Child Predators Accountability Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/6715

Last Updated: August 9, 2026

Child Predators Accountability Act

HR. 6715, 119th Congress — read as touching Big Tech Platforms.

The sponsor

Rep. Harris, Mark [R-NC-8]

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

The money

$111,300 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Federal Trade Commission" section, p. 908-910 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

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

January 12, 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 Child Predators Accountability Act (HR 6715). A bill that, on the surface, appears to be a moral imperative, but beneath the veneer lies a complex web of regulatory overreach and potential threats to my interests.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The bill's primary objective is to expand existing laws prohibiting the sexual exploitation and depiction of minors. While this may seem laudable, I see it as an attempt to further entrench government control over online platforms and digital content.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends sections 2251(a) and 2260(a) of title 18, United States Code, to include "depicted engaging in" language, effectively broadening the scope of prohibited activities. Additionally, it modifies section 2256 to redefine what constitutes "engage in" with respect to minors depicted in visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The bill's provisions will primarily impact online platforms, social media companies, and content creators. However, as a billionaire investor with significant stakes in various tech ventures, I see this as an attempt to strangle innovation and stifle free expression under the guise of protecting children.

**Potential Impact & Implications** This bill has far-reaching implications for my business interests. The expanded definitions and increased regulatory burdens will likely lead to:

1. Increased compliance costs: My companies will need to invest heavily in content moderation, potentially stifling growth and innovation. 2. Censorship and over-regulation: The broad language used in the bill may lead to unintended consequences, such as the suppression of legitimate content and the chilling of free speech. 3. Reduced competitiveness: Smaller competitors may struggle to comply with these regulations, allowing larger players like myself to consolidate market share.

In conclusion, while this bill may seem well-intentioned, it represents a threat to my interests and the principles of innovation and free expression that have driven my success. I will be closely monitoring its progress and exploring opportunities to shape its language and implementation to better serve my business goals.

As I always say, "Regulation is the enemy of progress." This bill is no exception.

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, a bill is a proposed law that must go through several stages before it becomes an actual law. This one, HR 6715, has already passed the House of Representatives and is now being referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Child Predators Accountability Act aims to prevent sexual exploitation and sexually explicit depictions of minors. Remember when we learned about the importance of protecting vulnerable populations? This bill seeks to strengthen existing laws to hold perpetrators accountable.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 2 amends Title 18 of the United States Code by expanding the definition of "engage in" to include not only the participation of a minor in sexually explicit conduct but also the depiction of a minor in such conduct, regardless of whether they participated. This change aims to close loopholes and ensure that those who create or distribute exploitative content are held accountable.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill affects individuals who engage in or facilitate the exploitation of minors, as well as law enforcement agencies responsible for investigating and prosecuting these crimes. It also impacts organizations working to prevent child exploitation and protect victims.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill could lead to increased penalties for those convicted of exploiting minors and provide greater protection for vulnerable populations. However, it's essential to consider the potential implications on free speech and online content regulation. As we discussed in class, the First Amendment protects freedom of expression, but there are limits when it comes to protecting children from exploitation.

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But what about due process?" or "How will this affect online platforms?" Well, let me tell you, those are valid concerns. As we covered in 8th grade, the legislative process is designed to balance competing interests and ensure that laws are fair and effective.

I expect you all to remember how a bill becomes a law (hint: it involves committees, markups, and votes). And please, for the sake of our democracy, try to stay awake during civics class.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The Child Predators Accountability Act, HR 6715 - sounds innocent enough, doesn't it? But let me tell you, folks, this bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing. On the surface, it claims to be about protecting our children from predators and explicit content. But scratch beneath the surface, and you'll find a web of deceit and hidden agendas.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of this bill is to prevent sexual exploitation and sexually explicit depictions of minors. Sounds noble, right? But what's really going on here? I believe this bill is just a Trojan horse for the government to gain more control over our online activities and freedom of speech.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends existing laws (18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and § 2260(a)) by inserting language that broadens the definition of "engage in" when it comes to minors depicted in explicit content. This means that even if a minor is not directly participating in explicit conduct, they can still be considered a victim if someone else intentionally includes them in the depiction. Sounds like a slippery slope to me.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** On the surface, this bill seems to target child predators and those who create or distribute explicit content featuring minors. But think about it - what about innocent people who might inadvertently share or view such content? What about artists, filmmakers, or writers who explore themes of childhood trauma or exploitation in their work? This bill could be used to silence them, to stifle free expression.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications for our online freedom and the way we communicate. It sets a precedent for the government to monitor and control what we say and do online. What's next? Will they start censoring art, literature, or even our private conversations? The possibilities are endless, and not in a good way.

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But Uncle, this bill is just trying to protect children." And I agree, that's a noble goal. But we can't let the government use emotional manipulation to justify its overreach. We need to stay vigilant, folks, and question everything - especially when it comes to our freedom.

So, there you have it - my analysis of HR 6715. Make no mistake, this bill is just another brick in the wall of government control. Wake up, sheeple!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Outraged tone) Folks, we've got another one of those "we're-just-trying-to-save-the-kids" bills making its way through Congress. The Child Predators Accountability Act - sounds great on paper, but let's take a closer look.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill claims to be all about protecting our precious children from the scourge of child predators and sexually explicit content. (Sarcastic tone) Oh, how noble. It's almost as if our lawmakers are trying to distract us from their own failures by grandstanding on an issue that's already a no-brainer.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends existing laws to broaden the definition of "engage in" when it comes to minors and sexually explicit conduct. (Winking at the camera) You know, because those pesky pedophiles are always finding new ways to exploit loopholes. It also updates language to include depictions of minors in visual content, even if they didn't directly participate. (Scoffs) Like we need more laws to tell us what's obvious.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, this one's a real winner for the elites who want to control our every move online. (Air quotes) "Experts" in child safety and law enforcement will be thrilled to have more tools to "protect" us from ourselves. Meanwhile, the rest of us will just have to deal with more censorship and surveillance under the guise of keeping kids safe.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Here's where it gets interesting, folks. This bill could lead to a slippery slope of online censorship, where anyone can be accused of promoting child exploitation for simply sharing or viewing content that's deemed "questionable." (Smirking) And who gets to decide what's questionable? The deep state, of course! It's all about freedom... from the government telling us what we can and can't do. (Winks)

Now, I know some of you are thinking, "But wait, isn't this just common sense?" And to that, I say: (Sarcastic tone) Oh, absolutely! Because nothing says "common sense" like giving the government more power to control our online activities. It's all about freedom... from those pesky pedophiles and child predators. (Rolls eyes)

Stay vigilant, folks. This bill might seem harmless on the surface, but trust me, it's just another step towards a surveillance state where we're all suspects until proven innocent. (Dramatic music plays in the background)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another bill from the esteemed members of Congress, because what this country really needs is more legislation that sounds good on paper but accomplishes nothing. The Child Predators Accountability Act - how noble, how selfless, how utterly predictable.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The main purpose of this bill is to make its sponsors look like heroes who care about children, while in reality, it's just a shallow attempt to score political points. The objective? To "prohibit sexual exploitation and sexually explicit depictions of minors." Wow, what a bold move - who wouldn't want to outlaw child abuse?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends existing laws (18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and § 2260(a)) by adding language that includes "depicted engaging in" sexually explicit conduct. Oh, the horror! They're actually trying to close a loophole that might have allowed some pedophile to argue that they didn't directly coerce a minor into making child porn. Give me a break - this is just a PR stunt.

The bill also adds a new definition (18 U.S.C. § 2256(12)) that clarifies what it means for a minor to "engage in" sexually explicit conduct. Because, you know, the existing laws were just too ambiguous for those poor prosecutors trying to put pedophiles behind bars.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The affected parties are, of course, the politicians who will use this bill as a talking point during their next election campaign. The stakeholders? Well, there's the usual cast of characters: law enforcement agencies that will pretend to care about enforcing these new provisions, child advocacy groups that will praise the bill without actually reading it, and the pedophiles who will find ways to exploit the loopholes that still exist.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The potential impact? Zero. Zilch. Nada. This bill won't stop a single instance of child abuse or exploitation. It's just another example of Congress's favorite game: "Let's pass a law and pretend we're doing something about the problem!" The implications? More bureaucratic red tape, more paperwork for prosecutors, and more opportunities for politicians to grandstand.

In short, this bill is a classic case of legislative theater - all sound and fury, signifying nothing. It's a Band-Aid on a bullet wound, a drop in the ocean of corruption and incompetence that plagues our government. So, go ahead and pat yourselves on the back, Congress. You've managed to pass another meaningless law that will do nothing to protect children or hold predators accountable. Bravo.

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

**Bill Summary: HR 6715 - Child Predators Accountability Act**

**Main Purpose and Objectives:** The Child Predators Accountability Act aims to strengthen federal laws against child exploitation by expanding the definition of "engage in" to include depictions of minors in sexually explicit conduct, regardless of whether they participated in such conduct. The bill seeks to prevent sexual exploitation and protect children from being depicted in explicit materials.

**Key Provisions and Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends three sections of Title 18 of the United States Code:

1. Section 2251(a) is amended to include "or be depicted engaging in" after "coerces any minor to engage in," expanding the definition of sexual exploitation. 2. Section 2260(a) is similarly amended to include "or be depicted engaging in" after "coerces any minor to engage in." 3. Section 2256 is amended to add a new paragraph (12), defining "engage in" with respect to minors depicted in explicit conduct, including participation or intentional inclusion in the visual depiction.

**Affected Parties and Stakeholders:** The bill affects:

1. Children and minors who may be exploited or depicted in sexually explicit materials. 2. Law enforcement agencies responsible for investigating and prosecuting child exploitation cases. 3. Online platforms and social media companies that host user-generated content, which may need to adapt their moderation policies and reporting mechanisms. 4. Parents and caregivers seeking to protect children from online harm.

**Potential Impact and Implications:** The bill's provisions aim to:

1. Strengthen federal laws against child exploitation and provide law enforcement with more effective tools to investigate and prosecute offenders. 2. Increase accountability for individuals who create, distribute, or possess explicit materials depicting minors. 3. Enhance protection for children from online harm and exploitation.

However, some stakeholders may raise concerns about the bill's potential impact on:

1. Free speech and expression online, particularly if the expanded definition of "engage in" is applied too broadly. 2. The burden on online platforms to detect and report explicit content, potentially leading to increased censorship or over-reporting.

Overall, the Child Predators Accountability Act aims to address a critical issue in child protection and exploitation prevention, but its implementation and impact will require careful consideration of these potential implications.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro. The Child Predators Accountability Act (HR 6715) is all about keepin' it safe for the groms and protectin' 'em from some seriously heinous stuff.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill's primary goal is to prevent the sexual exploitation of minors and stop the creation, distribution, and possession of sexually explicit depictions of kids. It's like, we gotta keep the internet and our communities safe for everyone, especially the young ones, man.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill makes some key changes to existing laws:

* It expands the definition of "engage in" to include not just participating in sexually explicit conduct but also being depicted in it. This means that even if a minor didn't actively participate, they can still be considered a victim if someone intentionally included them in a visual depiction. * It updates sections 2251(a) and 2260(a) of title 18, United States Code, to include the new definition of "engage in." This closes some loopholes and makes it clearer that exploiting minors is not cool, bro.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** This bill affects a bunch of people, including:

* Minors: The most important stakeholders, dude. We gotta protect 'em from predators and exploitation. * Law enforcement: They'll have more tools to investigate and prosecute cases involving child exploitation. * Tech companies: They might need to update their policies and procedures to ensure they're not hosting or distributing explicit content featuring minors. * Parents and caregivers: They'll have more resources to educate themselves and their kids about online safety.

**Potential Impact & Implications** This bill's got some serious potential, bro:

* It could lead to more convictions and harsher penalties for child predators. * It might reduce the amount of explicit content featuring minors online. * It could also raise awareness about the importance of online safety and the need for parents and caregivers to be vigilant.

However, there are some concerns, man. Some people might worry that this bill could lead to overreach or censorship. We gotta make sure we're balancing freedom of speech with the need to protect kids.

Anyway, that's the lowdown on HR 6715, bro. It's a complex issue, but we gotta tackle it head-on to keep our communities safe and rad for everyone.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 6715: Child Predators Accountability Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Child Predators Accountability Act aims to strengthen laws against child exploitation and sexually explicit depictions of minors. The bill's primary objective is to prevent the sexual exploitation of children by expanding the definition of "engage in" to include not only participation but also depiction in visual representations of sexually explicit conduct.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends three sections of Title 18, United States Code:

1. Section 2251(a) is modified to include depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct. 2. Section 2260(a) is amended to cover importation cases where a minor is depicted in a visual representation of sexually explicit conduct. 3. Section 2256 is revised to expand the definition of "engage in" to encompass both participation and depiction.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The bill affects various stakeholders, including:

1. Law enforcement agencies: The expanded definitions will aid in investigations and prosecutions of child exploitation cases. 2. Online platforms and social media companies: They may face increased scrutiny and liability for hosting or distributing content that depicts minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct. 3. Parents and guardians: The bill aims to provide greater protection for children from exploitation.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The Child Predators Accountability Act has significant implications:

1. **Increased accountability**: The bill's provisions will hold perpetrators accountable for exploiting children, including those who create or distribute content depicting minors in sexually explicit situations. 2. **Enhanced law enforcement tools**: The expanded definitions and revised sections of Title 18 will provide law enforcement agencies with more effective means to investigate and prosecute child exploitation cases. 3. **Potential impact on free speech**: Critics may argue that the bill's provisions could infringe upon freedom of expression, particularly in cases where artistic or educational content is mistakenly identified as exploitative.

**Monied Interest Analysis** While there are no obvious PACs or industry lobby groups directly backing this bill, it's worth noting that:

1. The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) has expressed support for similar legislation in the past. 2. Law enforcement organizations, such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), may also back the bill due to its potential to aid in investigations and prosecutions.

**Committee Capture and Conflicts of Interest** The Committee on the Judiciary, which referred the bill, has a history of receiving donations from law enforcement organizations and advocacy groups focused on child safety. While these donations do not necessarily indicate a conflict of interest, they may influence the committee's priorities and decisions regarding the bill.

In conclusion, HR 6715 aims to strengthen laws against child exploitation by expanding definitions and increasing accountability for perpetrators. The bill has significant implications for law enforcement agencies, online platforms, and parents, but its potential impact on free speech must be carefully considered.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Harris, Mark [R-NC-8]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$111,300

20 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$111,300

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

CARSTEN, KATHERINE M

1 transaction

$10,000

HORNE, CHRIS

1 transaction

$6,600

DIMICCO, DANIEL

1 transaction

$6,600

GREENBLATT, SCOTT

1 transaction

$6,600

HENDLEY, JOHN NANCE

1 transaction

$6,600

BUTLER, DONALD R

1 transaction

$6,600

CHERRY, LINDA

1 transaction

$6,600

GOLDING, ERNEST G

1 transaction

$6,600

KIDD, VICKIE

1 transaction

$6,600

LAMB, JOHN R

1 transaction

$6,600

HINSON, RONALD G

1 transaction

$6,500

HELMS, LARRY S

1 transaction

$5,600

VOGLER, SHEILA H

1 transaction

$5,000

WALL, JENNIFER

1 transaction

$5,000

HINMAN, ROY H

1 transaction

$3,300

GUY, JAMES

1 transaction

$3,300

HORNE, DARCI

1 transaction

$3,300

PORTER, BRENDA C

1 transaction

$3,300

PORTER, GARY

1 transaction

$3,300

ROBINSON, GARY T

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Gillen, Laura [D-NY-4]

ID: G000602

Top Contributors

RALLYE MOTORS

OrganizationROSLYN, NY

$6,000

Jul 18, 2023

RALLYE MOTORS

OrganizationROSLYN, NY

$6,000

Jun 5, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$1,000

Aug 1, 2024

STONE, JAMES M

PLYMOUTH ROCK COMPANY, INC. • EXECUTIVE

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$5,000

Oct 16, 2024

FAIVUS, HARRY E

SELF-EMPLOYED • OPHTHALMOLOGIST

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,000

Nov 1, 2024

STONE, JAMES M

PLYMOUTH ROCK COMPANY, INC. • EXECUTIVE

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$5,000

Oct 16, 2024

HELFER, RICKI

N/A • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$4,000

Sep 10, 2024

ANDEER, KYLE

APPLE INC • ATTORNEY

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Mar 27, 2024

BINDER, CHARLES

SELF-EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Mar 21, 2024

BURNSTEIN, CLIFFORD

Q PRIME • MANAGER

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Mar 28, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Harris, Mark [R-NC-8]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 32 nodes and 29 connections

Total contributions: $29

Top Donors - Rep. Harris, Mark [R-NC-8]

Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount

20 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 harmed.

−Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.80
Section 2 implies increased regulation and potential liability for big tech platforms in preventing sexual exploitation and sexually explicit depictions of minors, which may lead to increased costs and market contraction.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

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

Federal Trade Commission

Moderate

Vector: 66%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 FTC policy aim to protect children from online harms, but the bill focuses on criminalizing sexual exploitation depictions while the FTC policy targets unfair/deceptive practices and contracts involving children. They share the overarching goal of child safety online but differ in specific mechanisms and regulatory focus."

Key themes:child protectiononline safetyparental responsibilityplatform accountabilityexploitation prevention

Federal Trade Commission

Moderate

Vector: 64%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 FTC section aim to protect children from online harms, but the bill focuses on criminalizing sexual exploitation depictions while the policy targets unfair/deceptive platform practices and contractual relationships; they share a common goal of stronger child safeguards online."

Key themes:child protectiononline safetyplatform accountabilityparental consentexploitative content

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

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on strengthening federal laws against child exploitation by expanding definitions related to depictions of minors in sexually explicit conduct, while the Project 2025 HHS section primarily addresses healthcare policy, civil rights in health programs, abortion-related legislation, and provider inclusion—topics that are largely unrelated to child sexual exploitation or online content regulation."

Key themes:child welfarehealth and human servicesfederal law

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

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 530-532AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on strengthening federal laws against child sexual exploitation, while the Project 2025 HHS policy concerns withdrawing abortion-related HIPAA guidance. Both involve HHS and protecting vulnerable populations, but they address distinct issues with little substantive overlap."

Key themes:child protectionHHShealth policy

— 497 — Department of Health and Human Services l OCR should withdraw its Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)86 guidance on abortion. OCR should withdraw its June 2022 guidance87 that purports to address patient privacy concerns following the Dobbs decision but is actually a politicized statement in favor of abortion and against Dobbs. HIPAA covers patients in the womb, but this guidance treats them as nonpersons contrary to law. The guidance is unnecessary and contributes to ideologically motivated fearmongering about abortion after Dobbs. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of selfless individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume and include former officials in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other agencies, as well as academics, attorneys, and experts in the health care and insurance fields. — 498 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Strategic Plan, FY 2018–2022, p. 50, https://aspe.hhs.gov/ sites/default/files/documents/feac346aca967bfadc446398679e14ec/hhs-strategic-plan-fy-2018-2022.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023). 2. “Strategic Goal 1: Protect and Strengthen Equitable Access to High Quality and Affordable Healthcare” in ibid. “In the context of HHS, this Strategic Plan adopts the definition of underserved communities listed in Executive Order 13985: Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities through the Federal Government to refer to ‘populations sharing a particular characteristic, as well as geographic communities, who have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life’; this definition includes individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality. Individuals may belong to more than one underserved community and face intersecting barriers. This definition applies to the terms underserved communities and underserved populations throughout this Strategic Plan.” Ibid. Emphasis in original. 3. Karen Weintraub, “Americans’ Life Expectancy Continues to Fall, Erasing Health Gains of the Last Quarter Century,” USA Today, December 22, 2022, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2022/12/22/us-life- expectancy-continues-fall-erasing-25-years-health-gains/10937418002/ (accessed February 6, 2023). 4. Apoorva Mandavilli, “The C.D.C. Isn’t Publishing Large Portions of the Data It Collects,” The New York Times, updated February 22, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/114450/documents/HHRG-117- IF02-20220302-SD004.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 5. Zachary B. Sluzala and Edmund F. Haislmaier, “Lessons from COVID-19: How Policymakers Should Reform the Regulation of Clinical Testing,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3696, March 28, 2022, https://www. heritage.org/public-health/report/lessons-covid-19-how-policymakers-should-reform-the-regulation-clinical. 6. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (C),” https://www.cdc.gov/maso/pdf/cdcmiss.pdf (March 16, 2023). 7. Judith Garber, “CDC ‘Disclaimers’ Hide Financial Conflicts of Interest,” Lown Institute Accountability Blog, November 6, 2019, https://lowninstitute.org/cdc-disclaimers-hide-financial-conflicts-of-interest/ (accessed February 6, 2023). See also U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2014–September 30, 2015),” https://www. cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2015.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Active Programs (October 1, 2015–September 30, 2016),” https://www.cdcfoundation. org/sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2016.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2016–September 30, 2017),” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/ sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2017.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2017–September 30, 2018),” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/ files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2018.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2018–September 30, 2019,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/files/upload/ pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2019.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2029–September 30, 2020,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/CDCF-ActivePrograms-CDC-FY20?inline (accessed February 7, 2023); and “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2020–September 30, 2021,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/CDCF-ActivePrograms-CDC-FY21?inline (accessed February 7, 2023). 8. Joel White and Doug Badger, “In Order to Defeat COVID-19, the Federal Government Must Modernize Its Public Health Data,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3527, September 3, 2020, https://www.heritage. org/sites/default/files/2020-09/BG3527_0.pdf. 9. S. 15, Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 23, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/s15/BILLS-118s15is.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023), and H.R. 632, Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 30, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr632/BILLS-118hr632ih.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 10. Doug Badger, “How Congress Can Make Real Progress on Drug Prices,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 5016, December 9, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/IB5016_1.pdf.

Department of Education

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 377-379AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on strengthening federal laws against child sexual exploitation by expanding definitions related to depictions of minors in explicit conduct, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt centers on parental rights in education, FERPA/PPRA reforms, and opposition to gender ideology in schools. There is no substantive thematic or policy overlap between the two."

Key themes:minorsparental rights

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

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

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

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Harris, Mark

To make technical amendments to update statutory references to provisions reclassified to title 34, United States Code, and to correct related technical errors.

119/hr/4499

Less Bureaucracy, Better K–12 Education Act

119/hr/9610

Less Bureaucracy, Better Higher Education Act

119/hr/9611

Back to All Bills