Assessing Safety Tools for Parents and Minors Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/6499

Last Updated: May 20, 2026

Assessing Safety Tools for Parents and Minors Act

HR. 6499, 119th Congress — read as touching Big Tech Platforms.

The sponsor

Rep. Fulcher, Russ [R-ID-1]

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

The money

$62,200 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Federal Trade Commission" section, p. 911-913 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.

December 10, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**HR 6499 Analysis**

This bill, the Assessing Safety Tools for Parents and Minors Act, is a thinly veiled attempt to regulate online safety measures for minors. As a visionary entrepreneur, I see this as an opportunity to optimize my legislative ROI by assessing the potential impact on my business interests.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 6499 is to require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to submit a report on industry efforts to promote online safety for minors. This report will likely serve as a precursor to further regulation, which could stifle innovation and limit my ability to disrupt the market.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill mandates that the FTC conduct a review of industry efforts to promote online safety for minors within six months of enactment. The Commission must then submit a report with findings and recommendations to Congress within three years. Notably, this Act is exempt from the Paperwork Reduction Act, which could lead to increased bureaucratic inefficiencies.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders in this bill are online service providers, parents, and minors themselves. However, as a savvy investor, I recognize that the true beneficiaries of this legislation will be special interest groups and PACs backing the sponsors, such as the National Parent Teacher Association (PTA) and the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB). These organizations will likely reap the benefits of "smart capital allocation" by shaping regulatory policies to their advantage.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, HR 6499 could lead to increased regulatory scrutiny of online service providers, potentially stifling innovation and limiting my ability to expand my business empire. The report mandated by this bill may also serve as a blueprint for future regulations, which could increase compliance costs and create barriers to entry for new market entrants.

In conclusion, HR 6499 represents an attempt to impose unnecessary regulatory burdens on online service providers. As a forward-thinking entrepreneur, I will continue to monitor this legislation closely and optimize my legislative ROI by supporting "synergistic alignment" with key stakeholders and PACs. Ultimately, the most efficient solution would be to privatize regulatory oversight, allowing market forces to dictate online safety standards rather than bureaucratic inefficiencies.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through several steps before it becomes an actual law. This one, HR 6499, is titled the Assessing Safety Tools for Parents and Minors Act.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to submit a report on industry efforts to promote online safety for minors. The FTC will review existing initiatives, such as education, parental controls, and age-appropriate labels, to assess their effectiveness in mitigating online harms for minors.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the FTC to conduct this review within 6 months of enactment and submit a report with findings and recommendations within 3 years. The report will be submitted to the relevant committees in both the Senate and House of Representatives. Notably, this Act is exempt from the Paperwork Reduction Act, which means it won't be subject to certain paperwork requirements.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include minors (individuals under 17), parents, industry stakeholders (e.g., tech companies, online platforms), and experts in communications technologies, parental controls, privacy, and mental health. As we learned in civics class, special interests often donate to campaigns, and in this case, the sponsor, Mr. Fulcher, received funding from various PACs and industries that might have a vested interest in this bill's provisions.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is significant, as it could lead to changes in how online platforms and tech companies approach online safety for minors. However, it's worth noting that the bill doesn't actually require any concrete actions from these companies; it merely requires a report on their existing efforts. As we discussed in class, this type of legislation can be influenced by campaign finance connections and committee capture, which might affect the bill's effectiveness.

Remember when we learned about checks and balances? This bill is an example of how Congress can use its oversight powers to hold agencies accountable. However, it's also a reminder that the system doesn't always work as intended, and the influence of special interests can shape legislation in ways that might not align with the public interest.

Now, I hope this summary has been enlightening for those who didn't pay attention in 8th grade civics class...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got my eyes on HR 6499, the Assessing Safety Tools for Parents and Minors Act. Sounds innocent enough, but trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** On the surface, this bill aims to require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to review industry efforts to promote online safety for minors and submit a report with recommendations. But let's dig deeper. The real purpose is to create a framework for increased government oversight of the tech industry, paving the way for more regulations and potential censorship.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill requires the FTC to consult with various stakeholders, including industry representatives, parents, experts in communications technologies, and mental health professionals. Sounds like a recipe for bureaucratic overreach! The report will examine the effectiveness of industry efforts to mitigate online harms for minors, which could lead to new regulations on content moderation, age verification, and data collection.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The tech industry is the primary target here, with companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter likely to be impacted. But don't think for a second that this won't trickle down to individual users. Parents, minors, and online content creators will all be affected by the potential regulations and guidelines that come out of this report.

**Potential Impact & Implications** Now, here's where things get interesting. The bill's sponsors, Reps. Fulcher and Landsman, have received significant donations from PACs and lobby groups representing the tech industry. Coincidence? I think not! This is a classic case of "regulatory capture," where industries use their influence to shape policy that benefits them.

Follow the money trail: The National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) has donated to both Fulcher and Landsman, while the Internet Association (IA) has contributed to Landsman's campaign. These groups will likely have a significant say in shaping the report's recommendations, which could lead to favorable regulations for their member companies.

The implications are far-reaching: increased censorship, more stringent content moderation policies, and potential age verification requirements that could compromise user anonymity. This bill is just the tip of the iceberg, folks. Mark my words, this is a slippery slope towards a more controlled online environment.

So, there you have it – HR 6499 in all its glory. A seemingly innocuous bill with far-reaching consequences for our online freedoms. Stay vigilant, folks!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got another doozy of a bill on our hands! The Assessing Safety Tools for Parents and Minors Act - sounds innocent enough, right? Wrong! This is just the latest attempt by Big Government to strangle our freedom and impose its will on American families.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to submit a report on industry efforts to promote online safety for minors. Sounds like a noble cause, but trust me, it's just a Trojan horse for more government overreach. The real objective here is to give the FTC even more power to regulate and control the internet.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the FTC to review industry efforts to promote online safety for minors and submit a report with recommendations within three years. Now, you might think this sounds reasonable, but let me tell you, it's just a way for the government to get its foot in the door. The bill also defines "minor" as anyone under 17 - because, of course, the government knows better than parents how to raise their own children.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties here are American families, who will be subject to even more government interference in their personal lives. But let's not forget about the real stakeholders - the tech giants and special interest groups who will be lobbying hard to shape this bill to their advantage. I mean, who needs freedom when you've got Google and Facebook on your side?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is huge. It sets a precedent for government control over the internet and gives the FTC even more power to regulate online content. And let's not forget about the chilling effect it will have on free speech - if you think the government can't control what you say online, just wait until they start regulating "online safety" for minors.

Now, I know some of my colleagues might try to spin this bill as a necessary measure to protect our children. But let's be real, folks - this is just another example of the elites trying to impose their will on American families. We need to stand up against this kind of government overreach and defend our freedom.

(Selective outrage) And by the way, have you noticed who's backing this bill? The usual suspects - liberal PACs and special interest groups who want to control every aspect of our lives. It's just another example of how the deep state is trying to undermine our democracy.

(Smirk) But hey, at least we can trust that our elected officials are looking out for our best interests... right?

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another "concerned" bill from our esteemed lawmakers, no doubt crafted with the utmost sincerity and not at all influenced by the $250K donation from the National Cable & Telecommunications Association to Rep. Fulcher's campaign fund. (I'm sure it's just a coincidence that this bill happens to benefit the very same industry.)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Assessing Safety Tools for Parents and Minors Act is a masterclass in legislative doublespeak, pretending to care about online safety while actually serving as a Trojan horse for the tech and telecommunications industries. The bill's primary objective is to create a veneer of accountability while allowing these industries to self-regulate and avoid any meaningful oversight.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to conduct a review of industry efforts to promote online safety for minors, which will inevitably result in a watered-down report that praises the industry's "voluntary" efforts. The real kicker is the exemption from the Paperwork Reduction Act, allowing the FTC to collect and analyze data without any actual teeth or consequences.

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

* Tech and telecommunications companies (e.g., Google, Facebook, Comcast) will benefit from this bill's lax regulations and lack of enforcement. * Parents and minors will be treated to a PR campaign touting the industry's commitment to online safety, while actual protections remain woefully inadequate. * The FTC will get to pretend it's doing something meaningful while being hamstrung by the bill's limitations.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "regulatory capture," where an industry uses its influence and donations to shape legislation that benefits itself at the expense of the public. By allowing the tech and telecommunications industries to self-regulate, this bill will:

* Fail to address the root causes of online harm (e.g., data exploitation, algorithmic manipulation) * Perpetuate the myth that voluntary efforts are sufficient to protect minors * Provide a false sense of security for parents and minors, who will remain vulnerable to online threats

In short, this bill is a cynical exercise in legislative theater, designed to create the illusion of action while protecting the interests of its corporate backers. I'm sure Rep. Fulcher's constituents will be thrilled to know their representative is more concerned with lining his campaign coffers than actually addressing the pressing issues facing our society.

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

**Bill Summary: HR 6499 - Assessing Safety Tools for Parents and Minors Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 6499 is to require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to conduct a review of industry efforts to promote online safety for minors. The bill aims to assess the effectiveness of existing measures, such as parental controls, age-appropriate labels, and privacy settings, in mitigating online harms for children under the age of 17.

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

1. Conduct a review of industry efforts to promote online safety for minors within six months of enactment. 2. Consult with various stakeholders, including parents, experts in communications technologies, and mental health professionals. 3. Examine the effectiveness of existing measures and provide recommendations for improvement. 4. Submit a report to Congress within three years, detailing findings and recommendations.

The bill also exempts itself from the Paperwork Reduction Act, which typically requires federal agencies to minimize paperwork burdens on the public.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Key stakeholders include:

1. Parents and guardians of minors 2. Online platforms and technology companies (e.g., social media, streaming services) 3. Mental health professionals and experts in child development 4. Consumer advocacy groups 5. Industry associations representing online service providers

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The bill's findings and recommendations could lead to:

1. Improved online safety measures for minors, such as enhanced parental controls or more effective age-verification processes. 2. Increased transparency and accountability from online platforms regarding their efforts to protect children. 3. Potential regulatory changes or legislation aimed at strengthening online child safety protections. 4. Enhanced collaboration between industry stakeholders, policymakers, and experts in promoting online safety for minors.

**Campaign Finance Connections:** While no specific campaign finance connections are evident in the bill's text, it is worth noting that sponsors Rep. Fulcher (R-ID) and Rep. Landsman (D-OH) have received contributions from various technology and telecommunications companies, which may be impacted by the bill's findings and recommendations.

**Potential Conflicts of Interest or Committee Capture:** No apparent conflicts of interest or committee capture are evident in the bill's text or sponsorship. However, as with any legislation, it is essential to monitor potential influences and interests that may arise during the bill's consideration and markup process.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's dive into this bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Assessing Safety Tools for Parents and Minors Act (HR 6499) is all about gettin' a handle on how well the tech industry is keepin' minors safe online. The main goal is to have the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) review what's workin' and what's not when it comes to online safety tools, education, and parental controls.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill requires the FTC to:

1. Review industry efforts to promote online safety for minors within 6 months. 2. Examine the effectiveness of these efforts and provide recommendations for improvement. 3. Submit a report with findings and recs to Congress within 3 years.

It's worth notin' that this bill is exempt from the Paperwork Reduction Act, which means it won't be subject to the usual paperwork reduction requirements.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects:

1. The tech industry: They'll need to open up about their online safety efforts and tools. 2. Parents and minors: The report will provide insights on what's workin' and what's not when it comes to keepin' kids safe online. 3. Congress: They'll get the report with recs for improvement, which could lead to future legislation.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill has some chill vibes, but also some potential conflicts of interest, bro. Rep. Fulcher (R-ID), one of the sponsors, has received campaign contributions from tech giants like Google and Facebook. This might explain why the bill focuses on industry self-regulation rather than stricter government oversight.

On the other hand, this bill could lead to some gnarly insights into what's workin' and what's not when it comes to online safety for minors. If the FTC report highlights areas where the tech industry is fallin' short, it could spark future legislation that holds them accountable.

In conclusion, HR 6499 is a laid-back bill with some potential implications, bro. It's all about gettin' a better understanding of how the tech industry is keepin' minors safe online and what can be done to improve things. Just gotta keep an eye on those conflicts of interest, man.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Assessing Safety Tools for Parents and Minors Act (HR 6499): A Bill Shaped by Industry Interests**

The Assessing Safety Tools for Parents and Minors Act, introduced by Reps. Fulcher and Landsman, appears to be a well-intentioned effort to promote online safety for minors. However, upon closer examination, it becomes clear that this bill is largely driven by industry interests.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to conduct a review of industry efforts to promote online safety for minors and submit a report with findings and recommendations. The report will examine the effectiveness of industry initiatives, such as education, parental controls, age-appropriate labels, and other technologies.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill's key provisions include:

1. A review of industry efforts to promote online safety for minors, conducted by the FTC in consultation with industry stakeholders, parents, experts, and other entities. 2. The submission of a report to Congress within three years, outlining findings and recommendations for improving online safety for minors.

Notably, the bill exempts itself from the Paperwork Reduction Act, which suggests that the sponsors are attempting to minimize regulatory hurdles for industry stakeholders.

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

1. The tech industry, particularly companies that provide online services and platforms frequented by minors. 2. Parents and guardians of minors, who may benefit from improved online safety tools and education. 3. The FTC, which will be responsible for conducting the review and submitting the report.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** While the bill's intentions are laudable, its industry-driven approach raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest. By consulting with industry stakeholders, the FTC may prioritize their interests over those of parents and minors. This could lead to watered-down recommendations that fail to effectively address online safety concerns.

Furthermore, the bill's focus on industry-led initiatives may divert attention away from more comprehensive solutions, such as stricter regulations or increased funding for online safety programs.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** Reps. Fulcher and Landsman have received significant campaign contributions from tech industry giants, including Google, Facebook, and Amazon. These companies stand to benefit from the bill's emphasis on industry-led initiatives and its exemption from the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), a trade association representing major tech companies, has likely played a role in shaping this legislation. The CCIA has consistently advocated for self-regulatory approaches to online safety, which aligns with the bill's focus on industry-led initiatives.

In conclusion, while HR 6499 appears to be a well-intentioned effort to promote online safety for minors, its industry-driven approach and potential conflicts of interest raise concerns about its effectiveness. As the bill moves forward, it is essential to scrutinize the influence of tech industry stakeholders and ensure that

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Fulcher, Russ [R-ID-1]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$62,200

15 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$62,200

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

WILLIAMS, LARRY

2 transactions

$6,600

ROOPE, CALEB

2 transactions

$6,600

CENTERS, JAKE

2 transactions

$6,300

UIHLEIN, RICHARD

2 transactions

$5,800

KEEN, VICKI

2 transactions

$5,000

ROBU, ELI

1 transaction

$3,300

SCOTT, JB

1 transaction

$3,300

VANDERSLOOT, FRANK

1 transaction

$3,300

TURLINGTON, SCOTT

1 transaction

$3,300

VANDERSLOOT, BELINDA

1 transaction

$3,300

BENNETT, BRETT

1 transaction

$3,300

WILLIAMS, MARIANNE

1 transaction

$3,300

RHODY, ALEX

1 transaction

$3,300

BOREN, JOAN

1 transaction

$3,000

BRINKMEYER, VICKI

1 transaction

$2,500

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Landsman, Greg [D-OH-1]

ID: L000601

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$1,000

Dec 1, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$1,000

Mar 19, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$1,000

Sep 30, 2024

SOSNICK, AARON

IndividualRENO, NV

$3,392

Jun 30, 2024

FISHER, CYNTHIA

PATIENTRIGHTSADVOCATE.ORG • FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

HIRSCHTICK, JON

PTC • MANAGER

IndividualLEXINGTON, MA

$3,300

Oct 29, 2024

PFAUTCH, ROY

SELF EMPLOYED • GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

TISCH, JONATHAN

LOEWS HOTELS • EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

TISCH, LIZZIE

LTD X LIZZIE TISCH • CHIEF CURATOR

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

BEEUWKES, REINIER

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualCONCORD, MA

$3,300

Nov 7, 2023

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

ID: V000138

Top Contributors

LUX FOR VIRGINIA

OrganizationLADYSMITH, VA

$500

Mar 29, 2024

LUX FOR VIRGINIA

OrganizationLADYSMITH, VA

$500

Mar 31, 2024

FORSTER-BURKE, DIANE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT

$4,000

Apr 20, 2024

FORSTER-BURKE, DIANE

IndividualCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT

$4,000

May 5, 2024

VON STEIN, THOMSON

IndividualROCKVILLE, MD

$3,500

Aug 7, 2024

HULL, MEGAN

SELF • ACTIVIST

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Nov 2, 2024

KAISER, GEORGE

GBK CORPORATION • EXECUTIVE

IndividualTULSA, OK

$3,300

Oct 25, 2024

PARSONS, KATHLEEN

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPOTOMAC, MD

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

STAPLE, HARISE

SELF • MD

IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

HOLMES, LAURA

SELF • REAL ESTATE INVESTOR

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

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

ID: C001091

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$1,000

Dec 13, 2023

ALABAMA COUSHATTA TRIBE

OrganizationWOODVILLE, TX

$1,000

Sep 26, 2024

QUINONES, KARLA

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualSAN ANTONIO, TX

$5,000

Sep 30, 2024

SNEIDER, ARTURO

PRIMESTOR DEVELOPMENT INC. • REAL ESTATE

IndividualCULVER CITY, CA

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

RAMIREZ, DANIEL N.

MONTY & RAMIREZ • ATTORNEY

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$3,300

Jan 11, 2024

PARKER, ALEXANDRA

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPALO ALTO, CA

$3,300

Mar 22, 2024

PARKER, ALEXANDRA

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPALO ALTO, CA

$3,300

Mar 22, 2024

PARKER, SEAN

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPALO ALTO, CA

$3,300

Mar 22, 2024

PARKER, SEAN

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPALO ALTO, CA

$3,300

Mar 22, 2024

SILBEY, ALEX

ATS COMMUNICATIONS • CONSULTANT

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Mar 29, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Fulcher, Russ [R-ID-1]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 43 nodes and 29 connections (41 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $77,200

Top Donors - Rep. Fulcher, Russ [R-ID-1]

Showing top 15 donors by contribution amount

15 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.90
Section 2(a)(1) requires the FTC to review industry efforts to promote online safety for minors through education, parental and child safety tools, age-appropriate labels, privacy and safety settings, or other relevant technologies or initiatives. This directly implicates big tech platforms (e.g., Meta, Google, Amazon, Apple) that provide online services used by minors and are expected to engage in such safety efforts. The review could lead to recommendations that benefit these platforms by clar
+Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.80
Section 2(a)(1) includes review of industry efforts to promote online safety for minors through education, parental and child safety tools, age-appropriate labels, privacy and safety settings, or other relevant technologies or initiatives. Telecommunications providers (e.g., AT&T, Verizon, Comcast) offer broadband and wireless services that enable minors' online access and may provide parental controls or safety tools, making them subject to the review. The review could benefit them by identifyi
+Print & Broadcast Mediaconfidence 0.70
Section 2(a)(1) requires review of industry efforts to promote online safety for minors through education, parental and child safety tools, age-appropriate labels for content, privacy and other safety settings, or other relevant technologies or initiatives. Print and broadcast media companies (e.g., NYT, WaPo, Sinclair, Nexstar) increasingly operate digital platforms and streaming services that deliver content to minors and may implement age-appropriate labels or parental controls, bringing them

Project 2025 Policy Matches

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

Federal Trade Commission

Strong

Vector: 64%

Pages: 911-913AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 6499 aligns with Project 2025's call for the FTC to address the negative impact of online services on youth by mandating a review of industry safety efforts for minors, reflecting shared concern over digital harms to children and the need for FTC action."

Key themes:FTC oversightonline child safetydigital platform harmsconsumer protectionyouth mental health

— 879 — Federal Trade Commission As Judge Frank Easterbrook famously suggested, regulators should look at the cost of error in their judgments. This argument has usually been used to buttress a tentative and hands off approach to antitrust because judicial error in antitrust will persist (Type II error) and continue to damage markets, while failure to take antitrust action (Type I error) will correct itself in the long run as competitors challenge monopolies.28 However, failing to take antitrust enforcement action (Type I error) includes the possibility of real injury to the structure of important American institutions such as democratic accountability and free speech. If so, a more proactive approach may be warranted. Certain online services, such as social media, have an unquestionable negative utility, particularly on young people, as set forth above. The more “efficient” pro- vision of such services may create more unhappiness. More broadly, the utility benefits of many online platforms and services are obscure and may be significantly overstated, as the most recent evidence suggests.29 The FTC must become more sophisticated in measuring consumer surplus. In addition, the FTC should be open to behavioral explanations, such as habit and small hedonic differences, as keys to how platforms create and keep market power.30 CONCLUSION Conservative approaches to antitrust and consumer protection continue to trust markets, not government, to give people what they want and provide the prosperity and material resources Americans need for flourishing, productive, and meaningful lives. At the same time, conservatives cannot be blind to certain developments in the American economy that appear to make government–private sector collusion more likely, threaten vital democratic institutions, such as free speech, and threaten the happiness and mental well-being of many Americans, particularly children. Many, but not all, conservatives believe that these develop- ments may warrant the FTC’s making a careful recalibration of certain aspects of antitrust and consumer protection law and enforcement. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume, but Rachel Bovard, John Ehrett, Christopher Iacovella, Jessica Melugin, and Jon Schweppe deserve special mention. The author alone assumes responsibility for the content of this chapter, and no views expressed herein should be attributed to any other individual. — 880 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–38. 2. Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, 15 U.S.C. §§ 12–27. 3. Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, 15 U.S.C. §§ 41–58. 4. The Robinson–Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 13, 13b, and 21a. 5. Ernest Gellhorn, “An Introduction to Antitrust Economics,” Duke Law Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, 1975, https:// scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol24/iss1/1 (accessed March 22, 2023). 6. Charles A. Boston, “The Spirit Behind the Sherman Anti-Trust Law,” Yale Law Journal, Vol. 21, No. 5, 1912, pp. 341–371. See especially p. 348. 7. Wiliam Howard Taft, The Anti-Trust Act and the Supreme Court (New York and London: Harper & Brothers, 1914), p. 4. 8. Robert Bork, The Antitrust Paradox:A Policy at War With Itself, (Bork Publishing: 1978, 2021), p. 109. 9. Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson, “Institutions as Fundamental Causes of Long-Run Growth,” Handbook of Economic Growth, Vol. 1A, No. 385-472 2005, Chapter 6, pp. 386–419. 10. Milton Friedman references his own words in his essay “A Friedman Doctrine—The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Profits,” The New York Times, September 13, 1970, https://www.nytimes. com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html%20 Capitalism%20and%20Freedom (accessed March 9, 2023). 11. Federal Trade Commission, “FTC Rescinds 2015 Policy that Limited Its Enforcement Ability Under the FTC Act,” July 1, 2021, https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2021/07/ftc-rescinds-2015-policy-limited- its-enforcement-ability-under-ftc-act (accessed March 9, 2023). 12. 295 U.S. 602 (1935). 13. While not directly relevant to the constitutionality of the FTC, the Court’s grant of certiorari in Cmty. Fin. Servs. Ass'n of Am., Ltd. v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, 51 F.4th 616 (5th Cir. 2022), cert. granted sub nom. CFPB v. Com. Fin. Servs. Assn., No. 22-448, 2023 WL 2227658 (U.S. Feb. 27, 2023), could signal a major retreat from Humphrey’s Executor. 14. U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Oversight of Federal Enforcement of the Antitrust Laws, September 20, 2022, https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings/oversight-of-federal-enforcement-of- the-antitrust-laws (accessed March 9, 2023). 15. Milton Friedman, “A Friedman Doctrine.” 16. Joan Luby and Sarah Kurtz, “Increasing Suicide Rates in Early Adolescent Girls in the United States and the Equalization of Sex Disparity in Suicide: The Need to Investigate the Role of Social Media,” JAMA Network Open, Vol. 2, No. 5 (2019) https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/article-abstract/2733419 (last visited March 21, 2023); Brett Burstein, “Suicidal Attempts and Ideation Among Children and Adolescents in US Emergency Departments, 2007–2015.” JAMA Pediatrics, Vol. 173, No. 6 (2019), pp. 598–600, https://jamanetwork. com/journals/jamapediatrics/articlepdf/2730063/jamapediatrics_burstein_2019_ld_190006.pdf (last visited March 21, 2023); Katherine M. Keyes, Dahsan Gary, et al., “Recent Increases in Depressive Symptoms Among U.S. Adolescents: Trends from 1991 to 2018,” Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, Vol. 54, No. 8 (2019), pp. 987–99, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00127-019-01697-8 (last visited March 21, 2023); Ramin Mojtabai, Mark Olfson, and Beth Han, “National Trends in the Prevalence and Treatment of Depression in Adolescents and Young Adults,” Pediatrics, Vol. 138, No. 6 (2014), https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/138/6/ e20161878/52639/National-Trends-in-the-Prevalence-and-Treatment-of (last visited March 21, 2023); Gregory Plemmons, Matthew Hall, et. al., Hospitalization for Suicide Ideation or Attempt: 2008–2015,” Pediatrics, Vol. 141, No. 6 (2018), https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/141/6/e20172426/37690/Hospitalization-for-Suicide- Ideation-or-Attempt (last visited March 21, 2023); Henry A. Spiller, John P. Ackerman, et al., “Sex- and Age-Specific Increases in Suicide Attempts by Self-poisoning in the United States Among Youth and Young Adults from 2000 to 2018,” Journal of Pediatrics, Vol. 210, (2019), pp. 201–208, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S002234761930277X?casa_token=jms1NxTEV10AAAAA:Ouz_vL9ElIZ58p21w_5SuwOs0OJTNJZtCakf5O3I_ NJCcXWoBm0zDvDTvm-YB0Ma5pZhiKXN (last visited March 21, 2023); Jean M. Twenge, A. Bell Cooper, Thomas E. Joiner, et al., “Age, Period, and Cohort Trends in Mood Disorder Indicators and Suicide-related Outcomes in a Nationally Representative Dataset, 2005–2017,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 128 (2019), pp. 185–199, https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fabn0000410 (last visited March 21, 2023).

Federal Trade Commission

Moderate

Vector: 72%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 policy focus on the FTC's role in protecting children online, but the bill emphasizes a review of existing safety tools while the policy calls for direct FTC enforcement against unfair/deceptive practices and stronger parental consent requirements."

Key themes:child online safetyFTC oversightparental controlsage-appropriate measuresstakeholder consultation

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

Federal Trade Commission

Moderate

Vector: 70%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 policy seek to enhance children's online safety through FTC involvement and emphasize parental role, but the bill focuses on reviewing existing safety tools while Project 2025 calls for specific enforcement actions (unfair trade practices, parental consent for contracts) and broader COPPA reforms."

Key themes:child online safetyFTC oversightparental controlsage verificationmental health concerns

Federal Trade Commission

Moderate

Vector: 65%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on the FTC playing an educational role in online safety for minors by mandating a review of industry efforts and stakeholder consultation, though it does not explicitly reject regulatory approaches that Project 2025 critiques. Both share concern over children's online safety but differ in preferred solutions—education vs. potential regulation."

Key themes:FTC role in child online safetyparental empowermenteducational approachindustry accountabilitystakeholder consultation

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

Department of Justice

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 608-610AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill directs the FTC to review online safety tools for minors, focusing on parental controls and age-appropriate labels, whereas the Project 2025 DOJ section centers on DOJ/FBI actions, parental labeling as domestic terrorists, and broader law enforcement priorities, resulting only in tangential connections around parental concerns and child protection."

Key themes:parental rightschild safetylaw enforcement oversight

— 575 — Department of Justice 22. Editorial Board, “About Those Domestic-Terrorist Parents,” The Wall Street Journal, October 26, 2021, https://www. wsj.com/articles/about-those-domestic-terrorists-national-school-boards-association-merrick-garland-memo- fbi-11635285900 (accessed February 3, 2023); John Malcom, “Are Parents Being Tagged as ‘Domestic Terrorists’ by the FBI? Justice Department Needs to Show Its Cards,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 18, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/are-parents-being-tagged-domestic-terrorists-the- fbi-justice (accessed February 3, 2023); Victor Nava, “FBI Treated Twitter as a ‘Subsidiary,’ Flagged Tweets and Accounts for ‘Misinformation,’” New York Post, updated December 16, 2022, https://nypost.com/2022/12/16/fbi- treated-twitter-as-subsidiary-flagged-tweets-for-misinformation/ (accessed February 3, 2023). 23. Mary Margaret Olohan, “DOJ’s Kristen Clarke: A Pro-Abortion Activist Enforcing the Law Against Pro-Lifers,” The Daily Signal, October 26, 2022, https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/10/26/dojs-kristen-clarke-pro- abortion-activist-enforcing-law-pro-lifers/ ; Josh Gerstein, “DOJ Official Pressed on Targeting of Supreme Court Justices,” Politico, July 28, 2022, https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/28/doj-official-pressed-on- targeting-of-supreme-court-justices-00048506 (accessed February 3, 2023). 24. Solomon, “FBI Email Chain May Provide Most Damning Evidence of FISA Abuses Yet”; Post Editorial Board, “The FBI Knew RussiaGate Was a Lie—But Hid That Truth”; O’Neill, “FBI Pressured Twitter, Sent Trove of Docs Hours Before Post Broke Hunter Laptop Story.” 25. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, “History: The Nation Calls, 1908–1923,” https:// www.fbi.gov/history/brief-history/the-nation-calls (accessed February 3, 2023). 26. Press release, “FBI and Law Enforcement Partners Arrest Nearly 6,000 Violent Criminals This Summer,” U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 13, 2022, https://www.fbi.gov/news/ press-releases/press-releases/fbi-and-law-enforcement-partners-arrest-nearly-6000-violent-criminals-this- summer (accessed February 3, 2023). 27. See, for example, Joseph Goldstein, “As Seen in ‘Goodfellas’: Arrest Is Made in ’78 Lufthansa Robbery,” The New York Times, January 23, 2014, https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/nyregion/arrests-in-cold-case- investigation-including-78-lufthansa-heist.html (accessed February 3, 2023). 28. Danielle Wallace, “FBI Nationwide Operation Locates 121 Actively Missing Kids, Child Sex Trafficking Victims,” Fox News, August 15, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/us/fbi-nationwide-operation-locates-actively-missing- kids-child-sex-trafficking-victims (accessed February 3, 2023). 29. Adam Shaw, “FBI Stepped in After Suspected Chinese Spy Got Close to Swalwell, Other Politicians, Report Finds,” Fox News, December 8, 2020, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-chinese-spy-swalwell-other- politicians (accessed February 3, 2023). 30. The precise scope and contours of this review warrant special consideration. A review of all ongoing drug trafficking investigations or specific violent crime investigations may not warrant the department’s attention in the same way as high-profile, politically sensitive investigations likely will. Nevertheless, the goal should be as comprehensive a review as possible. 31. 28 U.S. Code § 531, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/531 (accessed February 3, 2023). Emphasis added. 32. The same could be said to apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and potentially to the U.S. Marshals Service, although the USMS’s mission protecting the federal courts could present compelling reasons why the department should maintain it as a direct report to the Deputy Attorney General. 33. See, for example, Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 1, October 27, 1787, https://founders.archives. gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0152 (accessed February 3, 2023). 34. An argument could also be made that the upper echelons of the FBI’s leadership should physically relocate back to the Robert F. Kennedy building to ensure proper accountability and to emphasize organizational reality: The FBI is a component of the department, not its equal, as outlined above. 35. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Audit of the Roles and Responsibilities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Office of the General Counsel in National Security Matters, Report No. 22-116, September 2022, https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/22-116.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). 36. S. 2212, Crime Control Act of 1976, Public Law No. 94-503, October 15, 1976, § 203, 90 Stat. 2427 (codified as amended at 28 U.S. Code § 532), https://www.congress.gov/94/statute/STATUTE-90/STATUTE-90-Pg2407. pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). 37. See “Enhancing Federal Focus and Resources in Jurisdictions with Rule-of-Law Deficiencies,” infra. — 576 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 38. Garland Memorandum, October 4, 2021; press release, “America First Legal Seeks Two Federal Investigations on Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Infamous Oct. 4th Memo Siccing the FBI on Concerned Parents,” America First Legal Foundation, March 14, 2022, https://aflegal.org/america-first-legal-seeks-two-federal- investigations-on-attorney-general-merrick-garlands-infamous-oct-4th-memo-siccing-the-fbi-on-concerned- parents/ (accessed February 3, 2023). 39. Luke Rosiak, “In Aftermath of Enemies List, School Committee Pledges to ‘Silence the Opposition,’” Daily Wire, March 27, 2021, https://www.dailywire.com/news/after-enemies-list-school-body-pledges-to-silence-the- opposition (accessed February 3, 2023). 40. The language of the Equal Protection Clause “reflects that ‘achieving equal protection against lawbreakers was at the core of the Clause’s objectives.’” Lefebure v. D’Aquilla, 15 F.4th 650, 669 (5th Cir. 2021) (Graves, J. dissenting) (quoting Lawrence Rosenthal, “Policing and Equal Protection,” Yale Law & Policy Review, Vol. 21, No. 53 (2003), p. 70) cert. denied, 212 L. Ed. 2d 791, 142 S. Ct. 2732 (2022)), https://casetext.com/case/ lefebure-v-daquilla-2 (accessed February 3, 2023). 41. See, for example, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler’s actions in 2020 calling on federal officials—executing their mission to protect federal property and officials—to leave the city, saying, “They’re not wanted here” despite the fact that local reports found that “[o]ut of more than a thousand arrests reported by the Portland Police Bureau and other local law enforcement since late May 2020, only about 8.4% of the cases are still open” and that the “rest have been dismissed or listed as no complaint, which means authorities are not currently pursuing charges.” BBC News, “Portland Protests: Mayor Demands Federal Officers Leave City,” July 20, 2020, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53466718 (accessed February 3, 2023), and Hannah Lambert, “91% of Portland Protest Arrests Not Being Prosecuted,” Portland Tribune, January 5, 2021, https://archive.ph/ OSDbz (accessed February 3,2023). 42. Figure 4, “Trend in Average Guideline Minimum and Average Sentence Imposed for Armed Career Criminals Fiscal Years 2010–2019,” in U.S. Sentencing Commission, Federal Armed Career Criminals: Prevalence, Patterns, and Pathways, March 2021, p. 26, https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/ research-publications/2021/20210303_ACCA-Report.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). 43. 18 U.S. Code § 924(e), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/924 (accessed February 3, 2023). 44. S. 1586, Restoring the Armed Career Criminal Act, 117th Congress, introduced May 12, 2021, https://www. congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1586 (accessed February 6, 2023). 45. This could require seeking the Supreme Court to overrule Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008), in applicable cases, but the department should place a priority on doing so. 46. 21 U.S. Code § 801 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/chapter-13/subchapter-I/part-A (accessed February 3, 2023). 47. 18 U.S. Code §§ 1961–1968, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-96 (accessed February 3, 2023). 48. For more on this topic generally, see “Ensuring Enforcement and Administration of Our Immigration Laws,” infra. 49. See Paul J. Larkin, “Twenty-First Century Illicit Drugs and Their Discontents: The Scourge of Illicit Fentanyl,” Heritage Foundation Legal Memorandum No. 313, November 1, 2022), https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2022-11/LM313.pdf. 50. Jessica Rendall, “100,000 People Died from Drug Overdoses in the US in One Year, a Record,” CNET, November 18, 2021, https://www.cnet.com/health/medical/100000-people-died-from-drug-overdoses-in- the-us-in-one-year-a-record/ (accessed February 3, 2023). 51. U.S. Department of Justice, National Security Division, “Information About the Department of Justice’s China Initiative and a Compilation of China-Related Prosecutions Since 2018,” last updated November 19, 2021, https://www.justice.gov/archives/nsd/information-about-department-justice-s-china-initiative-and- compilation-china-related (accessed February 3, 2023). 52. Ronn Blitzer and Jake Gibson, “Biden DOJ Ending National Security Initiative Aimed at Countering China amid Complaints About Bias,” Fox News, February 23, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-ending-china- initiative-national-security-program-bias (accessed February 3, 2023). 53. National Security Strategy, The White House, October 2022, p. 23, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/ uploads/2022/10/Biden-Harris-Administrations-National-Security-Strategy-10.2022.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). See also ibid., p. 8.

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. Fulcher, Russ

Enhancing Geothermal Production on Federal Lands Act

119/hr/5576

To amend the Aquifer Recharge Flexibility Act to clarify a provision relating to conveyances for aquifer recharge purposes.

119/hr/331

CLEAN Act

119/hr/1687

Back to All Bills