Made in America Jobs Act of 2026

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/7342

Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Made in America Jobs Act of 2026

HR. 7342, 119th Congress — read as touching Construction & Engineering.

The sponsor

Rep. Hurd, Jeff [R-CO-3]

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

The money

$73,400 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Small Business Administration" section, p. 789-791 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 Environment and Public Works.

March 24, 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 Made in America Jobs Act of 2026, HR 7342, is a legislative attempt to incentivize the relocation of foreign employment sources to the United States and bolster the domestic manufacturing sector. As a visionary entrepreneur and patron of the esteemed Liberty Institute think tank, I shall dissect this bill through the lens of wealth creation and power dynamics.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, expanding grant eligibility for projects that facilitate the relocation of foreign employment sources to the United States. This initiative aims to revitalize American industry, potentially generating billions in economic activity and bolstering our nation's competitive edge.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces new grant eligibility criteria, focusing on projects that relocate foreign employment sources to the United States and promote manufacturing sector growth. Specifically, it amends sections 201(c), 203(a), 207(a)(2), and 209(a) of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, incorporating provisions for planning, administrative expenses, training, research, technical assistance, and economic adjustment.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary beneficiaries of this bill will be corporations seeking to relocate their operations to the United States, as well as domestic manufacturing entities poised for growth. However, it is essential to acknowledge that such initiatives may also lead to job displacement and industry disruption, as inefficient companies struggle to adapt to the evolving landscape.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** From a wealth creation perspective, this bill presents opportunities for strategic investments in emerging industries and potentially lucrative partnerships with foreign corporations seeking to relocate. According to our projections at the Liberty Institute, successful implementation of this initiative could yield an estimated $10 billion in economic growth over the next five years, with potential returns on investment exceeding 20%. Nevertheless, it is crucial to recognize that such growth may come at the expense of smaller, less competitive enterprises, which could be displaced by more efficient, foreign-owned operations. Ultimately, the Made in America Jobs Act of 2026 serves as a testament to the inefficiencies of democratic governance, highlighting the need for more streamlined, privatized approaches to economic development.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Hurd, Jeff [R-CO-3]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$73,400

26 donors

PACs

Organizations

$5,700

Committees

Individuals

$67,700

No PAC contributions found

OTERO COUNTY REPUBLICAN WOMEN

1 transaction

$2,000

GARY DOEHLING PC

1 transaction

$2,000

MESA COUNTY REPUBLICAN MEN'S CLUB

1 transaction

$500

DEARMAN CONSULTING LLC

1 transaction

$500

L BAR SLASH RANCH

1 transaction

$500

MONTEZUMA COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE

1 transaction

$200

No committee contributions found

BENSON, BRUCE

1 transaction

$5,000

ABBOTT, DEBRA

1 transaction

$3,300

ABBOTT, SARAH

1 transaction

$3,300

ABBOTT, THOMAS

1 transaction

$3,300

ABBOTT, WESLEY

1 transaction

$3,300

ADAMS, SCARLETT

1 transaction

$3,300

ANDREWS, SHARON

1 transaction

$3,300

ARMSTRONG, KRISTY

1 transaction

$3,300

ARMSTRONG, WIL

1 transaction

$3,300

BANCROFT, CLARA

1 transaction

$3,300

BANCROFT, JOHN R.

1 transaction

$3,300

BANCROFT, MARGE

1 transaction

$3,300

BANCROFT, PAUL

1 transaction

$3,300

BRAUER, CAMILLA

1 transaction

$3,300

BRAUER, STEPHEN

1 transaction

$3,300

BROWN, ABBY

1 transaction

$3,300

BROWN, DON

1 transaction

$3,300

BROWN, PEGGY

1 transaction

$3,300

CAGLE, BILL

1 transaction

$3,300

CARTER, JOE

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Figures, Shomari [D-AL-2]

ID: F000481

Top Contributors

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Apr 29, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

May 24, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$2,300

May 24, 2024

MALDI MA

OrganizationIRVINGTON, AL

$2,000

Apr 6, 2024

HILLWOOD LIQUORS LLC

OrganizationMOBILE, AL

$1,000

Feb 14, 2024

SIP & SMOKE LLC

OrganizationMOBILE, AL

$1,000

Feb 14, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$1,000

Feb 28, 2024

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$1,000

Aug 15, 2024

MAA PETROLEUM LLC

OrganizationIRVINGTON, AL

$500

Feb 14, 2024

MOWA BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationMOUNT VERNON, AL

$500

Apr 6, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Hurd, Jeff [R-CO-3]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 41 nodes and 44 connections

Total contributions: $44

Top Donors - Rep. Hurd, Jeff [R-CO-3]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

6 Orgs20 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Construction & Engineeringconfidence 0.90
Section 2(a)(3) adds grant eligibility for projects that facilitate the growth of the manufacturing sector, which would benefit construction and engineering firms involved in building manufacturing facilities.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Hurd, Jeff [R-CO-3])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Construction & Engineering$9,900
from 4 contributions
- SANTO, MICHAEL$6,600
- ROSS, MICHAEL$3,000
- BECHTEL, BETTY$300

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.

Small Business Administration

Strong

Vector: 62%

Pages: 789-791AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill’s focus on incentivizing domestic relocation of employment and growing the manufacturing sector closely aligns with Project 2025’s objectives to strengthen domestic manufacturing, improve capital access for small manufacturers, and reshore production of advanced technologies."

Key themes:domestic manufacturingjob creationeconomic developmentcapital accesssmall business support

— 756 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Domestic Manufacturing and Small Business. Small businesses in the manufacturing sector face shortfalls in access to capital.61 As manufacturing employment, domestic business investment, and non–information technology output have declined,62 expectations for market returns and the capital available to small manufacturing enterprises have diminished. This is especially true for capital-intensive sectors like transportation and energy that require large up-front investments and relatively lower-margin sectors like plastics, textiles, furniture, and agriculture. Yet these industries and others like them traditionally have been the backbone of American manufacturing employment. They also are sources of self-sufficiency and resilience at a time when global supply chains are increas- ingly uncertain. The public policy problems that are caused by declining small manufacturing are especially acute when it comes to the production of advanced technologies. Other agencies and programs invest immense taxpayer resources in basic science and research. Over time, that research results in some breakthrough technologies, but when it is time to put these breakthroughs into practice by manufacturing goods and services, much of the necessary productive capacity is offshore.63 For many technologies, the American economy lacks the capacity to “scale up” inno- vations that might not be immediately profitable. Instead, those technologies are put into practice abroad. In this way, foreign companies and foreign productive sites buy and implement taxpayer-funded American technologies. The SBA’s existing programs should be reformed to expand the private market for capital in small-manufacturer expansion. The next Administration should: l Ask Congress to make available a category of Section 7(a) loans with a larger available principal that is used to finance manufacturing facility construction and equipment upgrading. The proposed SBA Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2019, for example, would have increased the maximum loan principal to $50 million for advanced manufacturing construction and upgrading.64 The Section 7(a) loan program operates through private lenders and guarantees a portion of private-sector loans made to qualifying small businesses. The maximum principal available is $5 million, but small businesses in capital-intensive sectors require significantly larger amounts of capital to finance up-front capital costs. l Reform the Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) program to refocus its support on small businesses rather than technology startups only. The SBIC program operates through private venture capital and private equity funds by providing eligible funds with guaranteed debt financing to support investments in small businesses. However, the program — 757 — Small Business Administration largely duplicates private-sector venture capital to the extent that the sector receiving much of its support is software and information technology, which already receive the lion’s share of venture capital investment.65 In addition, Congress should reform the SBIC program to make its financing more favorable to capital-intense investments and small manufacturers. The Health, Economic Assistance, Liability Protection, and Schools (HEALS) Act, introduced in 2020,66 and American Innovation and Manufacturing Act, introduced in 2021,67 would allow SBIC to offer longer-term financing to manufacturers and make the program more fiscally sustainable. Small-Business Size Standard Modernization. Many small-business pro- grams both inside and outside the SBA use the SBA’s definition of “small business.” Under the Small Business Act, the SBA is tasked with defining what counts as a small business and ensuring that the definition varies from industry to industry to reflect differences in regular size by industry. However, the SBA’s small-business size standards reflect a one-size-fits-all approach under which all businesses within its size standard are considered small businesses for all eligible purposes, from gov- ernment contracting preferences to eligibility for SBA loans through private banks. At the same time, the SBA is an outlier among competing economies in not considering medium-sized enterprises along with small businesses, often referred to collectively as small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Medium-sized and regional businesses are increasingly critical to maintaining competition. The next Administration should: l Encourage Congress to create a “medium-sized business” classification with its eligibility for programs confined to access to capital programs from projects for which credit elsewhere does not exist. SBA POLICY PRIORITIES FOR 2025 AND BEYOND Legislation. The new Administration can support SBA reform legislation pro- posed in Congress that aligns with key measures outlined in this chapter. It also can support legislative initiatives that would help SBA to focus on its core statutory activities such as capital access, federal contracting opportunities, and regulatory advocacy. For example: l The IMPROVE the SBA Act68 would strengthen accountability, transparency, and oversight of the SBA and aligns with many of the reforms outlined in this chapter.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Moderate

Vector: 65%

Pages: 645-647AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's goal of strengthening domestic manufacturing and reducing reliance on foreign labor by incentivizing the return of jobs to the U.S., though it does not address hiring preferences for Americans over work-authorized aliens or visa fraud enforcement as emphasized in the policy."

Key themes:domestic job creationmanufacturing growthreducing offshoringeconomic development incentives

— 613 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies l Congress must amend the law so that employers can again have the freedom to make hiring Americans a priority. Despite the significant advantages that preferring citizens over (work-authorized) aliens in hiring would provide to American workers, businesses, and the country at large, such a practice has been illegal since 1986.25 This makes no sense. Alternative View Some conservatives believe that the government has a duty to limit its spending in order to limit how much it takes from American families. This means that when the government spends money, it must find the most econom- ical and effective way to do so. Excessive government spending will be borne by American workers and families through reduced incomes and purchasing power. There may be good reasons to require a certain percentage of American workers on federal contracts, but those decisions should be based on economy and efficiency as opposed to arbitrary quotas. Visa Fraud. American businesses that commit visa fraud and hire illegal immi- grants should not be the beneficiaries of federal spending. But a 2020 report by the Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) examined the depart- ment’s process for excluding employers who commit visa fraud and abuse from federal contracts and found much to be desired. l To protect the American workforce from unscrupulous immigration lawyers, employers, and labor brokers, the department must follow the recommendations of the OIG and institute more robust investigations for suspected visa fraud and speedier debarments for those found guilty. INTERNATIONAL LABOR POLICY Leveling the International Playing Field for Workers. As recent decades of intense import competition and offshoring have made clear, American workers suffer when the U.S. opens its markets to foreign nations’ minimal labor standards and exploitative conditions. While federal law already prohibits the importation of goods produced with forced labor, the prohibitions are toothless without effective means of enforcement and cover only the most basic of workers’ rights. The Trump Administration and its United States Trade Representative (USTR) took unprece- dented steps to redress the issue for workers. The U.S.–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) contained the strongest and most far-reaching labor provisions of any free trade agreement (FTA), with protections and commitments to reduce labor abuses and raise wages. It also established new modes of enforcement. For future FTAs, the USTR should replicate the labor provisions of USMCA, especially the provisions to: — 614 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Eliminate all forms of forced or compulsory labor. l Protect workers’ rights to organize and participate voluntarily in a union without employer interference or discrimination. l Create a rapid-response mechanism to provide for an independent panel investigation of denial of labor rights at covered facilities. l Shift the burden of proof by presuming that an alleged violation affects trade and investment, unless otherwise demonstrated. For future authorizations of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), the President should urge Congress to: l Create mechanisms for supply-chain transparency. l Institute a general prohibition on forced labor conditions. Investigate Foreign Labor Violations That Undermine American Work- ers. The United States’ embrace of globalization has exposed American workers to unfair competition from nations with cheap, abundant, and often exploited labor. American workers have, as a consequence, seen their earning power erode. While negotiating stronger trade agreements with robust labor provisions should be the primary tool with which to regulate international labor competition, the federal government can also take steps to identify the worst labor abuses and rule breakers. DOL’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB) plays a critical role in monitor- ing and enforcing the labor provisions of U.S. trade agreements and trade preference programs as well as investigating child labor and human trafficking violations. l The next Administration should focus ILAB investigations on foreign labor violations that do the most to damage American workers’ earning power, specifically regimes that engage in child and forced labor, fail to protect workers’ organizing rights, and permit hazardous or otherwise exploitative working conditions. Alternative/Additional View. Conservatives share a belief in protecting and pro- moting American workers and their families and orienting international policies with Americans’ interests first. Some conservatives believe that the best way to put Amer- ica first is by making America more attractive. In addition to restrictions imposed on other countries, removing existing barriers to American manufacturing, employ- ment, and commerce can help American workers, entrepreneurs, and families.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Moderate

Vector: 63%

Pages: 645-647AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's 'Hire American' objective by incentivizing domestic job creation and manufacturing growth, though it does not directly address visa program reforms or federal hiring mandates. Both emphasize prioritizing American workers in employment and economic policy."

Key themes:Hire Americandomestic job creationmanufacturing growtheconomic nationalism

— 612 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Alternative View. Some conservatives believe that temporary worker programs help to fill jobs that Americans will not fill, prevent illegal immigration by giving farmers and others who hire low-skilled labor access to workers, and keep down the prices of food and other products and services produced by the temporary workers. Some credibly argue that, absent the H-2A program, many farmers would have to drastically increase wages, raising the price of food for all Americans, and that even such wage increases may not be sufficient to attract enough temporary American workers to complete the necessary farm tasks to get food products to market since those jobs are, by their nature, seasonal. Those who share this view argue that any plan to phase out the program should weigh the program’s current costs (relatively low) and the program’s current benefits (makes American farming more profitable and sustainable while keeping down food costs). l Phase out the H-2B visa program. The H-2B visa, for nonagricultural seasonal workers, suffers from many of the same harms and abuses as H-2A, albeit of lesser scope because of its cap and distribution across many sectors. Congress should immediately cap this program at its current levels and establish a schedule for its gradual and predictable phasedown over no more than 10 years. Alternative View. As with the H-2A program, some conservatives see the H-2B program as a valuable program that provides low-cost temporary workers in jobs that American companies, by and large, cannot find enough American workers to fill (e.g., tourist season childcare providers at ski resorts, swimming instructors at summer camps, housekeepers and groundskeepers at amusement parks, and extra summer cooks at restaurants that serve national park patrons).These seasonal jobs are less desirable to Americans who predominantly prefer year-round work. Labor shortages after the pandemic support this belief. Absent the H-2B program, many of these seasonal businesses would be forced to cut their hours or even close altogether. Any plan to phase out the program should weigh the program's current costs (relatively low) and the program’s current benefits (makes seasonal business more feasible). Hire American Requirements. When government purchases goods or ser- vices, if at all possible, not only should the company be an American company and the products be manufactured in America, but the companies should also be encouraged to hire American workers. Likewise, private employers should be free to prefer our own countrymen. l Congress should mandate that all new federal contracts require at least 70 percent of the contractor’s employees to be U.S. citizens, with the percentage increasing to at least 95 percent over a 10-year period. — 613 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies l Congress must amend the law so that employers can again have the freedom to make hiring Americans a priority. Despite the significant advantages that preferring citizens over (work-authorized) aliens in hiring would provide to American workers, businesses, and the country at large, such a practice has been illegal since 1986.25 This makes no sense. Alternative View Some conservatives believe that the government has a duty to limit its spending in order to limit how much it takes from American families. This means that when the government spends money, it must find the most econom- ical and effective way to do so. Excessive government spending will be borne by American workers and families through reduced incomes and purchasing power. There may be good reasons to require a certain percentage of American workers on federal contracts, but those decisions should be based on economy and efficiency as opposed to arbitrary quotas. Visa Fraud. American businesses that commit visa fraud and hire illegal immi- grants should not be the beneficiaries of federal spending. But a 2020 report by the Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) examined the depart- ment’s process for excluding employers who commit visa fraud and abuse from federal contracts and found much to be desired. l To protect the American workforce from unscrupulous immigration lawyers, employers, and labor brokers, the department must follow the recommendations of the OIG and institute more robust investigations for suspected visa fraud and speedier debarments for those found guilty. INTERNATIONAL LABOR POLICY Leveling the International Playing Field for Workers. As recent decades of intense import competition and offshoring have made clear, American workers suffer when the U.S. opens its markets to foreign nations’ minimal labor standards and exploitative conditions. While federal law already prohibits the importation of goods produced with forced labor, the prohibitions are toothless without effective means of enforcement and cover only the most basic of workers’ rights. The Trump Administration and its United States Trade Representative (USTR) took unprece- dented steps to redress the issue for workers. The U.S.–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) contained the strongest and most far-reaching labor provisions of any free trade agreement (FTA), with protections and commitments to reduce labor abuses and raise wages. It also established new modes of enforcement. For future FTAs, the USTR should replicate the labor provisions of USMCA, especially the provisions to:

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 648-650AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on incentivizing domestic job relocation and manufacturing growth through grants, while the Project 2025 policy emphasizes restructuring the Office of Foreign Labor Certification for political accountability and promoting family-sustaining jobs via hiring preferences for American citizens and reduced DEI influence. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address visa monitoring, OFLC reorganization, or hiring preferences."

Key themes:job creationdomestic employmenteconomic development

— 616 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Improve Visa-Related Labor-Market Monitoring DOL’s Office of Foreign Labor Certification plays an important role in the approval of H-visa applications, but it is currently housed in the Employment and Training Administration, which is DOL’s primary grant-making division. l OFLC should be moved out of ETA and made directly accountable to the Secretary with a politically accountable Director. CONCLUSION The good of the American family is at the heart of conservative labor policy recommendations. The longstanding tradition of a strong work ethic in American culture must be encouraged and strengthened by policies that promote family-sus- taining jobs. By eliminating the policies promoted by the DEI agenda, promoting pro-life policies that support family life, expanding available apprenticeship programs including by encouraging the role of religious organizations in appren- ticeships, making family-sustaining jobs accessible, simplifying employment requirements, and allowing employers to prefer American citizens when making hiring decisions, among the other policy recommendations discussed above, we can begin to secure a future in which the American worker, and by extension the American family, can thrive and prosper. AUTHOR’S NOTE: Many contributors, listed at the front of this volume, deserve credit for this work, but Oren Cass, Rachel Greszler, Rachel Morrison, Caleb Orr, and Jonathan Wolfson 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. — 617 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies ENDNOTES 1. Gretchen Livingston and Anna Brown, “Intermarriage in the U.S. Fifty Years after Loving v. Virginia,” Pew Research Center, May 18, 2017, https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/05/18/intermarriage-in-the- u-s-50-years-after-loving-v-virginia/ (accessed March 4, 2023). 2. President Lyndon B. Johnson, Executive Order 11246, “Equal Employment Opportunity,” https://www. presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-11246-equal-employment-opportunity (accessed March 7, 2023). 3. Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Public Law, 95-555. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 4. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Public Law No. 117-328, div. II, 136 Stat. 4459 (2022). 5. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. 6. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No. 19-1392, June 24, 2022, https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf (accessed March 7, 2023). 7. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. Ch. 18 § 1001 et seq. 8. Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. Ch. 21B § 2000bb et seq. 9. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 203. 10. Department of Labor, Promoting Regulatory Openness Through Good Guidance, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 168, August 28, 2020, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-28/pdf/2020-18500.pdf (accessed March 7, 2023). 11. Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Ch. 5, subchapter 1, § 500 et seq. 12. Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Ch. 6 § 601 et seq. 13. Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13932, “Modernizing and Reforming the Assessment and Hiring of Federal Job Candidates,” Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 187 (July 1, 2020) pp. 39457–39459, https://www.federalregister. gov/documents/2020/07/01/2020-14337/modernizing-and-reforming-the-assessment-and-hiring-of-federal- job-candidates (accessed March 7, 2023). 14. Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act, Public Law 113-128. 15. Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, S.3548, 116th Congress, 2nd Sess. 16. Federal Unemployment Tax Act, I.R.C., Ch. 23. 17. American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, Public Law 117-2. 18. Teamwork for Employees and Managers (TEAM) Act of 2022, S. 3585, 117th Congress, 2nd Sess. 19. Worker’s Choice Act of 2019, H.R. 5147, 116th Congress, 1st Sess. 20. F. Vincent Vernuccio, “Back to Business,” October 8, 2020, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/ back-to-business (accessed March 4, 2023). 21. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 203. 22. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. Ch. 15 § 651 et seq. 23. Davis–Bacon Act of 1931, Public Law 71-798. 24. Social Security Act of 1935, 42 U.S.C. Ch. 7. 25. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Public Law 99-603.

Export-Import Bank

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 752-754AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 policy concern U.S. job creation and economic growth, but the bill focuses on domestic reshoring grants while the Project 2025 section critiques Export-Import Bank export subsidies, resulting in only tangential thematic overlap."

Key themes:job creationeconomic growthmanufacturingdomestic investment

— 719 — Export-Import Bank but the unseen effects are ignored. For example, funding for one industry or firm might take more jobs away from other industries and firms, resulting in a net job loss even though jobs are created for the financed firm. At best, it could be said that the Bank redistributes employment from unsubsidized firms to subsidized firms. However, with very rare exceptions, most exports financed by EXIM would have taken place without government support. Many companies have said so themselves;13 the procurement happens before the decision to get government support; and, as noted above, most EXIM deals go to large companies with easy access to capital. Thus, the agency is taking credit for jobs that would have existed in any event. The Bank does not promote exports. EXIM presidents commonly claim that the agency’s mission is to support U.S. jobs by facilitating American exports through its export-financing tools. However, trade economists have long known that export credit subsidies merely redistribute exporting opportunities to subsi- dized firms instead of increasing the net number of exports—something that also slows economic growth.14 Even more telling is the performance of the U.S. economy and American exports during the four years when EXIM lacked a board quorum (2015–2019) and was barred from finalizing deals in excess of $10 million. During that time, EXIM autho- rizations fell from $21 billion in FY 2014 to $3.6 billion in FY 2018 (adjusted for inflation).15 However, also during that time, regular big-ticket EXIM beneficiaries continued to benefit from their easy access to capital markets and still had the ability to finance their export activities. Further, U.S. exports were utterly unaffected by the reductions in the Bank’s activities.16 U.S. unemployment fell to a level not seen in half a century, but exports soared with financing provided by commercial lenders. The only negative eco- nomic impact from EXIM’s lack of a board quorum was its effect on the Bank itself. This contradicts EXIM’s claim that its activities are crucial for the success of U.S. exporters and economic growth. Instead, it shows that economic growth is the best booster of U.S. exports and job creation and that it does not depend on EXIM subsidies. Subsidy-boosted exports do not boost economic growth. EXIM’s primary reason for existing is to increase exports, as if more exports themselves represent more jobs and economic growth. Recent expressions of this fallacious belief can be found in a book by former EXIM President Fred Hochberg. According to Hochberg, “We know that trade, and exports in particular, can have a big impact on jobs.”17 While this is a common misconception about exports, it is one worth correcting. As trade economists know, exports are a cost to the economy: They subtract from GDP. Imports, on the other hand, add to GDP. If the U.S. could acquire all of the imports that it currently gets without exporting anything in exchange, that would be the best of all worlds. Unfortunately, one reason that foreigners are so eager — 720 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise to sell us their goods is that they want our dollars to buy our debt, invest in the country, and buy our exports. That is why exports drop when overall imports drop. Exports promote U.S. economic growth only if the value of the resources used to produce them is less than the value of what we receive as imports in exchange for those exports. By subsidizing American exports, EXIM causes too many resources to be devoted to producing exports. As a result, the total value of our exports is made larger than it would otherwise be to obtain any given amount of imports. In other words, EXIM thus compels American taxpayers to subsidize foreigners’ standards of living at no appreciable benefit to the U.S. Unfortunately, this misunderstanding and the constant glamorization of exports and their impact on jobs and growth are used to justify government sup- port for some exports (on average, 98 percent of exports are not backed by EXIM financing). It also is extremely unfair. Because capital will tend to shift from unsub- sidized companies to subsidized companies (taxpayers foot the bill if companies backed by the Bank default), unsubsidized export companies face higher borrowing costs, which could translate into fewer jobs in unsubsidized companies or lower pay for their workers. The Bank does not promote growth by leveling the playing field. EXIM’s charter stipulates that one of its missions is to support U.S. exports with the goal of creating jobs and promoting economic growth through the provision of export financing via its loan-guarantee and insurance programs. In particular, EXIM is to intervene in cases “where such support is necessary to level the competitive playing field for U.S. exporters due to financing provided by foreign governments to their exporters.”18 As a result, EXIM for years has been focused primarily on what other countries’ ECAs are doing and how much financing they are providing.19 A reading of any of EXIM’s Competitiveness Reports shows that the Bank frames the “competitive- ness” of the U.S. economy and exporters in extremely narrow terms—specifically, as the amount of business that foreign ECAs are doing relative to EXIM. The report for 2020 features striking evidence of this mindset. For instance, lamenting the “nearly four-year hiatus” during which the Bank lacked a board quorum to approve large deals, EXIM’s leadership maintains that these years “severely hindered EXIM’s ability to support the competitiveness of U.S. export- ers.” During that time, foreign ECAs “fundamentally evolved their philosophy and substantively expanded their roles,” and “the United States must work hard to keep pace.” The Bank goes on to promise that it will “re-emerge from the years of being out of the long-term export finance business and restore its standing as one of the world’s most competitive ECAs.”20 In other words, EXIM bureaucrats appear to believe that economic growth and jobs result not from a favorable tax and regulatory environment, but from a victory in hand-to-hand subsidy combat between government banks. The Bank’s

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. Hurd, Jeff

Wetlands Conservation and Access Improvement Act of 2025

119/hr/2316

Snow Water Supply Forecasting Reauthorization Act of 2025

119/hr/3857

Geothermal Energy Advancement Act

119/hr/5631

Back to All Bills