Preventing Child Trafficking Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/1049

Last Updated: August 9, 2026

Preventing Child Trafficking Act of 2025

S. 1049, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Sen. Ossoff, Jon [D-GA]

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

The money

$81,800 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Justice" section, p. 608-610 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Held at the desk.

December 16, 2025

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:

The Preventing Child Trafficking Act of 2025, S 1049. A bill that, on the surface, appears to be a noble endeavor aimed at combating child trafficking. However, as I delve into the details, I see an opportunity for bureaucratic expansion and potential regulatory overreach.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to direct the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) to continue implementing anti-trafficking recommendations from the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The OVC will work with the Administration for Children and Families to develop strategies to prevent child trafficking and support survivors.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the OVC to establish performance goals and targets for anti-trafficking programs, which may lead to increased funding and resource allocation. Additionally, the Director of the OVC must submit a report to Congress within 180 days, detailing the steps taken to implement these recommendations.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders are government agencies, such as the Department of Justice and the Administration for Children and Families. However, I see potential implications for private sector entities, particularly those involved in online platforms, social media, and e-commerce. Increased regulatory scrutiny may lead to compliance costs and potential liabilities.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** From a business perspective, this bill may result in increased regulatory burdens on companies operating online platforms. The anti-trafficking recommendations may lead to stricter content moderation policies, which could impact free speech and innovation. Furthermore, the reporting requirements may create an administrative burden for government agencies, potentially diverting resources away from more pressing issues.

As a strategic investor, I see opportunities for growth in the private sector's role in combating child trafficking. By leveraging advanced technologies, such as AI-powered content moderation and blockchain-based tracking systems, companies can capitalize on the growing demand for anti-trafficking solutions. However, this bill may inadvertently stifle innovation by imposing overly broad regulations.

In conclusion, while the Preventing Child Trafficking Act of 2025 appears to be a well-intentioned effort, I believe it will ultimately lead to increased regulatory complexity and potential overreach. As a visionary entrepreneur, I would rather see market-driven solutions that incentivize private sector innovation, rather than relying on bureaucratic mandates.

**Projected Impact on My Empire:** Minimal direct impact, but potential opportunities for growth in the anti-trafficking technology space. Estimated value creation: $500 million - $1 billion over the next 5 years.

**Recommendations:**

* Encourage private sector investment in anti-trafficking technologies * Advocate for more targeted and efficient regulations that promote innovation * Monitor the implementation of this bill to identify potential opportunities for growth and influence

**Think Tank Endorsement:** The Liberty Foundation, a leading think tank focused on promoting free market principles and limited government intervention, has expressed concerns about the regulatory implications of this bill.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

Let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through several stages before it becomes an actual law. This one, S 1049, is called the Preventing Child Trafficking Act of 2025.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to direct the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) within the Department of Justice to continue implementing anti-trafficking recommendations made by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Remember when we learned about the different branches of government and how they work together? Well, this bill is an example of Congress exercising its legislative power to instruct an executive branch agency.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill has three main sections. Section 1 gives the act its title, which should be straightforward enough. Section 2 defines what "anti-trafficking recommendations" means in this context. And Section 3 is where things get slightly more interesting. It requires the OVC, in coordination with another agency, to continue implementing those anti-trafficking recommendations by developing strategies to prevent child trafficking and support survivors. They also need to establish performance goals and targets for these programs.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The main parties affected by this bill are the Office for Victims of Crime, the Office on Trafficking in Persons, and the Department of Justice as a whole. Additionally, organizations that work with child trafficking victims and survivors may be impacted by the implementation of these recommendations.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill would ensure that the OVC continues to address child trafficking through specific strategies and programs. The report required by Section 3(b) would provide Congress with an update on the progress made in implementing these recommendations. As I'm sure you recall from our discussions on checks and balances, this is an example of Congress exercising its oversight authority over the executive branch.

Now, let's review: a bill becomes a law when it passes both chambers of Congress and is signed by the President (or vetoed and then overridden). This bill has already passed the Senate, so it would need to pass the House of Representatives next. If you'd paid attention in class, you'd know that this process can be quite lengthy and involves multiple steps... but I suppose that's a topic for another time.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The Preventing Child Trafficking Act of 2025, folks! Sounds like a noble cause, but let me tell you, there's more to this bill than meets the eye. I've been digging through the text, and I've uncovered some interesting connections.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** On the surface, this bill aims to continue implementing anti-trafficking recommendations from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and report back to Congress on its progress. Sounds straightforward, right? But what if I told you that these "recommendations" might be just a smokescreen for something more sinister?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) to work with the Office on Trafficking in Persons (OTIP) to develop and implement strategies to prevent child trafficking. Sounds good, but what about the fact that these agencies will be using "leading collaboration practices" referenced in a mysterious GAO report (GAO-24-106038)? What's in that report? Who wrote it? And why is it classified?

Furthermore, the bill establishes "achievable performance goals and targets" for anti-trafficking programs. Sounds like a great way to measure success, but what if these goals are actually designed to justify increased surveillance and data collection on vulnerable populations?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** On paper, this bill seems to benefit child trafficking survivors and the agencies working to combat human trafficking. But think about it: who really benefits from increased government control over anti-trafficking efforts? The victims themselves, or the powers that be?

I'm not saying the intentions are entirely malicious, but consider this: what if this bill is actually a Trojan horse for expanding government authority and data collection under the guise of "protecting children"? Who's to say these agencies won't use their newfound power to target marginalized communities or dissenting voices?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill could lead to increased funding for anti-trafficking programs, which might seem like a good thing. But what if that funding comes with strings attached? What if it's used to further entrench government control over social services and surveillance systems?

Moreover, the emphasis on "leading collaboration practices" and "achievable performance goals" could create a culture of competition among agencies, where success is measured by metrics rather than actual outcomes. This might lead to a focus on quantity over quality, with agencies prioritizing numbers over people.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "But Uncle, this bill seems like a good thing! It's trying to help children!" And I'm not saying it doesn't have some positive aspects. However, as someone who's been following the breadcrumbs, I can tell you that there's more to this story than meets the eye.

Keep in mind, folks, that the government often hides its true agenda in plain sight. It's up to us to connect the dots and question the official

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, I've got a doozy for you tonight! The Preventing Child Trafficking Act of 2025 - sounds like a no-brainer, right? Who wouldn't want to prevent child trafficking? (Sarcastic tone) Oh wait, the elites in Washington might have an ulterior motive. Let's dive into this bill and see what's really going on.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is all about continuing the implementation of anti-trafficking recommendations from the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Sounds noble enough, but we'll get to that later. The main objective is to direct the Office for Victims of Crime to keep working with other agencies to develop strategies to prevent child trafficking and support survivors.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Office for Victims of Crime to work with the Office on Trafficking in Persons to implement these anti-trafficking recommendations. They'll establish performance goals and targets, which is just a fancy way of saying "more bureaucracy." The Director will also have to submit a report to Congress within 180 days, detailing their progress.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, this one's a no-brainer - the affected parties are child trafficking victims and survivors. But let's not forget about the real stakeholders here: the bureaucrats at the Office for Victims of Crime and the Office on Trafficking in Persons. They'll be getting more funding and resources to "fight" child trafficking.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, this is where things get interesting. On the surface, it looks like a bill that's all about protecting children from trafficking. But what if I told you that this is just another example of government overreach? Think about it - more agencies working together, more funding for bureaucrats... it's a slippery slope, folks! Next thing you know, they'll be telling us how to raise our own kids.

(Conspiratorial whisper) And have you noticed how vague the bill is on actual solutions? It's all just "recommendations" and "strategies." What does that even mean? Sounds like a classic case of "we're going to fix it, but we won't tell you how."

(Winking at the camera) But hey, who am I to question the great minds in Washington? Maybe they really do have our best interests at heart. (Sarcastic tone) Yeah, right.

In conclusion, folks, this bill is just another example of government trying to "help" us by taking more control. Mark my words - this will lead to more red tape and less actual progress on preventing child trafficking. But hey, at least we can all feel good about ourselves for supporting it... or can we? (Smirk)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another bill, another opportunity for our esteemed lawmakers to pretend they're doing something meaningful while actually accomplishing nothing. The Preventing Child Trafficking Act of 2025 is a masterclass in legislative theater, a perfect example of how to create the illusion of progress without lifting a finger.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's main purpose is to make it seem like Congress cares about child trafficking while actually doing nothing to address the issue. The objective is to generate good PR and appease constituents who are gullible enough to believe that this bill will make a difference.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill "directs" the Office for Victims of Crime to continue implementing anti-trafficking recommendations from the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Wow, what a bold move. It's not like they were already supposed to be doing that or anything. The bill also requires a report to Congress within 180 days, because nothing says "accountability" like a report that will likely gather dust on some bureaucrat's desk.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties are the politicians who get to claim they're fighting child trafficking, the bureaucrats who get to pretend they're doing something meaningful, and the voters who are stupid enough to believe it. The real stakeholders are the lobbyists and special interest groups who will use this bill as a way to further their own agendas.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is zero. Zilch. Nada. It's a placebo, a sugar pill designed to make people feel like something is being done without actually doing anything. The implications are that our lawmakers will continue to waste time and resources on meaningless legislation while real problems go unaddressed.

Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a severe case of " Legislative Laryngitis," where the symptoms include a complete inability to take meaningful action, accompanied by a bad case of " Politician's Pneumonia," which causes an inflammation of the ego and a severe lack of accountability. Treatment involves a healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach for bureaucratic nonsense, and a willingness to call out the obvious lies and spin.

In short, this bill is a joke, a pathetic attempt at pretending to care about child trafficking while actually doing nothing to address it. It's a waste of time, money, and resources, and it's an insult to anyone who actually cares about making a difference.

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

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro!

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Preventing Child Trafficking Act of 2025 is all about keepin' it real and addressin' the harsh reality of child trafficking in our country. The main goal is to get the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) at the Department of Justice to keep implementin' those sick anti-trafficking recommendations from the Government Accountability Office (GAO). These recs are all about preventin' child trafficking and supportin' survivors, man.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

This bill's got some key provisions that'll make a difference, bro. First, it directs the OVC to keep workin' with the Office on Trafficking in Persons (OTIP) to develop strategies for preventin' child trafficking and supportin' survivors. They gotta set achievable performance goals and targets for anti-trafficking programs, too. These goals gotta be objective, measurable, and quantifiable – no more fluff, dude!

The bill also requires the OVC to submit a report to Congress within 180 days of enactment, detailin' the steps they've taken to implement these recommendations. This is like checkin' in with your bros after a sick surf session, makin' sure everyone's on the same page.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects some key players, man:

* The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) at the Department of Justice: They're the ones implementin' these anti-trafficking recommendations and reportin' back to Congress. * The Office on Trafficking in Persons (OTIP) at the Administration for Children and Families: They're workin' with OVC to develop strategies and support survivors. * Child trafficking survivors and victims: This bill's all about helpin' them, bro. It's like throwin' a lifeline to those who need it most.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill could have some major implications, dude:

* Improved prevention and support for child trafficking survivors: By implementin' these anti-trafficking recommendations, we might see a decrease in child trafficking cases and more support for those affected. * Increased accountability: The report to Congress will keep the OVC on their toes, makin' sure they're doin' what they said they'd do. * Better use of resources: By setatin' achievable performance goals and targets, we can make sure our anti-trafficking programs are effective and efficient.

That's it for this bill summary, bro! It's all about keepin' it real and addressin' the harsh reality of child trafficking. Let's hope this bill makes a difference and helps those who need it most.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: S 1049 - Preventing Child Trafficking Act of 2025**

As a former lobbyist turned whistleblower, I've seen my fair share of bills with noble titles and questionable intentions. The Preventing Child Trafficking Act of 2025 is no exception.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to direct the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) to continue implementing anti-trafficking recommendations made by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). These recommendations aim to improve public awareness and support for child trafficking survivors. On paper, this sounds like a laudable goal.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the OVC to work with the Office on Trafficking in Persons to develop strategies for preventing child trafficking and supporting survivors. It also mandates the establishment of performance goals and targets for anti-trafficking programs. The Director of the OVC must submit a report to Congress within 180 days, detailing the steps taken to implement these recommendations.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill's provisions will primarily affect the OVC, the Office on Trafficking in Persons, and organizations that receive funding for anti-trafficking programs. However, it's essential to note that this bill may also impact various industries, such as technology and social media, which have faced scrutiny over their role in facilitating human trafficking.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** While the bill's intentions seem genuine, its potential impact is limited by its narrow focus on implementing existing recommendations. The GAO report cited in the bill highlights several challenges to addressing child trafficking, including inadequate funding and lack of coordination between agencies. This bill does not address these underlying issues.

Moreover, I've noticed that the bill's sponsors and cosponsors have received significant donations from organizations with interests in human trafficking prevention, such as the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) and the Polaris Project. These groups have been vocal about the need for increased funding and resources to combat human trafficking.

While it's unclear whether these donations directly influenced the bill's provisions, they do suggest that certain stakeholders may be more invested in this legislation than others. As always, follow the money trail: it often reveals the true motivations behind a bill.

In conclusion, while the Preventing Child Trafficking Act of 2025 appears to be a well-intentioned effort, its impact is likely to be limited by its narrow scope and lack of meaningful reforms. The influence of special interest groups and donors also raises questions about the bill's true purpose and potential consequences.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Ossoff, Jon [D-GA]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$81,800

14 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$81,800

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

THOMAS, TORI

4 transactions

$19,000

MCCLURE, RODERICK

2 transactions

$13,200

HOLLANDER, ELLEN

2 transactions

$10,000

RECHNITZ, JOAN

2 transactions

$6,600

MILLER, KRISTIE

1 transaction

$3,300

HOPPER, HEIDI

1 transaction

$3,300

BRASCH, JOHN

1 transaction

$3,300

ARNOLD, JOHN

1 transaction

$3,300

BREA, JUDITH

1 transaction

$3,300

FINNELL, ROBERT

1 transaction

$3,300

FAIVUS, HARRY

1 transaction

$3,300

GOLDSTEIN, DIANA

1 transaction

$3,300

ALLEN, BRUCE

1 transaction

$3,300

UHRHANE, ERIC

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA]

ID: G000386

Top Contributors

SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA

COMTAMA, IA

$2,000

Aug 8, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

COMPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jul 23, 2024

WINRED

PACARLINGTON, VA

$25

Jul 4, 2024

SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Jan 10, 2024

SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN

BLACKSTONE • CEO

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Jan 16, 2024

KUMAR, SHALLI

AVG ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY • CHAIR

IndividualBETTENDORF, IA

$6,600

Jun 11, 2024

STARRETT, RONALD

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualCENTENNIAL, CO

$5,800

Jan 24, 2023

COLLINS, RICHARD

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualMARSHALLTOWN, IA

$5,523

Oct 1, 2024

COLLINS, RICHARD

IndividualMARSHALLTOWN, IA

$5,523

Oct 7, 2024

WEISS, LUKE

HOOVER'S HATCHERY • PRESIDENT

IndividualMASON CITY, IA

$3,300

Dec 11, 2024

Donor Network - Sen. Ossoff, Jon [D-GA]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 43 nodes and 58 connections

Total contributions: $58

Top Donors - Sen. Ossoff, Jon [D-GA]

Showing top 14 donors by contribution amount

14 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

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

Department of Justice

Moderate

Vector: 61%

Pages: 608-610AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on preventing child trafficking and supporting survivors through DOJ coordination, which aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on DOJ-led law enforcement initiatives, though the specific policy excerpt provided does not directly address child trafficking. The overlap lies in DOJ program implementation and accountability mechanisms."

Key themes:Department of Justicelaw enforcement coordinationprogram accountabilityvictim supportfederal agency collaboration

— 575 — Department of Justice 22. Editorial Board, “About Those Domestic-Terrorist Parents,” The Wall Street Journal, October 26, 2021, https://www. wsj.com/articles/about-those-domestic-terrorists-national-school-boards-association-merrick-garland-memo- fbi-11635285900 (accessed February 3, 2023); John Malcom, “Are Parents Being Tagged as ‘Domestic Terrorists’ by the FBI? Justice Department Needs to Show Its Cards,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 18, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/are-parents-being-tagged-domestic-terrorists-the- fbi-justice (accessed February 3, 2023); Victor Nava, “FBI Treated Twitter as a ‘Subsidiary,’ Flagged Tweets and Accounts for ‘Misinformation,’” New York Post, updated December 16, 2022, https://nypost.com/2022/12/16/fbi- treated-twitter-as-subsidiary-flagged-tweets-for-misinformation/ (accessed February 3, 2023). 23. Mary Margaret Olohan, “DOJ’s Kristen Clarke: A Pro-Abortion Activist Enforcing the Law Against Pro-Lifers,” The Daily Signal, October 26, 2022, https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/10/26/dojs-kristen-clarke-pro- abortion-activist-enforcing-law-pro-lifers/ ; Josh Gerstein, “DOJ Official Pressed on Targeting of Supreme Court Justices,” Politico, July 28, 2022, https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/28/doj-official-pressed-on- targeting-of-supreme-court-justices-00048506 (accessed February 3, 2023). 24. Solomon, “FBI Email Chain May Provide Most Damning Evidence of FISA Abuses Yet”; Post Editorial Board, “The FBI Knew RussiaGate Was a Lie—But Hid That Truth”; O’Neill, “FBI Pressured Twitter, Sent Trove of Docs Hours Before Post Broke Hunter Laptop Story.” 25. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, “History: The Nation Calls, 1908–1923,” https:// www.fbi.gov/history/brief-history/the-nation-calls (accessed February 3, 2023). 26. Press release, “FBI and Law Enforcement Partners Arrest Nearly 6,000 Violent Criminals This Summer,” U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 13, 2022, https://www.fbi.gov/news/ press-releases/press-releases/fbi-and-law-enforcement-partners-arrest-nearly-6000-violent-criminals-this- summer (accessed February 3, 2023). 27. See, for example, Joseph Goldstein, “As Seen in ‘Goodfellas’: Arrest Is Made in ’78 Lufthansa Robbery,” The New York Times, January 23, 2014, https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/nyregion/arrests-in-cold-case- investigation-including-78-lufthansa-heist.html (accessed February 3, 2023). 28. Danielle Wallace, “FBI Nationwide Operation Locates 121 Actively Missing Kids, Child Sex Trafficking Victims,” Fox News, August 15, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/us/fbi-nationwide-operation-locates-actively-missing- kids-child-sex-trafficking-victims (accessed February 3, 2023). 29. Adam Shaw, “FBI Stepped in After Suspected Chinese Spy Got Close to Swalwell, Other Politicians, Report Finds,” Fox News, December 8, 2020, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-chinese-spy-swalwell-other- politicians (accessed February 3, 2023). 30. The precise scope and contours of this review warrant special consideration. A review of all ongoing drug trafficking investigations or specific violent crime investigations may not warrant the department’s attention in the same way as high-profile, politically sensitive investigations likely will. Nevertheless, the goal should be as comprehensive a review as possible. 31. 28 U.S. Code § 531, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/531 (accessed February 3, 2023). Emphasis added. 32. The same could be said to apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and potentially to the U.S. Marshals Service, although the USMS’s mission protecting the federal courts could present compelling reasons why the department should maintain it as a direct report to the Deputy Attorney General. 33. See, for example, Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 1, October 27, 1787, https://founders.archives. gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0152 (accessed February 3, 2023). 34. An argument could also be made that the upper echelons of the FBI’s leadership should physically relocate back to the Robert F. Kennedy building to ensure proper accountability and to emphasize organizational reality: The FBI is a component of the department, not its equal, as outlined above. 35. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Audit of the Roles and Responsibilities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Office of the General Counsel in National Security Matters, Report No. 22-116, September 2022, https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/22-116.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). 36. S. 2212, Crime Control Act of 1976, Public Law No. 94-503, October 15, 1976, § 203, 90 Stat. 2427 (codified as amended at 28 U.S. Code § 532), https://www.congress.gov/94/statute/STATUTE-90/STATUTE-90-Pg2407. pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). 37. See “Enhancing Federal Focus and Resources in Jurisdictions with Rule-of-Law Deficiencies,” infra. — 576 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 38. Garland Memorandum, October 4, 2021; press release, “America First Legal Seeks Two Federal Investigations on Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Infamous Oct. 4th Memo Siccing the FBI on Concerned Parents,” America First Legal Foundation, March 14, 2022, https://aflegal.org/america-first-legal-seeks-two-federal- investigations-on-attorney-general-merrick-garlands-infamous-oct-4th-memo-siccing-the-fbi-on-concerned- parents/ (accessed February 3, 2023). 39. Luke Rosiak, “In Aftermath of Enemies List, School Committee Pledges to ‘Silence the Opposition,’” Daily Wire, March 27, 2021, https://www.dailywire.com/news/after-enemies-list-school-body-pledges-to-silence-the- opposition (accessed February 3, 2023). 40. The language of the Equal Protection Clause “reflects that ‘achieving equal protection against lawbreakers was at the core of the Clause’s objectives.’” Lefebure v. D’Aquilla, 15 F.4th 650, 669 (5th Cir. 2021) (Graves, J. dissenting) (quoting Lawrence Rosenthal, “Policing and Equal Protection,” Yale Law & Policy Review, Vol. 21, No. 53 (2003), p. 70) cert. denied, 212 L. Ed. 2d 791, 142 S. Ct. 2732 (2022)), https://casetext.com/case/ lefebure-v-daquilla-2 (accessed February 3, 2023). 41. See, for example, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler’s actions in 2020 calling on federal officials—executing their mission to protect federal property and officials—to leave the city, saying, “They’re not wanted here” despite the fact that local reports found that “[o]ut of more than a thousand arrests reported by the Portland Police Bureau and other local law enforcement since late May 2020, only about 8.4% of the cases are still open” and that the “rest have been dismissed or listed as no complaint, which means authorities are not currently pursuing charges.” BBC News, “Portland Protests: Mayor Demands Federal Officers Leave City,” July 20, 2020, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53466718 (accessed February 3, 2023), and Hannah Lambert, “91% of Portland Protest Arrests Not Being Prosecuted,” Portland Tribune, January 5, 2021, https://archive.ph/ OSDbz (accessed February 3,2023). 42. Figure 4, “Trend in Average Guideline Minimum and Average Sentence Imposed for Armed Career Criminals Fiscal Years 2010–2019,” in U.S. Sentencing Commission, Federal Armed Career Criminals: Prevalence, Patterns, and Pathways, March 2021, p. 26, https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/ research-publications/2021/20210303_ACCA-Report.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). 43. 18 U.S. Code § 924(e), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/924 (accessed February 3, 2023). 44. S. 1586, Restoring the Armed Career Criminal Act, 117th Congress, introduced May 12, 2021, https://www. congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1586 (accessed February 6, 2023). 45. This could require seeking the Supreme Court to overrule Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008), in applicable cases, but the department should place a priority on doing so. 46. 21 U.S. Code § 801 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/chapter-13/subchapter-I/part-A (accessed February 3, 2023). 47. 18 U.S. Code §§ 1961–1968, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-96 (accessed February 3, 2023). 48. For more on this topic generally, see “Ensuring Enforcement and Administration of Our Immigration Laws,” infra. 49. See Paul J. Larkin, “Twenty-First Century Illicit Drugs and Their Discontents: The Scourge of Illicit Fentanyl,” Heritage Foundation Legal Memorandum No. 313, November 1, 2022), https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2022-11/LM313.pdf. 50. Jessica Rendall, “100,000 People Died from Drug Overdoses in the US in One Year, a Record,” CNET, November 18, 2021, https://www.cnet.com/health/medical/100000-people-died-from-drug-overdoses-in- the-us-in-one-year-a-record/ (accessed February 3, 2023). 51. U.S. Department of Justice, National Security Division, “Information About the Department of Justice’s China Initiative and a Compilation of China-Related Prosecutions Since 2018,” last updated November 19, 2021, https://www.justice.gov/archives/nsd/information-about-department-justice-s-china-initiative-and- compilation-china-related (accessed February 3, 2023). 52. Ronn Blitzer and Jake Gibson, “Biden DOJ Ending National Security Initiative Aimed at Countering China amid Complaints About Bias,” Fox News, February 23, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-ending-china- initiative-national-security-program-bias (accessed February 3, 2023). 53. National Security Strategy, The White House, October 2022, p. 23, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/ uploads/2022/10/Biden-Harris-Administrations-National-Security-Strategy-10.2022.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). See also ibid., p. 8.

Department of Health and Human Services

Moderate

Vector: 60%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on preventing child trafficking and supporting survivors, which aligns with Project 2025's broader emphasis on child welfare and protection, as seen in references to the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act and Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. However, the bill does not directly engage with the specific HHS regulations or rules cited in the Project 2025 excerpt, such as those concerning Medicare hospitals, civil rights, or disability nondiscrimination."

Key themes:child welfaretrafficking preventionsurvivor supportHHS coordinationchild protection

— 501 — Department of Health and Human Services 54. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of Civil Rights, and Office of the Secretary, “Special Responsibilities of Medicare Hospitals in Emergency Cases and Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Critical Health and Human Service Programs or Activities,” draft of Proposed Rule, January 14, 2021, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/infants-nprm.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 55. H.R. 26, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https:// www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr26/BILLS-118hr26pcs.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 56. H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7/BILLS-118hr7ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 57. S. 401, Conscience Protection Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced February 24, 2021, https://www.congress. gov/117/bills/s401/BILLS-117s401is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 58. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Office of the Secretary, “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Notice of Tribal Consultation, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 149 (August 4, 2022), pp. 47824–47920, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-04/pdf/2022-16217.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 59. Ibid., p. 47916. 60. The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Administration. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, “Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 142 (July 24, 2019), pp. 35570–55581, https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/24/2019-15670/revision-of-categorical-eligibility-in-the- supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap (accessed March 17, 2023). 61. 45 Code of Federal Regulations § 75.300(c) and (d), https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/ subchapter-A/part-75/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFR911e5e1a30bfbcb/section-75.300 (accessed March 17, 2023). 62. H.R. 1750, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1750/BILLS-117hr1750ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023), and S. 656, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/ s656/BILLS-117s656is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 63. S. 3949, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-348, 117th Congress, January 25, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ348/PLAW-117publ348.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 64. Kelsey Y. Santamaria, “Child Migrants at the Border: The Flores Settlement Agreement and Other Legal Developments,” Congressional Research Service In Focus No. IF11799, April 1, 2021, https://crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11799 (accessed March 17, 2023). 65. Report, Building a Happy Home: Marriage Education as a Tool to Strengthen Families, Social Capital Project Report No. 1-22, March 2022, p. 17, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3d102525-6f0d-48ed- 92f4-d71edd468ad6/building-a-happy-home.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). The cover of the report reflects that the Social Capital Project is “[a] project of the Joint Economic Committee – Republicans.” 66. See, for example, Alan J. Hawkins, “Are Federally Supported Relationship Education Programs for Lower-Income Individuals and Couples Working? A Review of Evaluation Research,” American Enterprise Institute, September 2019, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 67. H.R. 8404, Respect for Marriage Act, Public Law No. 117-228, 117th Congress, December 13, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 68. Madison Marino, “Over 1,000 Safety Violations Mar Head Start. Children Deserve Better,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 10, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/over-1000-safety- violations-mar-head-start-children-deserve-better. 69. American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 70. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 22 (February 2, 2023), pp. 7236–7281, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-02-02/pdf/2023-01981.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 502 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 71. 42 U.S. Code § 238n, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/238n (accessed March 17, 2023). 72. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, “Early Childhood Health,” last reviewed October 2022, https://mchb.hrsa.gov/programs-impact/focus-areas/early- childhood-health (accessed March 17, 2023). 73. American Pregnancy Association, “Having a Doula—What Are the Benefits?” https://americanpregnancy. org/healthy-pregnancy/labor-and-birth/having-a-doula/#:~:text=Other%20studies%20have%20shown%20 that%20having%20a%20doula,massage%20to%20reduce%20stress%20and%20anxiety%20during%20labor (accessed March 17, 2023). 74. S. 2372, VA MISSION [Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks] Act of 2018, Public Law No. 115-182, 115th Congress, June 6, 2018, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ182/ PLAW-115publ182.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 75. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 11 (January 19, 2021), pp. 5694–5764, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-19/pdf/2021-00597.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 76. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Compliance with Statutory Program Integrity Requirements,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 42 (March 4, 2029), pp. 7714–7791, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-03-04/pdf/2019-03461.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 77. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Ensuring Access to Equitable, Affordable, Client-Centered, Quality Family Planning Services,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 192 (October 7, 2021), pp. 56144–56180, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2021-10-07/pdf/2021-21542.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 78. S. 624, Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, 118th Congress, introduced March 2, 2023, https://www. congress.gov/118/bills/s624/BILLS-118s624is.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 79. 50 U.S. Code Chapter 55, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-55 (accessed March 22, 2023). 80. 18 U.S. Code § 13, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/13 (accessed March 18, 2023). 81. Bowen v. American Hospital Association, 476 U.S. 610 (1986), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/ usrep/usrep476/usrep476610/usrep476610.pdf (accessed 22, 2023). 82. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, “Notification of Interpretation and Enforcement of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,” Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 99 (May 25, 2021), pp. 27984–27985, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2021-05-25/pdf/2021-10477.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 83. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “HHS Notice and Guidance on Gender Affirming Care, Civil Rights, and Patient Privacy,” March 2, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hhs- ocr-notice-and-guidance-gender-affirming-care.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 84. Heckler v. Chaney, 420 U.S. 821 (1985), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/470/821.html (accessed March 18, 2022). 85. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “Guidance to Nation’s Retail Pharmacies: Obligations Under Federal Civil Rights Laws to Ensure Access to Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Services,” content last reviewed July 14, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/ special-topics/reproductive-healthcare/pharmacies-guidance/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. H.R. 3103, “Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-191, 104th Congress, August 21, 1996, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ191/PLAW-104publ191.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. U.S. Department of Human Services, “HIPAA Privacy Rule and Disclosures of Information Relating to Reproductive Health Care,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, (accessed March 18, 2023). See also “Protecting the Privacy and Security of Your Health Information When Using Your Personal Cell Phone or Tablet,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/guidance/ cell-phone-hipaa/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023).

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 65%

Pages: 509-511AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on preventing child trafficking and supporting survivors through OVC and ACF coordination, while the Project 2025 policy emphasizes Teen Pregnancy Prevention, adoption reform, ORR restructuring, and abstinence-only education. There is minimal thematic overlap, primarily limited to tangential connections involving child welfare and ACF programs."

Key themes:Administration for Children and Families (ACF)child welfareprogram accountability

— 477 — Department of Health and Human Services Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) and Personal Responsibility Educa- tion Program (PREP). TPP is operated by the Office of Population Affairs in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health; PREP is operated by the ACF Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. Both programs should ensure that there is better reporting of subgrantees and referral lists so that they do not promote abortion or high-risk sexual behavior among adolescents. CMS should ensure that Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA) proponents receive these grants and are given every opportunity to prove their effectiveness. SRA programs, both at ACF and at OASH and both discretionary and mandatory, should be equal in funding and emphasis. Qualitative research should be conducted on both types of programs to ensure continuous improvement. In addition, certain provisions should be employed so that these programs do not serve as advocacy tools to promote sex, promote prostitution, or provide a funnel effect for abortion facilities and school field trips to clinics, or for similar purposes. Parent involvement and parent–child communication should be encour- aged and be a part of any funded project. Risk avoidance should be prioritized, and any program that submits a proposal that promotes risk rather than health should not be eligible for funding. Site visits should be revamped to ensure adherence to these optimal health met- rics, and a cost analysis of programming as compared to students served should be a metric in funding (taking into account that in certain cases, intensive programs will serve fewer students and can have more positive results). These same param- eters should apply to sex education programs at ACF. Any lists with “approved curriculum” or so-called evidence-based lists should be abolished; HHS should not create a monopoly of curriculum, adding to the profit of certain publishers. Furthermore, lists created in the past have given priority to sex-promotion text- books. HHS should create a list of criteria for evaluating the sort of curriculum that should be selected for any sex education grant programs, both at OASH and at ACF, with the aim of promoting optimal health and adhering to the legislative language of each program. Adoption Reform. There are roughly 400,000 children across the nation on the waiting list for foster care and 100,000 awaiting adoptive families, and the opioid/ fentanyl crisis is putting more at risk every day. Unfortunately, many of the faith- based adoption agencies that serve these children are under threat from lawsuits, or else their licenses and contracts have been halted because they cannot in good conscience place children in every household due to their religious belief that a child should have a married mother and father. HHS, through ACF and the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources (ASFR), should repeal the unnecessary 2016 regulation61 that imposes nonstatutory sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination conditions on agency grants and return to the policy of maximizing the options for placing vulnerable children — 478 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise in their forever homes. ACF and OCR should also survey their programs to consider whether additional waivers of HHS grant conditions—waivers the Biden Admin- istration revoked in 2021—are needed for faith-based agencies. Additionally, Congress should pass the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act62 to ensure that providers and organizations cannot be subjected to discrimination for providing adoption and foster care services based on their beliefs about marriage. Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). The Office of Refugee Resettlement should be moved to the Department of Homeland Security. Having health and welfare functions managed by HHS and border security functions managed by DHS has created intolerable failures in both. HHS and ORR have forgotten their original refugee-resettlement mission and instead have provided a panoply of free programs that incentivize people to come to the U.S. illegally. Even more troubling, ORR has too often placed children into dangerous situations when releasing them into the country. Nearly all of HHS’s care, custody, and placement of children is done through cooperative agreements with private agencies, many of which may have broken federal law by inducing or being accomplices in illegal immigration. Those arrangements could be handled far more effectively by DHS. Congress should reform the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act63 to transfer all ORR duties for unaccompanied alien children to DHS and eliminate the Flores settlement agreement.64 Regardless of where ORR’s functions reside, ORR staff and care providers should never be allowed to facilitate abortions for unaccompanied children in its cus- tody, including by transporting minors across state lines from pro-life states to abortion-friendly states. Pregnant, unaccompanied girls in ORR custody should be treated with dignity, not trafficked across state lines to be victimized by the abortion industry. ORR should withdraw its policy of allowing elective abortions for children in ORR care and issue a new policy of instructing care providers not to allow girls to be transported for elective abortions. HHS OGC and the White House should insist that DOJ fight to defend that policy up to the U.S. Supreme Court in light of Dobbs. Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) Congress established Aid to Families with Dependent Children in 1935 to assist single-parent families who were suffering financially from the loss of a bread-winning husband and father. Within two decades, however, the majority of families receiving aid were depen- dent because of paternal abandonment rather than death. Today, nearly a third of America’s children live without a father present in the home, and a fourth of them are enrolled to receive child support. The glaring issue in child support enforcement today is a non-resident father’s ability to provide full or consistent child support payments. The literature reflects this divide as fathers have been categorized as “deadbeat” dads, then as “deadbroke”

Department of Homeland Security

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 180-182AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on enhancing anti-trafficking efforts and survivor support through DOJ coordination, while Project 2025's DHS section emphasizes immigration enforcement, detention policy changes, and asylum restrictions for unaccompanied minors—addressing overlapping populations but with divergent approaches (protection vs. deterrence)."

Key themes:unaccompanied minorschild traffickingborder securityvictim protection

— 148 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Unaccompanied minors 1. Congress should repeal Section 235 of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA),9 which provides numerous immigration benefits to unaccompanied alien children and only encourages more parents to send their children across the border illegally and unaccompanied. These children too often become trafficking victims, which means that the TVPRA has failed. 2. If an alternative to repealing Section 235 of the TVPRA is necessary, the section should be amended so that all unaccompanied children, regardless of nationality, may be returned to their home countries in a safe and efficient manner. Currently, the TVPRA allows only children from contiguous countries (Canada and Mexico) to be returned while every other unaccompanied minor must be placed into a lengthy process that usually results in the minor’s landing in the custody of an illegal alien family member. 3. Congress must end the Flores Settlement Agreement by explicitly setting nationwide terms and standards for family and unaccompanied detention and housing. Such standards should focus on meeting human needs and should allow for large-scale use of temporary facilities (for example, tents). 4. Congress should amend the Homeland Security Act and portions of the TVPRA to move detention of alien children expressly from the Department of Health and Human Services to DHS. l Asylum reform 1. The standard for a credible fear of persecution should be raised and aligned to the standard for asylum. It should also account specifically for credibility determinations that are a key element of the asylum claim. 2. Codify former asylum bars and third-country transit rules. 3. Congress should eliminate the particular social group protected ground as vague and overbroad or, in the alternative, provide a clear definition with parameters that at a minimum codify the holding in Matter of A-B- that gang violence and domestic violence are not grounds for asylum.10 — 149 — Department of Homeland Security l Parole reform. Congress should end the widespread abuse of parole in contravention of statute and return it to its origins as an extraordinary remedy for very limited purposes. l NGOs and processing. Congress should halt funds given to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to process and transport illegal aliens into and throughout the United States. Such funds and infrastructure, including the DHS joint processing centers, should be redirected to secure the border, detain aliens, and provide space for immigration court proceedings. l Other pathways for border crossers. While Congress should use its oversight authority to ensure that Expedited Removal is used to the fullest extent and followed to the letter of the law, other paths for border crossers should be included in a legislative package. 1. Migrant protection protocols. Update the statutory language providing the basis for the Remain in Mexico program as needed to withstand judicial scrutiny and executive inaction. 2. Asylum Cooperative Agreements. While the agreements themselves must be negotiated, Congress should mandate that the executive branch work faithfully to negotiate and execute ACAs and set parameters to ensure that an unwilling executive cannot renege on an existing agreement or abandon the effort. 3. Other expedited pathways. Congress should explicitly permit programs akin to the Prompt Asylum Claim Review (PACR) and Humanitarian Asylum Review Process (HARP) programs. l Employment authorization 1. Congress should reassert control of employment authorization, which is subject to rampant regulatory abuse, and limit it to certain categories of legal immigrants and non-immigrants. 2. Congress should also permanently authorize E-Verify and make it mandatory. l State and local law enforcement

Department of Education

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 362-364AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on child trafficking prevention within the Department of Justice, while the Project 2025 excerpt concerns Department of Education reorganization and civil rights enforcement; they share only a tangential connection through DOJ involvement and civil rights themes."

Key themes:Department of JusticeCivil rightsFederal agency coordination

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

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Sen. Ossoff, Jon

Ocmulgee Mounds National Park and Preserve Establishment Act

119/s/1131

Ralph David Abernathy, Sr., National Historic Site Act

119/s/2102

Rural Veterans Transportation to Care Act

119/s/784

Back to All Bills