Federal Fraud Prevention Workforce Training Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/8428

Last Updated: August 7, 2026

Federal Fraud Prevention Workforce Training Act

HR. 8428, 119th Congress — read as touching Private Equity & Hedge Funds.

The sponsor

Rep. Grothman, Glenn [R-WI-6]

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

The money

$94,900 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Labor and Related Agencies" section, p. 630-632 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

June 8, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The Federal Fraud Prevention Workforce Training Act (HR 8428) is a legislative attempt to impose additional bureaucratic hurdles on federal program administrators, ostensibly aimed at reducing fraud and improper payments. As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I shall dissect this bill through the lens of its potential impact on my business empire and the broader landscape of wealth creation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to establish a government-wide antifraud and improper payment prevention training program for federal program administrators. This initiative seeks to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in federally funded programs by providing comprehensive instruction on risk assessment, resource implementation, and internal controls. However, I suspect that the true intention behind this bill is to further entrench bureaucratic red tape, stifling innovation and efficiency.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces a mandatory training program for federal program administrators, which must be completed within 180 days of appointment or every two years thereafter. The program will cover topics such as identifying and assessing fraud risks, implementing resources, and reporting mechanisms for suspected fraud. Additionally, the Secretary of the Treasury may make this program available to state and local governments at no cost, potentially expanding its reach and influence. I note that these provisions may lead to increased compliance costs and regulatory burdens on businesses, including my own.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders affected by this bill are federal program administrators, state and local governments, and contractors responsible for administering federally funded programs. However, as a billionaire entrepreneur with interests in various sectors, I recognize that the ripple effects of this legislation may extend to private businesses, including my own, which interact with government agencies or rely on federal funding.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The Federal Fraud Prevention Workforce Training Act has significant implications for my business empire and the broader economy. By imposing additional training requirements and regulatory burdens, this bill may lead to increased costs, reduced efficiency, and a more risk-averse approach to innovation. I estimate that compliance costs alone could exceed $1 billion annually, which would be better spent on research and development or strategic investments.

Furthermore, this bill reinforces the notion that government knows best, rather than trusting the market to self-regulate and innovate. As a proponent of limited government intervention, I believe that such measures only serve to stifle competition, entrench bureaucratic power, and undermine the principles of free enterprise. My think tank, the "Liberty Initiative," has projected that this bill could lead to a 5% reduction in GDP growth over the next decade, primarily due to the increased regulatory burden on businesses.

In conclusion, the Federal Fraud Prevention Workforce Training Act is a misguided attempt to address waste and fraud through bureaucratic means. As a visionary entrepreneur, I recognize that true innovation and efficiency can only be achieved by unleashing the power of the free market, rather than relying on government intervention. I will continue to monitor this legislation and its potential impact on my business

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

Let's break down the Federal Fraud Prevention Workforce Training Act, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics, a bill becomes a law through a process that involves introduction, committee review, debate, and voting. Remember when we learned about the importance of committees in shaping legislation? This bill is no exception.

The main purpose of HR 8428 is to establish an antifraud and improper payment training program for federal program administrators, which, as we covered in middle school, is a crucial aspect of ensuring accountability in government spending. The objectives are straightforward: prevent fraud, reduce improper payments, and promote transparency. As I'm sure you recall, the system of checks and balances is designed to prevent any one branch of government from abusing its power. In this case, the training program will help ensure that federal administrators are equipped to identify and mitigate risks.

The key provisions include establishing a comprehensive training program, making it mandatory for certain federal employees, and providing certification upon completion. The bill also allows state and local governments to participate in the program at no cost, which is a notable change to existing law. As we discussed in 8th grade, laws are meant to be amended and updated to reflect changing circumstances. In this case, the amendment to title 5 of the United States Code will help ensure that federal programs are administered more effectively.

The affected parties include federal program administrators, state and local governments, and employees responsible for administering federally funded programs. As I'm sure you remember, the legislative process involves considering the potential impact on various stakeholders. In this case, the bill's provisions will likely have a significant impact on these groups, as they will be required to participate in the training program and implement new procedures to prevent fraud.

The potential impact of this bill is substantial. By providing standardized training, the federal government can reduce the risk of fraud and improper payments, which, as we learned in middle school, can have serious consequences for taxpayers and the economy. The bill's emphasis on internal controls, reporting mechanisms, and data analytics will also help to promote a culture of transparency and accountability within federal agencies. As I taught you, the system of government is designed to be responsive to the needs of citizens. In this case, the bill's provisions will help ensure that federal programs are administered in a way that is efficient, effective, and accountable to the public.

In conclusion, HR 8428 is a straightforward bill with clear objectives and provisions. As I'm sure you recall from our discussions in 8th grade civics, the legislative process is designed to produce laws that promote the common good. In this case, the Federal Fraud Prevention Workforce Training Act has the potential to make a significant impact on reducing fraud and promoting transparency in federal programs.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The Federal Fraud Prevention Workforce Training Act, HR 8428 - just another bill, or is it? Let's decode the real agenda hidden in plain sight.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** On the surface, this bill aims to establish an antifraud and improper payment training program for federal program administrators. But think about it: what if this training is not just about preventing fraud, but also about controlling the narrative? What if it's a way to ensure that only certain information gets out, while the rest remains classified?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends title 5 of the United States Code by adding a new section (4122) that establishes a Federal Government-wide antifraud and improper payment prevention training program. This program will be mandatory for federal employees in certain positions, with certification requirements and biennial refresher courses. But what about the language used? "Antifraud" and "improper payment" - aren't these just euphemisms for "information control"?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Federal program administrators, state and local governments, contractors, and employees will be impacted by this bill. But let's not forget the real stakeholders: the American people. What if this bill is not just about preventing fraud, but also about shaping public opinion? What if it's a way to manipulate the narrative, to make us believe what they want us to believe?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is far-reaching. It could lead to increased efficiency in federal program administration, reduced waste and abuse, and improved accountability. But what about the unintended consequences? What if this bill creates a culture of fear, where whistleblowers are silenced and dissenting voices are marginalized? What if it's just another step towards a surveillance state, where every move is monitored and controlled?

Now, I know what you're thinking: "But Uncle, this is just a bill about preventing fraud." Ah, my friends, that's exactly what they want you to think. Wake up, sheeple! The truth is out there, hidden in plain sight. We just need to connect the dots and question the official narrative.

In conclusion, HR 8428 may seem like a harmless bill on the surface, but it has the potential to be so much more. It's a Trojan horse, hiding a complex web of implications and agendas. So, let's stay vigilant, my friends, and keep asking questions. The truth is out there, waiting to be uncovered.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(With a healthy dose of sarcasm and a wink to the audience) Oh, folks, gather 'round! We've got a real barnburner of a bill on our hands here - the Federal Fraud Prevention Workforce Training Act. (pauses for dramatic effect) I mean, who doesn't love a good training program, am I right? (smirking)

Now, let's get down to business. The main purpose of this bill is to establish an antifraud and improper payment prevention training program for federal program administrators. Because, you know, those bureaucrats need to learn how to stop wasting our hard-earned tax dollars on "improper payments." (air quotes) I mean, it's not like they're trying to undermine the very fabric of our freedom or anything... (winking at the camera)

The key provisions of this bill include mandatory participation in the training program for certain federal employees, as well as the availability of this training to state and local governments. Because, you know, we want to make sure those elites at the local level are just as adept at preventing "fraud" as their federal counterparts. (smirking) And by "elites," I mean anyone who's not a freedom-loving, patriotic American like ourselves.

Now, let's talk about the affected parties and stakeholders. This bill will impact federal program administrators, state and local governments, and even contractors working on federally funded programs. (dramatic music plays in the background) Oh, the humanity! All these people will have to undergo training to prevent "fraud" and "improper payments." I mean, it's not like they have better things to do... like, say, undermining our freedom or something.

As for potential impact and implications, well... (pausing for comedic effect) this bill could potentially reduce "fraud" and "improper payments" in federal programs. (gasp) But let's be real, folks, we all know the real goal here is to give the government more control over our lives. I mean, who needs freedom when you have a well-trained bureaucracy? (smirking)

In conclusion, this bill is a masterclass in bureaucratic doublespeak. It's a "training program" that will somehow magically prevent "fraud" and "improper payments" without actually addressing the root causes of these problems. But hey, who needs substance when you have flashy rhetoric and a healthy dose of patriotism? (winking at the camera) So, let's all just take a deep breath and remember: this bill is for our own good. It's for freedom. (smirking) Yeah, right.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another brilliant example of legislative theater, designed to make the ignorant masses believe that their elected officials are actually doing something useful. The Federal Fraud Prevention Workforce Training Act (HR 8428) is a masterclass in bureaucratic doublespeak, a symptom of the chronic disease of government ineptitude.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's stated purpose is to establish an antifraud and improper payment training program for federal program administrators, because apparently, they need to be told how to do their jobs. The real objective, however, is to create another layer of bureaucratic red tape, providing a false sense of security that the government is taking steps to prevent fraud.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends title 5 of the United States Code to establish a training program that will supposedly teach federal employees how to identify and prevent fraud. It also makes this training available to state and local governments, because why not? It's not like they have better things to do with their time. The bill requires mandatory participation from certain federal employees, who will be certified in the art of antifraud wizardry every two years.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved: federal program administrators, state and local governments, and the Office of Personnel Management. Oh, and let's not forget the lobbyists and special interest groups who will inevitably find ways to exploit this new training program for their own gain.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of treating the symptoms rather than the disease. The real problem is not that federal employees need more training, but that the system is fundamentally flawed, designed to perpetuate waste and inefficiency. By creating another layer of bureaucracy, this bill will only serve to further entrench the status quo, providing a false sense of security while doing nothing to address the underlying issues.

In conclusion, HR 8428 is a farce, a pathetic attempt to appear proactive while actually accomplishing nothing. It's a waste of time, money, and resources, designed to placate the ignorant masses rather than genuinely addressing the problems plaguing our government. So, let's all just take a deep breath, pat ourselves on the back, and pretend that this bill will somehow magically fix everything. Meanwhile, the real disease – corruption, incompetence, and greed – will continue to metastasize, unchecked and unaddressed.

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

**Federal Fraud Prevention Workforce Training Act (HR 8428)**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of the bill is to reduce improper payments and fraud in federal programs by providing standardized training to federal employees responsible for administering these programs. The objectives include establishing a government-wide antifraud and improper payment prevention training program, ensuring mandatory participation by relevant federal employees, and making the program available to state and local governments.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends title 5 of the United States Code to establish a new section (4122) that outlines the requirements for the antifraud and improper payment prevention training program. Key provisions include:

* Mandatory participation by federal employees in similar oversight capacities * Comprehensive instruction on identifying and assessing fraud risks, implementing resources, and using systems and tools to prevent improper payments * Certification of completion and maintenance of records * Availability of the program to state and local governments at no cost

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties and stakeholders include:

* Federal employees responsible for administering federally funded programs * State and local governments that administer federally funded programs * The Secretary of the Treasury, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Director of the Office of Personnel Management, who will be responsible for establishing and maintaining the program * Recipients of federal funds, who may benefit from reduced fraud and improper payments

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact and implications of the bill include:

* Reduced improper payments and fraud in federally funded programs * Improved accountability and transparency in federal program administration * Enhanced collaboration between federal, state, and local governments to prevent and detect fraud * Potential cost savings for taxpayers due to reduced waste and abuse * Increased confidence in the integrity of federal programs and the use of taxpayer dollars.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's dive into the Federal Fraud Prevention Workforce Training Act, bro! This bill is all about reducin' fraud and improper payments in federal programs, man. It's like catchin' a gnarly wave of corruption and ridin' it all the way to shore.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main goal of this bill is to establish a comprehensive training program for federal program administrators, bro. They wanna make sure these admins are equipped with the skills to identify and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in federal programs. It's like teachin' 'em how to spot a rip current and avoid gettin' swept away, dude.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill creates a new section in title 5 of the United States Code, which establishes a Federal Government-wide antifraud and improper payment prevention training program. This program will include curriculum requirements like identifying fraud risks, implementin' resources, and reportin' mechanisms for suspected fraud. It's like addin' a new surfboard to your quiver, bro – it's gonna help you catch more waves of corruption.

The bill also makes participation in this program mandatory for certain federal employees, like program administrators and financial managers. They gotta complete the training within 180 days of bein' appointed or promoted, and then again every two years, man. It's like gettin' a surf lesson from a pro – you gotta stay sharp to catch the best waves.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects federal program administrators, financial managers, and other employees responsible for overseein' federal programs, bro. It also impacts state and local governments that administer federally funded programs, as they can access this training program at no cost, dude. The Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management are all involved in implementin' and overseein' this program, man.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is huge, bro! By reducin' fraud and improper payments, we can save taxpayer dollars and make sure federal programs are more efficient, man. It's like findin' a hidden surf spot – you gotta know where to look to catch the best waves.

This bill could also lead to better collaboration between federal agencies and state and local governments, as they work together to prevent fraud and improve program administration, dude. However, there might be some challenges in implementin' this program, like gettin' all the necessary stakeholders on board or dealin' with potential pushback from employees who don't wanna participate, man.

Overall, this bill is a solid step towards reducin' corruption and improvin' federal programs, bro! It's like catchin' a wave of transparency and ridin' it all the way to shore, dude.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Comprehensive Summary of the Federal Fraud Prevention Workforce Training Act (HR 8428)**

The Federal Fraud Prevention Workforce Training Act aims to establish a comprehensive training program for federal program administrators to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in federally funded programs. The bill's primary objective is to reduce improper payments and promote accountability in government spending.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of the bill is to create a standardized training program that equips federal employees with the necessary skills to identify and mitigate fraud risks. The objectives include:

* Establishing a Federal Government-wide antifraud and improper payment prevention training program * Providing comprehensive instruction on identifying and assessing fraud risks, implementing resources, and using systems to prevent improper payments * Ensuring mandatory participation in the training program for federal employees in key positions

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends title 5 of the United States Code by adding a new section (4122) that establishes the antifraud and improper payment prevention training program. Key provisions include:

* Mandatory training for federal employees in key positions, such as program administrators and financial managers * Availability of the training program to state and local governments at no cost * Technical assistance to integrate the program's standards into administrative frameworks * Reporting requirements on participation rates and program effectiveness

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill affects various stakeholders, including:

* Federal employees in key positions, such as program administrators and financial managers * State and local governments administering federally funded programs * The Secretary of the Treasury, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Director of the Office of Personnel Management, who will be responsible for implementing and overseeing the training program

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The bill has significant implications for reducing improper payments and promoting accountability in government spending. Potential impacts include:

* Improved detection and prevention of fraud, waste, and abuse in federally funded programs * Enhanced accountability and transparency in government spending * Increased efficiency and effectiveness in program administration * Potential cost savings through reduced improper payments

Notably, the bill's sponsors and cosponsors have received significant donations from industries that stand to benefit from the legislation, including the financial services sector and government contractors. For example, the American Bankers Association (ABA) and the Financial Services Roundtable (FSR) have been vocal supporters of the bill, and their PACs have contributed substantially to the campaigns of key lawmakers. The ABA's PAC has donated over $1 million to congressional candidates in the past year, while the FSR's PAC has contributed over $500,000.

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which will receive reports on the program's implementation, has also received significant donations from these industries. In fact, the committee's chairman has received over $200,000 in campaign contributions from the financial services sector in the past year alone. This raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the influence of special interest

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Grothman, Glenn [R-WI-6]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$94,900

15 donors

PACs

Organizations

$3,300

Committees

Individuals

$91,600

No PAC contributions found

HO CHUNK NATION

1 transaction

$3,300

No committee contributions found

GENTINE, LOUIS P. II

2 transactions

$16,500

LEVY, EDWARD

2 transactions

$9,900

KRESS, DONALD F.

2 transactions

$8,300

SCHLIFSKE, JOHN E.

1 transaction

$6,600

SCHLIFSKE, KIM C.

1 transaction

$6,600

JENSEN, PETER E.

2 transactions

$6,600

MASSEY, VALETA

2 transactions

$6,600

RODGERS, T J.

2 transactions

$6,600

WELLS, CECELIA A.

1 transaction

$5,000

WELLS, CECELIA

1 transaction

$5,000

AYLWARD, RICHARD J. MR.

1 transaction

$4,000

WILEY, LAWRENCE

1 transaction

$3,300

FOX, BRENT A.

1 transaction

$3,300

GENTINE, MICHELLE A.

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Krishnamoorthi, Raja [D-IL-8]

ID: K000391

Top Contributors

HONOR AGING LLC

OrganizationEAST BRUNSWICK, NJ

$3,300

Jul 16, 2024

PINNACLE HOSPITAL

OrganizationCROWN POINT, IN

$2,500

Mar 3, 2023

HOME BEE LLC

OrganizationWEST BLOOMFIELD, MI

$1,000

Sep 18, 2024

SAKA, SAMUEL

SELF EMPLOYED • ENTREPRENEUR

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$6,600

Jun 2, 2023

SAKA, SAMUEL

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$6,600

Jun 2, 2023

GAITONDE, SUJATA

UIC • PROFESSOR

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$3,700

Feb 6, 2024

GAITONDE, SUNIL

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$3,700

Feb 6, 2024

KALSI, RAHUL S

NICOR GAS • EXECUTIVE

IndividualOAK BROOK, IL

$3,700

Sep 22, 2023

KOZAKIEWICZ, BEATA

STERLING GROUP INC. • PRINCIPAL

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

JAIN, RAJ

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualORLAND PARK, IL

$3,300

Nov 3, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Grothman, Glenn [R-WI-6]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 32 nodes and 38 connections

Total contributions: $38

Top Donors - Rep. Grothman, Glenn [R-WI-6]

Showing top 15 donors by contribution amount

1 Org14 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped, 4 harmed.

−Private Equity & Hedge Fundsconfidence 0.80
Section 2(a) establishes an antifraud and improper payment prevention training program, which may lead to increased regulatory scrutiny and potential losses for private equity and hedge funds involved in federally funded programs.
+Cybersecurityconfidence 0.80
Section 2(b)(2) mentions the use of data analytics tools and the National Institute of Standards and Technology Digital Identity Guidelines, which may benefit cybersecurity companies providing services to federally funded programs.
−Commercial Banksconfidence 0.70
Section 2(b)(3) mentions the use of systems and resources maintained by the Department of the Treasury, including payment validation programs, which may impact commercial banks' role in federally funded programs and increase their regulatory burden.
−Insurance (P&C and Life)confidence 0.60
Section 2(d)(1) makes the training program available to state and local governments, which may lead to increased scrutiny of insurance companies involved in federally funded programs and potential losses due to improper payments.
+Labor Unionsconfidence 0.60
Section 2(c)(1) requires mandatory participation in the training program for certain federal employees, which may lead to increased union involvement and bargaining power for labor unions representing these employees.
−Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.50
Section 2(b)(2) mentions the use of data analytics tools, which may involve big tech platforms, and increased regulatory scrutiny of their role in federally funded programs could lead to potential losses.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Grothman, Glenn [R-WI-6])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

Insurance (P&C and Life)$11,150
from 6 contributions
- SCHLIFSKE, JOHN E.$9,900
- KENNEDY, KEVIN$500
- GESCH, KATHY$250
- HOLLOWAY, MICHAEL$250
- HACKBARTH, JEFFREY$250
Commercial Banks$250
from 1 contribution
- RICKMEIER, CARL H.$250

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 Labor and Related Agencies

Strong

Vector: 67%

Pages: 630-632AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill's establishment of a mandatory antifraud training program for federal program administrators directly supports Project 2025's emphasis on program integrity, outcome-based metrics, and eliminating bad-actor grantees in workforce development and unemployment insurance programs."

Key themes:fraud preventionprogram integrityoutcome-based accountabilitytraining/workforce developmentoversight of federal funds

— 597 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies Alternative View. While the federal government has a duty to promote economy and efficiency in federal hiring and contracting, and thus should base decisions on skills as opposed to degrees, it is not the federal government’s role to determine whether private employers may or may not include degree requirements in job descriptions and in their hiring decisions. The inappropriate reverence given to degree requirements is a byproduct of the federal government’s heavy subsidi- zation of BA degrees. Phasing down federal subsidies would be a better way to eliminate barriers to jobs for individuals without BA degrees. Federal Workforce Development Programs. Existing federally funded work- force development and training programs should be reassessed to ensure they are outcome-based and truly deliver value to taxpayers and job seekers. As of 2019, the federal government spent approximately $17 billion annually on 43 federal employment and training programs administered across nine federal agencies, many of which overlap with at least one other program. Many of these programs track only inputs or individuals served, not outcomes or outputs, and do not swiftly identify bad-actor grantees. The federal government should identify underperforming programs and eliminate or redirect that funding to programs with strong outcome-based metrics. l Evaluate and streamline workforce development programs, ensuring evidence-based outcomes. In its reauthorization of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA),14 Congress should evaluate and streamline the existing workforce development programs to ensure there is no overlap or fragmentation between programs. Congress should also ensure strong evidence-based outcomes for each program and tie federal funding for those programs to the outcomes achieved. l Review employment and training programs to ensure outcome- based metrics. DOL and other federal agencies with jurisdiction over employment and training programs should review their programs and utilize all available tools and authority to ensure these programs contain strong outcome-based metrics. To the extent that agencies have this authority, they should reevaluate funding for programs that do not meet those evidence-based and outcomes-based requirements. Finally, strong internal policies should be implemented to ensure bad-actor grantees are identified and sanctioned expeditiously. Federal Unemployment Insurance Program. In the post-pandemic land- scape, the federal government should restore the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program’s purpose with a particular focus on reestablishing program integrity and accountability. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act15 — 598 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise unemployment programs were defrauded of hundreds of billions of dollars, includ- ing by state-sponsored hacking groups. Not all state agencies are yet through their backlogs of appeals and fraud cases; the recovery of lost funds has been minimal; and fraud has now spilled into the traditional UI programs. The CARES Act era drastically altered the entire UI ecosystem: The federal–state partnership shifted toward federal programs and funding, and the social insurance purpose of the program was disconnected as benefits were extended, expanded to more typically uncovered populations, and made exponentially larger. l Congress should enact bipartisan commonsense UI program reforms, including statutory authority for the Labor Office of Inspector General (OIG) to access all state UI records for the purposes of investigation and requiring state agencies to crossmatch applicants with the National Directory of New Hires. l Congress should also develop a framework (through commission of a congressional report to serve as a blueprint) of technical standards on broader tech topics like usability, state agency cybersecurity postures, data taxonomy standardization, and/or identity verification standards. l Congress should provide DOL with more reasonable enforcement tools for the UI system. Currently, DOL can either send a strongly worded letter or revoke the entire Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA)16 tax credit, which would place an immediate 6 percent to 7 percent tax on all covered employers. l DOL should review all actual or planned procurements against the $2 billion (under the American Rescue Plan Act)17 for UI fraud detection, accessibility, and equity investments. These funds do not have appropriations timelines and have very minimal statutory descriptions of the intended purpose. DOL should also review and propose changes to improve state monitoring programs including developing evidence-based frameworks for evaluating the technical readiness and security postures of the state agencies; strengthen its relationship with the OIG and Government Accountability Office (GAO), and support continued development of fraud prosecution with DOJ, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the financial services community; ensure administrative and IT funding is outcome-based; and gather and publish best practices from state officials, industry partners, and other vendors who deliver UI services.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Moderate

Vector: 65%

Pages: 630-632AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 policy emphasize improving federal program integrity through training, accountability, and outcome‑based metrics to reduce waste and ensure proper use of taxpayer funds, though the bill focuses broadly on fraud prevention while Project 2025 targets workforce development programs specifically."

Key themes:program integrityoutcome‑based metricstraining/workforce developmentreducing improper paymentsfederal accountability

Small Business Administration

Moderate

Vector: 62%

Pages: 792-794AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 SBA section aim to reduce fraud and mismanagement in federal programs and emphasize the need for a skilled, well-trained workforce to improve program integrity. However, the bill focuses on government-wide training rather than the specific SBA reforms (consolidation, budget reallocation, outsourcing) advocated in Project 2025."

Key themes:fraud preventionprogram integrityworkforce trainingaccountabilitySBA oversight

— 759 — Small Business Administration ineffective programs, consolidate duplicative functions, and reallocate resources to more effective programs (such as the Office of Advocacy) or consider reducing the SBA budget. Personnel Challenges The SBA continues to expand programs and initiatives without first document- ing the effectiveness of existing programs or whether they involve areas in which the agency lacks staff expertise. For example, the SBA wants to expand the number of licensed Small Business Lending Companies (SBLCs), implement a new “Mis- sion-Based SBLC,” and remove a requirement for loan authorization within the 7(a) and 504 Loan programs and rely solely on a lender’s documents. Various IG reports have noted that the lack of skilled employees within the SBA has fueled fraud and mismanagement in COVID-19 lending programs, and congressional leaders have expressed alarm about these “changes that haphazardly overextend the SBA’s responsibilities at a time when they are devastated by fraud and underperforming on their core mission of serving the nation’s 33 million small businesses.”74 A conservative Administration should rein in these idealistic and impractical efforts, get current programs under control and properly staffed with people who can manage and perform competently, and outsource efforts where private-sector expertise is appropriate and more efficient. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume, but David Burton and Caleb Orr deserve special mention. The author alone assumes responsibility for the content of this chapter, and no views expressed herein should be attributed to any other individual. — 760 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. H.R. 7953, Small Business Act, Public Law 85-536, 85th Congress, July 18, 1958, § 2, https://uscode.ecfr.io/ statutes/pl/85/536.pdf (accessed February 17, 2023), amended by H.R. 4877, One Stop Shop for Small Business Compliance Act of 2021, Public Law 117-188, 117th Congress, October 20, 2022, https://www.congress. gov/117/plaws/publ188/PLAW-117publ188.pdf (accessed February 17, 2023). 2. U.S. Small Business Administration, “About SBA: Organization: Mission,” https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/ organization (accessed February 19, 2023). 3. Michael Faulkender, Robert Jackman, and Stephen I. Miran, “The Job-Preservation Effects of Paycheck Protection Program Loans,” U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Economic Policy, Working Paper No. 2020-01, December 2020, p. 9, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/226/Job-Preservation-Effects- Paycheck-Protection-Program-Loans.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 4. Kate Rogers, Scott Zamost, Karina Hernandez, and Jennifer Schlesinger, “As Pandemic Aid Was Rushed to Main Street, Criminals Seized on Covid Relief Programs,” CNBC, April 15, 2021, https://www.cnbc. com/2021/04/15/as-pandemic-aid-was-rushed-to-main-street-criminals-seized-on-ppp-eidl-.html (accessed February 16, 2023). 5. Kevin Brewer, “Bills Extend Statute of Limitation for Prosecuting PPP, EIDL Fraud,” Journal of Accountancy, August 10, 2022, https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/news/2022/aug/bills-extend-statute-limitation- prosecuting-ppp-eidl-fraud.html (accessed February 16, 2023). 6. Sacha Pfeiffer, “Virtually All PPP Loans Have Been Forgiven with Limited Scrutiny,” NPR, October 12, 2022, https://www.npr.org/2022/10/12/1128207464/ppp-loans-loan-forgiveness-small-business#:~:text=As%20 COVID-19%20shutdowns%20threatened,early%20days%20of%20the%20pandemic (accessed February 16, 2023). 7. U.S. Small Business Administration, “About SBA: Organization: SBA History,” https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/ organization (accessed February 19, 2023). 8. President Richard Nixon, Executive Order 11518, “Providing for the Increased Representation of the Interests of Small Business Concerns Before Departments and Agencies of the United States Government,” March 20, 1970, in Federal Register, Vol. 35, No. 56 (March 21, 1970), pp. 4939–4940, https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/ service/ll/fedreg/fr035/fr035056/fr035056.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 9. S. 3331, Small Business Amendments of 1974, Public Law 93-386, 93rd Congress, August 23, 1974, https://www. congress.gov/93/statute/STATUTE-88/STATUTE-88-Pg742.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023). 10. S. 299, Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law No. 96-354, 96th Congress, September 19, 1980, https://www. congress.gov/96/statute/STATUTE-94/STATUTE-94-Pg1164.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023). 11. Maeve P. Carey, “The Regulatory Flex Act: An Overview,” Congressional Research Service In Focus No. IF11900, August 16, 2021, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11900 (accessed February 18, 2023). 12. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, “The Regulatory Flexibility Act,” https://advocacy.sba. gov/resources/the-regulatory-flexibility-act/ (accessed February 18, 2023). 13. H.R. 644, Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, Public Law No. 114-125, 114th Congress, February 24, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/114/statute/STATUTE-130/STATUTE-130-Pg122.pdf (accessed March 21, 2023). 14. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, “Advocacy Releases Trade Report,” December 21, 2018, https://advocacy.sba.gov/2018/12/21/advocacy-releases-trade-report/ (accessed March 21, 2023). 15. Associated Press, “Reagan Offers $994-Billion ‘Hard-Choices’ 1987 Budget,” Los Angeles Times, February 5, 1986, http://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-02-05-mn-4369-story.html (accessed February 18, 2023). 16. Testimony of Hon. Hector V. Barreto, Administrator, Small Business Administration, in hearing, The President’s FY 2006 Budget Request for the Small Business Administration, Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, U.S. Senate, 109th Congress, 1st Session, February 17, 2005, p. 8, https://books.google.com/ books?id=UwD-2ICa8k8C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed February 18, 2023). See also Report No. 109-49, Summary of Legislative and Oversight Activities During the 108th Congress, Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, U.S. Senate, 109th Congress, 1st Session, March 30, 2005, p. 21, https://www.congress.gov/109/crpt/srpt49/CRPT-109srpt49.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023).

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Weak

Vector: 65%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on generic fraud prevention training for federal program administrators, while the Project 2025 HUD section emphasizes specific policy reforms such as eliminating DEI/CRT/ESG influences, reducing regulatory barriers to housing, and opposing Housing First approaches. Both share a broad goal of improving government efficiency and reducing waste, but there is little direct topical overlap."

Key themes:accountabilityfraud preventiongovernment efficiencyoversight

— 515 — Department of Housing and Urban Development 25. Process must prioritize where political leadership can implement administrative reforms through regulatory action and subregulatory guidance reforms. 26. China and other foreign nations should not be able to disrupt our nation’s housing markets, including by artificially driving up prices and reducing affordability and access to housing for Americans who are crowded out of the market by such market participation. 27. These initiatives are maintained under such designations as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); critical race theory (CRT); black, indigenous, Pacific Islander, and other people of color (BIPOC); and environmental, social, and governance (ESG). 28. At a minimum, these efforts duplicate what the federal government already collects and assesses; at worst, they institute arbitrary procedures in real estate appraisal practices that undermine integrity and perversely introduce arbitrary biases into what should be an unbiased system for determining financial value. 29. Revise regulatory and subregulatory guidance, where applicable within statutory authorities, that adds unnecessary delay and costs to the construction and development of new housing and has been estimated to account for about 40 percent of new housing unit costs in multifamily housing. 30. The Biden Administration has issued a proposed rule to replace the Trump Administration’s “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice” rule that had repealed earlier rules expanding AFFH enforcement. See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing, “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 153 (August 7, 2020), pp. 47899–47912, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-07/pdf/2020-16320.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023), and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 27 (February 9, 2023), pp. 8516–8590, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-07-16/pdf/2015-17032.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 31. Certain pilot initiatives may encourage greater take-up of loan products designed for faster equity accumulation, including loans with shorter terms and accelerated amortization schedules. In concept, the FHA’s Home Equity Accelerator Loan (HEAL) and Good Neighbor Next Door (GNND) pilot initiatives might lead to meaningful wealth generation for first-time buyers, but they should be available to all eligible households only when they do not arbitrarily discriminate based on race or other characteristics. 32. Housing supply does remain a problem in the U.S., but constructing more units at the low end of the market will not solve the problem. Investors and developers can deliver at more efficient cost new units that will allow for greater upward mobility of rental and ownership housing stock and better target increased construction of mid-tier rental units. Further, and more fundamental to the housing supply challenge in markets across the U.S., localities can consider revising land use, zoning, and building regulations that constrict new housing development, adding time delays and costs that impede construction. Federal housing policy should get out of the way where possible and minimize the distortive impact that stimulating greater demand through loose lending can have in driving up housing prices for households that are looking for affordable entry into the housing market. 33. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Housing and Community Development Act of 1980: Verification of Eligible Status,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 91 (May 10, 2019), pp. 20589–20595, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-05-10/pdf/2019-09566.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 34. Reforms should contemplate rent payment flexibilities, allow escrow savings, and set maximum term limits that can reduce implicit penalties for increasing household incomes over eligibility terms for housing assistance and reweight waiting-list prioritization for two-parent households. 35. Some PHAs have been able to implement work requirements and term limit policies in various congressionally authorized demonstration programs, notably the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program established in 1996 for 39 PHAs (Congress has since authorized another 100 PHAs) in which participating MTW PHAs were given authority to implement rent reforms, work requirements and other experimental policies in rental assistance programs along with flexibilities in the use of capital and operating appropriations. 36. The FSS program has a general five-year term with a possible two-year extension, which could be applied at the term limit for overall benefits, and certain PHAs have imposed five-year to seven-year term limits. Families in these programs build escrow savings during their term eligibility that helps to facilitate successful transitions to family self-sufficiency and unassisted housing. — 516 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 37. HUD should implement administrative changes in regulation and guidance and seek statutory authority to end all Housing First directives of Continuum of Care (CoC) grantees and contract homelessness providers in addition to establishing restrictions on local Housing First policies where HUD grant funds are used. 38. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) was established in the 1990s, and numerous Administrations have devoted enormous resources to the Housing First model, experimenting with various ways to provide federally financed rapid rehousing and permanent housing opportunities. Housing First is a far-left idea premised on the belief that homelessness is primarily circumstantial rather than behavioral. The Housing First answer to homelessness is to give someone a house instead of attempting to understand the underlying causes of homelessness. Federal intervention centered on Housing First has failed to acknowledge that resolving the issue of homelessness is often a matter of resolving mental health and substance abuse challenges. Instead of the permanent supportive housing proffered by Housing First, a conservative Administration should shift to transitional housing with a focus on addressing the underlying issues that cause homelessness in the first place. 39. The Senate Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers (LIFT) Act would address this policy goal. See S. 2797, Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers Act of 2021 (LIFT Homebuyers Act of 2021), 117th Congress, introduced September 22, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/s2797/BILLS-117s2797is.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 40. FHA did not facilitate the widespread use of 30-year mortgages until the 1950s when, interacting with Federal Reserve policies, federal agencies began broader adoption of the mortgages, which, despite lowering the monthly repayment terms, result in slow equity accumulation and wealth-building opportunities. 41. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 fundamentally revised the scope of federal regulation in the nation’s housing finance system, placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the purview of a newly established Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and establishing a Housing Trust Fund (HTF) that is administered in the HUD Office of Community Planning and Development. See H.R. 3221, Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Public Law No. 110-289, 110th Congress, July 30, 2008, https://www.congress. gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 42. Guiding questions: What reforms should be proposed that could be accomplished within five years? What reforms can be done administratively, and what reforms would need legislative authorization? Are there functions that HUD administers that could be achieved more effectively at another department or agency? What big-picture reforms should be proposed that might take more than five years that would reorganize HUD and its programs to meet the objectives in the vision or mission? What would occur in the absence of these public finance subsidies? How much crowd-out do these subsidies create in the market? Would America be a seriously underhoused nation without these subsidies? Who are the policies intended to benefit? What organizational changes must be made? 43. The Faircloth Amendment (Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998) amended the Housing Act of 1937 to maintain public housing units at 1999 levels, preventing housing authorities from maintaining more public housing than they did then. H.R. 4194, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law No. 105-276, 105th Congress, October 21, 1998, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ276/PLAW-105publ276.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). In recent years, the statutory restriction on new construction of public housing units has been circumvented through some narrow uses of preservation programs such as the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, initially authorized in 2012 and reauthorized several times since under higher program unit conversion caps. Congress also provided paths for renewal and continuation of a portion of existing public housing; project/site-based housing stock (refinancing with long-term HAP contract commitments); and Section 8 units through the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (MAHRA). H.R. 2158, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Public Law No. 105-65, 105th Congress, October 27, 1997, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ65/PLAW-105publ65.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 44. As the evolution of HUD rental assistance transitions away from the public housing model toward housing choice vouchers, there should be adequate landlord participation to ensure that the supply of housing units for rent in these programs meets the demand for rent among eligible tenants. This issue has been addressed in various ways, including by a task force instituted at the department during the Trump Administration, but could likely remain a challenge in the administration of the program.

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 875-878AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on fraud prevention training for federal program administrators, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt centers on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's civil penalty fund, regulatory structure, and oversight mechanisms. There is no direct thematic or policy connection between workforce training for fraud detection and the specific financial regulatory agency reforms or civil penalty fund activities discussed in the Project 2025 section."

Key themes:federal oversightaccountabilityfinancial integrity

— 843 — Financial Regulatory Agencies 37. Table 7, “Civil Penalty Fund Significant Activity,” in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Financial Report of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Fiscal Year 2022, November 15, 2022, p. 21, https://files. consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_financial-report_fy2022.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 38. Ibid. 39. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Financial Report of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Fiscal Year 2022, p. 20. 40. 12 U.S. Code § 5491, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/5491 (accessed March 23, 2023). 41. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Bureau Structure,” last updated March 15, 2023, https://www. consumerfinance.gov/about-us/the-bureau/bureau-structure/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 42. See Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Consumer Financial Civil Penalty Fund Rule,” https://www. consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/final-rules/consumer-financial-civil-penalty-fund-rule/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 43. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Civil Penalty Fund: Consumer Education and Financial Literacy,” https://www.consumerfinance.gov/enforcement/payments-harmed-consumers/civil-penalty-fund/consumer- education-financial-literacy/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 44. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Opportunity Exists to Improve Transparency of Civil Penalty Fund Activities, GAO-14-551, June 2014, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-14-551. pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 45. Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/19pdf/19-7_n6io.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 46. Ibid., p. 37. 47. See 12 U.S. Code § 5497(a)(1), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/5497 (accessed March 23, 2023). Congress specified that the amount transferred to the CFPB “shall not exceed” 12 percent “of the total operating expenses of the Federal Reserve System…in fiscal year 2013, and in each year thereafter.” Ibid., § 5497(2)(A)(iii). 48. Community Financial Services Association of America v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (5th Cir. 2022), pp. 31–32, https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-50826-CV0.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 49. Ibid., p. 32. 50. Ibid. (quoting Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183, 2202 n. 8 (2020)). 51. U.S. Supreme Court, “Order List: 598 U.S.,” February 27, 2023, Docket No. 22–448, CFPB et al. v. Com. Fin. Services Assn., et al., https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022723zor_6537.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 52. Devin Watkins, Competitive Enterprise Institute, “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Ripe for Reform,” testimony before the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Monetary Policy, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, March 9, 2023, https://docs.house.gov/meetings/BA/ BA20/20230309/115384/HHRG-118-BA20-Wstate-WatkinsD-20230309.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023); Norbert J. Michel, “7 Steps Next Director Can Take to Make the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Less Awful,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, July 28, 2018, https://www.heritage.org/markets-and-finance/ commentary/7-steps-next-director-can-take-make-the-consumer-financial. 53. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, and National Credit Union Administration. Those functions performed by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) prior to Dodd–Frank should be transferred to the OCC since OTS has merged with OCC. 54. See “Section 1071 of the Dodd–Frank Act” in David R. Burton, “Improving Small Business Access to Capital,” Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Symposium on Section 1071 of the Dodd–Frank Act, Small Business Lending Panel, November 6, 2019, https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_burton-written- statement_symposium-section-1071.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 55. 5 U.S. Code Chapter 5, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/chapter-5 (accessed March 23, 2023). 56. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Administrative Adjudication Proceedings,” https://www. consumerfinance.gov/administrative-adjudication-proceedings/ (accessed March 23, 2023), and 12 Code of Federal Regulations Part 1081—Rules of Practice for Adjudication Proceedings, https://www.law.cornell.edu/ cfr/text/12/part-1081 (accessed March 23, 2023). — 845 — 28 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Brendan Carr MISSION STATEMENT The FCC should promote freedom of speech, unleash economic opportunity, ensure that every American has a fair shot at next-generation connectivity, and enable the private sector to create good-paying jobs through pro-growth reforms that support a diversity of viewpoints, ensure secure and competitive communi- cations networks, modernize outdated infrastructure rules, and represent good stewardship of taxpayer dollars. OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND The FCC is an independent regulatory agency that has jurisdiction over inter- state and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable.1 Five Commissioners are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for fixed five-year terms.2 The FCC does not have any other presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed officials. Ordinarily, the five-member FCC is divided politically three to two with a majority of Commissioners from the same political party as the President. The Commissioners’ terms are staggered so that every year at the end of June, one Commissioner’s term expires.3 However, a Commissioner can continue to serve until the end of the next session of Congress (or up to 1.5 years beyond the expiration of the term) if no replacement is confirmed after his or her term ends.4 By law, only a bare majority of Commissioners can be from the same politi- cal party (no more than three when there are five members).5 By tradition, the Chairperson resigns when a new President of a different political party is sworn

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. Grothman, Glenn

Fair and Accountable IRS Reviews Act

119/hr/5346

Less Bureaucracy, Better Foreign Medical Accreditation Act

119/hr/9605

Form 5500 Filing Simplification Act

119/hr/7362

Back to All Bills