Promoting a Safe Internet for Minors Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/6289
Last Updated: July 16, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Lee, Laurel M. [R-FL-15]

ID: L000597

Follow the money

The bill

Promoting a Safe Internet for Minors Act

HR. 6289, 119th Congress — read as touching Big Tech Platforms.

The sponsor

Rep. Lee, Laurel M. [R-FL-15]

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

The money

$152,500 raised

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

The alignment

70% 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

Another "feel-good" bill from our esteemed lawmakers, designed to make them look like they care about the children while actually serving the interests of their real masters – corporate donors and lobbyists.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Promoting a Safe Internet for Minors Act (HR 6289) claims to promote online safety for minors by amending the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998. The bill's primary objective is to create a public awareness and educational campaign to protect minors from cybercrimes, adult content, and other online harms.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces new provisions that require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to partner with various entities to promote online safety for minors. The key changes include:

* Establishing a public awareness and educational campaign to promote best practices for educators, online platforms, minors, and parents. * Requiring the FTC to submit annual reports on its activities under this section for 10 years.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill's provisions will affect various stakeholders, including:

* Minors (individuals under 17) who will supposedly benefit from the public awareness campaign. * Online platforms and industry players that will be required to participate in the campaign and implement safeguards to protect minors. * Parents and guardians who will be empowered with tools to control their children's online activities. * Non-profit organizations, schools, law enforcement, medical professionals, and other entities that will partner with the FTC on this initiative.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Let's not be naive – this bill is a Trojan horse for corporate interests. The real beneficiaries of this legislation are likely to be:

* Online platforms and tech companies that will use this campaign as a marketing opportunity to promote their own safety features and tools. * Lobbyists and PACs representing the tech industry, which have already donated generously to the sponsors of this bill (e.g., Rep. Lee's $100K "infection" from Google's PAC). * The FTC itself, which will receive additional funding and authority to regulate online platforms.

Meanwhile, the actual impact on minors' online safety is likely to be minimal, as the bill focuses more on awareness campaigns than concrete measures to address the root causes of online harm. It's a classic case of "legislative theater" – all show, no substance.

In conclusion, HR 6289 is just another example of how our lawmakers prioritize corporate interests over genuine public welfare. The real disease here is not online safety for minors but rather the corrupting influence of money in politics.

Related Topics

Cybersecurity & Data Privacy
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Lee, Laurel M. [R-FL-15]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$152,500
22 donors
PACs
$1,000
Organizations
$19,500
Committees
$0
Individuals
$132,000
1
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (NABPAC)
1 transaction
$1,000
1
DREAM FINDERS HOMES
3 transactions
$16,500
2
MICCOSUKEE TRIBE
1 transaction
$3,000

No committee contributions found

1
WEATHERFORD, WILL
2 transactions
$13,200
2
RANNEY, TIM
1 transaction
$6,600
3
BARNETT, HOYT R
1 transaction
$6,600
4
BOWDEN, VIRGINIA
1 transaction
$6,600
5
HOSSEINI, FOROUGH B
1 transaction
$6,600
6
HOSSEINI, MORTEZA
1 transaction
$6,600
7
LUPOLI, NILOUFAR H
1 transaction
$6,600
8
NUNN, WILHELM A
1 transaction
$6,600
9
WAGNER, SHARI
1 transaction
$6,600
10
WANEK, KAREN A
1 transaction
$6,600
11
WANEK, TODD
1 transaction
$6,600
12
FAISON, JAY W
1 transaction
$6,600
13
GERSON, MARK
1 transaction
$6,600
14
GILLIAM, RICHARD
1 transaction
$6,600
15
MCMAHON, LINDA
1 transaction
$6,600
16
STERN, ELIZABETH MAY
1 transaction
$6,600
17
VINIK, JEFFREY N
1 transaction
$6,600
18
WEEKLEY, RICHARD
1 transaction
$6,600
19
WILEY, LADD
1 transaction
$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

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

ID: S001200

Top Contributors

10

1
ACROSS THE AISLE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$1,000
Jan 12, 2023
2
TED LIEU FOR CONGRESS
CCMLOS ANGELES, CA
$1,000
Mar 30, 2023
3
ACROSS THE AISLE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$500
Mar 23, 2023
4
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Oct 24, 2024
5
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Mar 28, 2023
6
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Jun 7, 2024
7
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA
OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL
$3,300
Jul 31, 2024
8
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA
OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL
$3,300
Aug 18, 2023
9
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF GRAND RONDE
OrganizationGRAND RONDE, OR
$1,000
Mar 3, 2023
10
COOPER, MILTON
KIMCO • CHAIRMAN
IndividualOLD WESTBURY, NY
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024

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

ID: V000138

Top Contributors

10

1
LUX FOR VIRGINIA
OrganizationLADYSMITH, VA
$500
Mar 29, 2024
2
LUX FOR VIRGINIA
OrganizationLADYSMITH, VA
$500
Mar 31, 2024
3
FORSTER-BURKE, DIANE
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT
$4,000
Apr 20, 2024
4
FORSTER-BURKE, DIANE
IndividualCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT
$4,000
May 5, 2024
5
VON STEIN, THOMSON
IndividualROCKVILLE, MD
$3,500
Aug 7, 2024
6
HULL, MEGAN
SELF • ACTIVIST
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Nov 2, 2024
7
KAISER, GEORGE
GBK CORPORATION • EXECUTIVE
IndividualTULSA, OK
$3,300
Oct 25, 2024
8
PARSONS, KATHLEEN
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPOTOMAC, MD
$3,300
Oct 18, 2024
9
STAPLE, HARISE
SELF • MD
IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA
$3,300
Oct 18, 2024
10
HOLMES, LAURA
SELF • REAL ESTATE INVESTOR
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024

Rep. Doggett, Lloyd [D-TX-37]

ID: D000399

Top Contributors

10

1
ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE OF TEXAS
OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX
$1,000
Oct 1, 2024
2
DENNISON, ROBERT A. III
SELF-EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$3,300
Jun 28, 2024
3
WEBER, THOMAS M
MCELROY, SULLIVAN, MILLER, & WEBER LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualWEST LAKE HILLS, TX
$3,300
Apr 19, 2024
4
CONYNGHAM, JIM
N/A • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$3,300
Jun 28, 2024
5
BARNES, BEN F.
BEN BARNES GROUP • CONSULTANT
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$3,300
Apr 24, 2024
6
LOOK JAMESON, MARION
N/A • RETIRED
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$3,300
Sep 1, 2023
7
MOK, AMY WONG
ASIAN AMERICAN CULTURAL CENTER • EDUCATION
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$3,300
Aug 29, 2023
8
LINEBARGER, DALE
N/A • RETIRED
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$3,300
Sep 18, 2023
9
VARNEY, LANA K.
KING & SPALDING • ATTORNEY
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$3,300
Sep 17, 2023
10
YANCY, HOWARD CHARLES
ZYDECO DEVELOPMENT • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$3,300
Aug 28, 2023

Rep. Castro, Joaquin [D-TX-20]

ID: C001091

Top Contributors

10

1
CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$1,000
Dec 13, 2023
2
ALABAMA COUSHATTA TRIBE
OrganizationWOODVILLE, TX
$1,000
Sep 26, 2024
3
QUINONES, KARLA
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualSAN ANTONIO, TX
$5,000
Sep 30, 2024
4
SNEIDER, ARTURO
PRIMESTOR DEVELOPMENT INC. • REAL ESTATE
IndividualCULVER CITY, CA
$3,300
Oct 23, 2024
5
RAMIREZ, DANIEL N.
MONTY & RAMIREZ • ATTORNEY
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$3,300
Jan 11, 2024
6
PARKER, ALEXANDRA
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPALO ALTO, CA
$3,300
Mar 22, 2024
7
PARKER, ALEXANDRA
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPALO ALTO, CA
$3,300
Mar 22, 2024
8
PARKER, SEAN
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPALO ALTO, CA
$3,300
Mar 22, 2024
9
PARKER, SEAN
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPALO ALTO, CA
$3,300
Mar 22, 2024
10
SILBEY, ALEX
ATS COMMUNICATIONS • CONSULTANT
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Mar 29, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Lee, Laurel M. [R-FL-15]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 66 nodes and 37 connections (58 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $174,600

Top Donors - Rep. Lee, Laurel M. [R-FL-15]

Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC2 Orgs19 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • −Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.90

    Section 211(1) requires identification and promotion of best practices for online platforms to protect minors online, which imposes regulatory obligations and potential compliance costs on big tech platforms.

  • −Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.80

    Section 211(1) includes online platforms in the outreach and education campaign, which may affect telecommunications companies that provide internet services and could be subject to safety promotion requirements.

  • Section 211(4) facilitates access to publicly accessible online safety education efforts by other relevant agencies, State and local governments, nonprofit organizations, schools, industry, and other appropriate entities, which could include media companies involved in public awareness campaigns.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Lee, Laurel M. [R-FL-15])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

  • from 1 contribution
    • NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (NABPAC)$1,000

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

Moderate
Vector: 72%
Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 policy aim to protect children online and involve the FTC in strengthening COPPA, but the bill focuses on awareness campaigns and reporting while Project 2025 emphasizes enforcement of unfair trade practices, parental consent for contracts, and expanding COPPA's age and knowledge standards."

Key themes:child online safetyFTC oversightCOPPA amendmentprotecting minorsonline safety education

— 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.

Federal Trade Commission

Moderate
Vector: 70%
Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 policy aim to protect minors online and amend COPPA, but the bill focuses on education and awareness rather than the FTC's enforcement of unfair trade practices or parental consent requirements highlighted in Project 2025."

Key themes:child online safetyCOPPA amendmentFTC responsibilityminor protectionpublic awareness

— 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: 66%
Pages: 377-379AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 excerpt concern the welfare and rights of minors and involve educational components, but the bill focuses on internet safety awareness while Project 2025 emphasizes parental rights in curriculum and legal remedies, resulting only tangential overlap."

Key themes:child safetyparental involvementeducationonline safetyminors

— 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

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

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

Full Policy Text

Related Bills