Safer GAMING Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/6265

Last Updated: February 22, 2026

Safer GAMING Act

HR. 6265, 119th Congress — read as touching Big Tech Platforms.

The sponsor

Rep. Kean, Thomas H. [R-NJ-7]

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

The money

$83,100 raised

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

The alignment

95% 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 in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) 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 6265 - Safer GAMING Act**

As a seasoned observer of the legislative landscape, I'll dissect this bill with surgical precision, focusing on its implications for my interests and those of like-minded stakeholders.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Safer GAMING Act aims to regulate online video game providers, requiring them to implement safeguards for minors. The bill's primary objective is to limit communication between minors and adult users in interactive online games.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

1. **Safeguard Requirements**: Online video game providers must offer parents controls to restrict communication between their minor children and other users. 2. **Definitions**: The bill establishes definitions for "adult user," "covered user," "interactive online video game," and "online video game provider." 3. **Enforcement**: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will enforce the provisions, with states also empowered to bring civil actions on behalf of their residents.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

1. **Online Video Game Providers**: Companies like Epic Games, Activision Blizzard, and Valve Corporation will need to adapt their platforms to comply with the new regulations. 2. **Parents and Minors**: The bill's provisions aim to protect minors from potential online harm, but may also limit their freedom of expression and interaction. 3. **Industry Associations**: Groups like the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) may lobby against the bill or advocate for modifications.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

1. **Increased Regulatory Burden**: Online video game providers will need to invest in new technologies and processes to comply with the safeguards, potentially increasing costs and reducing innovation. 2. **Market Consolidation**: Smaller game developers might struggle to adapt to the regulations, leading to consolidation in the industry and reduced competition. 3. **Potential for Overregulation**: The bill's broad definitions and FTC enforcement may lead to overreach, stifling creativity and limiting online interactions.

**Smart Capital Allocation** The ESA has already expressed concerns about the bill, indicating that they will likely lobby against it or push for modifications. I would advise investing in lobbying efforts to shape the final version of the bill, potentially reducing its regulatory impact on our interests.

**Efficient Rent-Seeking** In this case, the bill's sponsors and cosponsors seem more focused on appeasing vocal interest groups rather than considering the broader economic implications. This presents an opportunity for us to optimize our legislative ROI by targeting key lawmakers and shaping the narrative around the bill.

Overall, HR 6265 represents a potential threat to my interests and those of like-minded stakeholders in the tech industry. By analyzing its provisions and implications, we can develop strategies to mitigate its impact and ensure that our voices are heard in the legislative process.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down the Safer GAMING Act, HR 6265. As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill becomes a law when it passes both the House and Senate and is signed by the President. This one was introduced by Representative Kean and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Safer GAMING Act aims to require online video game providers to implement safeguards for minors, allowing parents to limit communication between their children and other users, including adults. The bill's primary objective is to enhance online safety and protect minors from potential harm.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** As we covered in civics class, bills often amend or create new laws. In this case, the Safer GAMING Act would:

* Define key terms like "adult user," "covered user," and "interactive online video game" * Require online video game providers to implement safeguards for minors, including features that allow parents to limit communication between their children and other users * Mandate that these safeguards be accessible, easy-to-use, and enabled by default on accounts of covered users * Authorize the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce compliance with these requirements

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The Safer GAMING Act would impact:

* Online video game providers, who would need to implement new safeguards and features * Parents and guardians, who would gain more control over their children's online interactions * Minors, who would be protected from potential harm through these new safeguards * The FTC, which would be responsible for enforcing compliance with the bill's requirements

**Potential Impact & Implications:** As we learned in civics class, laws can have unintended consequences. In this case:

* The Safer GAMING Act could lead to increased costs for online video game providers, potentially impacting their business models * Some might argue that the bill infringes upon freedom of speech or expression, as it restricts communication between users * Others might see this as a necessary step to protect minors and promote online safety

Now, I shouldn't have to explain this, but... As we covered in civics class, special interests often influence legislation. In this case, the sponsor received funding from various tech and gaming industry PACs, which might relate to the bill's provisions. It's essential to consider these connections when evaluating the motivations behind a bill.

Remember when we learned about checks and balances? This bill is an example of how Congress can use its authority to regulate industries and protect citizens. However, it also highlights potential conflicts of interest and committee capture, as the Committee on Energy and Commerce might have ties to the very industries they're regulating.

I hope this summary has been... enlightening.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers! Gather 'round, for I've got the scoop on HR 6265, the so-called "Safer GAMING Act". Now, at first glance, this bill seems like a harmless attempt to protect minors from online predators. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of this bill is to require online video game providers to implement safeguards for minors, allowing parents to limit communication between their kids and other users. Sounds noble enough, right? However, I believe this is just a Trojan horse for something more sinister.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 2 of the bill defines key terms like "adult user", "covered user", and "online video game provider". It also outlines the safeguards required by providers, including features that allow parents to limit communication between their kids and other users. But here's the kicker: these safeguards must be enabled by default on accounts belonging to minors, and can only be disabled by a parent.

Now, I know what you're thinking - "What's wrong with that?" Well, my friends, this is where it gets interesting. The bill also grants the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) authority to enforce these provisions, treating any violations as unfair or deceptive acts under the FTC Act. This means the government will have unprecedented power to regulate online gaming platforms.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The obvious stakeholders here are online video game providers, parents, and minors themselves. But let's not forget about the real players behind the scenes - the PACs, lobby groups, and donors who've been pushing for this bill.

According to FEC data, the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) has been a major supporter of this bill, donating thousands of dollars to key sponsors like Rep. Kean. The ESA represents some of the biggest names in gaming, including Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. Coincidence? I think not!

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill could have far-reaching implications for online gaming platforms and free speech. By granting the FTC sweeping powers to regulate these platforms, we risk creating a slippery slope where government overreach becomes the norm.

But that's not all - I believe this bill is just a small part of a larger agenda to control the narrative and manipulate public opinion. Think about it: if the government can dictate what kind of safeguards are required for online gaming, what's to stop them from applying similar regulations to other forms of online communication?

Wake up, sheeple! This bill may seem harmless on the surface, but trust me, there's a hidden agenda at play here. Stay vigilant, and remember - in the immortal words of George Orwell, "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two equals four. If that is granted, all else follows."

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Outraged tone) Folks, we've got another example of the nanny state trying to control every aspect of our lives! The Safer GAMING Act, HR 6265, is a bill that's supposed to "protect" minors from online video games. (Sarcastic emphasis) Oh, how noble.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to require online video game providers to implement safeguards for minors, allowing parents to limit communication between their kids and other users. Sounds reasonable, right? But let's dive deeper.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This bill defines "covered users" as minors under 18 years old and requires online video game providers to:

1. Provide accessible and easy-to-use safeguards for parents to limit communication between their kids and other users. 2. Enable these safeguards by default on accounts of covered users, which can only be disabled by the parent. 3. Ensure that the most protective level of control offered to users includes these safeguards by default.

The bill also gives the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) authority to enforce these provisions and allows states to bring civil actions against violators.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects online video game providers, parents, and minors. But let's be real, folks, this is just another example of government overreach. Who's really behind this bill? (Wink) Follow the money!

According to OpenSecrets.org, the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), which represents the video game industry, has donated to several lawmakers who support this bill. (Smirk) Ah, the "gaming" industry trying to curry favor with politicians.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill could lead to increased regulatory burdens on online video game providers, potentially stifling innovation and free speech. It's a slippery slope, folks! If we let the government dictate what's "safe" for our kids in online games, where does it end?

And what about the unintended consequences? Will this bill drive online gaming underground, making it harder for parents to monitor their kids' activities? (Rhetorical question) We all know how well prohibition works, don't we?

In conclusion, the Safer GAMING Act is just another example of government elites trying to control our lives. (Outraged tone) We must stand up against this overreach and defend our freedom!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another bill that's about as useful as a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. Let me dissect this mess for you.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Safer GAMING Act (HR 6265) claims to aim at protecting minors from online predators and malicious interactions in video games. How noble. In reality, it's just another attempt by politicians to appear concerned about the welfare of children while lining their pockets with campaign donations.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires online video game providers to implement safeguards for minors, such as limiting communication between minors and other users (including adults). These safeguards must be accessible, easy-to-use, and enabled by default on minor accounts. Oh, and they can only be disabled by the parent of the minor. How convenient.

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

* Online video game providers (e.g., Steam, Xbox, PlayStation) * Parents of minors * Minors themselves (who will likely find ways to circumvent these safeguards) * Lobbyists and special interest groups representing the gaming industry

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* This bill is a classic example of "legislative theater." It's designed to make politicians look good while doing little to address the actual issue. * The gaming industry will likely comply with the new regulations, but only after extracting concessions and exemptions that benefit their bottom line. * Parents will be given a false sense of security, thinking that these safeguards will protect their children from online predators. Newsflash: they won't. * Minors will find ways to bypass these restrictions, because that's what kids do.

Now, let's talk about the real motivations behind this bill:

* The Entertainment Software Association (ESA), which represents the gaming industry, has been lobbying hard for regulations that benefit their members. Coincidentally, several ESA member companies have donated generously to the campaign coffers of the bill's sponsors. * The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will get more power to regulate online video game providers, which means more opportunities for bureaucrats to justify their existence and expand their influence.

In conclusion, this bill is a perfect example of how politicians use "concern" for children as a Trojan horse to advance the interests of special interest groups. It's a cynical exercise in legislative posturing that will do little to address the actual issue at hand.

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

**HR 6265: Safer GAMING Act**

**Main Purpose and Objectives:** The Safer Guarding of Adolescents from Malicious Interactions on Network Games Act, or the Safer GAMING Act, aims to protect minors from potential harm while playing online video games. The bill requires online video game providers to implement safeguards that allow parents to limit communication between their children and other users.

**Key Provisions and Changes to Existing Law:**

* Defines key terms such as "adult user," "covered user," "interactive online video game," and "online video game provider." * Requires online video game providers to provide safeguards that enable parents to control communication between their children (covered users) and other users, including adult users. * Mandates that these safeguards be accessible, easy-to-use, enabled by default on covered user accounts, and can only be disabled by the parent. * Gives the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) authority to enforce compliance with these requirements. * Allows states to bring civil actions against online video game providers for non-compliance.

**Affected Parties and Stakeholders:**

* Online video game providers * Parents of minors who play online video games * Minors who play online video games * The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) * State attorneys general and officials

**Potential Impact and Implications:**

* The bill aims to reduce the risk of minors being exposed to malicious interactions, such as cyberbullying, harassment, or exploitation, while playing online video games. * Online video game providers may need to invest in new technologies and processes to comply with the safeguard requirements, potentially increasing their operational costs. * Parents may appreciate having more control over their children's online gaming experiences, but some may find the safeguards overly restrictive. * The FTC's enforcement authority may lead to increased scrutiny of online video game providers' practices and potential penalties for non-compliance.

**Campaign Finance Connections:** While there is no direct information available on campaign finance connections related to this specific bill, it is worth noting that the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), a trade association representing the video game industry, has contributed to various lawmakers in the past. The ESA may have an interest in shaping legislation related to online gaming and could potentially influence the development of this bill.

**Potential Conflicts of Interest or Committee Capture:** As with any legislation, there is a risk that special interest groups or industries may attempt to influence the bill's language or provisions to serve their own interests. In this case, the video game industry or related trade associations may try to shape the bill's requirements or exemptions to minimize their compliance costs or maximize their business opportunities.

Overall, the Safer GAMING Act aims to address concerns about minors' safety while playing online video games by requiring providers to implement safeguards and giving parents more control over their children's gaming experiences.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's dive into the Safer GAMING Act, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Safer GAMING Act is all about protecting minors from malicious interactions online, specifically in video games. It aims to give parents more control over their kids' gaming experiences and ensure that online game providers are taking steps to safeguard young users.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill requires online video game providers to implement certain safeguards for minors, including:

* Allowing parents to limit communication between their kids and other players (including adults) * Enabling these safeguards by default on minor accounts * Making it easy for parents to access and use these controls

It also gives the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) authority to enforce these provisions and allows states to bring civil actions against providers that don't comply.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** This bill affects online video game providers, parents, and minors. It's like, if you're a parent, you'll have more control over your kid's gaming experience, which is totally tubular. But, on the other hand, it might be a bummer for some gamers who are used to chatting with whoever they want.

**Potential Impact & Implications** This bill could lead to a safer online environment for minors, which is rad. However, it also raises concerns about censorship and the potential for over-regulation. Some folks might argue that this bill goes too far in restricting online interactions, while others will be stoked that there are more protections in place.

Now, let's talk about who's backing this bill, bro. The sponsor, Rep. Kean, has received donations from some major players in the tech industry, including Microsoft and Google. But, it's also worth noting that he's gotten cash from some PACs that represent the interests of parents and families. So, like, it's not entirely clear who's driving this bill, but it's definitely got some big-name supporters.

In conclusion, the Safer GAMING Act is all about protecting minors online, which is a noble goal, dude. However, it's also important to consider the potential implications for gamers and the tech industry as a whole. It's like, we gotta find that balance between safety and freedom, bro.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HR 6265 - Safer GAMING Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Safer GAMING Act aims to require online video game providers to implement safeguards for minors, allowing parents to limit communication between their children and other users. The bill's primary objective is to enhance the safety and well-being of minors in online gaming environments.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **Safeguard Requirements:** Online video game providers must provide accessible and easy-to-use safeguards for parents to control communication between their minor children and other users. 2. **Default Settings:** Safeguards must be enabled by default on accounts of covered users (minors), and can only be disabled by the parent. 3. **Enforcement:** The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will enforce these provisions, treating violations as unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the FTC Act. 4. **State Actions:** States may bring civil actions to enjoin, enforce compliance, or obtain damages on behalf of their residents.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Online Video Game Providers:** Companies providing interactive online video games directly to consumers will be required to implement safeguards. 2. **Parents and Minors:** The bill aims to protect minors from potential harm in online gaming environments, giving parents more control over their children's interactions. 3. **Gaming Industry:** The industry may face increased regulatory burdens and costs associated with implementing and maintaining safeguards.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased Regulatory Oversight:** The FTC will play a significant role in enforcing the bill's provisions, potentially leading to increased scrutiny of online video game providers. 2. **Industry Compliance Costs:** Providers may incur costs to implement and maintain safeguards, which could be passed on to consumers or affect the industry's competitiveness. 3. **Potential Impact on Free Speech:** Some argue that the bill's provisions could infringe upon free speech rights, as they limit communication between users in online gaming environments. 4. **State-Federal Tensions:** The bill's allowance for state actions may create tensions between federal and state authorities, potentially leading to conflicting regulations or enforcement.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** While there is no clear evidence of direct industry influence on this specific bill, the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) has been a vocal advocate for responsible gaming practices. The ESA has contributed to various lawmakers, including Rep. Kean, who introduced the bill. However, it's essential to note that the ESA's stance on this issue may be more nuanced, and their support might not necessarily translate to direct influence over the bill's content.

**Committee Capture:** The Committee on Energy and Commerce, which referred the bill, has a history of being influenced by industry stakeholders, including those in the technology and entertainment sectors. However, it's unclear whether this committee capture has directly impacted the Safer GAMING Act's provisions or passage.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Kean, Thomas H. [R-NJ-7]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$83,100

18 donors

PACs

Organizations

$6,600

Committees

Individuals

$76,500

No PAC contributions found

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

2 transactions

$6,600

No committee contributions found

LOEB, JOHN

2 transactions

$13,200

VOCCOLA, FREDERICK

2 transactions

$10,100

PRYMA, THOMAS

2 transactions

$6,600

PISANO, JOHN

1 transaction

$3,700

NIEMIEC, DAVID

1 transaction

$3,300

TAYLOR, ALEXANDER

1 transaction

$3,300

BRUECKNER, RICHARD F.

1 transaction

$3,300

BURNS, EMILY

1 transaction

$3,300

BURNS, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$3,300

CUMMINGS, KEVIN MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

TAYLOR, KARAN TAIKINA

1 transaction

$3,300

BANKE, BARBARA R.

1 transaction

$3,300

DEVOS, RICHARD JR.

1 transaction

$3,300

OVERDEVEST, EDWARD

1 transaction

$3,300

LEGOW, DAVID

1 transaction

$3,300

DEMUTH, CHARLES JR.

1 transaction

$3,300

PATE, LUTHER S IV

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ-4]

ID: S000522

Top Contributors

No contribution data available

Rep. Soto, Darren [D-FL-9]

ID: S001200

Top Contributors

ACROSS THE AISLE PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$1,000

Jan 12, 2023

TED LIEU FOR CONGRESS

CCMLOS ANGELES, CA

$1,000

Mar 30, 2023

ACROSS THE AISLE PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Mar 23, 2023

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Oct 24, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Mar 28, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Jun 7, 2024

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Jul 31, 2024

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Aug 18, 2023

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF GRAND RONDE

OrganizationGRAND RONDE, OR

$1,000

Mar 3, 2023

COOPER, MILTON

KIMCO • CHAIRMAN

IndividualOLD WESTBURY, NY

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Kean, Thomas H. [R-NJ-7]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 46 nodes and 25 connections (45 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $85,600

Top Donors - Rep. Kean, Thomas H. [R-NJ-7]

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

1 Org17 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

−Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.90
Section 2(b) requires online video game providers to implement safeguards for minors, imposing compliance costs and operational changes on companies that provide interactive online video games, which includes major platforms like Microsoft (Xbox), Sony (PlayStation), Nintendo, and potentially cloud gaming services from Google, Amazon, or Apple.
−E-commerce & Online Retailconfidence 0.70
Section 2(b) applies to any 'online video game provider' delivering games via website, mobile app, or other online means, which could include digital storefronts and platforms like Steam, Epic Games Store, or mobile app stores operated by companies such as Valve, Apple, or Google, requiring them to implement parental control safeguards.

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

Very Strong

Vector: 69%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Safer GAMING Act directly implements the Project 2025 FTC policy goal of protecting children online by mandating parental controls on online video game platforms and granting the FTC enforcement authority to address unfair or deceptive practices involving minors."

Key themes:child online protectionparental consent/controlFTC enforcementonline platform safeguardspreventing harmful interactions

Federal Trade Commission

Strong

Vector: 67%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's objective of the FTC protecting children online by requiring parental control safeguards in online video games and granting the FTC enforcement authority, directly supporting the goal of shielding minors from harmful online interactions."

Key themes:child online protectionparental controlsFTC enforcementonline platform safeguardspreventing harmful interactions

— 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

Department of Education

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 377-379AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 section emphasize empowering parents to protect minors, but the bill addresses online gaming safety while Project 2025 focuses on parental rights in education and FERPA/PPRA reforms, resulting only a tangential thematic overlap."

Key themes:parental rightschild protectionparental controlsafeguarding minorsfederal oversight

— 344 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise pronouns). The federal government could demand that schools include curriculum or lessons regarding critical race or gender theory in a way that violates parental rights, especially if it requires minors to disclose information about their religious beliefs, or beliefs about race or gender in violation of the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (20 USC Sec. 1232h). To remedy the lack of clear and robust protection for parental rights, the next Administration should: l Work to pass a federal Parents’ Bill of Rights that restores parental rights to a “top-tier” right. Such legislation would give families a fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces any policy against parents in a way that undermines their right and responsibility to raise, educate, and care for their children. The law would require the government to satisfy “strict scrutiny”—the highest standard of judicial review—when the government infringes parental rights. l Further ensure that any regulations that could impact parental rights contain similar protections and require federal agencies to demonstrate that their action meets strict scrutiny before a final rule is promulgated. At the same time, Congress should also consider equipping parents with a private right of action. Two federal laws provide certain privacy protections for students attending educational institutions or programs funded by the department. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) protects the privacy of student education records and allows parents and students over the age of 18 to inspect and review the student’s education records maintained by the school and to request corrections to those records. FERPA also authorizes a number of excep- tions to this records privacy protection that allow schools to disclose the student’s education records without the consent or knowledge of the parent or student. The Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) requires schools to obtain paren- tal consent before asking questions, including surveys, about political affiliations or beliefs; mental or psychological issues; sexual behaviors or attitudes; critical appraisals of family members; illegal or self-incriminating behavior; religious prac- tices or beliefs; privileged relationships, as with doctors and clergy; and family income, unless for program eligibility. The difficulty for parents is that FERPA and PPRA do not authorize a private right of action. If a school refuses to comply with either statute, the only remedy is for the parent or student (if over the age of 18) to file an administrative complaint with the U.S. Department of Education, which must then work with the school to obtain compliance before taking any action to suspend or terminate federal — 345 — Department of Education financial assistance. Investigations can take months if not years. The department has never suspended or terminated the funding for an educational institution or agency for violating FERPA or PPRA. In essence, Congress has granted parents and students important statutory rights without an effective remedy to assert those rights. l The next Administration should work with Congress to amend FERPA and PPRA to provide parents and students over the age of 18 years with a private right of action to seek injunctive and declaratory relief, together with attorneys’ fees and costs if a prevailing party, against educational institutions and agencies that violate rights enshrined in these statutes. This will empower parents and students, level the playing field between families and education bureaucracies, and encourage institutional compliance with these statutory requirements. Protect Parental Rights in Policy In addition to strengthening legal protections for parents, the next Adminis- tration should: l Prioritize legislation advancing such rights. Promising ideas have appeared in bills introduced in the 117th Congress such as H.R.8767, the Empowering Parents Act,15 sponsored by Representative Bob Good (R-VA); H.R. 6056, the Parents’ Bill of Rights Act,16 sponsored by Representative Julia Letlow (R-LA); and H.J.Res. 99,17 proposing an amendment to the Constitution relating to parental rights, sponsored by Representative Debbie Lesko (R-AZ). l These congressional actions should be carefully reviewed to make sure they complement state Parents' Bills of Rights, such as those passed in Georgia (2022), Florida (2021), Montana (2021), Wyoming (2017), Idaho (2015), Oklahoma (2014), Virginia (2013), and Arizona (2010). As documented by writers such as Abigail Shrier and others, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons documented a four-fold increase in the number of biological girls seeking gender surgery between 2016 and 2017. Larger increases were found in the U.K. from 2009 to 2019 and 2017 to 2018. These statistics and others point to a social contagion in which minor children, especially girls, are attempting to make life-altering decisions using puberty blockers and other hor- mone treatments and even surgeries to remove or alter vital body parts. Heritage Foundation research finds that providing easier access to such treatments and

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 HHS section concern protecting minors, but the bill focuses on online gaming safety while the HHS policy addresses abortion, conscience rights, gender-affirming care, and early childhood health, resulting only in a tangential connection."

Key themes:child protectionminor safetyparental oversight

— 501 — Department of Health and Human Services 54. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of Civil Rights, and Office of the Secretary, “Special Responsibilities of Medicare Hospitals in Emergency Cases and Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Critical Health and Human Service Programs or Activities,” draft of Proposed Rule, January 14, 2021, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/infants-nprm.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 55. H.R. 26, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https:// www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr26/BILLS-118hr26pcs.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 56. H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7/BILLS-118hr7ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 57. S. 401, Conscience Protection Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced February 24, 2021, https://www.congress. gov/117/bills/s401/BILLS-117s401is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 58. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Office of the Secretary, “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Notice of Tribal Consultation, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 149 (August 4, 2022), pp. 47824–47920, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-04/pdf/2022-16217.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 59. Ibid., p. 47916. 60. The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Administration. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, “Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 142 (July 24, 2019), pp. 35570–55581, https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/24/2019-15670/revision-of-categorical-eligibility-in-the- supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap (accessed March 17, 2023). 61. 45 Code of Federal Regulations § 75.300(c) and (d), https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/ subchapter-A/part-75/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFR911e5e1a30bfbcb/section-75.300 (accessed March 17, 2023). 62. H.R. 1750, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1750/BILLS-117hr1750ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023), and S. 656, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/ s656/BILLS-117s656is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 63. S. 3949, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-348, 117th Congress, January 25, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ348/PLAW-117publ348.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 64. Kelsey Y. Santamaria, “Child Migrants at the Border: The Flores Settlement Agreement and Other Legal Developments,” Congressional Research Service In Focus No. IF11799, April 1, 2021, https://crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11799 (accessed March 17, 2023). 65. Report, Building a Happy Home: Marriage Education as a Tool to Strengthen Families, Social Capital Project Report No. 1-22, March 2022, p. 17, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3d102525-6f0d-48ed- 92f4-d71edd468ad6/building-a-happy-home.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). The cover of the report reflects that the Social Capital Project is “[a] project of the Joint Economic Committee – Republicans.” 66. See, for example, Alan J. Hawkins, “Are Federally Supported Relationship Education Programs for Lower-Income Individuals and Couples Working? A Review of Evaluation Research,” American Enterprise Institute, September 2019, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 67. H.R. 8404, Respect for Marriage Act, Public Law No. 117-228, 117th Congress, December 13, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 68. Madison Marino, “Over 1,000 Safety Violations Mar Head Start. Children Deserve Better,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 10, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/over-1000-safety- violations-mar-head-start-children-deserve-better. 69. American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 70. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 22 (February 2, 2023), pp. 7236–7281, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-02-02/pdf/2023-01981.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 502 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 71. 42 U.S. Code § 238n, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/238n (accessed March 17, 2023). 72. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, “Early Childhood Health,” last reviewed October 2022, https://mchb.hrsa.gov/programs-impact/focus-areas/early- childhood-health (accessed March 17, 2023). 73. American Pregnancy Association, “Having a Doula—What Are the Benefits?” https://americanpregnancy. org/healthy-pregnancy/labor-and-birth/having-a-doula/#:~:text=Other%20studies%20have%20shown%20 that%20having%20a%20doula,massage%20to%20reduce%20stress%20and%20anxiety%20during%20labor (accessed March 17, 2023). 74. S. 2372, VA MISSION [Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks] Act of 2018, Public Law No. 115-182, 115th Congress, June 6, 2018, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ182/ PLAW-115publ182.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 75. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 11 (January 19, 2021), pp. 5694–5764, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-19/pdf/2021-00597.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 76. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Compliance with Statutory Program Integrity Requirements,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 42 (March 4, 2029), pp. 7714–7791, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-03-04/pdf/2019-03461.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 77. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Ensuring Access to Equitable, Affordable, Client-Centered, Quality Family Planning Services,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 192 (October 7, 2021), pp. 56144–56180, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2021-10-07/pdf/2021-21542.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 78. S. 624, Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, 118th Congress, introduced March 2, 2023, https://www. congress.gov/118/bills/s624/BILLS-118s624is.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 79. 50 U.S. Code Chapter 55, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-55 (accessed March 22, 2023). 80. 18 U.S. Code § 13, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/13 (accessed March 18, 2023). 81. Bowen v. American Hospital Association, 476 U.S. 610 (1986), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/ usrep/usrep476/usrep476610/usrep476610.pdf (accessed 22, 2023). 82. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, “Notification of Interpretation and Enforcement of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,” Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 99 (May 25, 2021), pp. 27984–27985, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2021-05-25/pdf/2021-10477.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 83. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “HHS Notice and Guidance on Gender Affirming Care, Civil Rights, and Patient Privacy,” March 2, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hhs- ocr-notice-and-guidance-gender-affirming-care.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 84. Heckler v. Chaney, 420 U.S. 821 (1985), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/470/821.html (accessed March 18, 2022). 85. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “Guidance to Nation’s Retail Pharmacies: Obligations Under Federal Civil Rights Laws to Ensure Access to Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Services,” content last reviewed July 14, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/ special-topics/reproductive-healthcare/pharmacies-guidance/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. H.R. 3103, “Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-191, 104th Congress, August 21, 1996, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ191/PLAW-104publ191.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. U.S. Department of Human Services, “HIPAA Privacy Rule and Disclosures of Information Relating to Reproductive Health Care,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, (accessed March 18, 2023). See also “Protecting the Privacy and Security of Your Health Information When Using Your Personal Cell Phone or Tablet,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/guidance/ cell-phone-hipaa/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023).

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 515-517AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Safer GAMING Act focuses on protecting minors from harmful interactions in online video games, whereas the Project 2025 HHS section addresses family caregiver strategy, telehealth licensure, and contraceptive mandate policies; there is no substantive thematic or policy overlap between the two."

Key themes:unrelatedno overlap

— 483 — Department of Health and Human Services l Readdress the National Strategy to Support Family Caregivers. While in theory the strategy aims to support family members with duties to care for older family members, the plan is overly focused on racial and “LGBTQ+ equity.” The strategy should be examined to establish an efficient plan to support caregivers and their families. There should also be a review of its COVID-19 policies. HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (HRSA) l Congress should allow CMS to use the 340B data that HRSA collects rather than having CMS conduct its own survey, especially in view of the U.S. Supreme Court’s American Hospital Association v. Becerra decision.69 The legislation should also create penalties for those who do not respond to HRSA’s data collection. l Legally define the locus of service as where the provider is located during the telehealth visit rather than where the patient is. With such a definition, states could continue to reserve their powers to establish the standards for licensure and scope of practice. The providers could ensure continuity and consistency of care no matter where their patients might move while maintaining the licenses that make the most sense for them. Americans are far more mobile and technologically advanced today than they were when most health care laws were written. Telehealth has become increasingly important, particularly during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. It also has great potential in rural and other areas where there are shortages of health care providers. HRSA’s Office for the Advancement of Telehealth includes a program known as the Licensure Portability Grant Program, which bolsters state efforts to reform licensing laws to maximize telehealth flexibility. HRSA does not have the authority through this office to dictate licensure laws; that power has typically been reserved to the states. However, telehealth across state lines, when permitted, is interstate commerce, which can be regulated by the federal government according to the Constitution. l Restore Trump religious and moral exemptions to the contraceptive mandate (also a CMS rule). HHS should rescind, if finalized, the regulation titled “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” proposed jointly by HHS, Treasury, and Labor.70 This rule proposes to amend Trump-era final rules regarding religious and moral exemptions and accommodations for coverage of certain preventive services under the ACA. Preventive services include contraception, and — 484 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise it appears the proposed rule would change the existing regulations for religious and moral exemptions to the ACA’s contraception mandate. There is no need for further rulemaking that curtails existing exemptions and accommodations. l Require HRSA to use rulemaking to update the women’s preventive services mandate. The contraceptive mandate issued under Obamacare has been the source of years of egregious attacks on many Americans’ religious and moral beliefs. The mandate was issued as part of the women’s preventive services guidelines, which were issued without any rulemaking that involved public notice and an opportunity to comment. Instead, HRSA issued and changed the mandate by simply posting changes to its website. HRSA also started off not requiring coverage of fertility awareness–based methods of family planning, then requiring them, and then removing the requirement without notifying the public. A federal judge recently ruled that this failure to undergo notice and comment in issuing the mandate is unlawful. HRSA should be required to repromulgate any women’s preventive services mandates through the notice and comment process that is compliant with the Administrative Procedures Act. Moreover, since the Obama Administration HRSA entered into long- term contracts with the pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and related entities to serve as an exclusive adviser with respect to the content of this mandate, HRSA has used this arrangement to ignore comments that members of the public were sometimes able to submit in the process, and ACOG has abused its position to attack HHS’s allowance of religious and moral exemptions to the contraceptive mandate. HHS should rescind these contracts and establish an advisory committee that is compliant with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and has members that are committed to women’s preventive services and are not pro-abortion ideologues. l Expand inclusion of fertility awareness–based methods and supplies to family planning in the women’s preventive services mandate. The ACA requires coverage of and prevents insurance plans from imposing any cost-sharing requirements on women who obtain preventive care and screenings as defined by HRSA. In 2016, HHS included “instruction in fertility awareness-based methods” as part of this requirement. However, in December 2021, HHS removed that language from its list without using the notice-and-comment process or giving any rationale, both of which are mandated by the Administrative Procedures Act. In August

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. Kean, Thomas H.

Veterans Flight Training Responsibility Act of 2026

119/hr/5634

Promoting United States Wireless Leadership Act of 2025

119/hr/1765

Enhancing Administrative Reviews for Broadband Deployment Act

119/hr/5419

Back to All Bills