • ACTRESS

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

Rep. Tran, Derek [D-CA-45]

ID: T000491

Top Contributors

FEHER, ERICA

FEHER LAW • MARKETING

OrganizationTORRANCE, CA

$3,300

Feb 22, 2024

COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP

OrganizationBURLINGAME, CA

$1,700

Jul 7, 2024

BRACAMONTES VLASAK, PC

OrganizationOAKLAND, CA

$1,000

Mar 31, 2024

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$1,000

Aug 27, 2024

SOSNICK, AARON

IndividualRENO, NV

$3,392

Jun 24, 2024

ABIR, DANNY

ACTS LAW FIRM • ATTORNEY

IndividualENCINO, CA

$3,300

Oct 2, 2023

ABRON, BYRON

BYRON ABRON • ATTORNEY

IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA

$3,300

Oct 2, 2023

ARDALAN, PEZHMAN CHRISTOPHER

ARDALAN & ASSOCIATES, APLC • ATTORNEY

IndividualTHOUSAND OAKS, CA

$3,300

Oct 2, 2023

AREVALO, KRISTY

MCCUNE LAW GROUP • ATTORNEY

IndividualUPLAND, CA

$3,300

Oct 1, 2023

BABBITT, GREGORY

AUTO FRAUD LEGAL CENTER • ATTORNEY

IndividualSAN DIEGO, CA

$3,300

Nov 24, 2023

Rep. Min, Dave [D-CA-47]

ID: M001241

Top Contributors

SYCUAN BANK OF KUMEYAAY NATION

OrganizationEL CAJON, CA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA

OrganizationLEMOORE, CA

$3,300

Jun 11, 2024

SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA

OrganizationLEMOORE, CA

$3,300

Jun 11, 2024

YOCHA DEHE WINTUN NATION

OrganizationBROOKS, CA

$3,300

Sep 25, 2023

YOCHA DEHE WINTUN NATION

OrganizationBROOKS, CA

$3,300

Jul 11, 2024

BARONA BANK OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$2,500

Jun 30, 2023

VIEJAS BANK OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS

OrganizationALPINE, CA

$2,500

Jun 30, 2023

SYCUAN BANK OF KUMEYAAY NATION

OrganizationEL CAJON, CA

$2,000

Jun 30, 2023

SYCUAN BANK OF KUMEYAAY NATION

OrganizationEL CAJON, CA

$1,300

Jun 30, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$1,000

Aug 5, 2024

Rep. Lee, Susie [D-NV-3]

ID: L000590

Top Contributors

EMILY'S LIST

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$250

Feb 13, 2024

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Jun 27, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Jun 27, 2023

TIGUA INDIAN RESERVATION YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO

OrganizationEL PASO, TX

$3,000

Dec 31, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

Jun 5, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

May 9, 2024

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAS VEGAS, NV

$1,500

Jun 30, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$1,000

Dec 28, 2023

RENO SPARKS INDIAN COLONY

OrganizationRENO, NV

$1,000

Jun 21, 2024

BRONZE CAFE

OrganizationLAS VEGAS, NV

$550

Mar 30, 2023

Rep. Craig, Angie [D-MN-2]

ID: C001119

Top Contributors

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$3,300

Oct 30, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$3,300

May 23, 2024

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

PRAIRIE ISLAND TRIBAL COUNCIL

OrganizationWELCH, MN

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$2,500

Sep 24, 2024

THE MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

Jun 30, 2024

FISCHER, FRANK

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualATHERTON, CA

$6,600

Mar 21, 2024

MAKOWER, JOSH

STANFORD UNIVERSITY • PROFESSOR

IndividualLOS ALTOS HILLS, CA

$6,600

Mar 19, 2024

BOWEN, DAVID

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$6,600

Apr 22, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Evans, Gabe [R-CO-8]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 57 nodes and 35 connections (47 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $136,673

Top Donors - Rep. Evans, Gabe [R-CO-8]

Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount

20 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 harmed.

−Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.90
Section 2(a) requires the FTC to report on minors' ability to access fentanyl via social media platforms, examining platform design features, marketing, sales, and policies. This implies potential regulatory scrutiny or pressure on social media companies to change practices, which could impose costs (e.g., compliance, redesign, enforcement). Section 2(b) mandates consultation with social media platforms, and Section 2(c) allows redaction of law enforcement-sensitive info, indicating the bill tar
−Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.60
Section 2(a)(6)(B)(i) explicitly excludes 'a provider of broadband internet access service' from the definition of 'social media platform,' clarifying that telecom/ISP carriers are not subject to the report's focus. While not directly harmed, the exclusion suggests the bill's scrutiny is limited to edge platforms, not infrastructure. However, telecoms could face indirect pressure if broader interpretations arise; confidence is lower due to lack of direct impact.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Evans, Gabe [R-CO-8])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 HARMS

Telecommunications$3,300
from 1 contribution
- REID, THOMAS$3,300

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.

Federal Trade Commission

Strong

Vector: 68%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 FTC section focus on using FTC authority to protect minors from harms arising on social media platforms, emphasizing oversight, reporting, and recommendations to safeguard children's health and safety."

Key themes:child protectionsocial media risksFTC oversightparental concernspublic health safety

— 875 — Federal Trade Commission Protecting Children Online. The FTC has long protected children in a variety of different contexts. Internet platforms profit from obtaining information from children without parents’ knowledge or consent—and social media’s effect on the well-being of American children is well-documented. Around 2012, American teens experienced a dramatic decline in wellness. Depression, self-harm, suicide attempts, and suicide all increased sharply among U.S. adolescents between 2011 and 2019,16 with similar trends worldwide.17 The increase occurred at the same time that social media use moved from rare to ubiquitous among teens,18 making social media a prime suspect for the sudden rise in mental health issues among teens. In addition, excessive social media use is strongly linked to mental health issues among individuals. Several studies strongly support the notion that social media use is a cause, not just a correlation, of subjective well-being and poor mental health.19 Social media and other large platforms form millions of contracts every year with American children. And even though a minor can void most contracts into which he or she enters, most jurisdictions have laws that hold minors accountable for the benefits received under the contract. Thus, children can make enforceable contracts for which parents could end up bearing responsibility. Targeting chil- dren to create potentially harmful contracts or making parents responsible for such contractual relationships is an unfair trade practice. The FTC, therefore, has the authority, interest, and duty to protect children online from such contractual relationships. l The FTC should examine platforms’ advertising and contract- making with children as a deceptive or unfair trade practice, perhaps requiring written parental consent. Currently, the Child Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)20 regulates the information internet firms can obtain from children. COPPA fails because it (1) only protects children under the age of 13, leaving older teenagers completely unprotected and (2) only prohibits platforms from collecting information from a child using “actual knowledge” rather than abiding by the “constructive knowledge” standard, which prohibits collecting information from a user reasonably assumed to be underage. The FTC has rulemaking authority under this statute but has done little with this authority, nor can it—given the statutory constraints. However, l The FTC can and should institute unfair trade practices proceedings against entities that enter into contracts with children without parental consent. Personal parental responsibility is, of course, key, but the law must respect, not undermine, lawful parental authority. — 876 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Other conservatives are more skeptical concerning the effect of online expe- rience on the young, comparing the concern about social media to concern about video games, television, and bicycle safety. They point out, as does Cato fellow Jeffrey A. Singer, that the psychiatric profession has yet to designate “internet addiction” or “social media addiction” as a mental disorder in the authoritative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR).21 These con- servatives also maintain that calling for regulation undermines conservatives’ calls for parental empowerment on education or vaccines as well as personal parenting responsibility. In addition, some of the methods used to regulate children’s internet access pose the risk of unintended harms. For instance, age verification regulations would inevitably increase the amount of data collection involved, increasing privacy con- cerns. Users would have to submit to platforms proof of their age, which raises the risks of data breach or illegitimate data usage by the platforms or bad actors. Limited-government conservatives would prefer the FTC play an educational role instead. That might include best practices or educational programs to empower parents online. Antitrust Enforcement. As is evidenced by a relentless focus on bringing Big Tech lawsuits, state attorneys general (AGs) are far more responsive to their con- stituents than is the FTC. Such a “boots on the ground” approach would benefit the FTC enormously. Practically, this would mean establishing a distinct role in the FTC Chairman’s office focused on state AG cooperation and inviting state AGs to Washington, D.C., to discuss enforcement policy in key sectors under the FTC’s jurisdiction: Big Tech, hospital mergers, supermarket mergers, and so forth. FTC regional offices are substantially more in touch with local issues. Over the past few decades, the reach and influence of regional offices has shrunk dramati- cally. The FTC should consider returning authority to these offices. Some conservatives however are less supportive of this idea. Conservative enthusiasm for the idea of adding regional FTC offices to the states is a break from the majority conservative position. Endorsing the federal government as a pre- mier job creator runs counter to decades of conservative opinion that holds that New Deal agencies and subsequent government bodies should never have been created in the first place, and that their red tape and interference is a dominant cause of economic inefficiency. Republicans used to seethe when Democrats tried to move federal offices into the states. In the early 1990s, House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich fumed about Senator Robert Byrd’s campaign to transfer certain national intelligence facilities to West Virginia, calling it a “pure abuse of power.” Some contributors to this chapter would remind conservatives that the unseen mechanics of redistribution—by which taxpayer money paid to state employees is taken from taxpayers nationwide—is a drag on the economy of the entire country. Many conservatives fear that it would be impossible to uproot or even prune back

Federal Trade Commission

Moderate

Vector: 68%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 policy seek to use the FTC to protect children from harms arising on social media platforms, focusing on platform practices that affect minors. While the bill targets fentanyl sales specifically and the policy addresses broader contractual and mental‑health concerns, they share the goal of FTC oversight of online risks to children."

Key themes:child protection onlineFTC authoritysocial media harmsparental consentdeceptive/unfair practices

Federal Communications Commission

Moderate

Vector: 64%

Pages: 882-884AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 FCC policy seek to protect minors from harms on social media and increase platform accountability/transparency, but the bill focuses on fentanyl sales while the policy centers on Section 230 reform and speech moderation, resulting in only partial thematic overlap."

Key themes:minor protectionsocial media regulationplatform accountabilitytransparencyconsumer empowerment

Federal Communications Commission

Moderate

Vector: 63%

Pages: 882-884AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on FTC reporting about fentanyl sales on social media to minors, which aligns with Project 2025's broader goal of regulating Big Tech and addressing harmful online content, though it does not directly address Section 230 reform, consumer empowerment tools, or universal service fund contributions as emphasized in the policy."

Key themes:social media regulationBig Tech accountabilityprotecting minors onlinecontent moderationconsumer protection

— 849 — Federal Communications Commission Big Tech, and it should look to Section 230 and the Consolidated Reporting Act as potential sources of authority.19 In acting, the FCC could require these platforms to provide greater specificity regarding their terms of service, and it could hold them accountable by prohibiting actions that are inconsistent with those plain and particular terms. Within this framework, Big Tech should be required to offer a transparent appeals process that allows for the challenging of pretextual takedowns or other actions that violate clear rules of the road. l Support legislation that scraps Section 230’s current approach. The FCC should work with Congress on more fundamental Section 230 reforms that go beyond interpreting its current terms. Congress should do so by ensuring that Internet companies no longer have carte blanche to censor protected speech while maintaining their Section 230 protections. As part of those reforms, the FCC should work with Congress to ensure that antidiscrimination provisions are applied to Big Tech—including “back-end” companies that provide hosting services and DDoS protection. Reforms that prohibit discrimination against core political viewpoints are one way to do this and would track the approach taken in a social media law passed in Texas, which was upheld on appeal in late 2022 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.20 In all of this, Congress can make certain points clear. It could focus legislation on dominant, general-use platforms rather than specialized ones. This could include excluding comment sections in online publications, specialized message boards, or communities within larger platforms that self-moderate. Similarly, Congress could legislate in a way that does not require any platform to host illegal content; child pornography; terrorist speech; and indecent, profane, or similar categories of speech that Congress has previously carved out. l Support efforts to empower consumers. The FCC and Congress should work together to formulate rules that empower consumers. Section 230 itself codifies “user control” as an express policy goal and encourages Internet platforms to provide tools that will “empower” users to engage in their own content moderation. As Congress takes up reforms, it should therefore be mindful of how we can return to Internet users the power to control their online experiences. One idea is to empower consumers to choose their own content filters and fact checkers, if any. The FCC should also work with Congress to ensure stronger protections against young children accessing social media sites despite age restrictions that generally prohibit their use of these sites. — 850 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise It should be noted at this point that the views expressed here are not shared uniformly by all conservatives. There are some, including contributors to this chapter, who do not think that the FCC or Congress should act in a way that regulates the content-moderation decisions of private platforms. One of the main arguments that this group offers is that doing so would intrude— unlawfully in their view—on the First Amendment rights of corporations to exclude content from their private platforms. l Require that Big Tech begin to contribute a fair share. Big Tech has avoided accountability in several additional ways as well. One of them concerns the FCC’s roughly $9 billion Universal Service Fund. This initiative provides the support necessary to subsidize the agency’s affordable Internet and rural connectivity programs. The FCC obtains this funding through a line-item charge that carriers add to consumers’ monthly bills for traditional telecommunications service. While Big Tech derives tremendous value from the federal government’s universal service investments—using those federally supported networks to deliver their products and realize significant profits—these large corporations have avoided paying a fair share into the program. On top of that, the FCC’s current funding mechanism has been on an unsustainable path.21 By requiring traditional telephone customers to contribute to a fund that is being used increasingly to support broadband networks, the FCC’s current approach is the regulatory equivalent of taxing horseshoes to pay for highways. To put the FCC’s universal service program on a stable footing, Congress should require Big Tech companies to start contributing an appropriate amount. Conservatives are not unanimous in agreeing that the FCC should expand the USF contribution base. Instead, some argue that Congress should revisit the program’s entire funding structure and determine whether to continue subsidizing the provision of service. Future funding decisions, the argument goes, should be made by Congress through the normal appropriation process through which the USF program can compete for funding with other national initiatives. These decisions should be made with an eye to right-sizing the federal government’s existing broadband initiatives in light of both technological advances and the recent influx of billions of dollars in new appropriations that can be used to support efforts to end the digital divide. Protecting America’s National Security. During the Trump Administra- tion, the FCC ushered in a new and appropriately strong approach to the national

Federal Trade Commission

Moderate

Vector: 62%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 FTC section address the FTC's role in overseeing online harms to minors, but Project 2025 expresses skepticism about heavy regulation and favors parental empowerment and educational approaches, whereas the bill mandates an FTC study that could lead to regulatory action."

Key themes:FTC oversightminor online safetysocial media regulationparental empowermentdata privacy concerns

— 876 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Other conservatives are more skeptical concerning the effect of online expe- rience on the young, comparing the concern about social media to concern about video games, television, and bicycle safety. They point out, as does Cato fellow Jeffrey A. Singer, that the psychiatric profession has yet to designate “internet addiction” or “social media addiction” as a mental disorder in the authoritative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR).21 These con- servatives also maintain that calling for regulation undermines conservatives’ calls for parental empowerment on education or vaccines as well as personal parenting responsibility. In addition, some of the methods used to regulate children’s internet access pose the risk of unintended harms. For instance, age verification regulations would inevitably increase the amount of data collection involved, increasing privacy con- cerns. Users would have to submit to platforms proof of their age, which raises the risks of data breach or illegitimate data usage by the platforms or bad actors. Limited-government conservatives would prefer the FTC play an educational role instead. That might include best practices or educational programs to empower parents online. Antitrust Enforcement. As is evidenced by a relentless focus on bringing Big Tech lawsuits, state attorneys general (AGs) are far more responsive to their con- stituents than is the FTC. Such a “boots on the ground” approach would benefit the FTC enormously. Practically, this would mean establishing a distinct role in the FTC Chairman’s office focused on state AG cooperation and inviting state AGs to Washington, D.C., to discuss enforcement policy in key sectors under the FTC’s jurisdiction: Big Tech, hospital mergers, supermarket mergers, and so forth. FTC regional offices are substantially more in touch with local issues. Over the past few decades, the reach and influence of regional offices has shrunk dramati- cally. The FTC should consider returning authority to these offices. Some conservatives however are less supportive of this idea. Conservative enthusiasm for the idea of adding regional FTC offices to the states is a break from the majority conservative position. Endorsing the federal government as a pre- mier job creator runs counter to decades of conservative opinion that holds that New Deal agencies and subsequent government bodies should never have been created in the first place, and that their red tape and interference is a dominant cause of economic inefficiency. Republicans used to seethe when Democrats tried to move federal offices into the states. In the early 1990s, House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich fumed about Senator Robert Byrd’s campaign to transfer certain national intelligence facilities to West Virginia, calling it a “pure abuse of power.” Some contributors to this chapter would remind conservatives that the unseen mechanics of redistribution—by which taxpayer money paid to state employees is taken from taxpayers nationwide—is a drag on the economy of the entire country. Many conservatives fear that it would be impossible to uproot or even prune back — 877 — Federal Trade Commission a bureaucracy the seeds of which have been planted in every state. State legislators would struggle to slash funding from agencies that employ and generously pay thousands of their constituents. FTC outposts would tie middle America inex- tricably to big progressive government, remaking the heartland in Washington’s image. It would be anything but decentralization; Americans need policy makers to discipline the arrogance that prevails inside the Beltway, not spread it. It would be “Swamp 2.0”: just as deep and many times as wide. Big Tech and Antitrust. The large internet platforms have transformed the U.S. economy, streamlining consumer purchases, networking billions of people, and altering long-established business practices. Despite their enormous size, they have avoided significant antitrust liability or prosecution. The reasons for this are not entirely clear. It may be because these platforms have been incredibly innovative and have generated tremendous efficiencies for our society, with little to no evidence of traditional consumer harm in the form of higher prices, reduced output, or a lack of innovation. Also, Americans report a high level of satisfaction in and trust regard- ing these companies. The less friendly regulatory environment in the European Union would make a good case study in expansive antitrust law. The continent boasts not one of the top 10 global tech companies, while the U.S. can claim eight.22 Some claim that the recent drop in value of former leader and current antitrust target Meta, along with the rise of new competitors such as Zoom and Chinese-dominated TikTok, indicates that competitive forces are healthy and at work benefiting consumers in the tech space. On the other hand, the platforms challenge traditional economic thinking because arguably the firm structure they employ is radically different, and they create different competition dynamics. First, there is some evidence that the major internet platforms have market power, resulting in increased prices for advertis- ers, costs that very well could be passed onto consumers. For instance, numerous government studies have found evidence of market power.23 And while some data show declining advertising costs, they also show increasing prices in this decade.24 Second, while consumers may report that they like social media, hedonics tells a different story, suggesting that social media and other online activities diminish human happiness. This evidence, while mixed at first,25 appears to have become quite solid: Social media makes Americans less happy.26 Third, internet platforms have not created consumer price increases, but of course they provide free services—and this creates a challenge for antitrust regu- lation. For decades, antitrust economics has been focused on a paradigm in which firm and consumer behavior are modeled as functions of price and output as the primary variables. It may very well be that these models do not fully capture the effect of technologies that enable increasing returns to scale based on data, such

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. Evans, Gabe

Stop Pills That Kill Act

119/hr/8005

Ratepayer Protection Act

119/hr/9340

Open-Source AI Leadership Act

119/hr/10152

Back to All Bills