ELO Realignment and Strategic Engagement Reform Act of 2026

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/7574
Last Updated: July 17, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Evans, Gabe [R-CO-8]

ID: E000300

Follow the money

The bill

ELO Realignment and Strategic Engagement Reform Act of 2026

HR. 7574, 119th Congress — read as touching Law Enforcement & Surveillance Tech.

The sponsor

Rep. Evans, Gabe [R-CO-8]

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

The money

$93,473 raised

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

The alignment

62% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 195-197 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 Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

July 13, 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

Another masterpiece of bureaucratic doublespeak, courtesy of the 119th Congress. The ELO Realignment and Strategic Engagement Reform Act of 2026 - because who doesn't love a good game of musical chairs in the Department of Homeland Security?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to reorganize the Engagement, Liaison, and Outreach (ELO) Office within the Department of Homeland Security. Or, in simpler terms, it's a fancy way of saying "let's shuffle some papers, pretend we're doing something meaningful, and hope no one notices." The real purpose? To create a new layer of bureaucratic red tape, ensuring that the ELO Office becomes even more inefficient and bloated.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a comprehensive plan for reorganizing the ELO Office within 120 days. This plan must include an analysis of redundant positions, realignment of essential functions, and improved management of strategic relationships with law enforcement agencies. Oh, and let's not forget the obligatory "cost-benefit estimates" - because who needs actual numbers when you can just make something up? The bill also limits the expansion of the ELO Office until the plan is implemented, but we all know how well Congress follows its own rules.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: law enforcement agencies, the Department of Homeland Security, and various other government entities. But let's be real, the only stakeholders who truly matter are the lobbyists and special interest groups who will benefit from this bureaucratic shell game. The rest are just pawns in a much larger game of corruption and incompetence.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact? A whole lot of nothing. This bill is a classic example of "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic." It's a pointless exercise in bureaucratic navel-gazing, designed to create the illusion of progress while actually accomplishing nothing. The implications? More waste, more inefficiency, and more opportunities for corruption and abuse of power. But hey, at least it'll create some new jobs for bureaucrats and lobbyists, right?

In conclusion, the ELO Realignment and Strategic Engagement Reform Act of 2026 is a textbook example of legislative theater - a meaningless exercise in bureaucratic posturing, designed to distract from the real issues plaguing our government. It's a symptom of a deeper disease: corruption, cowardice, stupidity, and greed. And we're all just along for the ride, watching as our elected officials pretend to do something meaningful while actually accomplishing nothing. Joy.

Related Topics

Defense Spending & ProcurementForeign Aid & Diplomacy
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Evans, Gabe [R-CO-8]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$93,473
20 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$0
Committees
$0
Individuals
$93,473

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

1
WRIGHT, ELIZABETH
1 transaction
$6,600
2
WOODWARD, JOHN
1 transaction
$6,600
3
BERGSTROM, ROBERT
1 transaction
$6,600
4
ERICKSON, GARY
1 transaction
$6,600
5
HASELDEN, BYRON
1 transaction
$6,600
6
HASELDEN, EDDIE
1 transaction
$6,600
7
HASELDEN, MIKE
1 transaction
$6,600
8
WAGNER, BRUCE
1 transaction
$5,000
9
DUKE, D. A.
1 transaction
$5,000
10
MCDONALD, BRUCE
1 transaction
$3,868
11
MULVIHILL, JAMES
1 transaction
$3,570
12
TERRY, ROBERT
1 transaction
$3,435
13
ANGELO JR, ERNEST
1 transaction
$3,300
14
CADER, ANDREW
1 transaction
$3,300
15
CRANBERG, CATHY
1 transaction
$3,300
16
FROST, EDWIN
1 transaction
$3,300
17
HAUDENSCHILD, CHRIS
1 transaction
$3,300
18
LEVENSTAM, DAVID
1 transaction
$3,300
19
MASSEY, JON G.
1 transaction
$3,300
20
NOVIK, JAY
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10]

ID: G000599

Top Contributors

10

1
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA
$1,500
May 19, 2023
2
GOLDSTEIN, DARIN
SDG CAPITAL MANAGEMENTMANAGER
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
May 31, 2023
3
GOLDSTEIN, DARIN
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Jun 19, 2023
4
SCHWARTZ, DAVID
SLATE PROPERTY GROUPEXECUTIVE
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,000
Oct 17, 2023
5
SCHWARTZ, DAVID
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,000
Oct 26, 2023
6
ADAMS, RICHARD
NOT EMPLOYEDNOT EMPLOYED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Oct 26, 2024
7
ANDREESSEN, MARC
SELFATTORNEY
IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA
$3,300
Oct 23, 2024
8
BARTH, RICHARD
MARYLANDPROFESSOR
IndividualBALTIMORE, MD
$3,300
Oct 27, 2024
9
BLUMENTHAL, VIOLETTE
NOT EMPLOYEDNOT EMPLOYED
IndividualDURHAM, NC
$3,300
Oct 26, 2024
10
BRUNO, JACQUELINE
NOT EMPLOYEDNOT EMPLOYED
IndividualWHITESTONE, NY
$3,300
Oct 26, 2024

Rep. Pou, Nellie [D-NJ-9]

ID: P000621

Top Contributors

10

1
MATSIKOUDIS & FANCIULLO, LLC
OrganizationJERSEY CITY, NJ
$500
Oct 15, 2024
2
COOK, HAROLD P. III
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualNORTH HALEDON, NJ
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
3
MUKHERJI, RAJ
STATE OF NEW JERSEYSENATOR
IndividualJERSEY CITY, NJ
$3,300
Oct 27, 2024
4
KRAMER, LAWRENCE
V. PAULIUS & ASSOCIATESATTORNEY
IndividualGLEN ROCK, NJ
$3,300
Nov 8, 2024
5
CURITOMAI, NORBERTO
SPANISH TRANSPORTATION SVCCEO
IndividualCLIFTON, NJ
$3,300
Oct 25, 2024
6
KIPIANI, CARLA TURCO
CARLA DEVELOPMENT GROUPCOMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
IndividualLYNDHURST, NJ
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
7
CRISOSTOMO, YAMILKY
YNC TAXCEO
IndividualCLIFTON, NJ
$3,300
Oct 20, 2024
8
AVILA, RENE A.
GI AUTO SALVAGEPRESIDENT
IndividualPINE BROOK, NJ
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024
9
COLGAN, BILL
GP MANAGEMENT, LLCPARTNER
IndividualBLOOMFIELD, NJ
$3,300
Oct 24, 2024
10
KIPIANI, PAUL
CARLA DEVELOPMENT GROUPCOMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
IndividualFRANKLIN LAKES, NJ
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Evans, Gabe [R-CO-8]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 47 nodes and 26 connections (47 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $115,273

Top Donors - Rep. Evans, Gabe [R-CO-8]

Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount

20 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • Section 2(a)(3) improves management and coordination of strategic relationships with priority law enforcement agencies, which could benefit the industry.

  • +Cybersecurityconfidence 0.60

    Section 2(a)(3)(C) enhances information-sharing mechanisms, which may involve cybersecurity measures and thus potentially benefit the industry.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.

Introduction

Moderate62.1%
Pages: 195-197

— 163 — Department of Homeland Security The old practice of relying on Executive Secretary taskings to pull documents for congressional requests does not work: It is slow, the metrics for what documents are gathered and how are unclear, and the components do not gather responsive material in an efficient manner. Document gathering should come from the Office of the Chief Information Officer or a relevant technological element within the department that can pull responsive communications quickly. OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS (OLA); OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS (OPA); AND OFFICE OF PARTNERSHIP AND ENGAGEMENT (OPE) DHS’s external communications function should be consolidated and reformed so that the President’s agenda can be implemented more effectively. The Office of Partnership and Engagement should be merged into the Office of Public Affairs. In many Cabinet agencies, outreach to companies and partner organizations is similarly performed by the Office of Public Affairs. This would also accomplish a needed DHS organizational and management reform to decrease the number of direct reports to the Secretary. Both public and legislative affairs staff in the components should report directly to their respective headquarters equivalent. This would help to avoid a failure by the department to speak with one voice. It would also allow the component staff to perform more efficiently, overseen by expert managers in their trade. This would also allow DHS to respond to crises effectively by shifting staff as needed to the most pressing issues and better use underutilized staff at less active components. Only political appointees in OLA should interact directly with congressional staff on all inquiries, including budget and appropriations matters. To prevent congres- sional staff from answer shopping among HQ OLA, the DHS OCFO, and components, DHS legislative affairs appropriations staff should be moved from MGMT OCFO into OLA. Regarding components, budget/appropriations staff should move from component budget offices into component legislative affairs offices. Because dozens of congressional committees and subcommittees either have or claim to have jurisdiction over some DHS function, DHS staff from the Secretary on down spend so much time responding to congressional hearing and briefing requests, letters, and questions for the record that they are left with little time to do their assigned job of protecting the homeland. The next President should reach an agreement with congressional leadership to limit committee jurisdiction to one authorizing committee and one appropriations committee in each cham- ber. If congressional leadership will not limit their committees’ jurisdiction over DHS, DHS should identify one authorizing and appropriations committee in each chamber and answer only to it. To focus more precisely on the DHS mission, OLA staff should also identify outdated and needless congressional reporting requirements and notify Congress — 164 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise that DHS will cease reporting on such matters. For other congressional reports, OLA should implement a sunset date so that Congress must regularly demonstrate the need for specific data. In both OPA and OLA, a change in mission and culture is needed. The clients of both components are the President and the Secretary, not the media, external organizations, or Congress. OPA and OLA should change from being compliance correspondents for outside entities airing grievances to serving as messengers and advocates for the President and the Secretary. OFFICE OF OPERATIONS COORDINATION (OPS) OPS was originally conceived by then-Secretary Jeh Johnson as an entity tasked with coordinating cross-DHS assets on an as-needed basis using a joint operations approach. This role is particularly challenging because of the disparate nature of mission sets across DHS. OPS should absorb a very small number of tactical intelligence professionals from I&A as the rest of I&A is shut down. Such intelligence officers would be a subordinate element within OPS placed within the National Operations Center. The intelligence officers would provide tactical intelligence support for upcoming or ongoing opera- tions in addition to liaising with their agency/component counterparts. There would be no strategic intelligence analysis done as part of OPS or its new I&A sub-element. In addition to facilitating all-of-DHS coordination on a task-by-task basis, OPS would be responsible for ongoing situational awareness for the Secretary and Deputy Secretary. In addition to long-term staffing, OPS would have cycling billets from each of the major agencies and components to facilitate its most effective working rela- tionships across DHS. OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES (CRCL) AND PRIVACY OFFICE (PRIV) The Homeland Security Act established only an Officer of CRCL, not an office. The only substantive function Congress then assigned to the officer was to review and assess information alleging abuses of civil rights. Since then, Congress and CRCL itself have significantly expanded CRCL’s scope and size well beyond its original intent or helpful purpose. CRCL now operates and views itself as a quasi- DHS Office of Inspector General. This results in a considerable waste of limited component resources, which are routinely tasked to address redundant, overly burdensome, and uninformed demands from CRCL. It is therefore important to recalibrate CRCL’s scope and reach. The organizational structure of both CRCL and the Privacy Office should be changed to ensure proper alignment with the department’s mission. The Office of General Counsel should absorb both CRCL’s and PRIV’s necessary functions

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills