To amend the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 to provide for a ten-year statute of limitations for export control violations.

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/8202
Last Updated: August 26, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Mackenzie, Ryan [R-PA-7]

ID: M001230

Follow the money

The bill

To amend the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 to provide for a ten-year statute of limitations for export control violations.

HR. 8202, 119th Congress — read as touching Private Equity & Hedge Funds.

The sponsor

Rep. Mackenzie, Ryan [R-PA-7]

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

The money

$66,582 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Commerce" section, p. 705-707 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 by the Yeas and Nays: 44 - 0.

April 21, 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

Joy, another brilliant example of legislative theater, courtesy of the geniuses in Congress. Let's dissect this masterpiece, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** Ah, the stated purpose is to amend the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 to provide a ten-year statute of limitations for export control violations. How noble. In reality, this bill is a cleverly crafted attempt to shield corporate interests from accountability and limit the government's ability to prosecute egregious offenders. It's like putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound – it might look pretty, but it won't stop the bleeding.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 1760 of the Export Control Reform Act by adding a new subsection (g) that establishes a ten-year statute of limitations for civil fines, penalties, and forfeitures related to export control violations. Because, you know, corporations need more time to cook their books and destroy evidence before they can be held accountable. The provision also limits the timeframe for indictments, ensuring that prosecutors have a nice, narrow window to build a case against these pillars of society.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The real beneficiaries of this bill are the corporate entities that engage in export control violations, such as arms dealers, tech companies, and other industries with a history of shady dealings. These stakeholders will now have a ten-year grace period to cover their tracks, bribe officials, or simply wait for the statute of limitations to expire. The losers, as always, are the taxpayers, who will foot the bill for these corporate shenanigans, and the environment, which will continue to suffer from the lack of effective regulation.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a symptom of a deeper disease – the corrupting influence of money in politics. By limiting accountability, Congress is essentially giving corporations a free pass to engage in illicit activities, knowing that they'll be protected by the statute of limitations. The potential impact is a further erosion of trust in government, increased corporate malfeasance, and a continued disregard for national security and environmental concerns. It's like treating a patient with a terminal illness by giving them a placebo – it might make them feel better temporarily, but it won't address the underlying condition.

In conclusion, HR 8202 is a masterclass in legislative obfuscation, designed to protect corporate interests at the expense of the public good. It's a cynical attempt to limit accountability and perpetuate the status quo of corruption and greed that plagues our political system. Bravo, Congress – you've managed to create another bill that's more concerned with shielding the guilty than serving the people. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than watch this train wreck unfold.

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

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Mackenzie, Ryan [R-PA-7]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$66,582
19 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$500
Committees
$0
Individuals
$66,082

No PAC contributions found

1
JSA REAL ESTATE PC
1 transaction
$500

No committee contributions found

1
CAMERON, RONALD
2 transactions
$6,600
2
HAAHEIM, CAROLYN
2 transactions
$6,600
3
ARCHER, LYNNE
1 transaction
$3,382
4
BANKE, BARBARA
1 transaction
$3,300
5
HINMAN, ROY
1 transaction
$3,300
6
LEACH, HOWARD
1 transaction
$3,300
7
MCMAHON, JOYCE
1 transaction
$3,300
8
PATE, LUTHER S IV
1 transaction
$3,300
9
RICKETTS, MARLENE M.
1 transaction
$3,300
10
ROCKEFELLER, LISENNE
1 transaction
$3,300
11
JINKS, ALBERT
1 transaction
$3,300
12
MACKENZIE, VICTORIA MILOU
1 transaction
$3,300
13
VOLPE, CHARLES
1 transaction
$3,300
14
BRYDEN, LEWIS
1 transaction
$3,300
15
BUTZ, LEE
1 transaction
$3,300
16
DAUB, L. ANDERSON
1 transaction
$3,300
17
DOWD, JOHN J
1 transaction
$3,300
18
DOWD, TINA
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Castro, Joaquin [D-TX-20]

ID: C001091

Top Contributors

22

1
CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$1,000
Dec 13, 2023
2
ALABAMA COUSHATTA TRIBE
OrganizationWOODVILLE, TX
$1,000
Sep 26, 2024
3
QUINONES, KARLA
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualSAN ANTONIO, TX
$5,000
Sep 30, 2024
4
SNEIDER, ARTURO
PRIMESTOR DEVELOPMENT INC. • REAL ESTATE
IndividualCULVER CITY, CA
$3,300
Oct 23, 2024
5
RAMIREZ, DANIEL N.
MONTY & RAMIREZ • ATTORNEY
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$3,300
Jan 11, 2024
6
PARKER, ALEXANDRA
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPALO ALTO, CA
$3,300
Mar 22, 2024
7
PARKER, ALEXANDRA
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPALO ALTO, CA
$3,300
Mar 22, 2024
8
PARKER, SEAN
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPALO ALTO, CA
$3,300
Mar 22, 2024
9
PARKER, SEAN
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPALO ALTO, CA
$3,300
Mar 22, 2024
10
SILBEY, ALEX
ATS COMMUNICATIONS • CONSULTANT
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Mar 29, 2024

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

ID: L000599

Top Contributors

21

1
MURTAGH, COSSU, VENDITTI & CASTRO-BLANCO, LLP
OrganizationWHITE PLAINS, NY
$1,000
Feb 24, 2024
2
BATMASIAN, JAMES
INVESTMENTS LIMITED • OWNER
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$6,600
Sep 27, 2023
3
BATMASIAN, JAMES
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$6,600
Sep 29, 2023
4
AUSTIN, ROBERT
UNAKA CO., INC. • BUSINESSMAN
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$6,600
Jul 18, 2024
5
SILVERMAN, JEFFREY
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSURFSIDE, FL
$6,534
Feb 15, 2024
6
SILVERMAN, JEFFREY
IndividualSURFSIDE, FL
$6,534
Feb 22, 2024
7
SCALA, MARY ELLEN
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualPORT CHESTER, NY
$5,300
Aug 27, 2023
8
DEUTSCH, SHMULEY
SELF • PRESIDENT
IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY
$3,900
Jun 24, 2024
9
DEUTSCH, SHMULEY
IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY
$3,900
Jun 25, 2024
10
PERLMUTTER, RAFUEL
GOLDEN TASTE • CEO
IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY
$3,400
Jun 24, 2024

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

ID: S000344

Top Contributors

26

1
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$2,000
Oct 30, 2023
2
MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS
$2,000
Oct 5, 2023
3
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$2,000
Sep 30, 2024
4
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$1,300
Oct 21, 2024
5
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA
$1,000
Oct 28, 2024
6
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$700
Oct 21, 2024
7
AHMED, TAIMOOR
MARKHOR LOGISTICS • CEO
IndividualSACRAMENTO, CA
$3,300
Mar 30, 2023
8
GARHWAL, HARI
GARHWAL, CHAN & WILLIAMS • CPA
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Mar 23, 2023
9
GARHWAL, HARI
GARHWAL, CHAN & WILLIAMS • CPA
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Mar 23, 2023
10
GARHWAL, SANJEEV
WWMG • PHYSICIAN
IndividualSEATTLE, WA
$3,300
Mar 29, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Mackenzie, Ryan [R-PA-7]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 46 nodes and 46 connections

Total contributions: $46

Top Donors - Rep. Mackenzie, Ryan [R-PA-7]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

1 Org18 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 4 harmed.

  • Section 1(g)(1)(A) introduces a 10-year statute of limitations for export control violations, potentially reducing the liability period for private equity and hedge funds involved in international trade, but overall increasing regulatory clarity and reducing long-term risk, yet the limitation may still be seen as restrictive.

  • −Commercial Banksconfidence 0.80

    Section 1(g)(1)(A) sets a 10-year statute of limitations for export control violations, which could limit the time frame for commercial banks to face penalties related to export control breaches in their international transactions.

  • Section 1(g)(2) specifies a 10-year limit for indictments related to export control offenses, potentially affecting insurance companies' risk assessments and coverage for businesses involved in export activities.

  • −Crypto & Fintechconfidence 0.60

    The introduction of a specific statute of limitations in Section 1(g) might influence crypto and fintech companies' compliance strategies regarding export controls, potentially increasing their regulatory burden.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Mackenzie, Ryan [R-PA-7])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HARMS

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 Commerce

Weak
Vector: 64%
Pages: 705-707AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 8202 limits the timeframe for prosecuting export control violations, which runs counter to Project 2025's goal of strengthening enforcement and tightening controls; the only overlap is the shared focus on export control enforcement."

Key themes:export controlenforcementstatute of limitationsnational security

— 673 — Department of Commerce Export Enforcement officers through improved and frequent training so they are able to detect export-control violations. EAR Revisions. The U.S. Government needs a new export control moderniza- tion effort to tighten the EAR policies governing licenses to countries of concern, including China and Russia (specifically, revise and/or reverse the 2008 through 2016 policies). When authoritarian governments explain what they plan to do, believe them unless hard evidence demonstrates otherwise. Case in point: China’s and Russia’s stated civil–military fusion policies demand central government command-and-control style systems in which every private entity serves the interests of the state and is forced to provide technology, services, capacity, and data to the central govern- ment and the military. Through this structure, commercial activities are routinely weaponized by authoritarian regimes that repeatedly identify the U.S. as an enemy. Accordingly, U.S. export control policies must be updated to reflect these realities and the associated threats to national security. Key priorities for EAR modernization for countries of concern should be: l Eliminating the “specially designed” licensing loophole; l Redesignating China and Russia to more highly prohibitive export licensing groups (country groups D or E); l Eliminating license exceptions; l Broadening foreign direct product rules; l Reducing the de minimis threshold from 25 percent to 10 percent—or 0 percent for critical technologies; l Tightening the deemed export rules to prevent technology transfer to foreign nationals from countries of concern; l Tightening the definition of “fundamental research” to address exploitation of the open U.S. university system by authoritarian governments through funding, students and researchers, and recruitment; l Eliminating license exceptions for sharing technology with controlled entities/countries through standards-setting “activities” and bodies; and l Improving regulations regarding published information for technology transfers. — 674 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise The next few years will prove or disprove the assertion that the U.S. stands on the precipice of a Cold War with China. Many believe that a Cold War has already begun; if so, then strategic decoupling from China is necessary and, fundamentally, any exports of goods, software, and technology to countries of concern, whether directly or indirectly, should be prohibited or controlled in the absence of good cause (e.g., humanitarian and medical aid, food aid). Entity List and Sanctions. There are currently just over 500 Chinese and over 500 Russian companies on the Department of Commerce’s Entity List, which reg- ulates exports of controlled and uncontrolled items to designated entities. Given China’s Civil–Military Fusion Strategy and Russia’s massive war efforts facili- tated by a broad range of the Russian economy, BIS must add more entities to the Entity List and apply a license review “policy of denial” that prohibits exports to these entities. Entity List parties that violate export controls should be placed on the BIS Denied Persons List (and thereby lose export privileges) and, if the violations are significant enough, they should also be sanctioned by the Department of Treasury. Data Transfer and Apps Used for Surveillance. Department of Commerce leadership should work across government agencies to address privacy and data concerns arising out of “big tech” from national security and export control per- spectives. In particular, they should draft and implement an executive order (EO) based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which expands export control authority beyond ECRA’s scope (goods, software, technology) to regulate and restrict exports of U.S. persons’ data to countries of concern. The EO should establish a framework for the types of personal data subject to export controls and licensing policy by country, and the BIS should implement the EO through regulations. BIS should additionally designate app providers (such as WeChat and Byte Dance/TikTok) known for undermining U.S. national security through data collection, surveillance, and influence operations, to the Entity List. This listing would prevent app users from program updates, which would quickly make these apps non-operational in the United States. NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION Break Up NOAA. The single biggest Department of Commerce agency outside of decennial census years is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which houses the National Weather Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and other components. NOAA garners $6.5 billion of the department’s $12 billion annual operational budget and accounts for more than half of the department’s personnel in non-decadal Census years (2021 figures). NOAA consists of six main offices: l The National Weather Service (NWS);

Trade

Weak
Vector: 64%
Pages: 834-836AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 8202 focuses on setting a statute of limitations for export control violations, which is a tangential aspect of trade enforcement but does not directly address the core Project 2025 trade objectives such as tariff reform, trade agreement restoration, or WTO dispute resolution."

Key themes:export controlstrade enforcementnational securitytrade compliance

— 801 — Trade l Repeal the Jones Act,48 a century-old “Buy American” maritime law that has decimated the U.S. shipbuilding industry. l Work with Congress to restore the President’s Trade Promotion Authority, which would expedite the negotiation of trade agreements with the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Taiwan, the European Union, and other allies, and keep trade-unrelated provisions out of trade agreements. l Restore the World Trade Organization’s dispute resolution process to full strength. l Create a successor to the WTO (assuming that it has been fatally wounded) that is open only to liberal democracies. This would prevent authoritarian countries like China from abusing the organization for their own ends. l Adopt a multi-pronged China strategy to convince the Chinese government to reform its illiberal human rights and trade policies. l Rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), whose 11 members are developing institutional trade norms in an important geopolitical region without U.S. input or involvement. l Reorient the proposed Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity to focus only on trade issues, which it currently ignores in favor of progressive wish-list policies. l Strengthen diplomatic pressure (in concert with allies) against Beijing’s abuses. Encourage cultural and intellectual engagement with the Chinese people, remembering that blue jeans and rock ’n’ roll helped to win the Cold War. Tariff Relief. When people try something repeatedly and it still doesn’t work, they should stop doing it—especially when the consequences turn out to be just what conservative economists have long predicted they would be.49 With tariffs, the proper reform is not only to get rid of the individual tariffs that have backfired, but also to build institutional safeguards against future abuse. We are five years into the biggest experiment with tariffs since the Great Depres- sion, and the results are in: The new tariffs raise consumer prices for ordinary Americans by about $1,200 per household every year50 and benefit only a small number of special interests. Steel and aluminum tariffs, enacted on national security grounds, angered allies. Beijing made not a single substantive reform in — 802 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise response to four rounds of tariffs plus an attempted Phase One agreement. The Biden Administration has left the tariffs in place and is expanding them to pursue progressive policy goals. The first order of business for a new Administration that is focused on American workers and consumers is to repeal all tariffs enacted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 196251 and Sections 201 and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.52 The President can do this unilaterally, and Congress can do it through legislation. The second order of business requires Congress to pass legislation repealing Sections 232, 201, and 301. The U.S. Constitution places all taxing authority with Congress53 and none with the President. Congress used those provisions of law to delegate some of its taxing authority to the President because it was having trouble passing “clean” tariff legislation in the 1960s and 1970s. Unless and until this constitutional question about delegation is addressed, important reforms are available to the next Congress and the next President. Congress faced a problem of collective action in the 1960s and 1970s. As a whole, Members generally wanted to lower tariffs, but few individual Members were will- ing to remove tariffs that benefited special interests in their districts. Trade bills were invariably watered down through amendments and logrolling. The thinking was that the President, whose constituency is the entire nation, would be less prone to special-interest pleading than Members of Congress would be, so Congress del- egated some of its tariff-making authority to the President in 1962 and 1974 trade legislation. Delegating tariff-making might have worked in the short run, but in the long run, it was both constitutionally dubious and ripe for abuse. That came to pass in 2018. The Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, invoked in 2018 against Canada, Europe, and other allies on national security grounds, raised car prices by an aver- age of $250 per vehicle and gave America the world’s highest steel prices. They also harmed the construction, canned food and beverage, and other metal-us- ing industries. While this may have benefited the steel industry itself, each steel job saved cost an average of $650,000 per year that had been taken from elsewhere in the econo- my.54 That is no way to strengthen American manufacturing. The New York Federal Reserve estimated in 2019 that the Section 301 China tariffs cost the average house- hold $831 per year,55 a figure that has likely increased with inflation. The new tariffs have a clear record of failure—as conservative economists almost unanimously warned would be the case. Job number one for the next Administration is to return to sensible trade policies and eliminate the destruc- tive Trump–Biden tariffs. Strengthening American Manufacturing. The decline of American manu- facturing is a common political trope in both parties, typically invoked before a call for more government intervention. This narrative has several problems. One is that

Department of Commerce

Weak
Vector: 63%
Pages: 705-707AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 8202 focuses on limiting the timeframe for export control enforcement, while Project 2025 seeks to strengthen and modernize export controls for national security; the only common ground is the general topic of export controls administered by the Department of Commerce."

Key themes:export controlsenforcementDepartment of Commerce

— 672 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise regulate exports of emerging and foundational technologies. Although the scope of such technologies is vast, to date BIS has only controlled just over 40 of these technologies. This does not meet the clear statutory intent of Congress that ECRA be leveraged to ensure that the United States maintains a technological advantage in technologies bearing upon national security interests. Currently, BIS self-identifies technologies that merit control under the EAR with minimal input from other federal agencies. This mechanism should be improved. BIS should create an open, transparent rulemaking process by which any industry participant, private entity, or branch of the government may, at any time, submit nominations for emerging/foundational technologies for control. Then, on a quarterly basis, BIS should make public such recommendations (while holding the identity of the submitter confidential) for public input, followed by an explanation about its ultimate decision to control or not control the items, its reasons, the level of controls applied (stringent or permissive), and the relevant Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) under the Commerce Control List. Commerce should also institute a mechanism whereby its decisions can be challenged, including on a confidential basis. Licensing Procedures: Adjudication and Transparency. Currently, if the Departments of Defense, State, Commerce, and Energy disagree on an export license decision, the disagreement may be escalated to the Operating Commit- tee—and subsequently to the Advisory Committee on Export Policy led by BIS’s Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. The Assistant Secretary does not need to lead the dispute resolution, and this process should be revised by giving lead authority to BIS’s Under Secretary, who is better able to account for diverging views. Moreover, BIS’s authority to overrule other agency votes should be changed. Each agency should have one equal vote and, if a licensing dispute remains unre- solved, the final decision should be elevated to the National Security Advisor and the Secretaries of Defense, State, Commerce, and Energy. Additionally, to improve congressional oversight of BIS’s license adjudication process, BIS should provide specific congressional committees with data from the Automated Export System on a quarterly basis. Electronic files should contain U.S. exporter by name; product description (e.g., harmonized system code and ECCN/U. S. Munitions List designation); end user and destination country; and when a license was required, whether the license was granted or denied. BIS cur- rently denies just 1.2 percent of export licenses. These data reporting requirements can help Congress better determine whether BIS is adequately protecting national security through appropriate use of export controls or whether additional direction from Congress is required. Improve End-Use Checks. The integrity of the export control system may be validated only through adequate end-use checks. BIS must deny export licenses to countries that do not permit adequate end-use checks (e.g., China/Russia) by U.S. authorities. BIS should also strengthen the forensic audit capabilities of its — 673 — Department of Commerce Export Enforcement officers through improved and frequent training so they are able to detect export-control violations. EAR Revisions. The U.S. Government needs a new export control moderniza- tion effort to tighten the EAR policies governing licenses to countries of concern, including China and Russia (specifically, revise and/or reverse the 2008 through 2016 policies). When authoritarian governments explain what they plan to do, believe them unless hard evidence demonstrates otherwise. Case in point: China’s and Russia’s stated civil–military fusion policies demand central government command-and-control style systems in which every private entity serves the interests of the state and is forced to provide technology, services, capacity, and data to the central govern- ment and the military. Through this structure, commercial activities are routinely weaponized by authoritarian regimes that repeatedly identify the U.S. as an enemy. Accordingly, U.S. export control policies must be updated to reflect these realities and the associated threats to national security. Key priorities for EAR modernization for countries of concern should be: l Eliminating the “specially designed” licensing loophole; l Redesignating China and Russia to more highly prohibitive export licensing groups (country groups D or E); l Eliminating license exceptions; l Broadening foreign direct product rules; l Reducing the de minimis threshold from 25 percent to 10 percent—or 0 percent for critical technologies; l Tightening the deemed export rules to prevent technology transfer to foreign nationals from countries of concern; l Tightening the definition of “fundamental research” to address exploitation of the open U.S. university system by authoritarian governments through funding, students and researchers, and recruitment; l Eliminating license exceptions for sharing technology with controlled entities/countries through standards-setting “activities” and bodies; and l Improving regulations regarding published information for technology transfers.

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.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills