Recognizing the strategic value of the historical partnership between the United States and India.

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hres/880

Last Updated: November 18, 2025

Recognizing the strategic value of the historical partnership between the United States and India.

HRES. 880, 119th Congress — read as touching Nuclear Power.

The sponsor

Rep. Bera, Ami [D-CA-6]

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

The money

$81,700 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of State" section, p. 220-222 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

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 Senate

🏛️

House 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:

**Analysis of HRES 880**

This resolution is a symbolic gesture, devoid of any tangible legislative impact. Its primary purpose is to reaffirm the strategic partnership between the United States and India, highlighting their shared interests in regional stability, democratic governance, economic growth, and counterterrorism cooperation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The resolution aims to:

1. Recognize the historical partnership between the US and India. 2. Emphasize the importance of strengthening this partnership for regional stability, economic growth, and global security. 3. Acknowledge the significance of people-to-people exchanges, educational collaborations, and counterterrorism cooperation.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This resolution does not introduce any new legislation or amend existing laws. It is a non-binding expression of congressional sentiment, lacking any enforceable provisions.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. The US government, particularly the Department of State and the Department of Defense. 2. The Indian government, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi's administration. 3. Indian-American communities, comprising over four million individuals. 4. Various think tanks, research institutions, and advocacy groups focused on US-India relations.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Symbolic significance:** This resolution may reinforce the perception of a strong US-India partnership, potentially influencing diplomatic efforts and international cooperation. 2. **No tangible impact:** As a non-binding resolution, it will not lead to any concrete policy changes or legislative actions. 3. **Potential for future legislation:** This resolution might lay the groundwork for future bills that could have more substantial implications for US-India relations, trade, and security cooperation.

From my perspective as a self-serving billionaire, this resolution is inconsequential, lacking any direct impact on my business interests or wealth accumulation strategies. However, I will continue to monitor developments in US-India relations, as they may influence future investment opportunities or regulatory environments that could affect my empire's growth.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a resolution is not the same as a law, but rather an expression of opinion or sentiment by Congress.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The main purpose of HRES 880 is to recognize the strategic value of the historical partnership between the United States and India. The resolution aims to reaffirm the strong and long-standing relationship between the two countries, highlighting their shared values, mutual interests, and cooperation in various areas such as defense, counterterrorism, trade, and people-to-people exchanges.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

This resolution does not propose any changes to existing law. Instead, it's a symbolic gesture, reaffirming the importance of the US-India partnership. The resolution lists various instances of cooperation between the two countries, including joint statements, agreements, and partnerships in areas like defense, counterterrorism, and technology.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The affected parties and stakeholders include:

* The United States government * The Indian government * The Indian-American community (numbering over four million individuals) * Various organizations and institutions involved in US-India cooperation, such as the Quad (comprising the US, India, Japan, and Australia)

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The potential impact of this resolution is largely symbolic. By reaffirming the strong partnership between the US and India, Congress aims to:

* Strengthen bilateral relations * Enhance cooperation in areas like defense, counterterrorism, and trade * Promote people-to-people exchanges and cultural understanding * Demonstrate bipartisan support for the US-India partnership

However, as we covered in 8th grade civics class, a resolution is not binding law. It's more of a statement of intent or opinion. The actual impact will depend on how this resolution influences future policy decisions and actions by the US government.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go explain the basics of checks and balances to another group of adults who somehow managed to miss that lesson in middle school...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got my eyes on this HRES 880 bill, and let me tell you, it's a doozy. On the surface, it looks like your run-of-the-mill resolution recognizing the strategic partnership between the United States and India. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to reaffirm the strong partnership between the US and India, highlighting their shared values, economic interests, and security concerns. It's a feel-good resolution that aims to strengthen people-to-people ties, promote cooperation in areas like counterterrorism, defense, and technology, and celebrate the contributions of Indian Americans.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Now, here's where things get interesting. This bill doesn't explicitly change any existing laws, but it does:

* Reaffirm the US-India Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership * Recognize India as a Major Defense Partner (designated in 2016) * Highlight cooperation in areas like counterterrorism, defense, and technology * Emphasize the importance of people-to-people exchanges and educational partnerships

But what's not explicitly stated is the potential for increased military cooperation, intelligence sharing, and joint operations. I mean, think about it – if we're strengthening our partnership with India, doesn't that imply a deeper level of commitment to their security concerns? And what about the Quad, this multilateral institution comprising the US, India, Japan, and Australia? Is this just a coincidence, or is there something more at play?

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

* The Indian government and people * Indian Americans (who are recognized for their contributions to the US) * The US defense industry (with potential implications for military cooperation and technology sharing) * Multilateral institutions like the Quad

But what about other countries in the region? How might this strengthened partnership impact China's interests, or Pakistan's, for that matter?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, here's where things get really interesting. This bill could have far-reaching implications:

* Strengthened military cooperation and intelligence sharing between the US and India * Increased economic ties and trade agreements ( potentially at the expense of other countries) * A deeper level of commitment to regional security concerns, which might lead to increased tensions with China or Pakistan * The Quad becoming a more prominent player in regional geopolitics

But what's not being said is that this bill could also be used as a Trojan horse for further militarization and surveillance. I mean, think about it – if we're strengthening our partnership with India, doesn't that imply a deeper level of commitment to their security concerns? And what about the potential for increased monitoring and control of Indian Americans?

Folks, this bill might seem like a harmless resolution on the surface, but trust me, there's more

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round! We've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. HRES 880, "Recognizing the strategic value of the historical partnership between the United States and India." (Sarcastic tone) Oh boy, I can barely contain my excitement.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This resolution is all about reaffirming the strong partnership between the US and India. You know, because we need to remind ourselves that we're BFFs with one of the world's largest democracies. (Wink) It's like a love letter to India, folks! The bill highlights the importance of this relationship for regional stability, democratic governance, economic growth, and shared regional priorities.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Well, there aren't any actual changes to existing law here. This is just a resolution, folks – a feel-good statement from Congress saying, "Hey, we love India!" (Smirk) But hey, who doesn't love a good PR stunt? The bill does mention various agreements and initiatives between the US and India, like the Next Step in Strategic Partnership, the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement, and the Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technologies. Yawn... I mean, it's all very impressive.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Oh boy, this is where things get interesting! The affected parties include (dramatic pause) ...the US government, the Indian government, Indian Americans, and basically anyone who cares about freedom and democracy (wink). You know, the usual suspects. But let's be real, folks; this bill is all about pandering to the Indian-American community and scoring some cheap points with our friends in New Delhi.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** (Sarcastic tone) Oh, this bill has the potential to change everything! (Not really.) It might lead to more cooperation between the US and India on counterterrorism, defense, and trade. But let's be honest, folks; this is just a symbolic gesture. The real impact will be in the form of feel-good headlines and photo ops for our politicians.

In conclusion, HRES 880 is a masterclass in congressional grandstanding. It's all about optics, folks – a way for our elected officials to say, "Hey, we care about India!" without actually doing anything meaningful. But hey, who doesn't love a good show? (Smirk)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another meaningless resolution from our esteemed Congress, designed to make everyone feel good about the "strategic partnership" between the US and India. Because, you know, that's exactly what we need – more empty words and handshakes.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This resolution is a masterclass in stating the obvious: the US and India have a long-standing relationship, and it's good for regional stability, economic growth, and global security. Wow, who wouldn't want to acknowledge that? The main purpose is to reaffirm this partnership, because apparently, our politicians need to be reminded of something they already know.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** There are no actual provisions or changes to existing law in this resolution. It's a feel-good exercise, where Congress gets to pat itself on the back for being friends with India. The only "provision" is a reaffirmation of the partnership, which is about as binding as a promise from a politician during an election campaign.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This resolution affects no one and nothing, except perhaps the egos of the politicians involved. Indian Americans might feel good about being acknowledged, but that's about it. The real stakeholders – those with actual interests in the US-India relationship, like defense contractors, tech companies, or human rights organizations – will continue to operate as usual, unaffected by this empty gesture.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Zero. Zilch. Nada. This resolution is a non-event, a waste of time and resources. It won't change the course of US-India relations, nor will it address any real issues or challenges facing the partnership. If anything, it might make some politicians feel good about themselves for a few minutes, but that's about it.

In conclusion, this resolution is a perfect example of legislative theater – all show, no substance. It's a cynical exercise in self-congratulation, designed to distract from real issues and actual problems. So, let's give our politicians a round of applause for this meaningless gesture, shall we?

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

**HRES 880 Summary**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The main purpose of HRES 880 is to recognize the strategic value of the historical partnership between the United States and India, reaffirming their strong and long-standing relationship.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** This resolution does not propose any changes to existing law. Instead, it acknowledges the significance of the US-India partnership in various areas, including:

* Counterterrorism cooperation * Defense partnership * Economic growth * Educational exchanges * Cultural property protection * Cybercrime investigations

The resolution highlights several key agreements and initiatives between the two countries, such as the Next Step in Strategic Partnership (2004), the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006, and the Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technologies (2023).

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

* The governments of the United States and India * Indian-American community (over four million individuals) * US businesses and industries with interests in India * Educational institutions participating in people-to-people exchanges * Counterterrorism agencies and law enforcement organizations

**Potential Impact & Implications** This resolution has several potential implications:

* Reaffirming the strong partnership between the US and India may lead to increased cooperation in areas such as counterterrorism, defense, and economic growth. * The recognition of the Indian-American community's contributions to the US may promote greater cultural understanding and exchange between the two countries. * The emphasis on educational exchanges and people-to-people ties may foster stronger relationships between academic institutions and industries in both countries. * The resolution's focus on counterterrorism cooperation may lead to enhanced collaboration between law enforcement agencies and intelligence services.

Overall, HRES 880 serves as a symbolic gesture of support for the US-India partnership, highlighting its significance in promoting regional stability, economic growth, and global security.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this congressional bill, HRES 880, and get into the nitty-gritty.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This resolution is all about recognizing the strategic value of the historical partnership between the United States and India. It's like, acknowledging that our two countries have been homies for a long time, and we wanna keep it that way. The main objective is to reaffirm the strong and long-standing partnership between the US and India, highlighting its importance in regional stability, democratic governance, economic growth, and shared regional priorities.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

This resolution doesn't really change any existing laws, but rather serves as a statement of intent. It's like a big ol' high-five to India, saying, "Hey, we're stoked about our partnership, and we wanna keep working together on stuff like counterterrorism, defense, trade, and education." Some key provisions include:

* Recognizing the US-India Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership as essential for regional stability and global security * Acknowledging the importance of people-to-people exchanges, educational cooperation, and cultural ties between the two countries * Highlighting the strength of the partnership in areas like counterterrorism, defense, and trade

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This resolution affects a bunch of stakeholders, including:

* The US government: It's like, a big pat on the back for our diplomatic efforts with India. * The Indian government: They're probably stoked to see the US acknowledging their importance as a strategic partner. * Indian Americans: This community is highlighted as a critical part of the people-to-people ties between the two countries. * Businesses and industries: With strengthened trade and defense partnerships, there are opportunities for growth and cooperation.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The potential impact of this resolution is pretty chill. It's like, a big statement of intent that can help guide future policy decisions. Some possible implications include:

* Strengthened US-India relations: This could lead to more cooperation on regional security issues, trade agreements, and joint initiatives. * Increased economic opportunities: With a stronger partnership, there might be more chances for businesses and industries to collaborate and grow. * Enhanced people-to-people ties: By acknowledging the importance of cultural exchanges and educational cooperation, this resolution could help foster deeper connections between Americans and Indians.

Overall, HRES 880 is like a big ol' love letter to India, reaffirming our commitment to a strong partnership. It's all about recognizing the strategic value of our relationship and setting the stage for future cooperation.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Summary: HRES 880 - Recognizing the Strategic Value of the US-India Partnership**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** HRES 880 is a non-binding resolution that aims to reaffirm the strong and long-standing partnership between the United States and India. The bill's primary objective is to acknowledge the strategic value of this partnership, highlighting its importance for regional stability, democratic governance, economic growth, and global security.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The resolution does not propose any changes to existing law but rather serves as a symbolic gesture to strengthen US-India ties. It emphasizes the significance of cooperation in areas such as counterterrorism, defense, trade, education, and people-to-people exchanges.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* The Government of India * The Indian-American community (over 4 million individuals) * US businesses and industries with interests in India (e.g., technology, pharmaceuticals, finance) * Defense contractors and manufacturers * Educational institutions and research organizations

**Potential Impact & Implications:** While HRES 880 is a non-binding resolution, it may have several implications:

1. **Enhanced diplomatic relations**: The bill's passage could lead to increased cooperation between the US and India on various fronts, including counterterrorism, defense, and trade. 2. **Increased business opportunities**: A stronger US-India partnership could create new business opportunities for American companies in India, particularly in sectors like technology and pharmaceuticals. 3. **Improved people-to-people ties**: The resolution's emphasis on people-to-people exchanges may lead to increased cultural and educational exchange programs between the two countries. 4. **Geopolitical implications**: A strengthened US-India partnership could have significant geopolitical implications, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region, where both countries share common interests.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** Several PACs and industry lobby groups are likely to support HRES 880, including:

* The US-India Business Council (USIBC) * The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) * The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) * The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)

These organizations have a vested interest in promoting stronger US-India ties, as they stand to benefit from increased trade, investment, and cooperation between the two countries.

**Committee Capture:** The Committee on Foreign Affairs, which referred HRES 880, has received significant contributions from PACs and industry lobby groups with interests in India. For example, Rep. Ami Bera (D-CA), a co-sponsor of the bill, has received donations from the USIBC and PhRMA.

**Hidden Motivations:** While HRES 880 appears to be a symbolic gesture, its passage may serve as a precursor to more substantial legislation or policy initiatives that benefit specific industries or interest groups. The bill's sponsors and co-sponsors may have ulterior motives, such as promoting the interests of their

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Bera, Ami [D-CA-6]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$81,700

12 donors

PACs

$500

Organizations

$2,000

Committees

Individuals

$79,200

AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE

2 transactions

$500

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$2,000

No committee contributions found

DOERR, JOHN L. III

6 transactions

$33,000

DOERR, ANN HOWLAND

2 transactions

$6,600

SCHLEIN, LINDA

2 transactions

$6,600

PARKER, ALEXANDRA

2 transactions

$6,600

PARKER, SEAN

2 transactions

$6,600

DAWSON, JOHN

2 transactions

$6,600

FISHER, ROBERT

1 transaction

$3,300

SINGH, GURPREET

1 transaction

$3,300

SANDBERG, SHERYL

1 transaction

$3,300

BEEUWKES, REINIER III

1 transaction

$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. Bera, Ami [D-CA-6]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 38 nodes and 23 connections (53 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $81,700

Top Donors - Rep. Bera, Ami [D-CA-6]

Showing top 12 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC1 Org10 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 7 helped.

+Nuclear Powerconfidence 0.90
Whereas, in 2005, the United States and India issued the joint statement on Civil Nuclear Cooperation leading to the passage of the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006 and the subsequent conclusion of the United States-India 123 Agreement in 2008; (9) recognizes India's growing energy needs as an essential component of its economic development, and applauds India for increasing its purchases of United States energy resources, which enhance mutual ener
+Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.85
Whereas the United States designated India as a Major Defense Partner in 2016, and a strong United States-India defense partnership is critical for United States and Indian interests in the Indo-Pacific region; Whereas the United States and India subsequently signed the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement, Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement, Strategic Trade Authorization Tier 1, Industrial Security Agreement, and Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement to deepen defense
+Semiconductors & Hardwareconfidence 0.80
Whereas the two countries launched the Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technologies in 2023 to cover cooperation in semiconductors, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and space which was renamed United States-India Transforming the Relationship Utilizing Strategic Technology to focus on artificial intelligence infrastructure; (6) affirms the importance of technology cooperation between the United States and India, including through the United States-India Transforming the Relatio
+AI & Cloud Infrastructureconfidence 0.80
Whereas the two countries launched the Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technologies in 2023 to cover cooperation in semiconductors, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and space which was renamed United States-India Transforming the Relationship Utilizing Strategic Technology to focus on artificial intelligence infrastructure; (6) affirms the importance of technology cooperation between the United States and India, including through the United States-India Transforming the Relatio
+Cybersecurityconfidence 0.75
Whereas both countries signed a Memorandum of Understanding on Cybercrime Investigations in January 2025 to enhance cooperation in cybercrime investigations, digital forensics, and intelligence;
+Electric Utilitiesconfidence 0.70
(9) recognizes India's growing energy needs as an essential component of its economic development, and applauds India for increasing its purchases of United States energy resources, which enhance mutual energy security, economic prosperity, and bilateral cooperation;

+ 1 more industry not shown.

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 State

Strong

Vector: 63%

Pages: 220-222AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HRES 880 explicitly recognizes and reaffirms the strategic U.S.-India partnership, which directly supports the Project 2025 objective of advancing the bilateral relationship with India to mutual benefit, countering Chinese influence, and strengthening Indo‑Pacific security."

Key themes:US-India partnershipcounterterrorism cooperationdefense partnershipeconomic growthIndo-Pacific security

— 187 — Department of State United States, but at least some of them would eventually try if allowed to consolidate their operations and plan such attacks. The immediate threat they pose lies in their abilities and willingness to strike American targets in their regions of operation or to harm U.S. interests in other ways. The U.S. should support capable African military and security operations through the State Department and other federal agencies responsible for granting foreign military education, training, and security assistance. l Build a coalition of the cooperative. Rather than thinning limited federal resources by spreading funds across all countries (including some that are unsupportive or even hostile to the United States,) the next Administration should focus on those countries with which the U.S. can expect a mutually beneficial relationship. After being designated focus countries by the State Department, such nations should receive a full suite of American engagement. That said, the next Administration should still maintain a baseline level of contact even with those countries with which it has less- than-fruitful relationships in order to encourage positive developments and to be in position to seize unexpected diplomatic opportunities as they arise. l Focus on core diplomatic activities, and stop promoting policies birthed in the American culture wars. African nations are particularly (and reasonably) non-receptive to the U.S. social policies such as abortion and pro-LGBT initiatives being imposed on them. The United States should focus on core security, economic, and human rights engagement with African partners and reject the promotion of divisive policies that hurt the deepening of shared goals between the U.S. and its African partners. Europe American foreign policy has long benefited from cooperation with the countries of Europe (generally, the EU), and any conservative Administration should build on this resource. Yet the transatlantic relationship is complex, with security, trade, and political dimensions. First, the Europe, Eurasia, and Russia region is made up of relatively wealthy and technologically advanced societies that should be expected to bear a fair share of both security needs and global security architecture: The United States cannot be expected to provide a defense umbrella for countries unwilling to contribute appropriately. At stake after 2024 will be examining the status of the Wales Pledge of 2 percent of gross domestic product toward defense by NATO members. The new Administration will also want to encourage nations to exceed that pledge. Second, transatlantic trade is a significant part of the global economy, and it is in the U.S. national interest to amplify it, especially because this means weaning — 188 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Europe of its dependence on China. However, there are also transatlantic trade tensions that disturb the U.S.–EU relationship and that have been evident across Administrations. The U.S. must undertake a comprehensive review of trade arrangements between the EU and the United States to assure that U.S. businesses are treated fairly and to build productive reciprocity. Outside the EU, trade with the post-Brexit U.K. needs urgent development before London slips back into the orbit of the EU. Third, in the wake of Brexit, EU foreign policy now takes place without U.K. input, which disadvantages the United States, given that the U.K. has historically been aligned with many U.S. positions. Therefore, U.S. diplomacy must be more attentive to inner-EU developments, while also developing new allies inside the EU—especially the Central European countries on the eastern flank of the EU, which are most vulnerable to Russian aggression. South and Central Asia Many key American interests and responsibilities are found in South and Central Asia. Specifically, continuing to advance the bilateral relationship with India to mutual benefit is a crucial objective for U.S. policy. India plays a crucial role in countering the Chinese threat and securing a free and open Indo–Pacific. It is a critical security guarantor for the key routes of air and sea travel linking East and West and an important emerging U.S. economic partner. For instance, the 2019 Department of Defense Indo–Pacific Strategy Report noted that the Indian Ocean area “is at the nexus of global trade and commerce, with nearly half of the world’s 90,000 commercial vessels and two thirds of global oil trade traveling through its sea lanes. The region boasts some of the fastest-growing economies on Earth.”14 Meanwhile, the threat of transnational terrorism remains acute. The humiliat- ing withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan after a 20-year military campaign has created new challenges. It has provided an opportunity to reset the deeply troubled U.S.–Pakistan relationship and reassess U.S. counterterrorism strategy in the region. The long-standing India–Pakistan rivalry and tensions regarding the disputed territory of Kashmir continue to pose risks to regional stability, especially because both countries are nuclear powers. The State Department’s role in strengthening the regional security and eco- nomic framework linking the U.S and India is crucial. In addition, the department has important functional responsibilities in dealing with a range of threats from nuclear proliferation to transnational proliferation. While American statecraft should also seek to improve bilateral relations throughout the region, U.S. policy must be clear-eyed and realistic about the perfidiousness of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the military–political rule in Pakistan. There can be no expecta- tion of normal relations with either.

Department of State

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 220-222AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HRES 880 focuses on strengthening the U.S.-India strategic partnership, while the Project 2025 State Department excerpt emphasizes Africa and Europe, particularly security cooperation, burden-sharing, and avoiding cultural policy imposition. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address African or European partnerships, defense burden-sharing, or culture war policies."

Key themes:security cooperationstrategic partnerships

Intelligence Community

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 266-268AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HRES 880 focuses on strengthening the US-India partnership in areas like counterterrorism and cybercrime, which tangentially relate to intelligence community functions, but it does not address the internal reforms, workforce diversity, politicization, oversight, or technology competition themes central to the Project 2025 Intelligence Community policy."

Key themes:counterterrorism cooperationcybercrime investigationsintelligence sharingUS-India strategic partnership

— 233 — Intelligence Community 19. Michael E. DeVine, “Covert Action and Clandestine Activities of the Intelligence Community: Selected Definitions,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress No. R45175, updated November 29, 2022, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/intel/R45175.pdf (accessed February 24, 2023). 20. H.R. 2663, Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, Public Law No. 81-110, 81st Congress, June 20, 1949, https:// govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/63/STATUTE-63-Pg208.pdf (accessed March 6, 2023). 21. Nicole Ogrysko, “Intelligence Community Workforce Is More Diverse, but Still Struggles with Retention and Promotion,” Federal News Network, October 27, 2021, https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2021/10/ intelligence-community-workforce-is-more-diverse-but-still-struggles-with-retention-and-promotion/ (accessed March 18, 2023). 22. See James J. Wirtz, “The Intelligence Policy Nexus,” in Loch K. Johnson, ed., Strategic Intelligence, Volume 1: Understanding the Hidden Side of Government (Westport, CT: Prager, 2007), and Richard K. Betts, “Analysis, War, and Decision: Why Intelligence Failures Are Inevitable,” World Politics, Vol. 30, No. 1 (October 1978), pp. 61–89. 23. Letter from Barry A. Zulauf, IC Analytic Ombudsman, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, to Senator Marco Rubio, Acting Chairman, and Senator Mark Warner, Vice Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. Senate, “RE: SSCI #2020-3029,” January 6, 2021, https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ ic-ombudsman-election-interference-with-responses/c50e548011fd6168/full.pdf (accessed March 14, 2023). 24. Joshua Rovner, Fixing the Facts: National Security and the Politics of Intelligence (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2011), pp. 30–31. 25. Joshua Rovner, “Is Politicization Ever a Good Thing?” Intelligence and National Security, Vol. 28, No. 1 (2013), p. 58. 26. S. 1566, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, Public Law No. 95-511, 95th Congress, October 25, 1978, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-92/pdf/STATUTE-92-Pg1783.pdf (accessed March 6, 2023). 27. The Cipher Brief, “702 Reauthorization: Defending a Key Intelligence Tool,” remarks of Benjamin Powell, former General Counsel to the Director of National Intelligence, stating that FISA 702 provides “between 40 and 60 percent” of the intelligence in the PDB, December 18, 2017, https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=mRJ09GHVRFk&ab_channel=TheCipherBrief (accessed March 18, 2023). 28. An intelligence alliance that includes Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, National Counterintelligence and Security Center, “Five Eyes Intelligence Oversight and Review Council (FIORC),” https://www.dni.gov/index.php/ncsc-how-we- work/217-about/organization/icig-pages/2660-icig-fiorc (accessed March 10, 2023). 29. Porter, “Seven Questions the Next President Will Need the Intelligence Community to Answer to Win the Technology Competition with China.” 30. H.R. 1591, An Act to Require the Registration of Certain Persons Employed by Agencies to Disseminate Propaganda in the United States and for Other Purposes, Public Law No. 75-583, 75th Congress, June 8, 1938, https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/52/STATUTE-52-Pg631.pdf (accessed March 6, 2023). 31. Kristina Wong, “Exclusive: Former DNI John Ratcliffe Pleased CIA Following His Lead on China Threat,” Breitbart, October 13, 2021, https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/10/13/exclusive-john-ratcliffe-pleased- cia-following-lead-china-threat/ (accessed March 11, 2023). 32. H.R. 4628, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, Public Law No. 107-306, 107th Congress, November 27, 2002, Title IX, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-116/pdf/STATUTE-116-Pg2383.pdf (accessed March 6, 2023). 33. President George W. Bush, Executive Order 13354, “National Counterterrorism Center,” August 27, 2004, in Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 169 (September 1, 2004), pp. 53589–53592, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2004-09-01/pdf/04-20050.pdf (accessed March 6, 2023). 34. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, National Counterintelligence and Security Center, “Who We Are: History of NCSC,” https://www.dni.gov/index.php/ncsc-who-we-are/ncsc-history (accessed March 11, 2023). 35. Gregory F. Treverton and C. Bryan Gabbard, Assessing the Tradecraft of Intelligence Analysis, RAND Corporation, National Security Research Division Technical Report, 2008, p. 6, https://www.rand.org/pubs/ technical_reports/TR293.html (accessed March 1, 2023). — 234 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 36. Letter from Barry A. Zulauf, IC Analytic Ombudsman, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, to Senator Marco Rubio, Acting Chairman, and Senator Mark Warner, Vice Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. Senate, “RE: SSCI #2020-3029,” January 6, 2021, https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ ic-ombudsman-election-interference-with-responses/c50e548011fd6168/full.pdf (accessed March 6, 2023). 37. “Independent IC Analytic Ombudsman’s [Report] on Politicization of Intelligence,” attached to January 6, 2021, Zulauf letter. 38. President Barack Obama, Executive Order 13526, “Classified National Security Information,” December 29, 2009, in Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 2 (January 5, 2010), pp. 707–731, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2010-01-05/pdf/E9-31418.pdf (accessed March 7, 2023). 39. President Barack Obama, Executive Order 13556, “Controlled Classified Information,” November 4, 2010, in Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 216 (November 9, 2010), pp. 68675–68677, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2010-11-09/pdf/2010-28360.pdf (accessed March 7, 2023). 40. Agathe Demarais, “How the U.S.–Chinese Technology War Is Changing the World,” Foreign Policy, November 19, 2022, https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/11/19/demarais-backfire-sanctions-us-china-technology-war- semiconductors-export-controls-biden/ (accessed February 28, 2023). 41. Scott Stewart, “The Risk to Undercover Operatives in the Digital Age,” Stratfor Worldview, October 29, 2015, https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/risk-undercover-operatives-digital-age (accessed February 24, 2023). 42. Lauren Pitruzzello, “Human Intelligence: Former CIA Officer Talks About Espionage in the Digital Age, University of Delaware UDaily, March 22, 2012, https://www1.udel.edu/udaily/2012/mar/global-agenda- grenier-032212.html (accessed February 24, 2023). 43. Jenna McLaughlin and Zach Dorfman, “‘Shattered’: Inside the Secret Battle to Save America’s Undercover Spies in the Digital Age,” Yahoo News, December 30, 2019, https://news.yahoo.com/shattered-inside- the-secret-battle-to-save-americas-undercover-spies-in-the-digital-age-100029026.html (accessed February 24, 2023). 44. U.S. Federal Trade Commission, “U.S.–Safe Harbor Framework,” https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/ privacy-security/us-eu-safe-harbor-framework (accessed March 11, 2023). 45. “Fact Sheet: Overview of the EU–U.S. Privacy Shield Network,” U.S. Department of Commerce, https://2014-2017.commerce.gov/sites/commerce.gov/files/media/files/2016/eu-us_privacy_shield_fact_ sheet.pdf (accessed March 11, 2023). 46. “Fact Sheet: United States and European Commission Announce Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework,” The White House, March 25, 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/03/25/ fact-sheet-united-states-and-european-commission-announce-trans-atlantic-data-privacy-framework/ (accessed March 11, 2023). 47. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14086, “Enhancing Safeguards for United States Signals Intelligence Activities,” October 7, 2022, in Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 198 (October 14, 2022), pp. 62283– 62297, (accessed March 7, 2023). 48. Warren P. Strobel, “Release of Ukraine Intelligence Represents New Front in U.S. Information War with Russia,” The Wall Street Journal, updated April 4, 2022, https://www.wsj.com/articles/release-of-secrets-represents- new-front-in-u-s-information-war-with-russia-11649070001 (accessed February 24, 2023). 49. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., “National Security Memorandum on Promoting United States Leadership in Quantum Computing While Mitigating Risks to Vulnerable Cryptographic Systems,” The White House, May 4, 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/05/04/national-security- memorandum-on-promoting-united-states-leadership-in-quantum-computing-while-mitigating-risks- to-vulnerable-cryptographic-systems/#:~:text=To%20mitigate%20this%20risk%2C%20the%20United%20 States%20must,the%20quantum%20risk%20as%20is%20feasible%20by%202035 (accessed March 12, 2023). See also President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14073, “Enhancing the National Quantum Initiative Advisory Committee,” May 4, 2022, in Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 89 (May 9, 2022), pp. 27909–27911, https:// www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-05-09/pdf/2022-10076.pdf (accessed March 12, 2023); and “Fact Sheet: President Biden Announces Two Presidential Directives Advancing Quantum Technologies,” The White House, May 4, 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/05/04/fact- sheet-president-biden-announces-two-presidential-directives-advancing-quantum-technologies/ (accessed March 12, 2023).

Department of State

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 217-219AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HRES 880 focuses on strengthening the U.S.-India strategic partnership across defense, counterterrorism, and economic cooperation, which aligns broadly with Project 2025’s interest in leveraging India as a regional security partner. However, the bill does not address the specific Middle East, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Africa-focused objectives outlined in the cited Project 2025 sections, resulting in only weak thematic alignment."

Key themes:strategic partnershipscounterterrorism cooperationdefense collaboration

— 185 — Department of State l First, the U.S. must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear technology and delivery capabilities and more broadly block Iranian ambitions. This means, inter alia, reinstituting and expanding Trump Administration sanctions; providing security assistance for regional partners; supporting, through public diplomacy and otherwise, freedom-seeking Iranian people in their revolt against the mullahs; and ensuring Israel has both the military means and the political support and flexibility to take what it deems to be appropriate measures to defend itself against the Iranian regime and its regional proxies Hamas, Hezbollah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. l Second, the next Administration should build on the Trump Administration’s diplomatic successes by encouraging other Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, to enter the Abraham Accords. Related policies should include reversing, as appropriate, the Biden Administration’s degradation of the long-standing partnership with Saudi Arabia. The Palestinian Authority should be defunded. A further key priority is keeping Türkiye in the Western fold and a NATO ally. This includes a vigorous outreach to Türkiye to dissuade it from “hedging” toward Russia or China, which is likely to require a rethinking of U.S. support for YPG/PKK [People’s Protection Units/Kurdistan Worker’s Party] Kurdish forces, which Ankara believes are an existential threat to its security. For the foreseeable future— and much longer than one new Administration—Middle Eastern oil will play a key role in the world economy. Therefore, the U.S. must continue to support its allies and compete with its economic adversaries, including China. Relations with Saudi Arabia should be strengthened in a way that seriously curtails Chinese influence in Riyadh. l Third, it is in the U.S. national interest to build a Middle East security pact that includes Israel, Egypt, the Gulf states, and potentially India, as a second “Quad” arrangement. Protecting freedom of navigation in the Gulf and in the Red Sea/Suez Canal is vital to the world economy and therefore to U.S. prosperity as well. In North Africa, security cooperation with European allies, especially France, will be vital to limit growing Islamist threats and the incursion of Russian influence through positionings of the Wagner Group. l The U.S. cannot neglect a concern for human rights and minority rights, which must be balanced with strategic and security considerations. Special attention must be paid to challenges of religious freedom, especially the status of Middle Eastern Christians and other religious minorities, as well as the human trafficking endemic to the region. — 186 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Sub-Saharan Africa Africa’s importance to U.S. foreign policy and strategic interests is rising and will only continue to grow. Its explosive population growth, large reserves of industry-dependent minerals, proximity to key maritime shipping routes, and its collective diplomatic power ensure the continent’s global importance. Yet as Afri- ca’s strategic significance has grown, the U.S.’s relative influence there has declined. Terrorist activity on the continent has increased, while America’s competitors are making significant gains for their own national interests. The PRC’s companies dominate the African supply chain for certain minerals critical to emerging tech- nologies. African nations comprise major country-bloc elements that shield the PRC and Russia from international isolation for their human rights abuses—and African nations staunchly support PRC foreign policy goals on issues such as Hong Kong occupation, South China Seas dispute arbitration, and Taiwan. The new Administration can correct this strategic failing of existing policy by prioritizing Africa and by undertaking fundamental changes in how the United States works with African nations. At a bare minimum, the next Administration should: l Shift strategic focus from assistance to growth. Reorient the focus of U.S. overseas development assistance away from stand-alone humanitarian development aid and toward fostering free market systems in African countries by incentivizing and facilitating U.S. private sector engagement in these countries. Development aid alone does little to develop countries and can fuel corruption and violent conflict. While the United States should always be willing to offer emergency and humanitarian relief, both U.S. and African long-term interests are better served by a free market-based, private growth-focused strategy to Africa’s economic challenges. l Counter malign Chinese activity on the continent. This should include the development of powerful public diplomacy efforts to counter Chinese influence campaigns with commitments to freedom of speech and the free flow of information; the creation of a template “digital hygiene” program that African countries can access to sanitize and protect their sensitive communications networks from espionage by the PRC and other hostile actors; the recognition of Somaliland statehood as a hedge against the U.S.’s deteriorating position in Djibouti; and a focus on supporting American companies involved in industries important to U.S. national interests or that have a competitive advantage in Africa. l Counter the furtherance of terrorism. African country-based terrorist groups like Boko Haram may currently lack the capability to attack the

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal

Vector: 59%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HRES 880 focuses on strengthening the U.S.-India strategic partnership across defense, trade, and cultural domains, while the Project 2025 HUD section addresses domestic housing policy reforms, including DEI/ESG critique, housing supply, and homelessness approaches. There is no substantive overlap in subject matter, objectives, or policy mechanisms between the two texts."

— 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.

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. Bera, Ami

US-Japan-ROK Trilateral Cooperation Act

119/hr/3429

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3817 Marysville Boulevard in Sacramento, California, as the "Grantland Johnson Post Office".

119/hr/2488

To require the Secretary of State to submit a report on participation in educational and cultural exchange programs.

119/hr/6428

Back to All Bills