TAKE IT DOWN Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/633

Last Updated: July 26, 2026

TAKE IT DOWN Act

HR. 633, 119th Congress — read as touching Big Tech Platforms.

The sponsor

Rep. Salazar, Maria Elvira [R-FL-27]

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

The money

$139,600 raised

23 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

Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 59.

April 27, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The TAKE IT DOWN Act (HR 633). A bill that, on the surface, appears to be a noble effort to combat nonconsensual intimate visual depictions online. But let's peel back the layers and examine its true implications.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This bill aims to amend the Communications Act of 1934 by introducing new provisions related to the intentional disclosure of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, including digital forgeries. The primary objective is to hold interactive computer services accountable for removing such content from their platforms.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill introduces several key changes:

1. Expands the definition of "intimate visual depiction" to include digital forgeries. 2. Establishes a new offense involving authentic intimate visual depictions, with specific provisions for adults and minors. 3. Creates exceptions for lawfully authorized investigative activities and disclosures made in good faith.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The affected parties include:

1. Interactive computer services (e.g., social media platforms, online forums). 2. Individuals who have had nonconsensual intimate visual depictions published online. 3. Law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

From a wealth and power perspective, this bill poses several concerns:

1. **Increased regulatory burden**: The bill's provisions will likely result in increased compliance costs for interactive computer services, potentially stifling innovation and limiting free speech. 2. **Censorship risks**: The bill's broad definitions and exceptions may lead to over-censorship, as platforms err on the side of caution to avoid liability. 3. **Liability concerns**: The bill's provisions may create new liabilities for platforms, which could lead to costly lawsuits and damage to their reputations.

In conclusion, while the TAKE IT DOWN Act appears to be a well-intentioned effort to combat online harassment, its implications are far more complex. As a self-serving billionaire, I must consider how this bill will impact my business interests and the broader tech industry. The increased regulatory burden, censorship risks, and liability concerns all pose significant threats to our bottom line.

Recommendation: Oppose the TAKE IT DOWN Act in its current form, citing concerns about over-regulation, censorship, and liability. Instead, advocate for a more nuanced approach that balances online safety with the need for innovation and free speech.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

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

The TAKE IT DOWN Act (HR 633) aims to address nonconsensual intimate visual depictions online. The main purpose is to require covered platforms to remove such content and impose penalties for intentional disclosure. Remember when we learned about the importance of protecting individual rights and freedoms? This bill attempts to do just that, but it's surprising I have to explain this to adults.

Key provisions include:

* Amending Section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 to make it unlawful to publish intimate visual depictions without consent * Defining terms such as "consent," "digital forgery," and "identifiable individual" * Establishing exceptions for law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and certain medical or educational purposes

Changes to existing law include:

* Expanding the definition of "intimate visual depiction" to include digital forgeries * Imposing penalties for intentional disclosure of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions

Affected parties and stakeholders include:

* Online platforms and social media companies * Individuals who have been victims of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions * Law enforcement agencies and intelligence communities

Potential impact and implications:

* Increased accountability for online platforms to remove nonconsensual content * Greater protection for individuals' rights to privacy and dignity * Potential challenges in balancing free speech with the need to protect vulnerable individuals

As I'm sure you recall from middle school, the system of checks and balances is designed to prevent any one branch of government from abusing its power. However, it's disheartening to see that some adults seem to have forgotten this fundamental concept. The TAKE IT DOWN Act attempts to address a pressing issue, but its success will depend on the ability of lawmakers to work together and balance competing interests.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go grade papers from my actual 8th-grade students who, unlike some adults, seem to grasp these basic concepts.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round! Today, we're diving into the depths of HR 633, also known as the TAKE IT DOWN Act. On the surface, this bill appears to be a noble effort to combat nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, but trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated goal of this bill is to require covered platforms to remove nonconsensual intimate visual depictions and impose penalties on those who intentionally disclose such content. Sounds good, right? But what about the real agenda?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This bill amends Section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 by adding a new subsection (h) that defines terms like "consent," "digital forgery," and "identifiable individual." It also creates a new offense involving authentic intimate visual depictions, which can lead to fines and imprisonment. But here's the thing: this bill doesn't just target individuals; it also gives the government sweeping powers to monitor and control online content.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include social media platforms, online service providers, and individuals who create or share intimate visual content. But let's not forget about the real stakeholders: the government agencies that will be granted more authority to surveil and regulate online activity.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications for free speech, online privacy, and the very fabric of our digital lives. By giving the government more power to control online content, we're essentially creating a slippery slope towards censorship and totalitarianism. Think about it: if the government can dictate what's acceptable online, where does that leave us?

Now, I know what you're thinking: "But Uncle, this bill is meant to protect people from harm!" Ah, yes, that's exactly what they want you to think. But let me tell you, my friends, there's always more to the story. This bill is just another example of how our government uses noble-sounding legislation to further its own agenda.

So, as we sit around this Thanksgiving table, remember: nothing is ever as it seems. Keep your eyes open, and don't be afraid to question the official narrative. The truth is out there, but you have to dig deep to find it.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got a doozy of a bill on our hands here. The TAKE IT DOWN Act, or HR 633, is the latest attempt by our esteemed lawmakers to "protect" us from the scourge of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions online. (Sarcasm alert) Oh boy, I can already feel the freedom and liberty emanating from this one.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to require covered platforms to remove nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, which is a fancy way of saying "revenge porn." Now, I'm not going to argue that revenge porn isn't a serious issue – it absolutely is. But do we really need another layer of government regulation to tackle this problem? (Wink) Of course we do!

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Communications Act of 1934 by adding a new section that makes it unlawful for anyone to publish intimate visual depictions without consent. It also defines terms like "consent," "digital forgery," and "identifiable individual" – because, you know, we need more bureaucratic jargon in our lives.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are affected here: social media platforms, online service providers, and anyone who's ever taken a risqué selfie. (Don't worry, I won't tell.) But seriously, this bill could have significant implications for free speech and the tech industry as a whole.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, here's where things get interesting. On one hand, this bill might actually help reduce the spread of revenge porn online – which is a good thing, right? (Pauses for dramatic effect) But on the other hand, it could also lead to censorship and overreach by Big Tech and the government. I mean, who gets to decide what's "nonconsensual" or not? The elites in Washington? Please.

Folks, this bill is a classic case of "be careful what you wish for." We might think we're protecting ourselves from online harassment, but are we really just trading one form of freedom for another? (Smirk) Ah, the eternal conundrum of modern politics. Stay vigilant, America!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another brilliant piece of legislation from the geniuses in Congress. The TAKE IT DOWN Act, or "Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes On Websites and Networks Act" (because who needs a simple title?). Let's dissect this mess.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill aims to prevent the nonconsensual sharing of intimate visual depictions, including deepfakes. Sounds noble, but we all know it's just a PR stunt to make politicians look like they care about online harassment. The real goal is to create a new regulatory framework that will inevitably be exploited by special interest groups.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Communications Act of 1934 to include a new section on intentional disclosure of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions. It defines "consent" (because, apparently, Congress needs to explain what that means), digital forgery, and identifiable individuals. The law prohibits publishing intimate visual depictions without consent, with exceptions for law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and medical purposes.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved: social media platforms, online service providers, and anyone who's ever taken a selfie. Oh, and the politicians who sponsored this bill will likely receive campaign contributions from tech companies and advocacy groups.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* This law will create a new bureaucratic nightmare for online platforms, which will inevitably lead to censorship and over-compliance. * The exceptions for law enforcement and intelligence agencies are ripe for abuse. Expect more surveillance and data collection under the guise of "protecting" citizens. * The medical exception is a Trojan horse for pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers to exploit patient data. * This bill does nothing to address the root causes of online harassment, such as societal misogyny and toxic masculinity. It's just a Band-Aid on a bullet wound.

In conclusion, the TAKE IT DOWN Act is a classic case of legislative theater. It's a feel-good bill that won't actually solve the problem but will create new ones. Politicians get to pretend they care about online safety, while special interest groups reap the benefits. Meanwhile, the rest of us are left with more regulations, censorship, and data exploitation. Just another day in the swamp that is Washington D.C.

Diagnosis: Legislative myopia, symptoms include: grandstanding, bureaucratic overreach, and a healthy dose of ignorance about technology and human nature. Treatment: a strong dose of skepticism and critical thinking. Prognosis: poor.

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

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The TAKE IT DOWN Act (H.R. 633) aims to combat the nonconsensual distribution of intimate visual depictions, including deepfakes and other forms of digital exploitation. The bill seeks to protect individuals from harm caused by the intentional disclosure of such content, particularly when it is obtained or created without consent.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill amends Section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 to add a new subsection (h) that:

1. Defines key terms, including "consent," "digital forgery," "identifiable individual," and "intimate visual depiction." 2. Makes it unlawful for individuals to use interactive computer services to knowingly publish intimate visual depictions of identifiable individuals without consent, with exceptions for law enforcement activities, good-faith disclosures, and medical purposes. 3. Prohibits the publication of such content if it is intended to cause harm or causes psychological, financial, or reputational harm to the individual.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

1. Individuals who have been victims of nonconsensual intimate visual depiction distribution 2. Online platforms and interactive computer services (e.g., social media companies, websites) 3. Law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies 4. Medical professionals and educational institutions

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The TAKE IT DOWN Act has several potential implications:

1. **Increased protection for victims**: The bill provides a clear framework for addressing nonconsensual intimate visual depiction distribution, which can help reduce the harm caused to individuals. 2. **Liability for online platforms**: Online platforms may face increased liability for failing to remove nonconsensual content, which could lead to changes in their moderation policies and practices. 3. **Challenges for law enforcement**: The bill's exceptions for law enforcement activities may create challenges for agencies seeking to balance the need to investigate crimes with the need to protect individuals from exploitation. 4. **Impact on free speech**: Some critics may argue that the bill could infringe upon freedom of expression, particularly if it is applied too broadly or without adequate safeguards.

Overall, the TAKE IT DOWN Act aims to address a critical issue in online safety and provide greater protection for individuals who have been victimized by nonconsensual intimate visual depiction distribution.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down the TAKE IT DOWN Act, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill is all about tackling nonconsensual intimate visual depictions (think revenge porn or deepfakes) online. The main goal is to require covered platforms to remove this type of content and hold perpetrators accountable. It's like, if someone shares a private pic or video without your consent, you should be able to get it taken down, man.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends the Communications Act of 1934 by adding new provisions that make it unlawful to intentionally disclose nonconsensual intimate visual depictions. It also defines key terms like "consent," "digital forgery," and "identifiable individual." The bill creates exceptions for law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and certain medical or educational purposes.

The TAKE IT DOWN Act also updates the definition of "interactive computer service" to include online platforms that host user-generated content. This means that social media companies, online forums, and other websites will be required to remove nonconsensual intimate visual depictions if they're reported.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** This bill affects a bunch of different groups, bro:

* Individuals who have been victims of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions * Online platforms and social media companies that host user-generated content * Law enforcement agencies and intelligence services * Medical professionals and educators who use online resources for training or treatment

**Potential Impact & Implications** If this bill becomes law, it could have some major implications:

* Victims of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions will have more power to get the content removed from online platforms. * Online platforms will need to develop better systems for reporting and removing this type of content. * Law enforcement agencies may see an increase in reports of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, which could lead to more investigations and prosecutions.

However, there are also some potential drawbacks, bro. Some critics argue that the bill could:

* Stifle free speech or creativity online * Create new challenges for law enforcement agencies trying to balance public safety with individual rights * Lead to unintended consequences, like driving nonconsensual intimate visual depictions further underground

Anyway, dude, that's a summary of the TAKE IT DOWN Act. It's all about protecting people from nonconsensual intimate visual depictions online and holding perpetrators accountable.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HR 633 - TAKE IT DOWN Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The TAKE IT DOWN Act aims to combat the nonconsensual distribution of intimate visual depictions, also known as "revenge porn." The bill seeks to hold perpetrators accountable and provide victims with a clear path for seeking justice.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends Section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 by adding a new subsection (h) that makes it unlawful to intentionally disclose nonconsensual intimate visual depictions. Key provisions include:

* Definitions: The bill defines "consent," "digital forgery," "identifiable individual," and other terms related to intimate visual depictions. * Offense involving authentic intimate visual depictions: The bill prohibits the publication of intimate visual depictions obtained or created under circumstances where the person knew or reasonably should have known the identifiable individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy. * Exceptions: The bill provides exceptions for law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and disclosures made in good faith to law enforcement officers or as part of medical education, diagnosis, or treatment.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The TAKE IT DOWN Act affects various stakeholders, including:

* Victims of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions * Perpetrators who distribute such content * Interactive computer services (e.g., social media platforms) * Law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies

**Potential Impact & Implications**

* The bill provides a clear framework for victims to seek justice and hold perpetrators accountable. * It may lead to increased cooperation between law enforcement and interactive computer services in addressing nonconsensual intimate visual depictions. * The exceptions provided in the bill may raise concerns about potential misuse by law enforcement or intelligence agencies.

**Monied Interest Analysis** While there are no explicit PACs or industry lobby groups backing this bill, it's worth noting that tech companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter have faced criticism for their handling of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions. These companies may be affected by the bill's provisions, particularly those related to interactive computer services.

**Committee Capture** The Committee on Energy and Commerce has jurisdiction over this bill. While there are no apparent conflicts of interest among committee members, it's essential to monitor any potential influence from tech industry lobbyists or other stakeholders.

In conclusion, the TAKE IT DOWN Act aims to address a critical issue affecting victims of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions. However, its implementation and enforcement will require careful consideration of the affected parties and stakeholders involved.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Salazar, Maria Elvira [R-FL-27]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$139,600

21 donors

PACs

Organizations

$7,600

Committees

Individuals

$132,000

No PAC contributions found

POARCH BANK OF CREEK INDIANS

2 transactions

$6,600

MICCOSUKEE TRIBE

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

2 transactions

$13,200

DIAZ-OLIVER, REMEDIOS MRS.

1 transaction

$6,600

FALIC, JANA

1 transaction

$6,600

MENDOZA GOMEZ, ROSSY A.

1 transaction

$6,600

WEEKLEY, RICHARD

1 transaction

$6,600

BARQUET, ROY

1 transaction

$6,600

PETERFFY, THOMAS

1 transaction

$6,600

ALVAREZ, MAXIMO MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

AMIN DAES, CARLOS E.

1 transaction

$6,600

AMIN, SAMIR

1 transaction

$6,600

DAES, CRISTIAN TADEO MR. JR.

1 transaction

$6,600

DAES PEREZ, EVELYN I.

1 transaction

$6,600

LOPEZ-CANTERA, AMADA MRS.

1 transaction

$6,600

CASCANTE, MARIA

1 transaction

$6,600

ALLEN, ROBERT N. MR. JR.

1 transaction

$6,600

CAMERON, RONALD

1 transaction

$6,600

VANDERSLOOT, BELINDA

1 transaction

$6,600

VANDERSLOOT, FRANK

1 transaction

$6,600

DERICK, AMY DR.

1 transaction

$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Dean, Madeleine [D-PA-4]

ID: D000631

Top Contributors

LEVIN, CARYL

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualELKINS PARK, PA

$5,000

Nov 3, 2024

LINDY, ALAN

LINDY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT • PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

IndividualAMBLER, PA

$3,500

Oct 28, 2024

BECKER, DEBBIE M

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualWYNNEWOOD, PA

$3,300

Nov 4, 2024

BECKER, WILLIAM P.

BECKER & FRONDORF • RETIRED

IndividualWYNNEWOOD, PA

$3,300

Nov 4, 2024

KRAUSZ, STEVEN

US VENTURE PARTNERS • VENTURE CAPITAL

IndividualPORTOLA VALLEY, CA

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

ERICKSEN, EUGENE P

SELF • STATISTICIAN

IndividualPHILADELPHIA, PA

$3,300

Jul 1, 2023

FINK, WILLIAM

SELF • CPA

IndividualDOWNINGTOWN, PA

$3,300

Aug 4, 2023

LINDY, FRANK

LINDY COMMUNITIES • REAL ESTATE

IndividualELKINS PARK, PA

$3,300

Jul 25, 2023

MILLER, LESLIE ANNE ESQ.

SELF EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY

IndividualBRYN MAWR, PA

$3,300

Aug 24, 2023

SCATTONE, FRANCESCO

RENAISSANCE TECHNOLOGIES • FINANCE

IndividualWYNDMOOR, PA

$3,300

Jul 27, 2023

Rep. Pfluger, August [R-TX-11]

ID: P000048

Top Contributors

SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION

OrganizationEL CAJON, CA

$3,300

Apr 18, 2024

SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION

OrganizationEL CAJON, CA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE

OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX

$1,000

Sep 27, 2024

DIMEMMO, COLETTE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualFORT MYERS, FL

$6,600

Oct 24, 2024

PUDWILL, JAMES

IndividualNIPOMO, CA

$6,600

Sep 16, 2024

GELBMAN, JOEL

IndividualNAPLES, FL

$6,600

Sep 16, 2024

GELBMAN, JOEL

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualNAPLES, FL

$6,600

Aug 26, 2024

PUDWILL, JAMES

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualNIPOMO, CA

$6,600

Aug 3, 2024

WILSON, CELIA R

OIL AND GAS • SELF-EMPLOYED

IndividualMIDLAND, TX

$5,800

Mar 31, 2024

WILSON, CELIA R

SELF • OIL AND GAS

IndividualMIDLAND, TX

$5,800

Apr 9, 2024

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. Buchanan, Vern [R-FL-16]

ID: B001260

Top Contributors

RICHARDS, CHRISTINE

CVP • CUST/BUS TRANS

IndividualBARTLETT, TN

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

RICHARDS, DANIEL

DR. CONSULTING • CPA

IndividualBARTLETT, TN

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

GARCIA, MARIO

EMSI - TAMPA • PRESIDENT/CEO

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$3,300

Nov 28, 2023

BENJAMIN, STEPHEN

VALIDUS SENIOR LIVING • CEO

IndividualODESSA, FL

$3,300

Nov 10, 2023

GARCIA, IVIS

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$3,300

Nov 28, 2023

GARCIA, MARIO

EMSI - TAMPA • PRESIDENT/CEO

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$3,300

Nov 28, 2023

GARCIA, IVIS

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$3,300

Nov 28, 2023

JOHNSON, TRAVIS

1607 STRATEGIES • FOUNDER

IndividualARLINGTON, VA

$3,300

Dec 6, 2023

COPELAND, GERRET

TERREG MANAGEMENT LLC • CEO

IndividualSARASOTA, FL

$3,300

Feb 7, 2023

COPELAND, KYM

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualSARASOTA, FL

$3,300

Feb 7, 2023

Del. Plaskett, Stacey E. [D-VI-At Large]

ID: P000610

Top Contributors

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$1,000

Sep 20, 2024

DOWNS, PAUL RICHARD

TYCHEROS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT • CEO

IndividualCHRISTIANSTED, VI

$6,600

Apr 18, 2023

DOWNS, PAUL RICHARD

IndividualCHRISTIANSTED, VI

$6,600

Apr 23, 2023

WELTERS, ANTHONY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualMCLEAN, VA

$3,300

Dec 31, 2023

HOLT, JOEL H.

SELF EMPLOYED • LAWYER

IndividualCHRISTIANSTED, VI

$3,300

Oct 7, 2024

HOLT, JACQUELINE L.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualCHRISTIANSTED, VI

$3,300

Oct 7, 2024

HENRY, SUDAFI

THEGROUP • ATTORNEY

IndividualTAKOMA PARK, MD

$3,300

Jan 18, 2024

THOMPSON, DARREL

THEGROUP • CONSULTANT

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Jan 18, 2024

SKURNIK, MICHAEL

SELF • WHOLESALE WINE DISTRIBUTORS

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Apr 10, 2023

SKURNIK, MICHAEL

SELF • WHOLESALE WINE DISTRIBUTORS

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Apr 10, 2023

Rep. De La Cruz, Monica [R-TX-15]

ID: D000594

Top Contributors

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$3,300

Aug 29, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$3,300

Aug 29, 2024

ALABAMA- COUSHATTA TRIBE

OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX

$1,000

Oct 16, 2024

ADKINS, JAMES

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualHUNTINGTON, WV

$6,600

Oct 24, 2024

MOUSSEAU, RAYMOND

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualCROSWELL, MI

$6,600

Jun 2, 2024

DILAMANI, EDWARD

AGC • BUSINESSMAN

IndividualGREAT NECK, NY

$6,600

Jul 8, 2024

EMIG, SUELLEN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualFREEDOM, PA

$6,600

Sep 29, 2024

STEWART, FORREST

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualDESOTO, IL

$6,534

Feb 13, 2024

SPECHT, VIVIAN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualLYMAN, NE

$5,940

Aug 7, 2024

CERDA, JULIO

S TEXAS INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP • PARTNER

IndividualMISSION, TX

$5,000

Oct 25, 2024

Rep. Costa, Jim [D-CA-21]

ID: C001059

Top Contributors

TABLE MOUNTAIN RANCHERIA

OrganizationFRIANT, CA

$3,300

Oct 30, 2023

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Sep 18, 2024

JJF SP TRUST

OrganizationSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Sep 30, 2024

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RANCH

OrganizationFRESNO, CA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$1,000

Jul 31, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

Sep 8, 2023

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$1,000

May 19, 2023

CHAPPELL-MCLULLAR TRUST

OrganizationHONOLULU, HI

$500

Mar 2, 2024

ARK, MANDEEP

SELF EMPLOYED • INTERPRETER

IndividualFRESNO, CA

$6,500

Aug 14, 2024

AFZAL, TEHMINA

SELF EMPLOYED • INTERPRETER

IndividualCHINO HILLS, CA

$6,500

Aug 14, 2024

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

ID: S000522

Top Contributors

WALL REPUBLICAN CLUB

OrganizationWALL, NJ

$1,100

Mar 5, 2023

CLAYTON, WILLIAM MR.

RALPH CLAYTON & SONS • OWNER

IndividualBRIELLE, NJ

$3,300

Oct 30, 2024

DUNCAN, JAN L. MRS.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$3,300

Oct 29, 2024

HARRIS, MARY ELLEN MRS.

HARRIS FRC CORPORATION • CEO

IndividualHOLMDEL, NJ

$3,300

Oct 29, 2024

KOLBER, GEORGE MR.

KOLBER PROPERTIES • OWNER

IndividualRUMSON, NJ

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

OBERHELMAN, DIANE MRS.

CULLINAN PROPERTIES • CHAIRMAN

IndividualEDWARDS, IL

$3,300

Dec 6, 2024

HOLMES, WILLIAM MR.

SELF • OIL & GAS

IndividualMIDLAND, TX

$3,300

Dec 18, 2023

HOLMES, WILLIAM MR.

SELF • OIL & GAS

IndividualMIDLAND, TX

$3,300

Dec 18, 2023

DEANGELIS, MARK MR.

SELF • FINANCE

IndividualHOLMDEL, NJ

$3,300

Sep 25, 2023

ADJMI, HARRY MR.

ONE STEP UP LTD • CEO

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

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. Khanna, Ro [D-CA-17]

ID: K000389

Top Contributors

1850 WILLIAMS INVESTORS LLC

OrganizationALAMO, CA

$3,300

Mar 5, 2024

SIRHAN, MOTASIM

ELIXIR • EXECUTIVE

IndividualMILPITAS, CA

$13,200

Jan 3, 2024

PAPIER, SUSAN

WERBA RUBIN PAPIER WEALTH MANAGEMENT • EXECUTIVE

IndividualSAN JOSE, CA

$13,200

Mar 29, 2024

CLEMENS, NICOLE

PARAMOUNT GLOBAL • EXECUTIVE

IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA

$13,200

Mar 30, 2024

PAPIER, JASON

WERBA RUBIN PAPIER WEALTH MANAGEMENT • EXECUTIVE

IndividualSAN JOSE, CA

$13,200

Mar 29, 2024

COGEN, JACK

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$13,200

May 15, 2024

CLEMENS, NICOLE

IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA

$12,200

Mar 31, 2024

YOUNIS, QASAR

APPLIED INTUITION • EXECUTIVE

IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA

$9,900

Mar 31, 2024

PAPIER, SUSAN

IndividualSAN JOSE, CA

$9,900

Mar 31, 2024

PAPIER, JASON

IndividualSAN JOSE, CA

$9,900

Mar 31, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Salazar, Maria Elvira [R-FL-27]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 50 nodes and 58 connections

Total contributions: $58

Top Donors - Rep. Salazar, Maria Elvira [R-FL-27]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs19 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

−Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.90
Section 3(a)(3) requires covered platforms to remove nonconsensual intimate visual depictions within 48 hours of a valid request, imposing operational costs and liability risks on platforms that host user-generated content, such as social media and video-sharing services.
−Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.70
Section 4(b)(3)(B)(i) excludes broadband internet access service providers from the definition of 'covered platform,' but the bill's notice-and-takedown requirements may still affect telecom companies that also operate content-hosting platforms (e.g., AT&T's Warner Bros. Discovery, Verizon's Yahoo), creating compliance burdens.
−Print & Broadcast Mediaconfidence 0.60
Section 4(b)(3)(B) excludes online services consisting primarily of preselected content (not user-generated) from 'covered platform' definition, but news outlets with user comment sections or forums may still fall under the rule, requiring them to implement takedown processes for nonconsensual intimate depictions posted by users.

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: 65%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the TAKE IT DOWN Act and the Project 2025 FTC policy aim to protect vulnerable individuals—particularly children—from online harms and impose greater responsibility on digital platforms, though the bill focuses on nonconsensual intimate imagery while the policy emphasizes contractual and data‑collection practices affecting minors."

Key themes:online child protectionplatform accountabilitymental health harmsconsent requirementsnonconsensual content

Federal Trade Commission

Moderate

Vector: 64%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The TAKE IT DOWN Act addresses nonconsensual distribution of intimate visual depictions, which can affect minors and relates to online harms, aligning broadly with Project 2025's concern about children's well-being online. However, the bill focuses on exploitation and privacy violations rather than the specific contractual and advertising practices targeted by the FTC in the Project 2025 policy."

Key themes:child protectiononline harmssocial mediamental healthdigital exploitation

— 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 Communications Commission

Moderate

Vector: 61%

Pages: 882-884AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The TAKE IT DOWN Act aligns with Project 2025's focus on reforming Section 230 and increasing accountability for online platforms, particularly regarding harmful content. Both emphasize platform responsibility and user protection, though the bill does not explicitly address political speech discrimination or consumer empowerment tools as highlighted in the policy."

Key themes:Section 230 reformplatform accountabilityonline safetycontent 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.

Foreword

Moderate

Vector: 61%

Pages: 37-39AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the TAKE IT DOWN Act and the Project 2025 excerpt seek to curb harmful sexual content online and hold platforms accountable, but the bill focuses narrowly on nonconsensual intimate depictions while Project 2025 calls for a broad ban on all pornography and stricter criminalization."

Key themes:nonconsensual intimate imagerypornography regulationplatform liabilityvictim protectiondigital exploitation

— 5 — Foreword (“DEI”), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensi- tive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists. Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered. In our schools, the question of parental authority over their children’s education is a simple one: Schools serve parents, not the other way around. That is, of course, the best argument for universal school choice—a goal all conservatives and con- servative Presidents must pursue. But even before we achieve that long-term goal, parents’ rights as their children’s primary educators should be non-negotiable in American schools. States, cities and counties, school boards, union bosses, princi- pals, and teachers who disagree should be immediately cut off from federal funds. The noxious tenets of “critical race theory” and “gender ideology” should be excised from curricula in every public school in the country. These theories poison our children, who are being taught on the one hand to affirm that the color of their skin fundamentally determines their identity and even their moral status while on the other they are taught to deny the very creatureliness that inheres in being human and consists in accepting the givenness of our nature as men or women. Allowing parents or physicians to “reassign” the sex of a minor is child abuse and must end. For public institutions to use taxpayer dollars to declare the superiority or inferiority of certain races, sexes, and religions is a violation of the Constitu- tion and civil rights law and cannot be tolerated by any government anywhere in the country. But the pro-family promises expressed in this book, and central to the next conservative President’s agenda, must go much further than the traditional, narrow definition of “family issues.” Every threat to family stability must be confronted. This resolve should color each of our policies. Consider our approach to Big Tech. The worst of these companies prey on children, like drug dealers, to get them addicted to their mobile apps. Many Silicon Valley executives famously don’t let their own kids have smart phones.2 They nevertheless make billions of dollars addicting other people’s children to theirs. TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms are specifically designed to create the digital — 6 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise dependencies that fuel mental illness and anxiety, to fray children’s bonds with their parents and siblings. Federal policy cannot allow this industrial-scale child abuse to continue. Finally, conservatives should gratefully celebrate the greatest pro-family win in a generation: overturning Roe v. Wade, a decision that for five decades made a mockery of our Constitution and facilitated the deaths of tens of millions of unborn children. But the Dobbs decision is just the beginning. Conservatives in the states and in Washington, including in the next conservative Administration, should push as hard as possible to protect the unborn in every jurisdiction in America. In particular, the next conservative President should work with Congress to enact the most robust protections for the unborn that Congress will support while deploying existing federal powers to protect innocent life and vigorously complying with statutory bans on the federal funding of abortion. Conservatives should ardently pursue these pro-life and pro-family policies while recognizing the many women who find themselves in immensely difficult and often tragic situations and the hero- ism of every choice to become a mother. Alternative options to abortion, especially adoption, should receive federal and state support. In summary, the next President has a moral responsibility to lead the nation in restoring a culture of life in America again. PROMISE #2: DISMANTLE THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE AND RETURN SELF-GOVERNANCE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Of course, the surest way to put the federal government back to work for the American people is to reduce its size and scope back to something resembling the original constitutional intent. Conservatives desire a smaller government not for its own sake, but for the sake of human flourishing. But the Washington Establishment doesn’t want a constitutionally limited government because it means they lose power and are held more accountable by the people who put them in power. Like restoring popular sovereignty, the task of reattaching the federal gov- ernment’s constitutional and democratic tethers calls to mind Ronald Reagan’s observation that “there are no easy answers, but there are simple answers.” In the case of making the federal government smaller, more effective, and accountable, the simple answer is the Constitution itself. The surest proof of this is how strenuously and creatively generations of progressives and many Repub- lican insiders have worked to cut themselves free from the strictures of the 1789 Constitution and subsequent amendments. Consider the federal budget. Under current law, Congress is required to pass a budget—and 12 issue-specific spending bills comporting with it—every single year. The last time Congress did so was in 1996. Congress no longer meaningfully budgets, authorizes, or categorizes spending.

Intelligence Community

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 257-259AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 excerpt concern digital privacy and the potential harms from misuse of personal data, but the bill targets nonconsensual intimate imagery while the policy focuses on intelligence community cover, transatlantic data flows, and presidential briefings, resulting only tangential overlap."

Key themes:digital privacypersonal data protectiontechnology misusesafeguards

— 225 — Intelligence Community Cover in the Digital Age. Even in the public domain, it is becoming increas- ingly clear that protecting the identities of undercover intelligence officers is difficult in the digital age.41 The truth is that as our daily activities are conducted predominantly in the digital domain, our antiquated system for providing cover to undercover officers has lagged woefully behind the threat from foreign adversaries. The DIA, CIA, and FBI are increasingly aware of this threat and are devoting resources to the problem. Their back-office infrastructure, however, is such that they are still using methods for providing cover from decades past that put valuable intelligence officers at unnecessary risk. How intelligence officers and their fami- lies are taught to use smartphones and social media, travel, conduct banking, and take and share pictures—even how and when they are paid—can make it difficult to protect identities.42 Legends, fake backstories, and identities are often weak, incomplete, and unable to stand up to a basic Google search.43 Officers operat- ing under nonofficial cover are offered even less protection and training to help them succeed. In addition, ubiquitous technical surveillance (UTS) techniques being refined by technologies emanating from the regimes in China and Russia will continue to be highly challenging for intelligence officers. An incoming Administration will need to double down on resourcing and training so that members of the IC will have the expertise they need to operate clandestinely (and successfully) against hard targets. Privacy Shield. For many years, the European Union (EU) has tried to force U.S. companies operating in Europe to follow its data privacy regulations. Misleading claims in the 2013 Snowden leaks destroyed the initial Safe Harbor Framework44 that allowed American companies to transfer data across the Atlantic; its succes- sor, the Privacy Shield Framework,45 was struck down by European courts on the grounds that it provides insufficient protections for EU citizens against hypothet- ical U.S. government surveillance. Those same European courts exempted the intelligence services of EU member states from the standards applied to the U.S., suggesting that trade protectionism may be the real motive behind data privacy regulations. In 2022, the Biden Administration negotiated a new agreement, the Trans-At- lantic Data Privacy Framework,46 intended to withstand European legal challenges. Given the fate of its predecessors, it is not certain that it will survive. Executive Order 14086, “Enhancing Safeguards for United States Signals Intelligence Activi- ties,”47 implements this new framework by attempting to align signals intelligence collection practices with European privacy regulations. At most, the executive order’s changes will be helpful support for the framework in future European litigation; at worst, they could throw sand in the gears of important intelli- gence programs. An incoming conservative President should reset Europe’s expectations. Brus- sels has always arbitraged the difference between being a military ally against, for — 226 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise example, Russia and conducting a full-blown trade conflict with the United States. Restrictions on data exports have been part of the trade conflict, but now they could seriously harm our military and intelligence capabilities. Moreover, restrictions on U.S. intelligence collection hurt the Europeans themselves, especially as the United States shares unprecedented amounts of intelligence on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine with Europeans.48 Europe is telling the United States to meet intelligence oversight standards that no European country meets. At the same time, exports of data to China are unexamined and (so far) free from legal challenges. That violates World Trade Organization agreements as an arbitrary and discriminatory data protection stan- dard. It is a betrayal by a nominally allied jurisdiction. European court rulings that struck down prior data privacy frameworks were grounded not in constitutional law but in a treaty among European nations. If the EU accepted an international agreement that data may flow to the United States under a more reasonable stan- dard than the one adopted by the court, that interpretation would be binding, at least as a gloss on the earlier treaty. The United States has never seriously pushed back against the EU; now is the time. An incoming President should ask for an immediate study of the implemen- tation of Executive Order 14086 and suspend any provisions that unduly burden intelligence collection. At the same time, in negotiations with the Europeans, the United States should make clear that the continued sharing of intelligence with EU member states depends on successful resolution of this issue within the first two years of a President’s term. It is time for a real solution, not the 30 years of stopgaps imposed by Brussels. President’s Daily Brief (PDB). An incoming conservative President should make clear what the President’s Daily Brief is and is not. The PDB should be for the President specifically, with a much narrower distribution and addressing areas of strategic concern. During the transition, the future National Security Advisor, along with the DNI, should conduct a review of current PDB recipients and deter- mine which should remain recipients when the President’s term begins. Instead of being used as the statement of record for the agencies, the PDB often misses the areas of interest for Presidents and their senior advisers. The President should want the PDB to focus on providing the information needed for the often imperfect and complex decisions that a President needs to make, which should always be based on the best intelligence that can be gathered. Where consensus and agreement are possible, an IC-coordinated product is excellent, but insights provided by properly channeled dissent can lead a President to ask relevant ques- tions of his DNI and IC. A future DNI determines the PDB briefer based on recommendations made by the Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Mission Integration (MI). His- torically, briefers have come from the CIA, but a future President and DNI should

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. Salazar, Maria Elvira

To provide for the political affairs authorities of the Department of State, and for other purposes.

119/hr/5246

Denouncing the horrors of socialism.

119/hconres/58

Back to All Bills