Alex Gate Safety Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/1682
Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Curtis, John R. [R-UT]

ID: C001114

Follow the money

The bill

Alex Gate Safety Act of 2025

S. 1682, 119th Congress — read as touching Construction & Engineering.

The sponsor

Sen. Curtis, John R. [R-UT]

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

The money

$172,600 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Transportation" section, p. 658-660 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.

April 13, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

📍 Current Status

Next: The full Senate will vote on whether to pass the bill.

✅

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

Another brilliant example of legislative theater, courtesy of the intellectually bankrupt minds in Congress. The Alex Gate Safety Act of 2025 is a masterclass in bureaucratic obfuscation, designed to create the illusion of safety while lining the pockets of special interest groups.

Let's dissect this mess:

**New regulations:** The bill creates a new consumer product safety standard for "covered gates," which includes automatic and manual vehicular gates, as well as any gate over 48 inches wide or 84 inches tall. Because, you know, the free market wasn't already incentivized to produce safe gates.

**Affected industries:** Gate manufacturers, contractors, retailers, and service companies will be impacted by this bill. Expect a flurry of lobbying activity as these groups try to influence the regulations to their advantage.

**Compliance requirements and timelines:** The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has one year to promulgate the new standard, which must meet the safety-related standards of various ASTM and ANSI/UL standards. Manufacturers will have to comply with the new standard, but don't worry, they'll just pass the costs on to consumers.

**Enforcement mechanisms and penalties:** The CPSC will be responsible for enforcing the new standard, because we all know how effective government agencies are at regulating industries (cough, FDA, cough). Expect a plethora of fines and penalties for non-compliance, which will be gleefully collected by the government.

**Economic and operational impacts:** This bill will undoubtedly increase costs for manufacturers, contractors, and consumers. The added regulatory burden will stifle innovation and lead to higher prices for gates. But hey, who needs affordable gates when you can have "safety"?

In conclusion, the Alex Gate Safety Act of 2025 is a textbook example of regulatory capture, where special interest groups manipulate the legislative process to their advantage. It's a disease, really – a metastasizing tumor of bureaucratic red tape that will strangle innovation and freedom. And we're all just along for the ride, forced to pay the price for this farce.

Diagnosis: Terminal stupidity, with a side of corruption and greed. Prognosis: Poor. Treatment: None, because the patient is beyond salvation.

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

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Curtis, John R. [R-UT]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$172,600
17 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$33,800
Committees
$0
Individuals
$138,800

No PAC contributions found

1
KELLER INVESTMENTS PROPERTIES
1 transaction
$29,800
2
SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
1 transaction
$1,000
3
TENNIS & SUN LC
1 transaction
$1,000
4
BGR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, LLC
1 transaction
$1,000
5
FUGAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES INC
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
STEEL, SHAWN
2 transactions
$20,000
2
BAKER, PAUL
2 transactions
$13,200
3
CORTEZI, NICHOLAS
2 transactions
$13,200
4
EVANS, ROGER
2 transactions
$13,200
5
MCLEAN, TERRENCE
2 transactions
$13,200
6
OSTER, ROBERT
2 transactions
$13,200
7
ROBERTSON, WILHELMINA
2 transactions
$13,200
8
WEINER, KANE
2 transactions
$13,200
9
BERKLEY, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$6,600
10
CROTTY, THOMAS
1 transaction
$6,600
11
RIPPEL, JOHN
1 transaction
$6,600
12
SMITH, RYAN
1 transaction
$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]

ID: K000367

Top Contributors

25

1
LEECH LAKE BAND OF OJIBWE
OrganizationCASS LAKE, MN
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
2
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$3,300
Aug 25, 2023
3
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationDURANT, OK
$2,500
Oct 7, 2024
4
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$2,300
Jul 17, 2023
5
ARISTOTLE INTERNATIONAL
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC
$500
Jul 19, 2024
6
SMITH, BRADFORD
MICROSOFT CORPORATION • ATTORNEY
IndividualBELLEVUE, WA
$6,600
Mar 30, 2023
7
SMITH, BRADFORD
IndividualBELLEVUE, WA
$6,600
Mar 30, 2023
8
BADEN, DREW
PROFESSOR • UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
IndividualBETHESDA, MD
$6,600
Feb 23, 2024
9
CAUCHY, CONSTANCE
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualMIDLAND, MI
$6,600
Jun 2, 2024
10
BADEN, DREW
IndividualBETHESDA, MD
$6,600
Mar 11, 2024

Donor Network - Sen. Curtis, John R. [R-UT]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 43 nodes and 65 connections

Total contributions: $65

Top Donors - Sen. Curtis, John R. [R-UT]

Showing top 17 donors by contribution amount

5 Orgs12 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • Section 2(a)(1) directs the CPSC to promulgate a consumer product safety standard for covered gates, which will affect manufacturers, contractors, and service companies involved in gate production and installation. Section 3(b)(1) requires educational materials for manufacturers, contractors, retailers, and service companies, indicating a compliance burden but also potential market for safety-related services and products, net benefit to construction and engineering firms engaged in gate work.

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 Transportation

Weak
Vector: 60%
Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 DOT section emphasize safety through regulatory standards, but the bill addresses gate safety under the CPSC while the DOT policy focuses on automated vehicles, spectrum allocation, and fuel economy standards, resulting only a tangential connection."

Key themes:safetyregulatory standardsconsumer protection

— 625 — Department of Transportation security, and privacy without hampering innovation. DOT can oversee the testing and deployment of a wide variety of new technologies, allowing communities and individuals to choose what best fits their needs. It is the role of the private sector, not the government, to pick winners and losers in technology development. If a technology underperforms, the private sector should be liable, not the government. The department should ensure a tech-neutral approach to addressing any emerging transportation technology while keeping safety as the number one priority. As part of this, it should work to facilitate the safe and full integration of automated vehicles into the national transportation system. Over time, these advanced technologies can save lives, transform personal mobility, and provide additional transportation opportunities—including for people with disabili- ties, aging populations, and communities where car ownership is expensive or impractical. NHTSA’s and FMCSA’s current regulations were written before the advent of automated vehicles and driving systems. Both operating administrations have issued Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemakings (ANPRMs) that begin the pro- cess of updating their regulations to reflect this new technology. However, these regulations have stalled under the Biden Administration, which has chosen to use the department’s tools to get people to take transit and drive electric vehicles instead of helping people to choose the transportation options that suit them best. l NHTSA should work to remove regulatory barriers by focusing on updating vehicle standards as well as publishing performance-based rules for the operations of automated vehicles (AVs). l FMCSA should work to clarify the regulations to align with DOT’s AV 3.0 guidance, which would allow the drivers to be safely removed from the operations of a commercial motor vehicle. From a nonregulatory point of view, DOT has pivoted from a successful focus on the voluntary sharing of data to improve safety outcomes to adoption of a more compulsory and antagonistic approach to mandating data collection and publica- tion through a Standing General Order related to automated vehicles. This needs to be reversed. Many of these new and innovative technologies rely on wireless communica- tions that depend on the availability and purchase of radio frequency spectrum, a trend that is consistent with what we see in connectivity in our everyday lives. There is a role for DOT in ensuring that in the fight over spectrum, transportation gets its fair share. For technologies to work in transportation, and in particular to work for transportation safety, they have to meet the unique needs of a transportation — 626 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise environment. They need to account for rapidly moving and out-of-line-of-sight vehicles as well as pedestrians, bicyclists, and other road users. They should account for the potential for radio interference, and they should address security. This is why in 1999, in response to a request from Congress, the Federal Com- munications Commission allocated the 5.9 GHz band of spectrum to traffic safety and intelligent transportation systems (ITS). In 2020, the FCC took away 45 MHz of the 75 MHz it had added, leaving only 30 MHz for transportation safety and ITS. DOT needs to represent the transportation community and make the case for needed spectrum to the public and Congress. CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY (CAFE) STANDARDS One reason for the high numbers of injuries on American roadways is that national fuel economy standards raise the price of cars, disincentivizing people from purchasing newer, safer vehicles. Congress requires the Secretary of Transportation to set national fuel econ- omy standards for new motor vehicles sold in the United States. This mandate was established in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA),6 a law passed in the wake of the Arab oil embargo to promote greater energy efficiency and lessen the national security threat of U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The stat- ute directs DOT to prescribe the “maximum feasible” mileage requirements for different categories of internal-combustion engine (ICE) automobiles for each model year. The standards must be achievable using available ICE technologies running on gasoline, diesel fuel, or similar combustible fuels and must not be set so high as to prevent automakers from profitably producing new vehicles at sufficient volume to meet consumer demand. Congress recognized that the ICE-powered automobile has been instrumen- tal to advancing the mobility and prosperity of the American people and that the domestic mass production of new ICE vehicles generates millions of jobs and remains critical to the overall health of the U.S. economy and the strength of the nation’s industrial base. Accordingly, Congress took care to ensure that the mileage requirements issued by DOT would not undermine the vitality of America’s auto industry or interfere with the market economics that drives consumer demand for new vehicles. This rulemaking authority, which has been delegated by the Secretary to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is exclusive to DOT. EPCA expressly preempts states from adopting or enforcing any different requirement “related to fuel economy standards” for new motor vehicles. While the statute instructs DOT to consult with the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in formulating its standards, no other federal agency, including EPA, has clear authority to set fuel economy requirements in place of NHTSA. The Clean Air Act7 gives EPA general authority to establish emissions

21

Weak
Vector: 57%
Pages: 699-701AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on consumer product safety standards for gates enforced by the CPSC, while the Project 2025 section deals with trade enforcement and anti‑dumping/countervailing duty operations within the Department of Commerce. Both involve regulatory enforcement and compliance, but their substantive areas are unrelated."

Key themes:enforcementcomplianceregulatory standards

— 667 — Department of Commerce Day One to ensure the bureau is fully implementing Administration policy. An incoming Administration should ensure that Assistant Secretary and Deputy Assis- tant Secretary positions are staffed by appointees as quickly as possible. Enforcement and Compliance. Strong enforcement of trade agreements is an indispensable function of the ITA carried out by Enforcement & Compliance (E&C). Free and fair trade is impossible without energetic enforcement of exist- ing agreements and without strong defense against dumping and illegal subsidies. Many free trade advocates consider antidumping and countervailing duty laws (AD/CVD) to be protectionist and thus antithetical to the conservative free market position. In their view, AD/CVD laws are overused, abused by certain industries, and harmful to American economic competitiveness by increasing costs to down- stream industries. Other conservatives maintain that AD/CVD tariffs are not conventional tariffs, but rather corrective actions meant to address anti-free market activities by other governments—a scalpel, not a hammer. In the short term, this may mean higher costs for U.S. businesses and consumers on a limited number of products from cer- tain offending countries, but those higher prices correct existing price distortions in the marketplace and ultimately ensure the healthy operation of market forces in the long term and a level playing field for U.S. manufacturers. Whatever the case, improvements to the current system must be made to both protect U.S. consumers and companies from improperly applied duties and defend against trade-distorting actions by other governments. Procedures governing the day-to-day administration of proceedings, as well as policies driving critical deci- sions in proceedings, require a fresh look. Ultimately, E&C’s mandate is to conduct a rigorous but also fair, objective, and balanced review of the record in each pro- ceeding and to make decisions without bias. It is exceedingly unlikely that Congress would abolish or limit the activity of E&C. Therefore, the proposals below are made under the assumption that an incoming Administration will operate E&C within its current legal, institutional, and political confines and set a path forward to wield E&C’s considerable power to achieve the goals of a conservative Administration. These proposals can be broken into three categories: process, policy, and addressing China. Process l Re-establish and expand suspended in-person pandemic-related verifications, particularly regarding the People’s Republic of China. Ensure that verifications are rigorous. l Implement advanced analytics and artificial intelligence to identify opportunities for self-initiation, detect circumvention, and prevent bad actors from gaming the system. — 668 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Accelerate front-end work on reviews as opposed to constantly pushing against statutory deadlines. l Work with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and other relevant agencies to address circumvention and duty evasion, and promote policies that encourage full duty collection to ensure the integrity of AD/CVD and circumvention orders. l Work with CBP, the Department of Justice, the Department of Treasury, and other relevant agencies to aggressively pursue importers of record and other beneficiaries for unpaid duties, and consider policy changes to reduce uncollected duties in the future. l Work, pursuant to the above, with interagency partners in AD/CVD cases to either require foreign importers of record (IORs) to make cash deposits far in excess of established duty rates at the time of entry of AD/CVD merchandise, require IORs to register sufficient U.S. assets to ensure timely payment of duties, or otherwise prohibit IORs from importing AD/CVD merchandise. l Conduct a regulatory capture audit and put guardrails in place to address improper exercise of bureaucratic prerogative. Policy l Ensure senior policy and decision-making positions are always held by political appointees. l Reverse the practice of giving the benefit of the doubt to foreign companies versus U.S. companies in AD/CVD proceedings. l Establish a policy for addressing companies that invest heavily in the U.S. and thus have large import volumes, exposing them to AD/CVD petitions. l Establish an effective, fair, and objective process for self-initiation of AD/ CVD proceedings when industry lacks the resources or ability to act. Addressing China l Revive the China-specific non-market economy unit. l Provide transparency in the surrogate country list development process.

Environmental Protection Agency

Minimal
Vector: 57%
Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Alex Gate Safety Act concerns consumer product safety standards for gates under the CPSC, whereas the Project 2025 EPA section deals with environmental regulation, greenhouse gas reporting, and air permitting; there is no substantive overlap in objectives or topics."

— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment. — 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

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

Full Policy Text

Related Bills