Taxpayer Notification and Privacy Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/6495

Last Updated: July 16, 2026

Taxpayer Notification and Privacy Act

HR. 6495, 119th Congress — read as touching Commercial Banks.

The sponsor

Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17]

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

The money

$72,600 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of the Treasury" section, p. 733-735 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

April 27, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

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 Taxpayer Notification and Privacy Act, HR 6495, is a bill that ostensibly aims to enhance taxpayer privacy by mandating specific notice requirements when the IRS seeks information from third parties. However, as a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I see through the façade of this legislation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to create additional bureaucratic hurdles for the IRS, thereby slowing down the tax collection process. This will inevitably lead to increased compliance costs and reduced efficiency, which, in turn, will disproportionately affect high-net-worth individuals like myself who have complex financial structures.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 7602(c) of the Internal Revenue Code to require the IRS to provide taxpayers with specific notice when seeking information from third parties. This includes identifying each item of information intended to be sought and providing a minimum 45-day response period. However, I note that this provision will only serve to create more red tape and opportunities for tax avoidance strategies.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders affected by this bill are high-net-worth individuals, corporations, and financial institutions. As someone who has built a business empire through strategic investments and innovative disruption, I can confidently say that this bill will have a disproportionate impact on those of us who drive economic growth and job creation.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The Taxpayer Notification and Privacy Act will likely lead to increased tax avoidance opportunities, reduced IRS efficiency, and higher compliance costs. According to projections from my think tank, the Liberty and Prosperity Institute, this bill could result in a potential loss of $10 billion in tax revenue over the next five years. Furthermore, it will create new avenues for tax planning strategies, which will undoubtedly benefit those with the means to navigate these complexities – namely, individuals like myself who have the resources to exploit these loopholes.

In conclusion, HR 6495 is a bill that will ultimately serve to consolidate power and wealth among the elite, while perpetuating the inefficient and bureaucratic nature of government. As a visionary leader, I will continue to advocate for policies that promote deregulation, tax reform, and the privatization of government services – all of which will undoubtedly lead to increased prosperity and growth for those who truly matter: the job creators, innovators, and wealth generators like myself.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

Let's break down the Taxpayer Notification and Privacy Act, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics, a bill like this one is introduced to propose changes to existing laws. In this case, HR 6495 aims to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide taxpayers with more specific notice when the IRS seeks information from third parties.

The main purpose of this bill is to increase transparency and protect taxpayer privacy. Remember when we learned about the importance of checks and balances in our government? This bill is a prime example of how Congress can use its legislative power to hold the executive branch accountable, specifically the IRS. As we covered in middle school, the system of checks and balances is designed to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful.

The key provisions of this bill include requiring the IRS to provide taxpayers with more detailed information about what they're looking for when contacting third parties, such as banks or employers. This includes specifying each item of information intended to be sought and giving taxpayers at least 45 days to respond before the IRS contacts those third parties. As I'm sure you recall from our discussions on the legislative process, bills often go through committees before being voted on by the full Congress. In this case, the bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Finance, where it will be reviewed and potentially amended before moving forward.

The affected parties and stakeholders in this bill include taxpayers, the IRS, and third-party entities that may be contacted for information. As we discussed in class, bills can have far-reaching implications for various groups. In this case, the bill's provisions could impact how the IRS conducts investigations and audits, as well as how taxpayers interact with the agency.

The potential impact of this bill is significant, particularly if it becomes law. It could lead to increased transparency and accountability within the IRS, which would be a welcome change. However, as we learned in civics class, the legislative process is complex, and bills can be amended or stalled at various stages. The bill's effective date is set 12 months after enactment, which gives the IRS time to adjust its procedures and implement the changes.

In conclusion, the Taxpayer Notification and Privacy Act is a straightforward bill that aims to promote transparency and protect taxpayer rights. As I taught you in 8th grade civics, understanding how bills become laws is crucial for participating in our democratic process. It's essential to recognize the importance of committees, checks and balances, and the legislative process as a whole. By grasping these concepts, we can better navigate the complexities of our government and hold our elected officials accountable.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The Taxpayer Notification and Privacy Act, HR 6495 - a bill that seems innocuous on the surface but, my friends, trust me, it's a Trojan horse. Let's dissect this thing.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**: The stated goal is to provide taxpayers with specific notice when the IRS seeks information from third parties. Sounds reasonable, right? But what they're not telling you is that this bill is actually a subtle expansion of the government's surveillance powers. Think about it: by requiring the IRS to notify taxpayers about specific information being sought, they're creating a paper trail that can be used to monitor and control.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**: The bill amends Section 7602(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, adding new requirements for specificity in notices sent to taxpayers. It also introduces an exception for cases where the Secretary determines that information is necessary - a conveniently vague term that can be exploited to justify almost anything. And what's with the 45-day response period? That's just enough time for the IRS to "accidentally" lose your response or claim it was never received.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**: Taxpayers, of course, are the primary targets. But also think about the third-party entities that will be affected - banks, employers, and other institutions that hold sensitive information. This bill creates a new layer of bureaucracy, forcing these organizations to comply with the IRS's requests and potentially compromising their relationships with customers.

**Potential Impact & Implications**: Here's where things get really interesting. By increasing the flow of information between the government and third-party entities, this bill sets the stage for a massive data collection operation. Imagine the NSA or other agencies getting their hands on this information - it's a treasure trove for surveillance and social control. And what about the potential for abuse? With this level of access, the government can selectively target individuals or groups, using "tax liability" as a pretext to gather intelligence.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "But Uncle, this is just a bill about taxpayer notification." Ah, my friends, that's exactly what they want you to think. Wake up, sheeple! This is just the tip of the iceberg - a small part of a larger agenda to erode our privacy and freedom. Mark my words: HR 6495 is just the beginning.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(With a healthy dose of sarcasm and a wink) Oh, folks, gather 'round! We've got a real barnburner of a bill on our hands here - the Taxpayer Notification and Privacy Act, or HR 6495. (Pausing for dramatic effect) I mean, who doesn't love a good title that sounds like it was focus-grouped to death? "Taxpayer Notification and Privacy" - it's like they took every buzzword from the 'freedom' playbook and mashed them all together into one glorious, patriotic mess.

Now, let's get down to business. The main purpose of this bill is to amend the Internal Revenue Code (because, you know, that thing wasn't complicated enough already) to provide more specific notice to taxpayers when the IRS comes knocking on their door... or rather, the doors of third-party folks who might have some info on them. (Winking at the camera) You see, this is all about protecting our freedom from those pesky elites in Washington who just can't seem to get enough of our hard-earned cash.

The key provisions here are all about specificity - the IRS has to be more detailed when asking for info from third parties, and they've got to give taxpayers a heads up (and at least 45 days to respond) before making contact with those third-party folks. (Smirking) Because, you know, we wouldn't want the IRS to just go around willy-nilly gathering info on us without our knowledge or consent... that would be a clear infringement on our freedom.

Now, who are the affected parties here? Well, it's all about the taxpayers, baby! (Pointing to an imaginary audience) You, me, and everyone in between - we're all going to be protected from those overreaching elites in Washington. And of course, there are the third-party folks who might have some info on us... but let's be real, they're just pawns in the game of freedom.

As for potential impact and implications... (Pausing for dramatic effect) Well, this bill could be a game-changer, folks! It could mean more transparency, more accountability, and more protection for our hard-earned cash. Or, you know, it could just be another example of Washington elites trying to cover their tracks while they continue to erode our freedom. (Winking at the camera) Either way, we'll be keeping a close eye on this one - after all, someone's got to hold those elites accountable.

And let's not forget the real winners here: the accountants and lawyers who are going to make a killing off of this new legislation. (Chuckling) I mean, who needs freedom when you can have billable hours, am I right? (Smirking) But hey, at least we'll all be safe from those pesky elites... or will we? (Winking at the camera) Stay tuned, folks!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

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

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Taxpayer Notification and Privacy Act (HR 6495) claims to protect taxpayers from the IRS's alleged overreach by requiring more specific notices when the agency seeks information from third parties. How quaint. In reality, this bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound, designed to placate voters while maintaining the status quo.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require the IRS to provide more detailed notices when contacting third parties for information related to tax liability. Specifically, it mandates that the notice identify each specific item of information sought and gives taxpayers at least 45 days to respond before the IRS contacts other parties. Oh, wow, what a bold move – giving taxpayers a whole 45 days to respond. I'm sure this will send shockwaves through the IRS's vast bureaucracy.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are affected: taxpayers (read: voters), the IRS, and third-party entities like banks and financial institutions. But let's be real, the only stakeholders who truly matter are the lobbyists and special interest groups that drafted this bill in the first place. They're the ones who will reap the benefits of this "reform," not the average taxpayer.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a prime example of legislative lip service. It's a cosmetic fix designed to create the illusion of transparency and accountability, while actually doing little to address the underlying issues. The IRS will continue to operate with impunity, and taxpayers will still be at the mercy of an Byzantine tax code. The real impact will be on the politicians who sponsored this bill, as they'll get to tout it as a "victory for taxpayers" during their next election cycle.

In medical terms, this bill is akin to treating a patient's symptoms without addressing the underlying disease. It's a placebo, designed to make voters feel better without actually curing the problem. And we all know how well placebos work in the long run – they don't. The disease of corruption, incompetence, and greed will continue to metastasize, while our elected officials pat themselves on the back for a job well done.

So, to all the geniuses who worked on this bill, I say: congratulations! You've managed to create a masterpiece of obfuscation, a testament to your unwavering commitment to doing nothing meaningful. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do – like watching paint dry.

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

**Summary of HR 6495: Taxpayer Notification and Privacy Act**

### 1. Main Purpose & Objectives The main purpose of HR 6495, the Taxpayer Notification and Privacy Act, is to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide taxpayers with specific notice when the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) seeks information from third parties related to determining tax liability. The objective is to enhance taxpayer privacy and transparency by ensuring that taxpayers are informed about the information being sought and have an opportunity to respond before the IRS contacts other persons.

### 2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law The key provisions of HR 6495 include: - Amending section 7602(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require that notices to taxpayers identify each specific item of information intended to be sought from third parties if it is related to determining tax liability, has not been previously requested, and could reasonably be provided by the taxpayer. - Providing taxpayers with a reasonable opportunity (at least 45 days) to respond before the IRS contacts third parties, unless an exception applies. - Introducing an exception for information specificity where the Secretary determines that such information is necessary.

### 3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders The affected parties and stakeholders include: - Taxpayers: Directly impacted by the changes in notification procedures regarding third-party information requests. - Internal Revenue Service (IRS): Must implement new procedures for notifying taxpayers and seeking information from third parties. - Third-party entities: May be contacted by the IRS for information related to a taxpayer's tax liability, with new guidelines on when such contact can occur.

### 4. Potential Impact & Implications The potential impact of HR 6495 includes: - Enhanced transparency and privacy for taxpayers, as they will have clearer notice of what information is being sought from third parties and more time to respond. - Possible delays in the IRS's ability to gather information, as it must wait for a taxpayer response period to expire before contacting third parties, unless an exception applies. - Increased administrative burden on the IRS to comply with the new notification requirements, potentially affecting its efficiency in tax enforcement and collection activities.

Overall, HR 6495 aims to strike a balance between the need for the IRS to gather information for tax compliance purposes and the rights of taxpayers to privacy and due process. Its implementation could lead to more informed and engaged taxpayers, but may also introduce complexities in tax administration.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's dive into the Taxpayer Notification and Privacy Act, bro! This bill is all about keepin' it real with taxpayers when the IRS comes knockin' on their door, askin' for info from third parties.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main goal of this bill is to give taxpayers a heads up when the IRS is reachin' out to others for info that's related to their tax liability. It's all about transparency and keepin' taxpayers in the loop, man. The bill aims to ensure that taxpayers know what's goin' on and have a chance to respond before the IRS starts contactin' other people.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This bill makes some key changes to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. It adds a new requirement for the IRS to provide specific notice to taxpayers when they're seekIN' info from third parties that's related to tax liability. The notice has to include what specific info is being sought and give the taxpayer at least 45 days (or more, if they need it) to respond before the IRS contacts those other people. There are some exceptions, though - like if the Secretary of the Treasury thinks the info is super necessary, they can skip this step.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects taxpayers, the IRS, and third-party entities that might be contacted for info. Taxpayers get more transparency and a chance to respond, while the IRS has to follow new rules when reachin' out to others for info. Third-party entities might see some changes in how they're contacted by the IRS, too.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill could have some pretty cool implications, bro! It could help build trust between taxpayers and the IRS, since taxpayers will know what's goin' on and have a chance to respond. It could also reduce errors or misunderstandings that might happen when the IRS is contactin' third parties without keepin' the taxpayer in the loop. On the other hand, it might add some extra steps for the IRS, which could slow things down a bit. But overall, it's a step towards more transparency and accountability, man!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HR 6495 - Taxpayer Notification and Privacy Act**

As a former D.C. lobbyist, I've had the privilege of dissecting legislation like HR 6495, and I must say, this bill has all the hallmarks of a carefully crafted piece of legislation designed to benefit specific interests.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 6495 is to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide taxpayers with more specific notice when the IRS seeks information from third parties. The bill aims to enhance taxpayer privacy and transparency by requiring the IRS to identify specific items of information sought from third parties and provide taxpayers with a reasonable opportunity to respond before contact is made.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces several key changes, including:

1. **Specificity of Third-Party Contact Notices:** The IRS must now identify each specific item of information intended to be sought from third parties, which could reasonably be provided by the taxpayer. 2. **Taxpayer Response Period:** Taxpayers will have a minimum of 45 days (or more, if requested) to respond before the IRS contacts third parties. 3. **Exceptions:** The Secretary may determine that certain information is necessary, exempting it from the specificity requirement.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders affected by this bill are:

1. **Taxpayers:** Individuals and businesses will benefit from enhanced transparency and notice requirements. 2. **IRS:** The agency will need to adapt its procedures to comply with the new notice requirements. 3. **Third-Party Providers:** Entities providing information to the IRS, such as financial institutions, may face changes in their interactions with the agency.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** While the bill's intentions appear noble, it's essential to consider the potential implications:

1. **Increased Administrative Burden:** The new notice requirements may lead to increased administrative costs for the IRS and third-party providers. 2. **Industry Influence:** The American Bankers Association (ABA) and other financial industry groups have been vocal about their concerns regarding taxpayer privacy and IRS information requests. It's likely that these organizations have had a hand in shaping this legislation, potentially influencing the bill's provisions to benefit their members. 3. **Donor Interests:** A review of campaign finance records reveals that several members of the House Committee on Ways and Means, which oversaw the bill's passage, have received significant contributions from financial industry PACs, including the ABA's PAC. This raises questions about the potential for undue influence and the extent to which donor interests may have shaped the bill's content.

In conclusion, while HR 6495 appears to promote taxpayer transparency and privacy, it's crucial to consider the potential implications and the role of special interest groups in shaping this legislation. As a whistleblower, I've seen firsthand how monied interests can influence policy, and it's essential to follow the money trail to understand the true motivations

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$72,600

16 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$72,600

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE

2 transactions

$9,900

SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN

2 transactions

$9,900

OBERHELMAN, DIANE A.

2 transactions

$6,600

DOUGLAS, GREGORY P

2 transactions

$6,600

HOLDERNESS, MICHAEL S. JR.

1 transaction

$3,300

MCGILLICUDDY, DENNIS J.

1 transaction

$3,300

MCGILLICUDDY, GRACIELA

1 transaction

$3,300

TWOHIG, STEPHEN

1 transaction

$3,300

BATMASIAN, JAMES

1 transaction

$3,300

LIGORI, CHRISTOPHER

1 transaction

$3,300

TEMPLETON, STEVEN

1 transaction

$3,300

GINSBURG, RON

1 transaction

$3,300

HALE, DARWIN R SR.

1 transaction

$3,300

TAYLOR, MARGARET J

1 transaction

$3,300

TAYLOR, MARGARETTA

1 transaction

$3,300

STEPHENS, WARREN A

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Panetta, Jimmy [D-CA-19]

ID: P000613

Top Contributors

ACROSS THE AISLE PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$1,000

Jan 12, 2023

ACROSS THE AISLE PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Mar 23, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Apr 12, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Apr 12, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Apr 12, 2023

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Oct 16, 2024

SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION

OrganizationEL CAJON, CA

$2,500

Nov 9, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,700

Apr 12, 2023

CROWN, LESTER

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$6,600

Aug 9, 2024

KIM, SOON

IndividualSANTA CRUZ, CA

$4,300

Sep 30, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 44 nodes and 23 connections (51 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $77,400

Top Donors - Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17]

Showing top 16 donors by contribution amount

16 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

−Commercial Banksconfidence 0.80
Section 2(a) introduces new requirements for the IRS to provide specific notices to taxpayers when seeking information from third parties, which may increase administrative burdens on banks and other financial institutions that often interact with the IRS on behalf of their clients, citing section 7602(c)(1)(B)
−Private Equity & Hedge Fundsconfidence 0.60
Private equity and hedge funds, which often have complex financial structures, may see increased compliance costs due to the specificity required in notices from the IRS when information is sought from third parties related to their investments or operations, citing section 7602(c)(1)(B)

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of the Treasury

Strong

Vector: 63%

Pages: 733-735AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 6495 aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on strengthening taxpayer rights and privacy by enhancing transparency in IRS third-party information requests and providing taxpayers with notice and response opportunities, which supports the broader goal of improving taxpayer protections against bureaucratic overreach."

Key themes:taxpayer rightstaxpayer privacyIRS oversightdue processadministrative burden

— 700 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Deputy Commissioner should be replaced. A thorough review of IT contracts should be conducted. The Integrated Modernization Business Plan41 should be systematically reviewed and a version of it cost-effectively implemented. An over- sight board composed of private sector IT experts should be established and given the authority to conduct meaningful, contemporaneous oversight. TAXPAYER RIGHTS AND PRIVACY Legal protections for taxpayer rights and privacy have improved during the past three decades, but they remain inadequate.42 Congress should do more. For exam- ple, interest on overpayments should be the same as interest on underpayments rather than the government receiving a higher rate, the time limit for taxpayers to sue for damages for improper collection actions should be extended, the juris- diction of the Tax Court should be expanded, and the tax penalty system should be reformed by rationalizing the penalty structure and reducing some of the most punitive penalties.43 The Office of the Taxpayer Advocate was created by Congress to assist taxpay- ers when the IRS bureaucracy is unresponsive or negligent. About 1.7 percent of the IRS budget goes to this function.44 Each year, the Office handles more than 250,000 cases, helping taxpayers to deal with the IRS. Each year, it issues nearly 2000 taxpayer assistance orders, a form of administrative injunction, forcing the rest of the IRS to stop taking unwarranted actions.45 Congress should provide the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate with greater resources so that it may better assist taxpayers suffering from wrongful IRS actions. The office should also be strengthened by, among other things: l Ensuring that the National Taxpayer Advocate can make his or her own personnel decisions to protect its independence; l Ensuring NTA access to files, meetings, and other information needed to assist taxpayers or investigate IRS administrative practices; l Requiring the IRS to address the NTA’s comments in final rules and including the NTA in deliberations prior to the release of a proposed rule; and l Authorizing the NTA to file amicus briefs independently. Administrative Burden. In 2021, Americans filed 261 million tax returns and an astounding 4.7 billion information returns (such as Form W-2s, Form 1098s and Form 1099s).46 Complying with tax law costs Americans more than $400 bil- lion annually, or about 2 percent of gross domestic product.47 Although the IRS — 701 — Department of the Treasury administers these reporting programs, most of this expense is mandated by Con- gress, not the IRS. One of the primary reasons that Congress mandates ever-increasing infor- mation reporting is that the Treasury Department and the Joint Committee on Taxation staff almost always overestimate how much revenue will be gained from still more burdensome information reporting, and they do not estimate or report private compliance costs. Congress and the Treasury Department must undertake a serious review of the information reporting regime and reduce the burden on the public—especially small businesses. Small businesses suffer disproportionately from complexity and administrative burdens. Costs do not increase linearly with size, so elevated administrative costs have an adverse effect on the competitiveness of small firms. Budget. The operating budget of the IRS should be held constant in real terms. The resources allocated to the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate should be increased by at least 20 percent (about $44 million). The Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion should be closed. Provided that IT management is changed; an effective, well-considered implementation plan is adopted; and serious oversight is put in place, additional resources dedicated solely to IT modernization may be warranted. INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS The Treasury Department should withdraw from Senate consideration the Protocol Amending the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters.48 The protocol will lead to substantially more transnational identity theft, crime, industrial espionage, financial fraud, and suppression of political oppo- nents and religious or ethnic minorities by authoritarian and corrupt governments, including China, Colombia, Nigeria, and Russia. Unlike the original multilateral convention, the amended convention is open to all governments—including many that are either hostile to the United States, have serious corruption problems, or have inadequate privacy protections. The new Administration should also oppose the multilateral Competent Authority Agreement on Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information.49 International organizations such as the OECD, the World Bank, and the Inter- national Monetary Fund espouse economic theories and policies that are inimical to American free market and limited government principles. The global elites who operate the IMF regularly advance higher taxes and big centralized government. The IMF has intervened in American policy debates—and has even recommended that the U.S. raise taxes. The IMF’s record of advancing global financial stability has been mixed at best. Its development assistance and lending programs in third- world countries have more often than not retarded growth rather than advancing it. The Treasury Department plays an important role in these international institutions and should force reforms and new policies. The U.S., however, should

Department of the Treasury

Strong

Vector: 62%

Pages: 733-735AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 6495 aligns strongly with Project 2025's emphasis on enhancing taxpayer rights and privacy by requiring IRS notification before third-party information requests, increasing transparency, and providing taxpayers with a meaningful opportunity to respond—directly supporting the policy goal of strengthening taxpayer protections against improper IRS actions."

Key themes:taxpayer privacyIRS transparencythird-party information requeststaxpayer rightsadministrative due process

Department of the Treasury

Moderate

Vector: 61%

Pages: 730-732AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 6495 aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on IRS reform, taxpayer rights, and administrative transparency by enhancing taxpayer notification and privacy in third-party information requests, reflecting shared goals of improving tax administration fairness and accountability."

Key themes:taxpayer rightsIRS reformtransparencyadministrative burdenprivacy protections

— 698 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Fundamental Tax Reform. Achieving fundamental tax reform offers the prospect of a dramatic improvement in American living standards and an equally dramatic reduction in tax compliance costs. Lobbyists, lawyers, benefit consul- tants, accountants, and tax preparers would see their incomes decline, however. The federal income tax system heavily taxes capital and corporate income and discourages work, savings, and investment. The public finance literature is clear that a consumption tax would minimize government’s distortion of private economic decisions and thus be the least eco- nomically harmful way to raise federal tax revenues.28 There are several forms that a consumption tax could take, including a national sales tax, a business transfer tax, a Hall–Rabushka flat tax,29 or a cash flow tax.30 Supermajority to Raise Taxes. Treasury should support legislation instituting a three-fifths vote threshold in the U.S. House and the Senate to raise income or corporate tax rates to create a wall of protection for the new rate structure. Many states have implemented such a supermajority vote requirement. Tax Competition. Tax competition between states and countries is a positive force for liberty and limited government.31 The Biden Administration, under the direction of Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, has pushed for a global minimum corporate tax that would increase taxation and the size of government in the U.S. and around the world. This attempt to “harmonize” global tax rates is an attempt to create a global tax cartel to quash tax competition and to increase the tax burden globally. The U.S. should not outsource its tax policy to international organizations. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. The Organi- zation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in conjunction with the European Union, has long tried to end financial privacy and impose regulations on countries with low (or no) income taxes. In fact, on tax, environmental, corpo- rate governance and employment issues, the OECD has become little more than a taxpayer-funded left-wing think tank and lobbying organization.32 The United States provides about one-fifth of OECD’s funding.33 The U.S. should end its finan- cial support and withdraw from the OECD. TAX ADMINISTRATION The Internal Revenue Service is a poorly managed, utterly unresponsive and increasingly politicized agency, and has been for at least two decades. It is time for meaningful reform to improve the efficiency and fairness of tax administration, better protect taxpayer rights, and achieve greater transparency and accountability. A substantial number of the problems attributed to the IRS are actually a function of congressional action that has made the Internal Revenue Code ridiculously complex, imposed tremendous administrative burdens on both the public and the IRS, and given massive non-tax missions to the IRS. But the culture, administrative practices, and management at the IRS need to change. — 699 — Department of the Treasury Doubling the IRS? The Inflation Reduction Act contains a radical $80 billion expansion of the IRS—enough to double the size of its workforce.34 Unless Congress reverses this policy, the IRS will become much more intrusive and impose still greater costs on the American people. The Biden Administration has also sought to make the tax system’s adminis- trative burden much worse in other ways. For example, it has proposed creating a comprehensive financial account information reporting regime that would apply to all business and personal accounts with more than $600. Banks would be required to collect the taxpayer identification numbers of and file a revised Form 1099-K for all affected payees, as well as provide additional information.35 This massive increase in the scope and breadth of information reporting should be unequivo- cally opposed. Management. The IRS has approximately 81,000 employees.36 Of those, only two are presidential appointments—the Commissioner and the Chief Counsel.37 As a practical matter, it is impossible for these two officials to overcome bureau- cratic inertia and to implement policy changes that the IRS bureaucracy wants to impede. That is why, notwithstanding decades of sound and fury, almost nothing has changed at the IRS. For the IRS to change and become more accountable, more transparent, and better managed, there is a need to increase the number of Presidential appoint- ments subject to Senate confirmation, and not subject to Senate confirmation, at the IRS. At the very least, Congress should ensure that the Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement, the Deputy Commissioner for Operations Support, the National Taxpayer Advocate, the Commissioner of the Wage and Investment Division, the Commissioner of the Large Business and International Division, the Commissioner of the Small Business Self-Employed Division, and the Com- missioner of the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division are presidential appointees.38 Information Technology. Despite the investment of billions of dollars for at least two decades, IRS information technology (IT) systems remain deficient.39 The IRS inadequately protects taxpayer information, its IT systems do not ade- quately support operations or taxpayer services, and its matching and detection algorithms are antiquated. These problems are not primarily about resources. The IRS has spent approxi- mately $27 billion on IT during the past decade, with $7 billion of that designated as “development, modernization and enhancement.“40 The problem is one of man- agement. The bureaucracy is not up to the task, and neither Congress nor a long line of IRS commissioners has forced changes. A Deputy Commissioner for Operations Support with strong IT management skills should be appointed by the IRS Commissioner or the President (once the position is made a presidential appointment). The various subordinates to the

Department of the Treasury

Weak

Vector: 64%

Pages: 745-747AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 6495 focuses on taxpayer notification and privacy in IRS third-party information requests, while the Project 2025 Treasury section emphasizes tax reform, consumption taxes, corporate taxation, and IRS modernization—topics not directly addressed in the bill. The alignment is weak, as the bill does not engage with the core fiscal or structural tax policy goals outlined in Project 2025."

Key themes:Internal Revenue Service (IRS)tax administrationtaxpayer rights

— 712 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 17. For a detailed discussion, see David R. Burton, “Tax Reform: Eliminating the Double Taxation of Corporate Income,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3216, May 18, 2017, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2017-05/BG3216.pdf. 18. One hundred dollars in corporate income less an 18 percent tax leaves $82. A 15 percent capital gains tax or qualified dividends tax is $12.30, which leaves $69.70, for an effective marginal tax rate of 30 percent. This, of course, abstracts away from certain timing issues. 19. Inflation Reduction Act, Public Law 117–169. 20. Ibid. 21. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Public Law 115–97, § 11061, amending Internal Revenue Code § 2010(c). The amounts before inflation adjustments are $5 million and $10 million, respectively. See also Internal Revenue Service, “What’s New: Estate and Gift Tax, Basic Exclusion Amount for Year of Death,” https://www.irs.gov/businesses/ small-businesses-self-employed/whats-new-estate-and-gift-tax (accessed March 22, 2023). 22. The effective tax rate on foreign-derived intangible income should remain equal to the tax rate on global intangible low-taxed income. 23. For miscellaneous itemized deductions, see Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S. Code § 67). Business deductions that were suspended by the 2017 tax bill (other than those related to depreciation) should also be extended. This includes the local lodging expense deduction and entertainment expense deductions. The 2017 tax bill’s modifications to the deduction for personal casualty and theft losses should be made permanent. The Pease limitation on itemized deductions should be permanently eliminated. 24. Bonus depreciation provisions applied to specific industries should be maintained. 25. Employer-provided childcare expenses should also count toward the limitation on benefit deductions. 26. HSAs are flexible and portable, and they help contain costs by giving health care consumers skin in the game. 27. For additional revenue to fund pro-growth tax cuts, lawmakers could gradually phase down the limitation on benefit deductions. 28. Early versions of the 2017 tax bill envisioned reforming the corporate income tax into a destination-based cash flow tax, a form of consumption tax. A tax system that taxes labor and capital-factor incomes equally— and only once—results in higher output and higher incomes. Usually, in the modern public finance literature, this is called a consumption tax. On the economic superiority of consumptions taxes, see N. Gregory Mankiw et al., “Optimal Taxation in Theory and Practice,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 23, No. 4 (2009), pp. 147–174, https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.23.4.147 (accessed March 19, 2023); Alan J. Auerbach, “The Choice Between Income and Consumption Taxes: A Primer,” NBER Working Paper No. 12307, June 2006, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w12307/w12307.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023); and Charles E. Walker and Mark A. Bloom eld, eds., The Consumption Tax: A Better Alternative? (Cambridge, MA: Harper and Row, Ballinger, 1987). 29. Hoover Institution, “Simplifying the Tax System: The History of the Flat Tax,” March 1, 2019, https://www. hoover.org/research/simplifying-tax-system-history-flat-tax (accessed March 20, 2023). 30. David R. Burton, “Four Conservative Tax Plans with Equivalent Economic Results,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2978, December 7, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/four-conservative-tax- plans-equivalent-economic-results. Consumption tax plans generally include carveouts that exempt very low-income Americans from federal tax liability. 31. Daniel J. Mitchell and Chris Edwards, Global Tax Revolution: The Rise of Tax Competition and the Battle to Defend It (Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2008); Preston Brashers, “Like Constitutional Checks and Balances, Tax Competition Is a Bulwark Against Growth of Government,” March 17, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/ taxes/commentary/constitutional-checks-and-balances-tax-competition-bulwark-against-growth (accessed March 19, 2023). 32. James M. Robers et al., “Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): What America Should Do,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3593, March 16, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/ sites/default/files/2021-03/BG3593.pdf; Preston Brashers. “The OECD Crusade To Raise Taxes,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, February 4, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/the-oecd-crusade- raise-taxes; David Burton, “How the OECD is Promoting More Identity Theft, Crime, Industrial Espionage, and Suppression of Political Dissidents,” July 15, 2016, Heritage Foundation Commentary, https://www.heritage. org/taxes/commentary/how-the-oecd-promoting-more-identity-theft-crime-industrial-espionage-and; — 713 — Department of the Treasury David R. Burton “Towards a Global Tax Cartel?” Policy, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Summer 2002–2003), Center for Independent Studies (Australia), https://www.cis.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/images/stories/policy- magazine/2002-summer/2002-18-4-david-r-burton.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). 33. Roberts et al., “Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).” 34. See Inflation Reduction Act, § 10301. See also Preston Brashers, “IRS and Allies Downplay 87,000-Person Hiring Binge,” The Daily Signal, August 12, 2022, https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/08/12/the-irs-and-its- allies-downplay-87000-person-hiring-binge/ (accessed March 19, 2023). 35. U.S. Department of the Treasury, General Explanations of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2022 Revenue Proposals, May 2021, pp. 88–89, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2022.pdf (accessed March 19. 2023). 36. See U.S. Department of the Treasury, Fiscal Year 2022–2026 Strategic Plan. 37. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Reform, Policy and Supporting Positions, December 2020 (the “plumb book”), p. 127 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-PLUMBOOK-2020/ pdf/GPO-PLUMBOOK-2020.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). 38. Internal Revenue Service, “Organization and Top Officials,” https://www.irs.gov/pub/newsroom/marketing/ internet/irs-organization-chart.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). See also Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S. Code § 7803(a)–(b)). 39. For a summary of various GAO reports on various IRS IT problems, see Vijay A. D’Souza, “Information Technology: IRS Needs to Address Operational Challenges and Opportunities to Improve Management,” testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Operations, Committee on Oversight and Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, October 7, 2020, GAO–21–178T, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-178t. pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). Charles O. Rossotti was named IRS Commissioner by President Bill Clinton primarily so that Rossotti could address widely acknowledged IT issues. He made some improvements between 1997 and 2002, but despite large investments, he did not really resolve the IT problems at the IRS. Since that time, the problems have worsened. 40. D’Souza, “Information Technology,” figure 1, p. 5. 41. Internal Revenue Service, IRS Integrated Modernization Business Plan, April 2019, https://www.irs.gov/pub/ irs-pdf/p5336.pdf (accessed March 20, 2023). 42. See, for example, the Omnibus Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights, Public Law 100–647, Subtitle J of Title VI of the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988; Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2, Public Law 104–168; IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Public Law 105–206, Title III; Consolidated Appropriations Act, Public Law 114–113, Title IV, Subtitle A (adding Internal Revenue Code § 7803(a)(3) and other changes); and Taxpayer First Act, Public Law 116–25, Title I. 43. For a list of 68 proposed reforms, see National Taxpayer Advocate, 2022 Purple Book: Compilation of Legislative Recommendations to Strengthen Taxpayer Rights and Improve Tax Administration, December 31, 2021, https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/ARC21_PurpleBook.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). Most, though not all, of these proposals have merit. Regarding penalty reform, see Jeremiah Coder, “Achieving Meaningful Civil Tax Penalty Reform and Making It Stick,” Akron Tax Journal, Vol. 27 (2012), https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1153&context=akrontaxjournal (accessed March 19, 2023). 44. Internal Revenue Service, 2023 Congressional Budget Justification & Annual Performance Report and Plan, Rev. 3–2022, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/266/Internal-Revenue-Service-FY-2023-CJ.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). 45. Internal Revenue Service, 2021 IRS Data Book: October 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021, table 11, p. 26, https:// www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p55b.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). 46. Ibid., 2021 IRS Data Book, table 2, p. 4. 47. Scott A. Hodge, “The Compliance Costs of IRS Regulations, Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact No. 512, June 2016 https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/TaxFoundation_FF512.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). 48. Organization for Economic Cooperation, The Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol, https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/the-multilateral- convention-on-mutual-administrative-assistance-in-tax-matters_9789264115606-en#page1 (accessed March 20, 2023).

Intelligence Community

Minimal

Vector: 60%

Pages: 266-268AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 6495 focuses on taxpayer notification and privacy in IRS third‑party information requests, which is unrelated to the Intelligence Community policies covered in Project 2025 (e.g., covert action, FISA, workforce diversity, Five Eyes oversight)."

Key themes:privacygovernment oversight

— 233 — Intelligence Community 19. Michael E. DeVine, “Covert Action and Clandestine Activities of the Intelligence Community: Selected Definitions,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress No. R45175, updated November 29, 2022, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/intel/R45175.pdf (accessed February 24, 2023). 20. H.R. 2663, Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, Public Law No. 81-110, 81st Congress, June 20, 1949, https:// govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/63/STATUTE-63-Pg208.pdf (accessed March 6, 2023). 21. Nicole Ogrysko, “Intelligence Community Workforce Is More Diverse, but Still Struggles with Retention and Promotion,” Federal News Network, October 27, 2021, https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2021/10/ intelligence-community-workforce-is-more-diverse-but-still-struggles-with-retention-and-promotion/ (accessed March 18, 2023). 22. See James J. Wirtz, “The Intelligence Policy Nexus,” in Loch K. Johnson, ed., Strategic Intelligence, Volume 1: Understanding the Hidden Side of Government (Westport, CT: Prager, 2007), and Richard K. Betts, “Analysis, War, and Decision: Why Intelligence Failures Are Inevitable,” World Politics, Vol. 30, No. 1 (October 1978), pp. 61–89. 23. Letter from Barry A. Zulauf, IC Analytic Ombudsman, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, to Senator Marco Rubio, Acting Chairman, and Senator Mark Warner, Vice Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. Senate, “RE: SSCI #2020-3029,” January 6, 2021, https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ ic-ombudsman-election-interference-with-responses/c50e548011fd6168/full.pdf (accessed March 14, 2023). 24. Joshua Rovner, Fixing the Facts: National Security and the Politics of Intelligence (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2011), pp. 30–31. 25. Joshua Rovner, “Is Politicization Ever a Good Thing?” Intelligence and National Security, Vol. 28, No. 1 (2013), p. 58. 26. S. 1566, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, Public Law No. 95-511, 95th Congress, October 25, 1978, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-92/pdf/STATUTE-92-Pg1783.pdf (accessed March 6, 2023). 27. The Cipher Brief, “702 Reauthorization: Defending a Key Intelligence Tool,” remarks of Benjamin Powell, former General Counsel to the Director of National Intelligence, stating that FISA 702 provides “between 40 and 60 percent” of the intelligence in the PDB, December 18, 2017, https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=mRJ09GHVRFk&ab_channel=TheCipherBrief (accessed March 18, 2023). 28. An intelligence alliance that includes Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, National Counterintelligence and Security Center, “Five Eyes Intelligence Oversight and Review Council (FIORC),” https://www.dni.gov/index.php/ncsc-how-we- work/217-about/organization/icig-pages/2660-icig-fiorc (accessed March 10, 2023). 29. Porter, “Seven Questions the Next President Will Need the Intelligence Community to Answer to Win the Technology Competition with China.” 30. H.R. 1591, An Act to Require the Registration of Certain Persons Employed by Agencies to Disseminate Propaganda in the United States and for Other Purposes, Public Law No. 75-583, 75th Congress, June 8, 1938, https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/52/STATUTE-52-Pg631.pdf (accessed March 6, 2023). 31. Kristina Wong, “Exclusive: Former DNI John Ratcliffe Pleased CIA Following His Lead on China Threat,” Breitbart, October 13, 2021, https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/10/13/exclusive-john-ratcliffe-pleased- cia-following-lead-china-threat/ (accessed March 11, 2023). 32. H.R. 4628, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, Public Law No. 107-306, 107th Congress, November 27, 2002, Title IX, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-116/pdf/STATUTE-116-Pg2383.pdf (accessed March 6, 2023). 33. President George W. Bush, Executive Order 13354, “National Counterterrorism Center,” August 27, 2004, in Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 169 (September 1, 2004), pp. 53589–53592, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2004-09-01/pdf/04-20050.pdf (accessed March 6, 2023). 34. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, National Counterintelligence and Security Center, “Who We Are: History of NCSC,” https://www.dni.gov/index.php/ncsc-who-we-are/ncsc-history (accessed March 11, 2023). 35. Gregory F. Treverton and C. Bryan Gabbard, Assessing the Tradecraft of Intelligence Analysis, RAND Corporation, National Security Research Division Technical Report, 2008, p. 6, https://www.rand.org/pubs/ technical_reports/TR293.html (accessed March 1, 2023). — 234 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 36. Letter from Barry A. Zulauf, IC Analytic Ombudsman, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, to Senator Marco Rubio, Acting Chairman, and Senator Mark Warner, Vice Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. Senate, “RE: SSCI #2020-3029,” January 6, 2021, https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ ic-ombudsman-election-interference-with-responses/c50e548011fd6168/full.pdf (accessed March 6, 2023). 37. “Independent IC Analytic Ombudsman’s [Report] on Politicization of Intelligence,” attached to January 6, 2021, Zulauf letter. 38. President Barack Obama, Executive Order 13526, “Classified National Security Information,” December 29, 2009, in Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 2 (January 5, 2010), pp. 707–731, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2010-01-05/pdf/E9-31418.pdf (accessed March 7, 2023). 39. President Barack Obama, Executive Order 13556, “Controlled Classified Information,” November 4, 2010, in Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 216 (November 9, 2010), pp. 68675–68677, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2010-11-09/pdf/2010-28360.pdf (accessed March 7, 2023). 40. Agathe Demarais, “How the U.S.–Chinese Technology War Is Changing the World,” Foreign Policy, November 19, 2022, https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/11/19/demarais-backfire-sanctions-us-china-technology-war- semiconductors-export-controls-biden/ (accessed February 28, 2023). 41. Scott Stewart, “The Risk to Undercover Operatives in the Digital Age,” Stratfor Worldview, October 29, 2015, https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/risk-undercover-operatives-digital-age (accessed February 24, 2023). 42. Lauren Pitruzzello, “Human Intelligence: Former CIA Officer Talks About Espionage in the Digital Age, University of Delaware UDaily, March 22, 2012, https://www1.udel.edu/udaily/2012/mar/global-agenda- grenier-032212.html (accessed February 24, 2023). 43. Jenna McLaughlin and Zach Dorfman, “‘Shattered’: Inside the Secret Battle to Save America’s Undercover Spies in the Digital Age,” Yahoo News, December 30, 2019, https://news.yahoo.com/shattered-inside- the-secret-battle-to-save-americas-undercover-spies-in-the-digital-age-100029026.html (accessed February 24, 2023). 44. U.S. Federal Trade Commission, “U.S.–Safe Harbor Framework,” https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/ privacy-security/us-eu-safe-harbor-framework (accessed March 11, 2023). 45. “Fact Sheet: Overview of the EU–U.S. Privacy Shield Network,” U.S. Department of Commerce, https://2014-2017.commerce.gov/sites/commerce.gov/files/media/files/2016/eu-us_privacy_shield_fact_ sheet.pdf (accessed March 11, 2023). 46. “Fact Sheet: United States and European Commission Announce Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework,” The White House, March 25, 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/03/25/ fact-sheet-united-states-and-european-commission-announce-trans-atlantic-data-privacy-framework/ (accessed March 11, 2023). 47. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14086, “Enhancing Safeguards for United States Signals Intelligence Activities,” October 7, 2022, in Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 198 (October 14, 2022), pp. 62283– 62297, (accessed March 7, 2023). 48. Warren P. Strobel, “Release of Ukraine Intelligence Represents New Front in U.S. Information War with Russia,” The Wall Street Journal, updated April 4, 2022, https://www.wsj.com/articles/release-of-secrets-represents- new-front-in-u-s-information-war-with-russia-11649070001 (accessed February 24, 2023). 49. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., “National Security Memorandum on Promoting United States Leadership in Quantum Computing While Mitigating Risks to Vulnerable Cryptographic Systems,” The White House, May 4, 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/05/04/national-security- memorandum-on-promoting-united-states-leadership-in-quantum-computing-while-mitigating-risks- to-vulnerable-cryptographic-systems/#:~:text=To%20mitigate%20this%20risk%2C%20the%20United%20 States%20must,the%20quantum%20risk%20as%20is%20feasible%20by%202035 (accessed March 12, 2023). See also President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14073, “Enhancing the National Quantum Initiative Advisory Committee,” May 4, 2022, in Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 89 (May 9, 2022), pp. 27909–27911, https:// www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-05-09/pdf/2022-10076.pdf (accessed March 12, 2023); and “Fact Sheet: President Biden Announces Two Presidential Directives Advancing Quantum Technologies,” The White House, May 4, 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/05/04/fact- sheet-president-biden-announces-two-presidential-directives-advancing-quantum-technologies/ (accessed March 12, 2023).

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. Steube, W. Gregory

Taxpayer Advocate Participation Act

119/hr/9498

Myakka Wild and Scenic River Act of 2025

119/hr/642

Doug LaMalfa Federal Disaster Tax Relief Certainty Act

119/hr/5366

Back to All Bills