DEFIANCE Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/1837
Last Updated: August 9, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL]

ID: D000563

Follow the money

The bill

DEFIANCE Act of 2025

S. 1837, 119th Congress — read as touching Big Tech Platforms.

The sponsor

Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL]

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

The money

$73,500 raised

23 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. 590-592 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.

January 12, 2026

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed 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 bill from the esteemed members of Congress, because what's more entertaining than watching politicians try to tackle complex issues with all the finesse of a drunken elephant?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The DEFIANCE Act of 2025 aims to address the scourge of non-consensual intimate digital forgeries (deepfakes) by providing relief to affected individuals. Or, in other words, Congress is trying to appear concerned about the well-being of citizens while actually doing very little.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends existing law to include "intimate digital forgeries" as a form of image-based sexual abuse. It also expands the definition of an "identifiable individual" and introduces new language to address the creation and dissemination of deepfakes. Because, you know, labeling something as "fake" is totally going to stop people from creating and sharing it.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Victims of non-consensual intimate digital forgeries (because who doesn't love a good victim-blaming exercise?), tech companies, social media platforms, and anyone with an internet connection. Oh, and let's not forget the politicians who get to grandstand about this issue while doing nothing meaningful.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill will likely have all the impact of a feather in a hurricane. It might provide some minor relief to victims, but it won't address the root causes of the problem or hold anyone accountable for creating and sharing deepfakes. Meanwhile, tech companies will continue to profit from the spread of misinformation, and politicians will get to pat themselves on the back for "doing something" about the issue.

Diagnosis: This bill is a classic case of "Legislative Theateritis," where politicians pretend to address a complex issue while actually doing nothing meaningful. The symptoms include:

* Overly broad language that won't be enforced * Lack of clear definitions and standards * Failure to address root causes or hold anyone accountable * Politicians grandstanding about the issue while doing nothing

Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach for bureaucratic nonsense, and a willingness to call out politicians on their empty promises.

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

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$73,500
15 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$3,500
Committees
$0
Individuals
$70,000

No PAC contributions found

1
MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
2 transactions
$2,500
2
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
KUJAWSKI, JOHN
4 transactions
$17,200
2
BARKER, MARA MILLS
2 transactions
$6,600
3
CASHMAN, JAY M.
2 transactions
$6,600
4
GRANIERI, ROBERT
2 transactions
$6,600
5
ARNOLD, JOHN
2 transactions
$6,600
6
CHOWDHURY, SHUVRO
1 transaction
$3,300
7
COHN, RANDY
1 transaction
$3,300
8
MAESE, TIMOTHY
1 transaction
$3,300
9
THOMPSON, TIMOTHY
1 transaction
$3,300
10
FALLS, AMY
1 transaction
$3,300
11
ROGERS, HARTLEY
1 transaction
$3,300
12
EYCHANER, FRED
1 transaction
$3,300
13
BUEHLHORN, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 8 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC]

ID: G000359

Top Contributors

31

1
WINRED PAC
PACARLINGTON, VA
$3,833
Oct 15, 2024
2
CATAWBA INDIAN NATION
OrganizationROCK HILL, SC
$3,300
May 21, 2024
3
BEVERLY B GROSSMAN TRUST
OrganizationENCINO, CA
$1,550
Jul 12, 2024
4
BELL FAMILY TRUST
OrganizationINDIAN WELLS, CA
$1,000
Mar 1, 2024
5
BEVERLY B GROSSMAN TRUST
OrganizationENCINO, CA
$230
Oct 2, 2024
6
BEVERLY B GROSSMAN TRUST
OrganizationENCINO, CA
$200
Jul 30, 2024
7
BEVERLY B GROSSMAN TRUST
OrganizationENCINO, CA
$150
Aug 14, 2024
8
ALFRED SEYMOUR BASSLER TR
RETIRED • RETIRED
OrganizationWOODBINE, MD
$100
Jul 26, 2024
9
ALFRED SEYMOUR BASSLER TR
RETIRED • RETIRED
OrganizationWOODBINE, MD
$100
Jul 26, 2024
10
BEVERLY B GROSSMAN TRUST
OrganizationENCINO, CA
$100
Jul 30, 2024

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

Sen. King, Angus S., Jr. [I-ME]

ID: K000383

Top Contributors

24

1
2120 SEA ISLAND LLC
OrganizationRIVER FOREST, IL
$3,300
Oct 26, 2023
2
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,300
May 22, 2024
3
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$2,000
Mar 29, 2024
4
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$1,300
May 22, 2024
5
SMITH, BRAD
MICROSOFT CORPORATION • ATTORNEY
IndividualBELLEVUE, WA
$6,600
Feb 13, 2024
6
SMITH, BRAD
IndividualBELLEVUE, WA
$6,600
Feb 20, 2024
7
DOWNEY, NANCY A.
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,000
Sep 4, 2024
8
DOWNEY, NANCY A.
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,000
Aug 31, 2024
9
OTTEN, LESLIE B.
AMERICAN SKIING COMPANY • OWNER
IndividualBETHEL, ME
$5,000
Oct 4, 2024
10
BEKENSTEIN, ANITA
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualWAYLAND, MA
$3,300
Oct 24, 2024

Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]

ID: L000577

Top Contributors

20

1
MACRICOSTAS, GEORGE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualINCLINE VILLAGE, NV
$13,200
May 14, 2024
2
PFAUTCH, ROY
CIVIC SERVICE • CONSULTANT
IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO
$9,900
Feb 20, 2024
3
NICOLAISEN, JAMES E
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualPORTLAND, OR
$8,700
Jul 19, 2024
4
METZGER, WILLIAM
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualBOONVILLE, IN
$8,700
Jul 23, 2024
5
S., TINA
SELF • RESTAURANT
IndividualMAUREPAS, LA
$8,700
Sep 10, 2024
6
DE CARLI, JAMES
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualDANA POINT, CA
$8,700
Aug 10, 2024
7
EDWARDS, ZELLA
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualCHAMBERSBURG, PA
$8,700
Sep 10, 2024
8
RICHARDSON, CHERYL
GRANITE SCHOOL DISTRICT • PARAEDUCATOR
IndividualSLC, UT
$8,700
Jul 9, 2024
9
DONADIO, RICHARD
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualDACULA, GA
$8,700
Aug 13, 2024
10
ZALL, MARGIE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualBOYNTON BEACH, FL
$8,700
Sep 19, 2024

Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM]

ID: H001046

Top Contributors

71

1
JSTREETPAC
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$1,000
Apr 19, 2024
2
SAN PABLO LYTTON TRIBE
OrganizationSAN PABLO, CA
$21,600
Oct 5, 2023
3
PUEBLO OF LAGUNA
OrganizationLAGUNA, NM
$5,800
Sep 30, 2024
4
PUEBLO OF SAN ILDEFONSO
OrganizationSANTA FE, NM
$5,000
Oct 30, 2024
5
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$5,000
Oct 23, 2024
6
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$5,000
Dec 5, 2023
7
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$5,000
Oct 15, 2024
8
SAN PABLO LYTTON TRIBE
OrganizationSAN PABLO, CA
$3,962
May 10, 2024
9
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
10
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024

Sen. Welch, Peter [D-VT]

ID: W000800

Top Contributors

22

1
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jun 8, 2023
2
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
May 3, 2024
3
FIELD, MARSHALL
THE OLD MOUNTAIN COMPANY, INC. • EXECUTIVE
IndividualCHICAGO, IL
$3,300
May 18, 2023
4
RECHNITZ, JOAN
IndividualRED BANK, NJ
$3,300
Apr 22, 2024
5
RECHNITZ, JOAN
IndividualRED BANK, NJ
$3,300
Apr 22, 2024
6
GORDON, PATRICIA
SELF • MD
IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
May 22, 2024
7
STILLER, ROBERT
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPALM BEACH, FL
$3,300
Sep 22, 2024
8
STILLER, ROBERT
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPALM BEACH, FL
$3,300
Sep 22, 2024
9
KALKUT, CRAIG
WEST FRONT STRATEGIES • GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$2,500
May 3, 2023
10
SCHWARTZ, MARTIN
MINILEC SERVICE • CONSUMER ELECTRONICS
IndividualCARMEL, CA
$2,000
May 18, 2023

Sen. Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY]

ID: S000148

Top Contributors

24

1
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Dec 29, 2023
2
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Mar 21, 2024
3
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jun 2, 2023
4
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationDURANT, OK
$550
Sep 27, 2023
5
MARES, JAN
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,500
Dec 6, 2024
6
MEZZALINGUA, JOHN
JMA • CEO
IndividualSKANEATELES, NY
$3,300
Dec 21, 2023
7
RIKLIS, MARCIA
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualEAST HAMPTON, NY
$3,300
Dec 15, 2023
8
EISENSTADT, STEVEN
CUMBERLAND PACKING CORP. • EXECUTIVE
IndividualBROOKLYN, NY
$3,300
Dec 21, 2023
9
MEZZALINGUA, JOHN
JMA • CEO
IndividualSKANEATELES, NY
$3,300
Dec 21, 2023
10
EISENSTADT, STEVEN
CUMBERLAND PACKING CORP. • EXECUTIVE
IndividualBROOKLYN, NY
$3,300
Dec 21, 2023

Sen. Hawley, Josh [R-MO]

ID: H001089

Top Contributors

24

1
R&W TOWING & RECOVERY
OrganizationST JOSEPH, MO
$3,300
Sep 18, 2024
2
SOUTHERN MISSOURI REAL ESTATE LLC
OrganizationAURORA, MO
$1,000
Jun 28, 2023
3
ST LOUIS CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP PAC
OrganizationCHESTERFIELD, MO
$914
Oct 31, 2024
4
MARK FAUGHN CONSTRUCTION LLC
OrganizationPOPLAR BLUFF, MO
$250
May 22, 2023
5
SCHELL, MARK CHRISTOPHER
DIAMOND PET FOOD • MANAGER
IndividualLOHMAN, MO
$13,200
Apr 13, 2023
6
CARR, GEORGE T.
THE DURHAM CO • MANAGEMENT
IndividualSPRINGFIELD, MO
$12,200
Apr 21, 2023
7
RUSSELL, DOUG MR.
DURHAM COMPANY • PRESIDENT
IndividualLEBANON, MO
$7,400
Apr 21, 2023
8
SHELTON, GREGORY P. MR.
SHELTON WHOLESALE • OWNER
IndividualEAGLEVILLE, MO
$6,600
Mar 11, 2024
9
WALDEN, MICHAEL
SHOOK HARDY BACON • ATTORNEY
IndividualMISSION HILLS, KS
$6,600
Mar 31, 2023
10
WILLARD, BRADLEY
WILLARD ASPHALT PAVING • PRESIDENT
IndividualLEBANON, MO
$6,600
Mar 31, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 34 nodes and 52 connections

Total contributions: $52

Top Donors - Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL]

Showing top 15 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs13 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • −Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.80

    Section 3(b)(1)(A) implies that big tech platforms may be liable for damages if they knowingly disclose or solicit intimate digital forgeries without consent, which could increase their legal and regulatory costs.

  • −Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.60

    Section 3(b)(1)(A) mentions 'using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce', which could include telecommunications services, potentially increasing their liability for facilitating the disclosure of intimate digital forgeries.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HARMS

Project 2025 Policy Matches

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

Department of Justice

Moderate
Vector: 59%
Pages: 590-592AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The DEFIANCE Act addresses non-consensual deepfakes, which aligns with Project 2025's concern about rising sextortion and digital exploitation, though the bill focuses on victim relief while Project 2025 emphasizes DOJ reform and ending politicized enforcement."

Key themes:sextortiondigital exploitationvictim protectionlaw enforcementonline harms

— 557 — Department of Justice such as increases in “sextortion,” ransomware, and the continued proliferation of child pornography. DEFENDING THE RULE OF LAW The DOJ’s actions over the course of the Biden Administration exhibit scorn for its stated mission: “to uphold the rule of law, to keep our country safe, and to pro- tect civil rights.”54 The Biden Administration’s unprecedented politicization and weaponization of the department therefore demand a comprehensive response from the next Administration. Restoration of the department’s values of independence, impartiality, honesty, integrity, respect, and excellence must serve as first principles for its efforts on all fronts. Concretely, the DOJ must identify and address all individuals, policies, and directives that have fueled the destruction of these core values and the American people’s loss of trust in the department and its officials. The next Administration will need to exert significant energy to dismantle the two-tiered system of justice currently in place at the department while simultaneously applying the rule of law evenly and with neutrality. Specific examples of department corruption, such as the Russia collusion hoax, will need to be tackled, exposed, and addressed head-on. This will require not just winning in a court of law, but also demonstrating culpability to the public and the media in a concrete and nonrefutable manner. These efforts will require commitment and willpower, but they will be essential to restoring the trust of the American people. Promptly and Properly Eliminating Lawless Policies, Investigations, and Cases, Including All Existing Consent Decrees. Few things undermine the DOJ’s credibility more than brazenly partisan and ideologically driven prosecution of an Administration’s perceived political enemies, yet the department has readily indulged in such misadventures during the Biden Administration. Before even entering the Robert F. Kennedy building on January 20, 2025, the next Adminis- tration should: l Conduct a thorough review of all publicly available policies, investigations, and cases. l In a manner consistent with applicable law, prepare a plan to end immediately any policies, investigations, or cases that run contrary to law or Administration policies. l Ensure that upon the next President’s inauguration, appointees at the department obtain information about anything that was not learned before taking office and conduct the same analysis. — 558 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise An egregious example of the need for such a review is provided by the depart- ment’s use of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act55 to harass pro-life demonstrators while not pursuing similar investigations of shocking acts of violence committed against pro-life pregnancy resource centers. On the morning of September 23, 2022, pro-life activist Mark Houck was arrested by more than 15 FBI agents at his home in Pennsylvania in front of his wife and small children. Agents came to his door with guns drawn to arrest the 48-year-old father of seven whose alleged crime involved a minor altercation with an activist who was harass- ing one of his children in front of an abortion clinic almost one year before Mr. Houck’s arrest by the FBI.56 Similarly, Paul Vaughn, a 55-year-old father of 11, was arrested at his home in Mt. Juliet, Tennessee, by armed FBI agents for allegedly participating in a peaceful protest at an abortion clinic one year earlier.57 These arrests stand in stark contrast to the department’s virtual silence on the wave of vandalism and violence directed at religiously affiliated institutions, includ- ing pregnancy resource centers, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.58 The Catholic News Agency reported more than one hundred such incidents as of September 2022.59 By engaging in disparate and viewpoint-based enforcement of an already con- troversial law like the FACE Act against pro-life activists, the DOJ has needlessly undermined its credibility with law-abiding people of faith. The department should make every effort to uphold equal protection of the law and avoid politically moti- vated and viewpoint-based prosecutions. Specifically, it should: l Ensure that its review extends beyond ending the absurd double standards embodied in the ongoing campaign of FACE Act prosecutions and instead be a thorough and holistic review of all DOJ activities, including all consent degrees and settlement agreements currently in force. l Seek to terminate any unnecessary or outdated consent decree to which the United States is a party. l Consider pursuing intervention in other matters where consent decrees or settlement agreements continue to bind parties years or decades after the fact. l As its review concludes, and consistent with applicable law, take appropriate action in all cases, including those on appeal. l Enact policies and regulations that prohibit settlement payments to third parties.

Intelligence Community

Moderate
Vector: 59%
Pages: 266-268AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The DEFIANCE Act focuses on combating non-consensual deepfakes to protect individuals from harm, which overlaps with the Intelligence Community's interest in countering disinformation and malicious use of synthetic media that can threaten national security. Both emphasize law enforcement/intelligence response to technology-facilitated abuse, though the bill's primary scope is civil protection rather than intelligence operations."

Key themes:deepfakesdisinformationlaw enforcement/intelligence cooperationtechnology misusevictim protection

— 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 Justice

Weak
Vector: 59%
Pages: 596-598AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the DEFIANCE Act and the Project 2025 DOJ section involve the Department of Justice's role in enforcing civil rights protections, but they address substantively different issues (deepfake intimate image abuse vs. voter fraud/election crimes)."

Key themes:Department of JusticeCivil Rights Divisionfederal civil rights enforcementvictim protectionslegal definitions of harm

— 563 — Department of Justice Voter fraud includes unlawful practices concerning voter registration and ballot correction. When state legislatures are silent as to procedures for absentee ballot curing or provide specific rules governing that curing, neither counties nor courts may create a cure right where one does not exist, may not modify the law on curing, and certainly cannot engage in creating consent orders with the force of law that are inconsistent with the orders of other similarly situated counties. The DOJ has ceded substantial discretion concerning voter suppression to the Civil Rights Division. Since the Bush Administration, DOJ leadership has determined that using the Election Crimes Branch to prosecute fraudulent voter registration, including mail-in ballot fraud, was too politically costly.78 The Crim- inal Division’s Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses handbook advised that schemes that violated equal protection constituted “voter suppression” prosecut- able under 18 U.S. Code § 241 as part of the guidelines for which the department’s criminal prosecutors were trained.79 State-based investigations of election crimes are supposed to be referred to the Public Integrity Section for review. Historically, 18 U.S. Code § 241 (conspiracy against rights) was used as a basis for investigating state officials whose statements or orders violated the equal protection rights of voters or deliberately misinformed voters concerning the eligibility of their ballots. Nevertheless, the Department of Justice has formalized the Civil Rights Divi- sion’s (as opposed to the Criminal Division’s) jurisdiction over 18 U.S. Code § 241 investigations and prosecutions. The Criminal Division is no longer involved in consultation or review of 18 U.S. Code § 241 investigations.80 The Criminal Division has accordingly advised states that “[i]n the case of a crime of violence or intimida- tion,” they should “call 911 immediately and before contacting federal authorities” because “[s]tate and local police have primary jurisdiction over polling places,”81 despite clearly applicable federal law. This is a mistake. With respect to the 2020 presidential election, there were no DOJ investigations of the appropriateness or lawfulness of state election guidance. Consider the state of Pennsylvania. The Secretary of State sent guidance to the counties stating that: This revised guidance addresses the issuance, voting and examination of provisional ballots under the Election Code. Provisional ballots were originally mandated by section 302 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). Provisional ballot amendments included in Act 77 of 2019 went into effect for the 2020 Primary election. Provisional ballot amendments included in Act 12 of 2020 go into effect for the first time on November 3, 2020.82 HAVA, however, mandates provisional ballots only for eligible voters who were not on a state’s voter registration list.83 It does not apply to those who registered for mail-in voting but whose ballots were rejected due to some form of spoliation. — 564 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Pennsylvania Act 12 (amended in 2020) does not authorize curing by providing provisional ballots for mail-in voters whose ballots were rejected. Act 12 requires, as part of the mail-in application process, an affidavit that: [The elector] shall not be eligible to vote at a polling place on election day unless the elector brings the elector’s mail-in ballot to the elector’s polling place, remits the ballot and the envelope containing the declaration of the elector to the judge of elections to be spoiled and signs a statement subject to the penalties under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 (relating to unsworn falsification to authorities) to the same effect.84 The law in Pennsylvania clearly states that no county may affirmatively provide provisional ballots: The mail-in voter must vote in person and sign a new affidavit. In the 2020 election, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognized that “the Election Code contains no requirement that voters whose ballots are deemed inadequately verified be apprised of this fact. Thus, unlike in-person voters, mail-in or absentee voters are not provided any opportunity to cure perceived defects in a timely man- ner.”85 Given the Pennsylvania Secretary of State’s use of guidance to circumvent state law, the Pennsylvania Secretary of State should have been (and still should be) investigated and prosecuted for potential violations of 18 U.S. Code § 241. Investigations and prosecutions under 18 U.S. Code § 241 are currently within the jurisdictional oversight of the Civil Rights Division, not the Criminal Division.86 Only by moving authority for 18 U.S. Code § 241 investigations and prosecutions back to the Criminal Division will the rule of law be appropriately enforced. Rejecting Third-Party Requests for Politically Motivated Investigations or Prosecutions. The DOJ should reject demands from third-party groups that ask it to threaten politically motivated investigation or prosecution of those engag- ing in lawful and, in many cases, constitutionally protected activity. By acceding to such demands, the department risks diminishing its credibility with the American public. This risk is exacerbated by the fact that communications between govern- ment officials and third-party groups are generally unprotected by privilege and subject to disclosure, whether via subpoena to the third-party group or via request made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. These communications can even be made public voluntarily by the third-party group. A recent example illustrates the risks posed by such activity. On October 4, 2021, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memorandum to the Director of the FBI, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and the Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, calling on the FBI to work with each U.S. Attorney to “con- vene meetings with federal, state, local, Tribal, and territorial leaders” to discuss strategies for addressing “threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.”87 Subsequent reporting and investigation revealed that the

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