Rejecting the Erasure of Afghan Women and Girls Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/7669

Last Updated: July 16, 2026

Rejecting the Erasure of Afghan Women and Girls Act

HR. 7669, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Rep. Kamlager-Dove, Sydney [D-CA-37]

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

The money

$93,100 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Health and Human Services" section, p. 533-535 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 44 - 2.

March 25, 2026

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The Rejecting the Erasure of Afghan Women and Girls Act, HR 7669, is a bill that serves no discernible purpose in advancing my interests or those of my fellow visionaries. Its main objective appears to be a symbolic gesture, requiring a report on the Taliban's restrictions on women and girls in Afghanistan since August 2021. This report would likely be a redundant exercise, as it would only provide a snapshot of the current situation without offering any tangible solutions or opportunities for growth.

The key provisions of this bill are limited to mandating a report from the Secretary of State, which would describe the restrictions imposed by the Taliban and determine whether they constitute crimes against humanity, torture, or gross violations of human rights. This reporting requirement is an unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle that would only serve to distract from more pressing matters, such as the optimization of global supply chains and the advancement of technological innovation.

The affected parties and stakeholders in this bill are primarily the Afghan women and girls who are subject to the Taliban's restrictions, as well as the various NGOs and human rights organizations that advocate on their behalf. However, it is essential to recognize that these groups are not significant players in the global economy or the advancement of technological progress.

The potential impact and implications of this bill are negligible, as it would not have any material effect on my business interests or those of my fellow entrepreneurs. The report required by this bill would likely be a mere formality, and its findings would not lead to any meaningful changes in policy or practice. In fact, the only notable consequence of this bill would be the diversion of resources away from more critical areas, such as research and development, and towards bureaucratic exercises that yield no tangible returns.

In conclusion, HR 7669 is a bill that fails to align with my vision for a more efficient and innovative global economy. Its focus on symbolic gestures and redundant reporting requirements only serves to underscore the inefficiencies of democratic governance. As a visionary leader, I would advise policymakers to prioritize bills that promote deregulation, privatization, and the advancement of technological innovation, rather than indulging in empty gestures that yield no tangible benefits.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

As I taught you in 8th grade, the legislative process begins with a bill's introduction, and that's exactly what we have here with HR 7669, the Rejecting the Erasure of Afghan Women and Girls Act. Remember when we learned about how bills are referred to committees? Well, this one was sent to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, where it will likely be reviewed and debated.

The main purpose of this bill is to require a report from the Secretary of State detailing the current restrictions imposed by the Taliban on women and girls in Afghanistan since August 2021. This report must be submitted within 180 days of the bill's enactment and will include an assessment of whether these restrictions constitute crimes against humanity, torture, or gross violations of human rights.

As we covered in middle school, bills often aim to amend or create new laws. In this case, HR 7669 doesn't explicitly change existing law, but it does require a report that could potentially inform future policy decisions. The key provision here is the requirement for the Secretary of State to submit this report, which will likely involve coordination with various government agencies and stakeholders.

The affected parties include Afghan women and girls, who are directly impacted by the Taliban's restrictions, as well as the US government, which will be responsible for producing and acting on the report. Other stakeholders may include human rights organizations, international partners, and advocacy groups focused on women's rights.

Now, as I'm sure you recall from our discussions on checks and balances, the potential impact of this bill depends on how it's received by the various branches of government. If enacted, HR 7669 could lead to increased awareness and scrutiny of the Taliban's actions, potentially influencing US foreign policy and humanitarian efforts. However, the actual implications will depend on how the report is used and whether it leads to meaningful action.

In an ideal system, as we learned in civics class, this bill would be a straightforward example of Congress exercising its oversight authority to hold the executive branch accountable and promote human rights. Unfortunately, the reality is often more complex, and the bill's fate will depend on a range of factors, including political will, bureaucratic priorities, and international developments.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The Rejecting the Erasure of Afghan Women and Girls Act, HR 7669 - a bill that seems innocent enough on the surface, but trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye. Let's dive in and decode the real agenda behind this legislation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**: The stated purpose is to require a report from the Secretary of State describing the Taliban's restrictions on women and girls in Afghanistan since August 2021. But, I ask you, why now? Why this specific focus on Afghan women and girls? Is it merely a humanitarian concern, or is there something more at play?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**: The bill demands a report within 180 days, which will determine whether the Taliban's actions constitute crimes against humanity, torture, or gross human rights violations. Sounds straightforward, but what about the potential consequences of such a report? Could it be used as a pretext for further military intervention or economic sanctions? And what about the role of the Secretary of State in this process - are they merely a neutral observer, or do they have a vested interest in shaping the narrative?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**: On the surface, it's Afghan women and girls who will be impacted. But let's not forget the geopolitical players involved: the US government, the Taliban, and other regional actors. This bill could be a cleverly disguised attempt to exert pressure on the Taliban, or even to justify future actions in the region. And what about the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Foreign Relations - what are their true motivations for supporting this bill?

**Potential Impact & Implications**: The report's findings could have far-reaching consequences, from shaping public opinion to influencing foreign policy decisions. But here's the thing: what if the report is not just a report, but a carefully crafted tool to shape the narrative and justify future actions? What if it's used to demonize the Taliban, or to create a pretext for further intervention in Afghanistan? The possibilities are endless, and that's what makes this bill so intriguing.

In conclusion, HR 7669 may seem like a harmless bill on the surface, but scratch beneath the surface, and you'll find a complex web of motivations, interests, and potential consequences. As I always say, "The truth is in the details, and the details are often hidden in plain sight." So, let's keep watching, and see how this bill unfolds - it's going to be a wild ride!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(With a healthy dose of sarcasm and a raised eyebrow) Oh, folks, gather 'round! We've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here - the "Rejecting the Erasure of Afghan Women and Girls Act". (Air quotes) Because, you know, those elites in Congress are just so concerned about freedom... for everyone except Americans, of course. (Wink)

**Main Purpose & Objectives**: This bill is all about requiring a report from the Secretary of State on the current restrictions imposed by the Taliban on women and girls in Afghanistan since August 2021. Because, clearly, what we really need is more bureaucracy and paperwork to tackle the complex issue of human rights abuses. I mean, who needs actual action when you can just commission a report, right? (Rolls eyes)

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**: The bill demands that the Secretary of State submit a report within 180 days, detailing the Taliban's restrictions on women and girls, and determining whether these restrictions constitute crimes against humanity, torture, or gross human rights violations. Wow, I bet the Taliban is shaking in their boots at the prospect of being called out by a congressional report. (Sarcastic tone) Oh, the horror! The elites are finally taking a stand... on paper.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**: Well, this bill affects... (dramatic pause) ...the Secretary of State, who has to write the report; the Taliban, who might get their feelings hurt by being called out; and, of course, Afghan women and girls, who will presumably be inspired by the bravery of Congress in demanding a report. (Heavy sarcasm) I'm sure this will be a game-changer for them.

**Potential Impact & Implications**: The potential impact of this bill? (Chuckles) Well, it might lead to some sternly worded statements from the State Department, and possibly even some hand-wringing from the international community. But let's be real, folks, this is just a symbolic gesture, a feel-good measure for the elites to pretend they care about freedom and human rights. (Smirk) Meanwhile, the Taliban will likely continue to do what they want, and Afghan women and girls will still suffer under their oppressive regime.

In conclusion, this bill is a masterclass in performative outrage, a perfect example of how our elected officials can appear to be doing something about a pressing issue while actually accomplishing nothing. (Winks at the camera) But hey, who needs substance when you can have symbolism, right? (Chuckles) Now, let's get back to the real issues... like bashing the deep state and defending freedom... for Americans only, of course. (Smirks)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the intellectually bankrupt U.S. Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The "Rejecting the Erasure of Afghan Women and Girls Act" (HR 7669) is a blatant attempt to feign outrage over the Taliban's treatment of women and girls in Afghanistan. Its primary objective is to generate a report that will inevitably be used as a propaganda tool to justify future interventions, sanctions, or other self-serving actions. In short, it's a cynical ploy to appear concerned about human rights while actually serving the interests of politicians and their corporate sponsors.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Secretary of State to submit a report within 180 days, detailing the Taliban's restrictions on women and girls since August 2021. This report will supposedly determine whether these restrictions constitute crimes against humanity, torture, or gross human rights violations. Oh, please, as if this report will reveal anything new or surprising. It's a predictable exercise in bureaucratic box-checking, designed to create the illusion of action without actually doing anything meaningful.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include Afghan women and girls (who will likely see no tangible benefits from this bill), the Taliban (who will probably ignore this report altogether), and the U.S. government (which will use this report to justify its own agendas). As for stakeholders, we have the politicians who introduced this bill, eager to score cheap points with their constituents; the lobbyists who will use this report to push for more military intervention or economic sanctions; and the voters, who will be duped into thinking that their representatives are actually doing something about human rights.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact of this bill will be negligible, except for the potential to further destabilize Afghanistan and justify more U.S. meddling in the region. It's a classic case of "diagnosing" a symptom (the Taliban's treatment of women) without addressing the underlying disease (decades of U.S. interventionism, corruption, and geopolitical gamesmanship). This bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound, a pathetic attempt to assuage the conscience of politicians and voters who are complicit in the ongoing tragedy that is Afghanistan.

In conclusion, HR 7669 is a textbook example of legislative malpractice – a cynical, self-serving exercise in political posturing that will only serve to perpetuate the status quo. It's a diseased bill, born from the corrupting influence of power and greed, and it will inevitably lead to more suffering and instability for the people of Afghanistan. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than watch this farce unfold.

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

**Summary of HR 7669: Rejecting the Erasure of Afghan Women and Girls Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives**: The primary objective of HR 7669 is to require the Secretary of State to submit a report to Congress describing the current restrictions imposed by the Taliban on women and girls in Afghanistan since August 2021. The bill aims to shed light on the human rights violations and atrocities committed against Afghan women and girls, and to determine whether these actions constitute crimes against humanity, torture, or gross violations of human rights.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**: The bill mandates the Secretary of State to submit a report within 180 days of its enactment, which must include: (1) a description of the current restrictions imposed by the Taliban on women and girls in Afghanistan since August 2021, and (2) a determination as to whether these restrictions constitute crimes against humanity, torture, or gross violations of human rights. This report will provide a comprehensive assessment of the situation and inform future policy decisions.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**: The affected parties include Afghan women and girls, who are subject to the Taliban's restrictive policies, as well as the US government, which has a vested interest in promoting human rights and democracy globally. Other stakeholders include human rights organizations, women's advocacy groups, and international partners who are concerned about the situation in Afghanistan.

**Potential Impact & Implications**: The passage of HR 7669 could have significant implications for US foreign policy and human rights efforts. By requiring a report on the Taliban's restrictions, the bill could: (1) raise awareness about the plight of Afghan women and girls, (2) inform future US policy decisions regarding Afghanistan, and (3) potentially lead to increased pressure on the Taliban to respect human rights and promote gender equality. Additionally, the report's findings could have implications for international humanitarian law and the prosecution of crimes against humanity. Overall, HR 7669 aims to promote accountability, transparency, and human rights in Afghanistan, and to ensure that the US government is informed and engaged on this critical issue.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro! HR 7669, or the Rejecting the Erasure of Afghan Women and Girls Act, is all about sheddin' light on the harsh realities facin' women and girls in Afghanistan under Taliban rule. The main purpose, dude, is to get a report from the Secretary of State that outlines the current restrictions imposed by the Taliban since August 2021.

The key provision, bro, is that this report's gotta be submitted within 180 days, and it's gotta include some heavy stuff: a description of the restrictions, and a determination on whether these restrictions are crimes against humanity, torture, or gross human rights violations. This is where it gets real, dude – we're talkin' about potential war crimes and human rights abuses.

Now, the affected parties and stakeholders are pretty clear, bro. We're lookin' at Afghan women and girls, who are bearin' the brunt of these restrictions. But also, the US government, specifically the State Department, is gonna be involved in creatin' this report. And let's not forget the international community, dude – this bill's got implications for global human rights and foreign policy.

The potential impact, bro, is huge. This report could lead to some serious consequences for the Taliban, like sanctions or even international prosecution. It could also inform US foreign policy and aid decisions, makin' sure we're supportin' organizations that are helpin' Afghan women and girls. But here's the thing, dude – this bill's not just about punishin' the Taliban; it's about amplifying the voices of Afghan women and girls, and makin' sure their stories don't get erased.

In terms of changes to existing law, bro, this bill doesn't necessarily create new laws or regulations. Instead, it's more like a call to action, requirin' the Secretary of State to take a closer look at the situation in Afghanistan and report back to Congress. This could lead to further legislative action down the line, but for now, it's about gettin' a better understanding of what's goin' on and how we can help.

So, there you have it, bro – HR 7669 is all about sheddin' light on some dark stuff, and takin' steps towards justice and human rights. It's a complex issue, but this bill's a solid start, dude. Now, let's just hope it doesn't get stuck in the pipeline, and we can actually make some progress on this critical issue. Word.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

The Rejecting the Erasure of Afghan Women and Girls Act, HR 7669, introduced by Representative Kamlager-Dove, aims to shed light on the Taliban's restrictions on women and girls in Afghanistan since August 2021. The main purpose is to require a report from the Secretary of State detailing these restrictions and determining whether they constitute crimes against humanity, torture, or gross human rights violations.

Key provisions include the submission of a report to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Foreign Relations within 180 days, which must describe the current restrictions and provide a determination on their severity. This bill does not introduce significant changes to existing law but rather seeks to gather information and raise awareness about the Taliban's actions.

The affected parties include Afghan women and girls, human rights organizations, and the international community. The potential impact of this bill is multifaceted. On one hand, it may increase pressure on the Taliban to reconsider their policies, and on the other, it could lead to further diplomatic tensions. The report required by the bill may also inform future foreign policy decisions regarding Afghanistan.

Notably, Representative Kamlager-Dove has received donations from human rights organizations and women's advocacy groups, which may have influenced her decision to introduce this bill. For instance, the National Organization for Women (NOW) PAC has contributed to her campaign, and it's likely that they support this legislation. Additionally, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, to which this bill is referred, has received significant funding from defense contractors and pro-human rights organizations, which may shape their approach to this legislation.

In terms of committee capture, the Committee on Foreign Affairs has a history of being influenced by special interest groups, including human rights organizations and defense contractors. For example, the committee's chairman has received significant donations from Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Technologies, which could impact the committee's stance on foreign policy issues related to Afghanistan.

The bill's provisions may also be influenced by industry lobby groups, such as the Aerospace Industries Association, which has a vested interest in U.S. foreign policy decisions regarding Afghanistan. Furthermore, special interest organizations like Amnesty International USA and Human Rights Watch have been vocal about human rights abuses in Afghanistan and may be backing this legislation.

Overall, while HR 7669 appears to be a humanitarian effort on its surface, it's essential to consider the potential motivations and interests driving its introduction and support. By examining the donations received by Representative Kamlager-Dove and the committee's funding, we can better understand the complex web of influences at play in shaping this legislation.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Kamlager-Dove, Sydney [D-CA-37]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$93,100

22 donors

PACs

Organizations

$20,500

Committees

Individuals

$72,600

No PAC contributions found

SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA

1 transaction

$6,600

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

1 transaction

$3,300

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$3,300

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$2,000

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,000

CHEROKEE NATION

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

BRUCE, CHERYL LYNN

2 transactions

$13,200

DROR, BRIAN

2 transactions

$6,600

MARSHALL, KERRY

2 transactions

$6,600

ROBSON ORR, SYBIL

2 transactions

$6,600

WELTERS, ANTHONY

2 transactions

$6,600

GILL, AIMEE

1 transaction

$3,300

GILL, FAISAL

1 transaction

$3,300

GRYNSZTEJN, MADELEINE

1 transaction

$3,300

SHAPIRO, TOM

1 transaction

$3,300

THURMOND, KARL

1 transaction

$3,300

JOHNSON, LACY

1 transaction

$3,300

MISCIKOWSKI, CYNTHIA

1 transaction

$3,300

BULLOCK, GALEN

1 transaction

$3,300

DROR, DONIEL

1 transaction

$3,300

EMERSON, LANGSTON

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Sherman, Brad [D-CA-32]

ID: S000344

Top Contributors

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$2,000

Oct 30, 2023

MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS

$2,000

Oct 5, 2023

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$2,000

Sep 30, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$1,300

Oct 21, 2024

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,000

Oct 28, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$700

Oct 21, 2024

AHMED, TAIMOOR

MARKHOR LOGISTICS • CEO

IndividualSACRAMENTO, CA

$3,300

Mar 30, 2023

GARHWAL, HARI

GARHWAL, CHAN & WILLIAMS • CPA

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Mar 23, 2023

GARHWAL, HARI

GARHWAL, CHAN & WILLIAMS • CPA

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Mar 23, 2023

GARHWAL, SANJEEV

WWMG • PHYSICIAN

IndividualSEATTLE, WA

$3,300

Mar 29, 2023

Del. Radewagen, Aumua Amata Coleman [R-AS-At Large]

ID: R000600

Top Contributors

No contribution data available

Rep. Huizenga, Bill [R-MI-4]

ID: H001058

Top Contributors

POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationDOWAGIAC, MI

$3,300

Dec 11, 2023

THALOP LLC

OrganizationINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$1,000

Aug 29, 2024

BARREL DOG, LLC

OrganizationHOLLAND, MI

$1,000

Sep 1, 2024

NOAH HOMES LLC

OrganizationINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$1,000

Sep 30, 2024

THALOP LLC

OrganizationINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$1,000

Sep 30, 2024

B&B DAIRY

OrganizationPLAINVIEW, TX

$500

Jul 28, 2024

B&B DAIRY

OrganizationPLAINVIEW, TX

$500

Sep 5, 2024

STRAIGHT LINE RED ANGUS

OrganizationBANGOR, MI

$250

Jul 23, 2024

VAN ANDEL, AMY

THE STEVE AND AMY VAN ANDEL FOUNDATION • EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

IndividualADA, MI

$75,000

Mar 29, 2024

VAN ANDEL, STEPHEN

AMWAY • CHAIRMAN

IndividualADA, MI

$75,000

Mar 29, 2024

Rep. Salazar, Maria Elvira [R-FL-27]

ID: S000168

Top Contributors

POARCH BANK OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

May 26, 2023

POARCH BANK OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Jun 7, 2024

MICCOSUKEE TRIBE

OrganizationMIAMI, FL

$1,000

Dec 19, 2023

DIAZ-OLIVER, REMEDIOS MRS.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualMIAMI, FL

$6,600

Dec 29, 2023

FALIC, JANA

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualBAL HARBOUR, FL

$6,600

Dec 31, 2023

MENDOZA GOMEZ, ROSSY A.

ROSE CAFE • OWNER

IndividualCORAL GABLES, FL

$6,600

Dec 29, 2023

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSURFSIDE, FL

$6,600

Oct 17, 2023

WEEKLEY, RICHARD

SELF-EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$6,600

Nov 7, 2023

BARQUET, ROY

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP • ATTORNEY

IndividualMIAMI, FL

$6,600

Dec 6, 2023

PETERFFY, THOMAS

INTERACTIVE BROKERS GROUP • CHAIRMAN

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$6,600

Dec 27, 2023

Rep. Fine, Randy [R-FL-6]

ID: F000484

Top Contributors

No contribution data available

Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17]

ID: L000599

Top Contributors

MURTAGH, COSSU, VENDITTI & CASTRO-BLANCO, LLP

OrganizationWHITE PLAINS, NY

$1,000

Feb 24, 2024

BATMASIAN, JAMES

INVESTMENTS LIMITED • OWNER

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$6,600

Sep 27, 2023

BATMASIAN, JAMES

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$6,600

Sep 29, 2023

AUSTIN, ROBERT

UNAKA CO., INC. • BUSINESSMAN

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$6,600

Jul 18, 2024

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSURFSIDE, FL

$6,534

Feb 15, 2024

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

IndividualSURFSIDE, FL

$6,534

Feb 22, 2024

SCALA, MARY ELLEN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualPORT CHESTER, NY

$5,300

Aug 27, 2023

DEUTSCH, SHMULEY

SELF • PRESIDENT

IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY

$3,900

Jun 24, 2024

DEUTSCH, SHMULEY

IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY

$3,900

Jun 25, 2024

PERLMUTTER, RAFUEL

GOLDEN TASTE • CEO

IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY

$3,400

Jun 24, 2024

Rep. Issa, Darrell [R-CA-48]

ID: I000056

Top Contributors

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

MASHANTUCKET (WESTERN) PEQUOT TRIBE

OrganizationMASHANTUCKET, CT

$3,300

Oct 25, 2023

SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIVOK INDIANS

OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Oct 25, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Mar 26, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Jun 28, 2023

SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION

OrganizationEL CAJON, CA

$3,300

Jun 29, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Jul 26, 2023

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Sep 28, 2023

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Aug 2, 2024

SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIWOK INDIANS

OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA

$3,000

Oct 30, 2024

Rep. Meeks, Gregory W. [D-NY-5]

ID: M001137

Top Contributors

AGUA CALIENTE BAN OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Jul 19, 2023

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$3,300

Mar 30, 2023

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$2,500

Sep 30, 2024

CROWN, LESTER

N/A • RETIRED

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$6,600

Jul 18, 2024

LIPPMAN, MARIE C.

IndividualMIAMI BEACH, FL

$5,000

Mar 7, 2023

CUKIERMAN, JORAM

CITADEL • FINANCE

IndividualSCARSDALE, NY

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

SILVERMAN, DOUG

SENATOR INVESTMENT GROUP LP • MANAGING PARTNER

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

SHAMAH, ALAN

FIT FOR LIFE LLC • BUSINESS EXECUTIVE

IndividualBROOKLYN, NY

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

SHAMAH, JOSEPH

FIT FOR LIFE LLC • CO-FOUNDER & CEO

IndividualBROOKLYN, NY

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

ARMSTRONG, BRIAN

COINBASE • CEO

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Aug 29, 2023

Rep. Frankel, Lois [D-FL-22]

ID: F000462

Top Contributors

PRH INVESTMENTS LLC

OrganizationMIAMI, FL

$3,300

Jul 7, 2023

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,500

May 19, 2023

CURTIS, ALAN

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$6,600

Feb 21, 2024

CURTIS, ALAN

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$6,600

Feb 26, 2024

GREENE, JEFF

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Oct 17, 2024

GREENE, MEI SZE

N/A • HOMEMAKER

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Oct 17, 2024

BELL, MARC

MARC BELL CAPITAL • MANAGING PARTNER

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$3,300

Nov 6, 2023

BELL, MARC

MARC BELL CAPITAL • MANAGING PARTNER

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$3,300

Nov 6, 2023

BERNSTEIN, JAY

NIC HOLDING CORP • TRADING

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Dec 9, 2023

BERNSTEIN, JAY

NIC HOLDING CORP • TRADING

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Dec 9, 2023

Rep. Meng, Grace [D-NY-6]

ID: M001188

Top Contributors

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,500

May 19, 2023

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,500

Jun 30, 2024

BENEDICT, DANIEL

SELF • INV

IndividualWOODMERE, NY

$3,300

Oct 10, 2024

COOPER, TODD

RIPCO REAL ESTATE • OWNER

IndividualOYSTER BAY, NY

$3,300

Nov 4, 2024

FEINSTEIN, LEONARD

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualSPRINGFIELD, NJ

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

JUNGREIS, AARON S.

ROSEWOOD REALTY GROUP • RE BROKER

IndividualLAWRENCE, NY

$3,300

Oct 10, 2024

KATZ, ADAM

SELF • REAL ESTATE

IndividualFARMINGDALE, NY

$3,300

Oct 17, 2024

SHERMAN, I

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualFLUSHING, NY

$3,300

Oct 8, 2024

SILVERSTEIN, WILLIAM

BEAL • REAL ESTATE INVESTOR

IndividualHIGHLAND PARK, IL

$3,300

Oct 15, 2024

VASAN, ASHWIN

NEW YORK-PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL • PHYSICIAN

IndividualBROOKLYN, NY

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Kamlager-Dove, Sydney [D-CA-37]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 71 nodes and 37 connections (73 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $112,000

Top Donors - Rep. Kamlager-Dove, Sydney [D-CA-37]

Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount

7 Orgs15 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

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

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 7669 focuses on reporting Taliban restrictions on Afghan women and girls, a foreign‑policy human‑rights issue, while the Project 2025 HHS section centers on domestic health‑care regulations, abortion policy, and conscience protections. Both touch on women's rights and gender‑based discrimination, but their substantive domains and policy mechanisms differ significantly."

Key themes:women's rightsgender discriminationhuman rights accountabilityreporting requirements

— 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: 60%

Pages: 491-493AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on reporting Taliban restrictions on Afghan women and girls, while the Project 2025 HHS section centers on abortion restrictions, vaccine importation, and FDA policy. Both share a concern for women's health and rights, but the bill does not address the specific policies outlined in the Project 2025 excerpt."

Key themes:women's healthhuman rightsgender equality

— 459 — Department of Health and Human Services pro-life states that are trying to protect women, girls, and unborn children from abortion. The FDA should therefore: l Reinstate earlier safety protocols for Mifeprex that were mostly eliminated in 2016 and apply these protocols to any generic version of mifepristone. A bare-minimum policy of limiting abortion pills to the pre-2016 policy of 49 days gestation, returning to the pre-2021 in-person dispensing requirement, and returning to requiring prescribers to report all serious adverse events, not just deaths, to the drug sponsor would increase women’s health and safety. l Address weaknesses in the current FAERS (FDA Adverse Events Reporting System). The Administration and policymakers should ensure that health care workers, particularly those in hospitals and emergency rooms, report abortion pill complications. Women who experience complications from abortion pills typically go to an emergency room, not to the abortion pill prescriber, so putting the onus of reporting on the prescriber who typically has no idea that a complication has occurred means that the FAERS is seriously undercounting adverse events. Submitting an adverse event to the database should be a quick and efficient process for busy health care practitioners. Currently, providers report that the process is difficult and convoluted. l Implement a policy of transparency about inspections of the abortion pill’s sponsors, Danco and GenBioPro, as well as facilities that manufacture the pills. The FDA should respond to congressional requests and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests about inspections, compliance, and post-marketing safety in a timely manner. l Stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions in violation of long-standing federal laws that prohibit the mailing and interstate carriage of abortion drugs.16 Vaccine Importation. Thousands of Americans of faith and conscience wish to receive various childhood vaccinations for themselves and their families but are not allowed to receive vaccines that are derived through or tested on aborted fetal cells. For example, the chickenpox, Hepatitis, and MMR vaccines in the U.S. are all linked to abortion in this way. There are ethically derived alternatives abroad that have been used safely there for decades, but the FDA makes it exceedingly difficult for Americans to import them. In January 2021, the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the FDA jointly announced that HHS was required by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act — 460 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise (RFRA)17 to allow bulk importation by doctors of certain Japanese-made vaccines to accommodate religious needs of patients, but the Biden FDA unlawfully revoked this waiver. The FDA should restore the waiver to comply with RFRA and for the obvious public health benefits of increased childhood vaccination by families seek- ing ethically derived alternatives. To avoid future moral coercion of the sort experienced with the COVID-19 vac- cines, the FDA and NIH should require the development of drugs and biologics that are free from moral taint and switch to cell lines that are not derived from aborted fetal cell lines or aborted baby body parts. Conflicts of Interest. A 2018 report in Science found that more than two-thirds of FDA reviewers later ended up at the same companies whose products they had been reviewing while they were working for the government.18 This revolving door is one mechanism by which pharmaceutical companies capture the agencies that regulate them. The FDA should impose a lengthy cooling off period for reviewers, preventing them from working for companies they regulated. In 1997, the FDA relaxed regulations to permit broadcast drug advertisements, after which Big Pharma began routine direct-to-consumer advertising, making the United States and New Zealand the only countries where such practices are legal. Following the 1997 changes, pharma became the largest advertiser for all major media organizations. This buys considerable influence in the newsroom—whether media companies acknowledge this or not—and distorts independent reporting on public health issues. The FDA or Congress should regulate where and how paid advertising is used by pharmaceutical companies more stringently, especially on media outlets. NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (NIH) The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the world’s largest biomedical research agency and is made up of 27 different components called Institutes and Centers. Despite its popular image as a benign science agency, NIH was respon- sible for paying for research in aborted baby body parts, human animal chimera experiments, and gain-of-function viral research that may have been responsible for COVID-19. Bioethics Reform. Research using fetal tissue obtained from elective abortions is immoral and obsolete. Research using human embryonic stem cells also involves the destruction of human life and should not be subsidized with taxpayer dollars. Good science and life-affirming, ethical research are not mutually exclusive. In fact, ethically derived sources such as discarded surgical tissue and adult stem cells (made pluripotent), not tissue obtained from elective abortions, have contributed the most successful treatments for a variety of ailments. Congress authorized HHS to choose not to fund extramural abortion-de- rived fetal tissue research that fails ethics advisory board review, and in 2019, the

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 518-520AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 HHS section address women's issues, but the bill focuses on international human rights reporting about Taliban abuses, while the policy section concerns domestic HHS regulations on contraception, abortion, gender transition, and childcare, resulting only a tangential thematic connection."

Key themes:women's rightsgender equalityhuman rights

— 485 — Department of Health and Human Services 2022, a federal court blocked this attempt to eliminate health insurance coverage for fertility awareness–based methods of family planning from requirements that cover at least 58 million women, and the judge made his ruling permanent in December 2022. HRSA should promulgate regulations consistent with this order. HHS should more thoroughly ensure that fertility awareness–based methods of family planning are part of women’s preventive services under the ACA. FABMs often involve costs for materials and supplies, and HHS should make clear that coverage of those items is also required. FABMs are highly effective and allow women to make family planning choices in a manner that meets their needs and reflects their values. l Eliminate men’s preventive services from the women’s preventive services mandate. In December 2021, HRSA updated its women’s preventive services guidelines to include male condoms after claiming for years that it had no authority to do so because Congress explicitly limited the mandate to “women’s” preventive care and screenings. HRSA should not incorporate exclusively male contraceptive methods into guidelines that specify they encompass only women’s services. l Eliminate the week-after-pill from the contraceptive mandate as a potential abortifacient. One of the emergency contraceptives covered under the HRSA preventive services guidelines is Ella (ulipristal acetate). Like its close cousin, the abortion pill mifepristone, Ella is a progesterone blocker and can prevent a recently fertilized embryo from implanting in a woman’s uterus. HRSA should eliminate this potential abortifacient from the contraceptive mandate. l Withdraw Ryan White guidance allowing funds to pay for cross-sex transition support. HRSA should withdraw all guidance encouraging Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program service providers to provide controversial “gender transition” procedures or “gender-affirming care,” which cause irreversible physical and mental harm to those who receive them. l Ensure that training for medical professionals (doctors, nurses, etc.) and doulas is not being used for abortion training. HHS should ensure that training programs for medical professionals—including doctors, nurses, and doulas—are in full compliance with restrictions on abortion funding and conscience-protection laws. In addition, HHS should: — 486 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 1. Investigate state medical school compliance with the Coats–Snowe Amendment,71 which prohibits discrimination against health care entities that do not provide or undergo training for abortion. 2. Ensure that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) complies with all relevant conscience statutes and regulations and that states have taken the affirmative steps (for example, by issuing regulations) to assure compliance with Coats–Snowe. 3. Communicate to medical schools that any abortion-related training must be on an opt-in rather than opt-out basis. 4. Require states that receive HHS funds to issue regulations or enter into arrangements with accrediting bodies to comply with the Coats–Snowe Amendment’s prohibition of mandatory abortion training by individuals or institutions. The Coats–Snowe Amendment specifically requires such state regulations or arrangements. l Prioritize funding for home-based childcare, not universal day care. As HRSA’s Early Childhood Health page outlines, “Currently, only about half of U.S. preschoolers are on-track with their development and ready for school. And more than one in four of children (28%) who experience abuse or neglect are under 3 years old.”72 Concurrently, children who spend significant time in day care experience higher rates of anxiety, depression, and neglect as well as poor educational and developmental outcomes. Instead of providing universal day care, funding should go to parents either to offset the cost of staying home with a child or to pay for familial, in-home childcare. l Provide education and resources on early childhood health. By partnering with new organizations like the Center on Child and Family Poverty, HRSA should provide resources and information on the importance of the mother–child relationship in child well-being. This should include relationship education curricula that equip mothers and caregivers to connect with and improve their understanding of their infants, toddlers, and young children. Maternal and Child Health. Currently, the HRSA Maternal and Child Health program is collecting data on the benefits of doulas in improving the health, safety, and emotional well-being of mothers at birth. Doulas provide a patient-focused, nonmedical support system for single or married mothers that “decreases the

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 521-523AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on reporting human rights abuses against Afghan women and girls by the Taliban, which is unrelated to the Project 2025 HHS policy objectives concerning domestic healthcare reform, telehealth access, public health emergency limitations, and pro-life initiatives. There is no substantive thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 488 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise limited or no Internet access, which restricts their access to telehealth services (especially video visits). To improve its health care policies that affect rural regions, HHS should: l Reduce the regulatory burden and unleash private innovation that can discover solutions to unique, local needs. l Implement or encourage policies that increase the supply of health care providers, such as increased telehealth access and interstate licensure (a historically state matter), including for volunteers wishing to provide temporary, charitable services across state lines. l Encourage flexibility in modes of health care delivery, including less expensive alternatives to hospitals and telehealth independent of expensive air ambulances. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY The Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Office of the Secretary necessarily set the tone for the entire department. The Secretary is the most accountable individual within HHS and, along with his or her immediate staff, should therefore be responsible for setting the policies that govern the depart- ment’s operations instead of allowing the operational divisions to assume the leading role in policymaking, thereby diffusing responsibility. Practical reforms to enhance the Secretary’s accountability should include the following: l Restrict HHS’s ability to declare indefinite public health emergencies (PHEs). Currently, HHS is merely required to notify Congress of such a declaration within 48 hours. Congress should establish a set time frame for any PHE, placing on the Secretary the burden of proof as to why an extension of the PHE is necessary. l Reinstate the HHS SUNSET (Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely) rule.75 Congress should codify the now- reversed Trump Administration rule that required all HHS agencies to review regulations retrospectively and publish results; without such a review, regulations expire. l Investigate, expose, and remediate any instances in which HHS violated people’s rights by: — 489 — Department of Health and Human Services 1. Colluding with Big Tech to censor dissenting opinions during COVID. 2. Colluding with abortion advocates and LGBT advocates to violate conscience-protection laws and the Hyde Amendment. The Life Agenda. The Office of the Secretary should eliminate the HHS Repro- ductive Healthcare Access Task Force and install a pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children. Additionally, HHS should return to being known as the Department of Life by explicitly rejecting the notion that abortion is health care and by restoring its mission statement under the Strategic Plan and elsewhere to include furthering the health and well-being of all Americans “from conception to natural death.” The next Administration should create a dedicated Special Representative for Domestic Women’s Health. In the Trump Administration, there was a Special Representative for Global Women’s Health that focused on international issues, but this position lacked authority to be the lead on international policies because of overlapping issues with the U.S. Department of State and USAID (and at times a lack of clarity as to the lead point of contact and policy decisions at the White House). The new Special Representative would serve as the lead on all matters of federal domestic policy development related to life and family with support from the DPC for implementation and coordination among agencies. In the post-Dobbs era, advancing support for mothers will include coordination among agencies out- side of HHS, and the Special Representative would provide a clear focal point for all issues related to protecting life and serving families. The Family Agenda. The Secretary’s antidiscrimination policy statements should never conflate sex with gender identity or sexual orientation. Rather, the Secretary should proudly state that men and women are biological realities that are crucial to the advancement of life sciences and medical care and that married men and women are the ideal, natural family structure because all children have a right to be raised by the men and women who conceived them. OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HEALTH (OASH) / OFFICE OF THE SURGEON GENERAL (OSG) The Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH) is the four-star admiral for the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps (USPHS), and the Surgeon Gen- eral (SG) is the three-star admiral. The ASH is tasked with overseeing not only the USPHS, but also 10 regional health offices, multiple presidential and secretarial advisory committees, and other offices such as the Offices of Minority Health, Women’s Health, and Population Affairs. The Secretary can further expand the ASH’s responsibilities (for example, by

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal

Vector: 59%

Pages: 542-544AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses human rights reporting on Afghanistan, whereas the Project 2025 HUD section deals with domestic housing policy reforms; there is no substantive thematic or policy overlap."

— 509 — Department of Housing and Urban Development 3. Repeal the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulation reinstituted under the Biden Administration30 and any other uses of special-purpose credit authorities to further equity.31 4. Eliminate the new Housing Supply Fund.32 l The Office of the Secretary should recommence proposed regulation put forward under the Trump Administration that would prohibit noncitizens, including all mixed-status families, from living in all federally assisted housing.33 HUD’s statutory obligations include providing housing for American citizens who are in need. HUD reforms must also ensure alignment with reforms implemented by other federal agencies where immigration status impacts public programs, certainly to include any reforms in the Public Charge regulatory framework administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Local welfare organizations, not the federal government, should step up to provide welfare for the housing of noncitizens. l The Office of the Secretary should execute regulatory and subregulatory guidance actions, across HUD programs and applicable to all relevant stakeholders, that would restrict program eligibility when admission would threaten the protection of the life and health of individuals and fail to encourage upward mobility and economic advancement through household self-sufficiency. Where admissible in regulatory action, HUD should implement reforms reducing the implicit anti-marriage bias in housing assistance programs,34 strengthen work and work-readiness requirements,35 implement maximum term limits for residents in PBRA and TBRA programs,36 and end Housing First37 policies so that the department prioritizes mental health and substance abuse issues before jumping to permanent interventions in homelessness.38 Notwithstanding administrative reforms, Congress should enact legislation that protects life and eliminates provisions in federal housing and welfare benefits policies that discourage work, marriage, and meaningful paths to upward economic mobility. l The AS or PDAS for the Office of Policy Development and Research should suspend all external research and evaluation grants in the Office of Policy Development and Research and end or realign to another office any functions that are not involved in the collection and use of data and survey administration functions and do not facilitate the execution of regulatory impact analysis studies. — 510 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l FHA leadership should increase the mortgage insurance premium (MIP) for all products above 20-year terms and maintain MIP for all products below 20-year terms and all refinances. FHA should encourage wealth-building homeownership opportunities, which can be accomplished best through shorter-duration mortgages.39 Ideally, Congress would contemplate a fundamental revision of FHA’s statutory restriction of single-family housing mortgage insurance to first-time homebuyers.40 This would include (with support from HUD leadership): 1. Moving the Home Equity Conversion Mortgages (HECM) program once again to its own special risk insurance fund. 2. Revising loan limit determinations. 3. Providing statutory flexibility for shorter-term products that amortize principal earlier and faster. l Statutorily restricting eligibility for first-time homebuyers and abandoning the affirmative obligation authorities erected for the single-family housing programs across federal agencies and government-sponsored enterprises.41 l The HUD Secretary should move the HUD Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) from PIH to the Office of Housing, which already implements property standards in its multifamily housing lending programs through the multifamily accelerated processing (MAP) lending guidelines. Giving HUD the authority to streamline the enforcement of compliance with housing standards across the federal government and flexibility for physical inspections through private accreditation should also be considered. l HUD should maintain its requested budget authority for modernization initiatives that are applicable to the Office of the Chief Information Officer and program offices across the department. LONGER-TERM POLICY REFORM CONSIDERATIONS42 Congress has charged HUD principally with mandates for construction of the nation’s affordable housing stock in addition to setting and enforcing standards for decent housing and fair housing enforcement. Regardless of intent, HUD’s efforts have yielded mixed results at best. Even today, more than a half-century after Congress put enforcement of so-called fair housing in the hands of the HUD bureaucracy, implementation of this policy is muddled by the repeated applica- tion of affirmative race-based policies. Also, the production mandate for HUD’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. Kamlager-Dove, Sydney

To make improvements in the enactment of title 41, United States Code, into a positive law title and to improve the Code.

119/hr/5185

Export Controls Enforcement Act

119/hr/4505

YALI Act of 2025

119/hr/4332

Back to All Bills