HERO Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/7994

Last Updated: August 26, 2026

HERO Act

HR. 7994, 119th Congress — read as touching Pharmaceuticals.

The sponsor

Rep. Ruiz, Raul [D-CA-25]

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

The money

$110,400 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Education" section, p. 383-385 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 (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 48 - 0.

July 20, 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 HERO Act, a congressional bill introduced in the House of Representatives, aims to establish a grant program for schools to purchase opioid overdose reversal drugs and develop educational programming to promote student and community knowledge of drug-use prevention and intervention. The main purpose of this bill is to provide funding for schools to address the opioid epidemic, with a focus on high-risk areas.

Key provisions of the bill include the establishment of a competitive grant program, administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to award funds to eligible entities such as private schools and local educational agencies. These grants will be used to purchase opioid overdose reversal drugs and develop comprehensive emergency response plans, as well as educational programming on cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), drug-use prevention, and intervention.

The bill also requires covered educational institutions receiving federal funds to report any distribution of opioid overdose reversal drugs to the National Emergency Medical Services Information System (NEMSIS) and the Overdose Detection Mapping Application Program (ODMAP). This provision aims to improve data collection and tracking of opioid overdoses in schools.

Affected parties and stakeholders include private schools, local educational agencies, charter schools, and students. The potential impact of this bill is significant, with projected costs estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars over the next few years. While the bill's objectives may seem altruistic, it is essential to consider the broader implications for my business interests.

As a self-serving billionaire, I must analyze the HERO Act through the lens of its potential impact on my wealth and influence. The grant program established by this bill could lead to increased demand for opioid overdose reversal drugs, potentially benefiting pharmaceutical companies in which I have invested. However, the reporting requirements imposed on covered educational institutions may also lead to increased regulatory burdens and costs for these entities.

Ultimately, the HERO Act represents a modest opportunity for consolidation and deregulation in the education and healthcare sectors. By providing funding for schools to address the opioid epidemic, this bill may help to reduce the economic burden of opioid addiction on local communities, potentially leading to increased economic growth and stability. However, it is crucial to ensure that any regulatory measures implemented by this bill do not overly restrict the ability of businesses to operate efficiently and effectively.

In conclusion, the HERO Act has the potential to impact my business interests in various ways, from increasing demand for opioid overdose reversal drugs to imposing new regulatory burdens on educational institutions. As a self-serving billionaire, it is essential to carefully monitor the development and implementation of this bill to ensure that my wealth and influence are protected and advanced.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Ruiz, Raul [D-CA-25]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$110,400

21 donors

PACs

Organizations

$110,400

Committees

Individuals

No PAC contributions found

TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA

3 transactions

$16,600

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

3 transactions

$16,600

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

2 transactions

$8,300

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

2 transactions

$6,600

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

2 transactions

$6,600

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE

2 transactions

$6,600

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

2 transactions

$6,200

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

1 transaction

$3,300

CHEROKEE NATION

1 transaction

$3,300

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

1 transaction

$3,300

THE UTE INDIAN TRIBE

1 transaction

$3,300

COW CREEK BAND OF UMPQUA TRIBE OF INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

SNOQUALMIE TRIBE

1 transaction

$3,300

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

1 transaction

$2,900

SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

1 transaction

$2,500

FOND DU LAC BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA

1 transaction

$2,500

SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY

1 transaction

$2,000

No committee contributions found

No individual contributions found

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL-12]

ID: B001257

Top Contributors

COOL MASTER PRO LLC

OrganizationTAMPA, FL

$6,600

Mar 8, 2023

ARTECHE, LEON

V-ME MEDIA INC. • CFO

IndividualDORAL, FL

$5,000

Jan 18, 2024

OF FLORIDA, SEMINOLE TRIBE

EMPLOYEE RECOGNIZED TRIBE

IndividualHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Aug 2, 2024

LAGOS, JAMES H.

LAGOS LAGOS, PLL • ATTORNEY

IndividualSPRINGFIELD, OH

$3,300

Sep 9, 2024

RICE, WILLIAM LLOYD

FALFURRIAS CAPITAL PARTNERS

IndividualMINT HILL, NC

$3,300

Sep 30, 2024

WANEK, RON

ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC • CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$3,300

Oct 17, 2024

WANEK, TODD

ASHLEY FURNITURE • CEO

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$3,300

Oct 17, 2024

WANEK, JOYCE

N/A • N/A

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

WANEK, KAREN

SUPERIOR FRESH • OWNER

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$3,300

Oct 17, 2024

HEPSCHER, WILLIAM S

RX MANAGE USA • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$3,300

Oct 30, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Ruiz, Raul [D-CA-25]

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 88 connections

Total contributions: $88

Top Donors - Rep. Ruiz, Raul [D-CA-25]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

21 Orgs

Industry Impact

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

+Pharmaceuticalsconfidence 0.80
Section 2(a)(1) provides grants to purchase opioid overdose reversal drugs, which could increase demand for these products, benefiting pharmaceutical companies that manufacture them.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

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

Department of Education

Weak

Vector: 65%

Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The HERO Act focuses on opioid overdose prevention and response in schools, while the Project 2025 excerpt emphasizes school choice, opting out of federal programs, and accreditation reform. Both involve the Department of Education and K-12 education, but their substantive goals and mechanisms do not overlap significantly."

Key themes:Department of EducationK-12 educationfederal funding

— 351 — Department of Education as the Educational Choice for Children Act. This bill would create a federal scholarship tax credit that would incentivize donors to contribute to nonprofit scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). Eligible families could then use that funding from the SGOs for their children’s education expenses including private school tuition, tutoring, and instructional materials. ADDITIONAL K–12 REFORMS Allowing States to Opt Out of Federal Education Programs. States should be able to opt out of federal education programs such as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. Much of the red tape and regulations that hinder local school districts are handed down from Washington. This regulatory burden far exceeds the federal government’s less than 10 percent financing share of K–12 education. In the most recent fiscal year (FY 2022), states and localities financed 93 percent of K–12 education costs, and the federal government just 7 percent. That 7 percent share should not allow the federal government to dictate state and local education policy. l To restore state and local control of education and reduce the bureaucratic and compliance burden, Congress should allow states to opt out of the dozens of federal K–12 education programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and instead allow states to put their share of federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law. This policy has been advanced over the years via a proposal known as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM HEA: Accreditation Reform Congress established two primary responsibilities for the U.S. Department of Education in the HEA: 1) to ensure the “administrative capacity and financial responsibility” of colleges and universities that accept Title IV funds; and 2) to ensure the quality of those institutions. Congress did not endow the Department of Education with the authority to involve itself in academic quality issues relating to colleges and universities that participate in the Title IV student aid program; the HEA allows the agency only to recognize accreditors, which are then supposed to provide quality assurance measures. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has followed closely in the footsteps of the Obama Administration by engaging in a politically motivated and incon- sistent administration of the accrediting agency recognition process. As a result, accreditors have transformed into de facto government agents. Despite claims by — 352 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the department and accreditation agencies that accreditation is voluntary, the fact that Americans are denied access to an otherwise widely available entitle- ment benefit if the institution “elects” to not be accredited makes accreditation anything but voluntary. Today, accreditation determines whether Americans can access federal student aid benefits, transfer academic credits, enroll in higher-level degree programs, and even qualify for federal employment. Unnecessarily focused on schools in a specific geographic region, institutional accreditation reviews have also become wildly expensive audits by academic “peers” that stifle innovation and discourage new institutions of higher education. Of par- ticular concern are efforts by many accreditation agencies to leverage their Title IV (student loans and grants) gatekeeper roles to force institutions to adopt policies that have nothing to do with academic quality assurance and student outcomes. One egregious example of this is the extent to which accreditors have forced col- leges and universities, many of them faith-based institutions, to adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies that conflict with federal civil rights laws, state laws, and the institutional mission and culture of the schools. Perhaps more distress- ingly, accreditors, while professing support for academic freedom and campus free speech, have presided over a precipitous decline in both over the past decade. Despite maintaining criteria that demand such policies, accreditors have done nothing to dampen the illiberal chill that has swept across American campuses over the past decade. The current system is not working. A radical overhaul of the HEA’s accreditation requirements is thus in order. The next Administration should work with Congress to amend the HEA and should consider the following reforms: l Prohibit accreditation agencies from leveraging their Title IV gatekeeper role to mandate that educational institutions adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. l Protect the sovereignty of states to decide governance and leadership issues for their state-supported colleges and universities by prohibiting accreditation agencies from intruding upon the governance of state-supported educational institutions. l Protect faith-based institutions by prohibiting accreditation agencies from: 1. Requiring standards and criteria that undermine the religious beliefs of, or require policies or conduct that conflict with, the religious mission or religious beliefs of the institution; and

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 353-355AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The HERO Act establishes a new federal grant program for opioid overdose reversal in schools, while the Project 2025 excerpt advocates reducing federal education programs and shifting to state-controlled block grants; they share only a general context of federal education funding but differ in direction and focus."

Key themes:federal education grantsschool-based programsfunding allocation

— 321 — Department of Education through the pandemic’s Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief (ESSER) Funds,4 which relied on ESEA formulas. The same year, the department spent more than $2 billion just to administer Title IV of the HEA, which authorizes federal student loans and Pell grants. It provided $22.5 billion in Pell grants, and it oversaw outlays of close to $100 billion in direct student loans. Since 1965, Congress has continued to layer on dozens of new laws and pro- grams as federal “solutions” to myriad education problems. In 1973, it passed the Rehabilitation Act,5 and, in 1975, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)6 to address educational neglect of students with disabilities. In 2002, it cre- ated the Institute for Education Sciences to consolidate education data collection and fund research. Congress has also enacted a series of Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Acts, including Perkins V in 2018.7 Congress could have, and once did, distribute management of federal education programs outside of a single department. But for those interested in expanding federal funding and influence in education, this unconsolidated approach was less than ideal, because a single, captive agency would allow them to promote their agenda more effectively across Administrations. Eventually, the National Educa- tion Association made a deal and backed the right presidential candidate— Jimmy Carter—who successfully lobbied for and delivered the Cabinet-level agency. When it was established in 1979—becoming operational in 1980—the agency was supposed to act as a “corralling” mechanism. Carter signed the Department of Education Organization Act8 into law in 1979, believing in part that it would reduce administrative costs and improve efficiency by housing most of the federal education programs that had proliferated in the wake of Johnson’s War on Poverty under one roof. It has had the opposite effect. Instead, special interest groups like the National Education Association (NEA), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and the higher education lobby have leveraged the agency to continuously expand federal expenditures—a desirable funding stream from their vantage point because federal budgets are not constrained like state and local budgets that must be balanced each year. By FY 2022, the department’s discretionary and mandatory appropriation topped $80 billion, not including student loan outlays. Each of its programs has attendant federal strings and red tape. One recent example is the Biden Administration’s requirement that state educa- tion agencies and school districts submit “equity” plans as a condition of receiving COVID recovery ESSER funds in the American Rescue Plan (ARP).9 This exercise led to the hiring of numerous new government employees as the rules were pro- mulgated, plans were created after collecting public feedback, and those plans were eventually deemed satisfactory. The next Administration will need a plan to redistribute the various congres- sionally approved federal education programs across the government, eliminate — 322 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise those that are ineffective or duplicative, and then eliminate the unproductive red tape and rules by entrusting states and districts with flexible, formula-driven block grants. This chapter details that plan. As the next Administration executes its work, it should be guided by a few core principles, including: l Advancing education freedom. Empowering families to choose among a diverse set of education options is key to reform and improved outcomes, and it can be achieved without establishing a new federal program. For example, portability of existing federal education spending to fund families directly or allowing federal tax credits to encourage voluntary contributions to K–12 education savings accounts managed by charitable nonprofits, could significantly advance education choice. l Providing education choice for “federal” children. Congress has a special responsibility to children who are connected to military families, who live in the District of Columbia, or who are members of sovereign tribes. Responsibility for serving these students should be housed in agencies that are already serving these families. l Restoring state and local control over education funding. As Washington begins to downsize its intervention in education, existing funding should be sent to states as grants over which they have full control, enabling states to put federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law. l Treating taxpayers like investors in federal student aid. Taxpayers should expect their investments in higher education to generate economic productivity. When the federal government lends money to individuals for a postsecondary education, taxpayers should expect those borrowers to repay. l Protecting the federal student loan portfolio from predatory politicians. The new Administration must end the practice of acting like the federal student loan portfolio is a campaign fund to curry political support and votes. The new Administration must end abuses in the loan forgiveness programs. Borrowers should be expected to repay their loans. l Safeguarding civil rights. Enforcement of civil rights should be based on a proper understanding of those laws, rejecting gender ideology and critical race theory.

Department of Education

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 377-379AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The HERO Act focuses on opioid overdose prevention and response in schools, while the Project 2025 excerpt centers on parental rights, FERPA/PPRA reforms, gender ideology, and school choice. Both involve federal involvement in education and student well‑being, but their substantive objectives do not overlap."

Key themes:educationstudent safetyfederal involvement

— 345 — Department of Education financial assistance. Investigations can take months if not years. The department has never suspended or terminated the funding for an educational institution or agency for violating FERPA or PPRA. In essence, Congress has granted parents and students important statutory rights without an effective remedy to assert those rights. l The next Administration should work with Congress to amend FERPA and PPRA to provide parents and students over the age of 18 years with a private right of action to seek injunctive and declaratory relief, together with attorneys’ fees and costs if a prevailing party, against educational institutions and agencies that violate rights enshrined in these statutes. This will empower parents and students, level the playing field between families and education bureaucracies, and encourage institutional compliance with these statutory requirements. Protect Parental Rights in Policy In addition to strengthening legal protections for parents, the next Adminis- tration should: l Prioritize legislation advancing such rights. Promising ideas have appeared in bills introduced in the 117th Congress such as H.R.8767, the Empowering Parents Act,15 sponsored by Representative Bob Good (R-VA); H.R. 6056, the Parents’ Bill of Rights Act,16 sponsored by Representative Julia Letlow (R-LA); and H.J.Res. 99,17 proposing an amendment to the Constitution relating to parental rights, sponsored by Representative Debbie Lesko (R-AZ). l These congressional actions should be carefully reviewed to make sure they complement state Parents' Bills of Rights, such as those passed in Georgia (2022), Florida (2021), Montana (2021), Wyoming (2017), Idaho (2015), Oklahoma (2014), Virginia (2013), and Arizona (2010). As documented by writers such as Abigail Shrier and others, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons documented a four-fold increase in the number of biological girls seeking gender surgery between 2016 and 2017. Larger increases were found in the U.K. from 2009 to 2019 and 2017 to 2018. These statistics and others point to a social contagion in which minor children, especially girls, are attempting to make life-altering decisions using puberty blockers and other hor- mone treatments and even surgeries to remove or alter vital body parts. Heritage Foundation research finds that providing easier access to such treatments and — 346 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise surgeries without parental involvement does not reduce the suicidality of these young people and may even increase suicide rates. l The next Administration should take particular note of how radical gender ideology is having a devastating effect on school-aged children today—especially young girls. School officials in some states are requiring teachers and other school employ- ees to accept a minor child’s decision to assume a different “gender” while at school—without notifying parents. In California, New Jersey, and certain districts in Kansas and elsewhere, educators are prohibited from informing parents about children’s confusion over their sex if the children do not want their parents to know. Such policies allow schools to drive a wedge between parents and children. The next Administration should work with Congress to provide an example to state lawmakers by requiring K–12 districts under federal jurisdiction, including Wash- ington, D.C., public schools, Bureau of Indian Education schools, and Department of Defense schools, with legislation stating that: l No public education employee or contractor shall use a name to address a student other than the name listed on a student’s birth certificate, without the written permission of a student’s parents or guardians. l No public education employee or contractor shall use a pronoun in addressing a student that is different from that student’s biological sex without the written permission of a student’s parents or guardians. l No public institution may require an education employee or contractor to use a pronoun that does not match a person’s biological sex if contrary to the employee’s or contractor’s religious or moral convictions. State lawmakers should use this model and adopt similar provisions for public schools within their borders. Federal lawmakers should not allow public school employees to keep secrets about a child from that child’s parents. Advance School Choice Policies The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, a voucher program providing scholarships to children from low-income families living in the nation’s capital to attend a private school of choice, is capped at $20 million annually and limited to

Department of Education

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 389-391AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The HERO Act focuses on opioid overdose prevention and response in schools, while the Project 2025 Department of Education section emphasizes executive orders on guidance transparency, First Amendment protections in grants, reducing degree requirements, and eliminating the 'list of shame' for religious exemptions. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address guidance documents, civil rights enforcement, accreditation, or DEI/CRT oversight."

Key themes:grant programsfederal oversighteducational institutions

— 357 — Department of Education NEW EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD ISSUE Guidance Documents l The President should immediately reinstate and reissue Executive Order 13891: Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents, 84 Fed. Reg. 55235 (Oct. 9, 2019), and Executive Order 13892: Promoting the Rule of Law Through Transparency and Fairness in Civil Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication (Oct. 15, 2019). These executive orders required all federal agencies to treat guidance documents as non-binding in law and practice and also forbade federal agencies from imposing new standards of conduct on persons outside the executive branch through guid- ance documents. They required all federal agencies to apply regulations and statutes instead of guidance documents in any enforcement action. President Biden revoked these executive orders on January 20, 2021, demonstrating that these executive orders effectively restrained the abuses of an expansive administrative state. l Require APA notice and comment. The President should issue an executive order requiring the Office for Civil Rights’ Case Processing Manual to go through APA (Administrative Procedures Act) notice and comment. l Protect the First Amendment. The President should issue an executive order requiring grant applications (SF-424 series) to contain assurances that the applicant will uphold the First Amendment in funded programs and work. l Minimize bachelor’s degree requirements. The President should issue an executive order stating that a college degree shall not be required for any federal job unless the requirements of the job specifically demand it. l Eliminate the “list of shame.” Educational institutions can claim a religious exemption with the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education from the strictures of Title IX. In 2016, the Obama Administration published on the Department of Education’s website a list of colleges that had applied for the exemption. This “list of shame” of faith-based colleges, as it came to be known, has since been archived on ED’s website, still publicly available. The President should issue an executive order removing the archived list and preventing such a list from being published in the future. — 358 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise NEW AGENCY POLICIES THAT DON’T REQUIRE NEW LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS TO ENACT Transparency of FERPA and PPRA Complaints l The Department of Education should be transparent about complaints filed on behalf of families regarding the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA). l At the same time, the Department of Education should develop a portal and resources for parents on their rights under FERPA and PPRA. This portal should also contain an explanation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) and public school procedures to demonstrate that the law does not deprive parents of their right to access any school health records. The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program In 2011, Congress added new requirements to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program stating that participating private schools must submit to site visits by the program administrator, inform prospective students about the school’s accreditation status, mandate that teachers of core subjects have bachelor’s degrees, and require participating students to take some form of nationally norm-referenced test. Notably, the 2011 reauthorization also required, for the first time, that participating private schools be accredited or be on a path to accreditation. The 2017 reauthorization went further, requiring that each participating school supply a certificate of accreditation to the administering entity upon program entry, demonstrating that the school is fully accredited before being allowed to participate. The list of approved accreditors is entirely too small to serve the mission of the diverse schools in the nation’s capital. l Although the accreditation regulations should be removed entirely by Congress, in the meantime, the next President should issue an executive order expanding the list of allowable accreditors. Transparency Around Program Performance and DEI Influence The next President should issue a series of executive orders requiring: l An accounting of how federal programs/grants spread DEI/CRT/ gender ideology, l A review of outcomes for GEAR UP and the 21st Century grants programs,

Department of Education

Minimal

Vector: 64%

Pages: 362-364AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The HERO Act addresses opioid overdose reversal drugs and school-based health interventions, while the Project 2025 excerpt focuses on reorganizing the Department of Education, moving the Office for Civil Rights, and rolling back regulations—there is no substantive policy overlap."

Key themes:Department of Educationfederal grant programschools

— 330 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise with the advice and consent of the Senate; (2) funded with annual appropriations from Congress; and (3) operated by professional managers. Federal loans would be assigned directly to the Treasury Department, which would manage collections and defaults. The new federal student loan authority would manage the loan port- folio, handle borrower relations, administer loan applications and disbursements, monitor institutional participation and accountability issues, and issue regulations. Office for Civil Rights (OCR) l OCR should move to the Department of Justice. The federal government has an essential responsibility to enforce civil rights protections, but Washington should do so through the Department of Justice and federal courts. The OCR at DOJ should be able to enforce only through litigation. Additional Bureaus and Offices For those attorneys, accountants, experts, and specialists in the department's remaining offices subject to closure whose positions might nevertheless be a key component of serving the mission—positions that might include the Office of the Secretary/Deputy Secretary, Office of the Undersecretary, Office of the General Counsel, Office of the Inspector General, Office of Finance and Operations, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Office of Communications and Outreach, and Office of Legislative and Congressional Affairs—the opportunity to join other agencies based on their expertise and the needs of other agencies should be made available. For example, OGC higher education lawyers would join the newly independent Federal Student Aid Office or the Department of Labor, and OGC civil rights attor- neys would join DOJ. These positions must first be determined to serve a continued mission need prior to being transferred. l Attorneys, accountants, experts, and specialists in the department’s remaining offices subject to closure, and whose positions are indispensable to serving the mission, should have the opportunity to join other agencies. Current Laws Relating to the Department of Education That Require Repeal In order to fully wind down the Department of Education, Congress must pass and the President must sign into law a Department of Education Reorganization Act (or Liquidating Authority Act) to direct the executive branch on how to devolve the agency as a stand-alone Cabinet-level department. l Congress should pass and the next President should sign a Department of Education Reorganization Act. — 331 — Department of Education Current Regulations Promulgated by or Relevant to the Agency That Should Be Rolled Back or Eliminated While the next Administration works to distribute department programs across the federal government, it will need to thoroughly review the many educa- tion-related regulations promulgated by the Biden Administration. There are five primary regulatory targets (as of December 2022) that require the next Adminis- tration’s attention: regulations on (1) Charter School Grant Program Priorities; (2) Civil Rights Data Collection; (3) Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan Program, and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program Final Regulations; (4) Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance (Title IX); and (5) Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities, Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities (Equity in IDEA). The next Administration should also review regulatory changes to the school meals program (under the Department of Agriculture) and changes to the Income-Driven student loan program. Additional Biden Administration regulations on (1) gainful employment, administrative capa- bility, and financial responsibility for institutions that participate in the federal student loans and grant programs; (2) Title VI, (3) accreditation of postsecondary institutions, and (4) female athletics are expected in to be released in 2023. l Thoroughly review the many education-related regulations promulgated by the Biden Administration, as well as the school meals program and the Income-Driven student loan program. Charter School Grant Programs Congress first authorized the Charter School Program (CSP) in 1994 [Title X, Part C of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended, 20 U.S.C. § 8061 et seq. (1994)]. It most recently reauthorized the program in 2015 as part of the Every Student Succeeds Act.13 On March 14, 2022, the department published a notice concerning proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and grant selection criteria relating to the award of federal grants to applicants in CSP. This proposal increases the federal footprint in the charter school sector by ignor- ing statute and adding to the list of requirements imposed on charter schools. l The new Administration must take immediate steps to rescind the new requirements and lessen the federal restrictions on charter schools. Civil Rights Data Collection On December 13, 2021, OCR published a notice concerning proposed revisions to OCR’s Mandatory Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) in which it proposed

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. Ruiz, Raul

Humanitarian Standards for Individuals in ICE and CBP Custody Act

119/hr/7335

HERO Act

HERO Act

Rep. Ruiz, Raul [D-CA-25]

$110,400 raised

55% match to Project 2025

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

Passed Congress

Presidential Action

Became Law

Bill Summary

Related Topics

Related Topics

Related Topics

Related Topics

Related Topics

Related Topics

Related Topics

Related Topics

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL-12]

Donor Network - Rep. Ruiz, Raul [D-CA-25]

Top Donors - Rep. Ruiz, Raul [D-CA-25]

Industry Impact

Project 2025 Policy Matches

Department of Education

Department of Agriculture

Department of Education

Department of Education

Department of Education

About These Correlations

Full Policy Text

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Ruiz, Raul

Similar Topics