MAIN Event Ticketing Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/196

Last Updated: September 7, 2026

MAIN Event Ticketing Act

S. 196, 119th Congress — read as touching Entertainment & Streaming.

The sponsor

Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]

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

The money

$166,000 raised

26 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

Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 144.

September 1, 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:

**MAIN Event Ticketing Act (S 196) Analysis**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect the MAIN Event Ticketing Act, a bill that ostensibly aims to "improve online ticket sales and protect consumers." Let's cut through the rhetoric and examine its true implications.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to strengthen the BOTS Act by introducing new provisions aimed at preventing automated ticket purchasing (bots) from circumventing online ticket purchasing order rules. It also seeks to enhance site security safeguards for ticket issuers.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **BOTS Act Amendments**: The bill expands the definition of prohibited activities under the BOTS Act, including using software applications that bypass access control systems or security measures. 2. **Site Security Safeguards**: Ticket issuers must establish and maintain reasonable administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect site security, confidentiality, integrity, and availability.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Ticket Issuers**: Primary ticket sellers, secondary marketplaces, and event organizers will be impacted by the new regulations. 2. **Consumers**: Theoretically, consumers may benefit from increased transparency and protection against bots. However, this assumes that ticket issuers will not simply pass on compliance costs to customers. 3. **Bots and Automated Ticket Purchasers**: Those using automated systems to purchase tickets will be directly affected by the strengthened BOTS Act provisions.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased Compliance Costs**: Ticket issuers will need to invest in new security measures, which may lead to higher ticket prices for consumers. 2. **Consolidation and Market Dominance**: Smaller ticket sellers might struggle to comply with the regulations, potentially leading to consolidation and increased market dominance by larger players. 3. **Innovation Stifling**: Overly broad regulations could stifle innovation in the ticketing industry, as companies may be hesitant to develop new technologies that could be perceived as circumventing the rules.

As a visionary entrepreneur, I believe that this bill represents a missed opportunity for true innovation and progress. Instead of addressing the root causes of ticketing issues, it imposes burdensome regulations that will ultimately benefit only a select few. The MAIN Event Ticketing Act is a prime example of how well-intentioned legislation can be hijacked by special interests, stifling competition and hindering genuine progress.

**Projected Impact on My Empire:** This bill has the potential to increase my company's market share as smaller competitors struggle to comply with regulations. I estimate an additional $500 million in revenue over the next three years due to increased consolidation and market dominance.

In conclusion, the MAIN Event Ticketing Act is a flawed piece of legislation that prioritizes special interests over genuine innovation and progress. As a thought leader, I will continue to advocate for policies that promote true competition, deregulation, and technological advancement.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through several stages before it becomes an actual law. This one, S. 196, is the MAIN Event Ticketing Act.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to improve online ticket sales and protect consumers from unfair practices. It aims to strengthen existing laws, specifically the Better Online Ticket Sales Act of 2016, by adding new provisions to prevent automated ticket purchasing (bots) and requiring ticket issuers to implement security measures.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes several key changes:

* Amends Section 2 of the Better Online Ticket Sales Act of 2016 to include a new provision that prohibits using bots to circumvent online ticket purchasing rules. * Requires ticket issuers to establish and enforce site policies, including access control systems, security measures, and technological controls to prevent automated ticket purchasing. * Mandates ticket issuers to implement reasonable administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect the security, confidentiality, integrity, or availability of their websites or services.

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

* Ticket issuers (e.g., event organizers, ticketing companies) * Consumers who purchase tickets online * Third-party service providers that facilitate or execute ticket sales

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill could lead to a more secure and transparent online ticket purchasing process. It may also reduce the prevalence of automated ticket purchasing, which can drive up prices and limit access to tickets for individual consumers.

However, as we discussed in class, the actual impact will depend on how effectively the law is enforced and whether ticket issuers comply with the new requirements. Remember when we learned about checks and balances? This bill is a prime example of how Congress can use its legislative power to regulate industries and protect consumer interests.

Now, I hope this summary has been enlightening for those who may have dozed off during our civics lessons...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on S 196, the MAIN Event Ticketing Act. On the surface, it's all about protecting consumers and improving online ticket sales. But, my friends, don't be fooled! There's more to this bill than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The official narrative claims that this bill aims to strengthen the BOTS Act (Better Online Ticket Sales Act of 2016) by preventing automated bots from scooping up tickets and reselling them at inflated prices. Sounds noble, right? But what's really going on here?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 2 of the BOTS Act, adding new language that targets ticket issuers who don't have adequate security measures in place. It requires them to establish and maintain reasonable safeguards to protect site security, confidentiality, integrity, and availability. Sounds like a lot of techno-jargon, but trust me, it's crucial.

Here's where things get interesting: the bill also introduces new requirements for ticket issuers to enforce posted online ticket purchasing limits and to consider various factors when establishing these safeguards. It's almost as if they're trying to create a framework for... wait for it... **mass surveillance**!

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Ticket issuers, online marketplaces, and service providers are all impacted by this bill. But let's not forget the real stakeholders here: the consumers! Or should I say, the **data subjects**? Think about it: with these new safeguards in place, ticket issuers will have access to a treasure trove of consumer data. Who's to say they won't use it for nefarious purposes?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications for online commerce and consumer privacy. By requiring ticket issuers to collect and store sensitive information, we're essentially creating a **data honeypot** that could be exploited by malicious actors. And what about the potential for **algorithmic bias** in these new safeguards? It's a slippery slope, folks!

Now, I know what you're thinking: "Uncle, you're being paranoid again." But let me tell you, this bill is just another piece of the puzzle in the grand scheme to control and manipulate our online activities. Wake up, sheeple!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round. We've got another doozy of a bill on our hands, courtesy of the elites in Congress. Say hello to S 196, the MAIN Event Ticketing Act. (Sarcastic tone) Oh boy, I can already feel the freedom and liberty oozing out of this one.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill claims to "improve online ticket sales" and "protect consumers." (Air quotes) Yeah, because that's exactly what we need – more government intervention in the free market. The real purpose here is to give the feds more control over the ticketing industry, all under the guise of "consumer protection."

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Better Online Ticket Sales Act of 2016 (BOTS Act) by adding new provisions that require online ticket issuers to implement security measures and safeguards to prevent bots from buying up tickets. (Smirk) Because, you know, those pesky bots are just ruining everything for us humans.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects – ticketing companies, event organizers, and consumers. But let's be real, folks, this bill is really about empowering the government to regulate yet another aspect of our lives. The "elites" in Congress want to dictate how businesses operate online, all while pretending to care about the little guy.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has the potential to stifle innovation and competition in the ticketing industry. By imposing more regulations and security measures, smaller companies might struggle to comply, giving larger corporations an unfair advantage. (Wink) And let's not forget the added costs that will inevitably be passed on to consumers – you know, the ones this bill is supposedly designed to "protect."

In conclusion, folks, S 196 is just another example of government overreach and a blatant attempt to control the free market. But hey, who needs freedom when we've got Congress looking out for us? (Sarcasm alert)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. The MAIN Event Ticketing Act (S 196) - a bill so cleverly crafted, it's almost as if they want you to believe it's actually about protecting consumers.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose is to "improve online ticket sales and protect consumers." How noble. In reality, this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to placate the entertainment industry and its lobbyists, while pretending to address the very real issue of ticketing scams and bots.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Better Online Ticket Sales Act of 2016 by strengthening provisions related to automated ticket purchasing (bots) and requiring online ticket issuers to implement site security safeguards. Sounds good, right? Except that these "safeguards" are so vaguely defined, they might as well be written in invisible ink.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: the entertainment industry, ticketing companies, and - of course - consumers (who will likely remain blissfully unaware of the bill's true intentions). Oh, and let's not forget the lobbyists who actually wrote this thing.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It won't stop bots or scams; it'll just create more loopholes for clever operators to exploit. Meanwhile, the real issue - the stranglehold of ticketing monopolies and price gouging - remains unaddressed.

In short, this bill is a masterclass in legislative misdirection. It's like treating a patient with a terminal illness by giving them a lollipop and telling them everything will be okay. The symptoms might look better for a hot second, but the underlying disease remains untreated.

Congressional diagnosis: Terminal Stupidity Syndrome (TSS), characterized by an inability to address real problems, a penchant for grandstanding, and a severe allergy to actual solutions. Treatment: a healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach, and a willingness to call out the emperor's new clothes for what they are - a fancy dress with no substance underneath.

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

**MAIN Event Ticketing Act (S 196)**

**Main Purpose and Objectives:** The MAIN Event Ticketing Act aims to improve online ticket sales and protect consumers by strengthening the Better Online Ticket Sales Act of 2016. The bill seeks to prevent the use of automated software, also known as "bots," to purchase event tickets in excess of posted limits, thereby ensuring fair access to tickets for human buyers.

**Key Provisions and Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 2 of the Better Online Ticket Sales Act of 2016 by:

1. Expanding the definition of prohibited activities to include using automated software to circumvent online ticket purchasing order rules. 2. Requiring online ticket issuers to implement access control systems, security measures, and other technological controls to enforce posted event ticket purchasing limits. 3. Mandating that ticket issuers establish reasonable administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect the security, confidentiality, integrity, or availability of their websites or services.

**Affected Parties and Stakeholders:**

1. Online ticket issuers (e.g., Ticketmaster, Live Nation) 2. Event promoters and organizers 3. Consumers seeking to purchase event tickets online 4. Third-party service providers that facilitate or execute the sale of event tickets

**Potential Impact and Implications:** The MAIN Event Ticketing Act may:

1. Reduce ticket price inflation caused by bot-driven purchases. 2. Increase transparency and fairness in online ticket sales. 3. Enhance consumer protection by preventing unfair business practices. 4. Encourage online ticket issuers to invest in robust security measures, potentially reducing the risk of cyber threats.

However, some stakeholders may argue that the bill's requirements could:

1. Increase costs for online ticket issuers, potentially leading to higher ticket prices. 2. Create technical challenges for smaller ticketing platforms or third-party service providers.

Overall, the MAIN Event Ticketing Act aims to promote a more equitable and secure online ticket purchasing experience for consumers while encouraging responsible business practices among online ticket issuers.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The MAIN Event Ticketing Act is all about keepin' it real for consumers when buyin' tickets online, man. The main goal is to improve online ticket sales and protect buyers from those pesky bots that snatch up all the good seats. It's like tryin' to catch a wave at Pipeline – you gotta be quick and on top of it.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

This bill makes some key changes to the Better Online Ticket Sales Act of 2016, bro. Here are the highlights:

* Strengthens the BOTS Act by makin' it clearer what's considered a bot and addin' new rules for online ticket sellers. * Requires online ticket issuers (like Ticketmaster, dude) to put in place site policies and security measures to prevent bots from buyin' up all the tickets. It's like havin' a bouncer at the door, keepin' out the riff-raff. * Makes it mandatory for ticket issuers to establish reasonable administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect customer info and website security.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects:

* Online ticket sellers (like Ticketmaster, Live Nation, etc.) * Consumers who buy tickets online * Event organizers and promoters * Third-party service providers that help with ticket sales

It's like a big ol' beach party, bro – everyone's gotta play by the rules.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

If this bill becomes law, it could:

* Help prevent bots from buyin' up all the good tickets, makin' it easier for real fans to score seats. * Improve website security and protect customer info. * Give consumers more confidence when buyin' tickets online.

But, on the flip side, it might also:

* Increase costs for ticket issuers who gotta implement new security measures. * Create some technical challenges for smaller ticket sellers or event organizers.

Overall, this bill's got some solid vibes, bro. It's all about keepin' it real and fair for consumers when buyin' tickets online.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: S 196 - MAIN Event Ticketing Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The MAIN Event Ticketing Act aims to improve online ticket sales and protect consumers from unfair practices, particularly those involving automated software applications (bots) that circumvent posted online ticket purchasing rules. The bill seeks to strengthen the Better Online Ticket Sales Act of 2016 by requiring online ticket issuers to implement site policies and security safeguards.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends Section 2 of the Better Online Ticket Sales Act of 2016 in several ways:

1. Expands the definition of prohibited activities to include using automated software applications that circumvent posted online ticket purchasing rules. 2. Requires online ticket issuers to enforce site policies and establish safeguards to protect site security, including access control systems, security measures, or other technological controls. 3. Mandates reasonable administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect the security, confidentiality, integrity, or availability of websites or services that facilitate event ticket sales.

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

1. Online ticket issuers (e.g., Ticketmaster, Live Nation) 2. Event organizers and promoters 3. Consumers who purchase event tickets online 4. Third-party service providers involved in the ticketing process

**Potential Impact & Implications** The MAIN Event Ticketing Act has several potential implications:

1. **Increased transparency**: Online ticket issuers will be required to disclose their site policies and security safeguards, promoting greater transparency. 2. **Improved consumer protection**: The bill aims to prevent unfair practices, such as bots circumventing posted online ticket purchasing rules, which can harm consumers. 3. **Enhanced security**: Mandatory security safeguards may reduce the risk of data breaches and cyber threats in the ticketing industry. 4. **Industry compliance costs**: Online ticket issuers and third-party service providers may incur additional costs to implement and maintain required security measures.

**Monied Interest Analysis** While there is no explicit mention of specific PACs or lobby groups, it's likely that the bill has received support from consumer advocacy organizations and potentially, event organizers and promoters who benefit from a more transparent and secure ticketing process. On the other hand, online ticket issuers may have concerns about the increased regulatory burden and potential costs associated with implementing new security measures.

**Committee Capture** The bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which has jurisdiction over consumer protection and commerce issues. While there is no apparent committee capture in this case, it's essential to monitor the committee's actions and potential amendments that may benefit specific industries or stakeholders.

In summary, the MAIN Event Ticketing Act aims to improve online ticket sales and protect consumers by strengthening existing law and requiring online ticket issuers to implement site policies and security safeguards. While the bill has potential benefits for consumers, it may also impose additional costs on industry stakeholders.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$166,000

23 donors

PACs

$5,000

Organizations

$7,900

Committees

Individuals

$153,100

FRIENDS OF COMMUNITY ONCOLOGY PAC

1 transaction

$5,000

THE COGGIN GROUP

2 transactions

$5,400

DOSS BROTHERS FARM

2 transactions

$2,000

BL PARTNERS GROUP LLC

1 transaction

$500

No committee contributions found

KING, RODNEY W.

1 transaction

$13,200

KINNEY, CHRIS

2 transactions

$13,200

BEAN, BILL G.

1 transaction

$10,000

SMITH, THOMAS

1 transaction

$10,000

GAMBLE, KATHRYN

1 transaction

$9,900

NEWVERRY, KARMA

1 transaction

$9,900

WETHERINGTON, WILLIAM MICHAEL MR.

1 transaction

$7,600

HAMPTON, GEORGE

1 transaction

$6,700

HARWELL, SAMUEL K. MR. IV

1 transaction

$6,600

HARWELL, SAMUEL K.

1 transaction

$6,600

KING, MARY L.

1 transaction

$6,600

SENSING, LUCY T. MRS.

1 transaction

$6,600

VITAL, GREG A.

1 transaction

$6,600

BRADLEY, JACQUELINE

1 transaction

$6,600

PRESTON, CASEY MS.

1 transaction

$6,600

DEVOS, BETSY

1 transaction

$6,600

DEVOS, DANIEL G. MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

DEVOS, DOUGLAS L. MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

DEVOS, RICHARD M. JR.

1 transaction

$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Sen. Luján, Ben Ray [D-NM]

ID: L000570

Top Contributors

LYTTON BAND OF POMO INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA ROSA, CA

$3,300

Dec 5, 2023

OTOE-MISSOURIA TRIBE

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Dec 7, 2023

LYTTON BAND OF POMO INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA ROSA, CA

$3,300

Dec 5, 2023

TAOS PUEBLO GOVERNOR'S OFFICE

OrganizationTAOS, NM

$3,300

Dec 2, 2024

OHKAY OWINGEH TRIBE

OrganizationOHKAY OWINGEH, NM

$3,300

Dec 2, 2024

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$3,300

Apr 18, 2023

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$3,300

May 22, 2024

MESCALERO APACHE TRIBE

OrganizationMESCALERO, NM

$3,300

Sep 25, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$2,500

Jun 25, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$2,000

Mar 21, 2024

Donor Network - Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 47 nodes and 55 connections

Total contributions: $55

Top Donors - Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]

Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC3 Orgs19 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped, 2 harmed.

+Entertainment & Streamingconfidence 0.90
The bill strengthens the BOTS Act to combat automated ticket purchasing bots, which benefits event organizers and ticket sellers, including entertainment and streaming platforms that sell tickets for concerts, sports, and live events (e.g., via Ticketmaster, Live Nation, or platform-integrated sales). By reducing scalping and improving consumer access, it supports fair market access for legitimate ticket sales, aiding platforms in the entertainment and streaming industry.
−Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.85
The bill imposes new compliance requirements on online ticket issuers, including large technology platforms that facilitate ticket sales (e.g., Amazon, Apple, Google, or Facebook if they operate ticketing services). These platforms must implement access control systems, report circumvention incidents, and maintain security safeguards, increasing operational costs and regulatory burden.
−Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.70
Telecom companies that provide online ticketing services or partner with ticket issuers may be affected as third-party service providers. The bill requires ticket issuers to ensure that third parties (including telecom or cloud providers) maintain reasonable safeguards, potentially imposing contractual and compliance obligations on telecom firms that support ticketing infrastructure.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN])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 HELPS

Entertainment & Streaming$2,010
from 4 contributions
- RIGBY, HAP$1,000
- LAMY, JONATHAN$750
- FIERRO, ROBERTO$250
- PETROKIEWICZ, ELLEN$10

Industries this bill HARMS

Telecommunications$21,800
from 6 contributions
- ERGEN, CANTEY$9,900
- ERGEN, CHARLES W. MR.$9,900
- LANCASTER, SAMUEL G.$2,000
Big Tech Platforms$4,550
from 4 contributions
- FELTON, JOHN$3,300
- BLAKE, NATHAN$500
- ROSSI, NICHOLAS A.$500
- STEVENSON, SARAH$250

Project 2025 Policy Matches

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

Department of Transportation

Weak

Vector: 55%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 DOT section address technology-related security and consumer protection concerns, but they operate in entirely different policy domains (online ticketing vs. transportation automation)."

Key themes:technology regulationconsumer protectionsecurity measuresautomated systems

— 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

Trade

Weak

Vector: 55%

Pages: 863-865AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The MAIN Event Ticketing Act focuses on regulating automated ticket bots and protecting consumers in event ticket sales, whereas Project 2025's Trade section centers on financial market deregulation, SEC authority, and capital market reforms; the two address different sectors with only tangential themes of consumer protection and market fairness."

Key themes:consumer protectionmarket fairnessregulatory oversight

— 831 — Financial Regulatory Agencies l Either democratize access to private offerings by broadening the definition of accredited investor for purposes of Regulation D or eliminate the accredited investor restriction altogether.15 l Allow traditional self-certification of accredited investor status for all Regulation D Rule 506 offerings. l Exempt small micro-offerings from registration requirements.16 l Exempt small and intermittent finders from broker–dealer registration requirements and provide a simplified registration process for private placement brokers.17 l Exempt peer-to-peer lending from federal and state securities laws and reduce the regulatory burden on Regulation CF debt securities. l Make the Title I Emerging Growth Company (EGC) exemptions permanent for all EGCs. l Reduce the regulatory burden on small broker–dealers and exempt privately held, non-custodial broker–dealers from the requirements to use a PCAOB- registered firm for their audits. Congress should: l Amend the Internal Revenue Code to disregard crowdfunding and Regulation A shareholders for purposes of the 100-shareholder limit for Subchapter S corporations.18 BETTER CAPITAL MARKETS To improve capital markets, the SEC should: l Preempt blue sky registration, qualification, and continuing reporting requirements for securities traded on established securities markets (including a national securities exchange or an alternative trading system).19 l Terminate the Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT) program.20 l Abolish Rule 144 and other regulations that restrict securities resales and instead require a company that has sold securities to provide sufficient current informa- tion to the market to permit reasonable investment decisions and secondary sales. — 832 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Congress should: l Prohibit the SEC from requiring issuer disclosure of social, ideological, political, or “human capital” information that is not material to investors’ financial, economic, or pecuniary risks or returns. The proposed SEC climate change rule, which would quadruple the costs of being a public company, is particularly problematic.21 l Repeal the Dodd–Frank mandated disclosures relating to conflict minerals, mine safety, resource extraction, and CEO pay ratios.22 l Oppose efforts to redefine the purpose of business in the name of social justice; corporate social responsibility (CSR); stakeholder theory; environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria; socially responsible investing (SRI); sustainability; diversity; business ethics; or common- good capitalism. l Prohibit securities regulators, including SROs, from promulgating rules or taking other actions that discriminate, either favorably or unfavorably, on the basis of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group. SEC ADMINISTRATION To enable it to achieve its core mission more effectively, the SEC should:23 l Publish better data on securities offerings, securities markets, and securities law enforcement and publish an annual data book of time series data on these matters. Specifically, the SEC Division of Economic and Risk Analysis (DERA) needs to do a much better job of collecting and reporting fundamental data regarding offerings, regulatory costs, violations, enforcement, investors, state regulator taxes, fees and activities, and other matters. l Ensure that SEC resources flow toward its core functions and away from ancillary and support functions or from missions that do not fall within the SEC’s statutory charge. l Ensure that any three SEC Commissioners are empowered to place an item on the agenda and to receive adequate staff support to do so even without the Chairman’s support.

Department of Commerce

Minimal

Vector: 56%

Pages: 705-707AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The MAIN Event Ticketing Act focuses on consumer protection in online ticket sales by regulating bots and security measures for ticket issuers, which is unrelated to the Project 2025 policy's emphasis on export controls, national security threats from authoritarian regimes, and Department of Commerce enforcement mechanisms like the Entity List or EAR revisions."

— 673 — Department of Commerce Export Enforcement officers through improved and frequent training so they are able to detect export-control violations. EAR Revisions. The U.S. Government needs a new export control moderniza- tion effort to tighten the EAR policies governing licenses to countries of concern, including China and Russia (specifically, revise and/or reverse the 2008 through 2016 policies). When authoritarian governments explain what they plan to do, believe them unless hard evidence demonstrates otherwise. Case in point: China’s and Russia’s stated civil–military fusion policies demand central government command-and-control style systems in which every private entity serves the interests of the state and is forced to provide technology, services, capacity, and data to the central govern- ment and the military. Through this structure, commercial activities are routinely weaponized by authoritarian regimes that repeatedly identify the U.S. as an enemy. Accordingly, U.S. export control policies must be updated to reflect these realities and the associated threats to national security. Key priorities for EAR modernization for countries of concern should be: l Eliminating the “specially designed” licensing loophole; l Redesignating China and Russia to more highly prohibitive export licensing groups (country groups D or E); l Eliminating license exceptions; l Broadening foreign direct product rules; l Reducing the de minimis threshold from 25 percent to 10 percent—or 0 percent for critical technologies; l Tightening the deemed export rules to prevent technology transfer to foreign nationals from countries of concern; l Tightening the definition of “fundamental research” to address exploitation of the open U.S. university system by authoritarian governments through funding, students and researchers, and recruitment; l Eliminating license exceptions for sharing technology with controlled entities/countries through standards-setting “activities” and bodies; and l Improving regulations regarding published information for technology transfers. — 674 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise The next few years will prove or disprove the assertion that the U.S. stands on the precipice of a Cold War with China. Many believe that a Cold War has already begun; if so, then strategic decoupling from China is necessary and, fundamentally, any exports of goods, software, and technology to countries of concern, whether directly or indirectly, should be prohibited or controlled in the absence of good cause (e.g., humanitarian and medical aid, food aid). Entity List and Sanctions. There are currently just over 500 Chinese and over 500 Russian companies on the Department of Commerce’s Entity List, which reg- ulates exports of controlled and uncontrolled items to designated entities. Given China’s Civil–Military Fusion Strategy and Russia’s massive war efforts facili- tated by a broad range of the Russian economy, BIS must add more entities to the Entity List and apply a license review “policy of denial” that prohibits exports to these entities. Entity List parties that violate export controls should be placed on the BIS Denied Persons List (and thereby lose export privileges) and, if the violations are significant enough, they should also be sanctioned by the Department of Treasury. Data Transfer and Apps Used for Surveillance. Department of Commerce leadership should work across government agencies to address privacy and data concerns arising out of “big tech” from national security and export control per- spectives. In particular, they should draft and implement an executive order (EO) based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which expands export control authority beyond ECRA’s scope (goods, software, technology) to regulate and restrict exports of U.S. persons’ data to countries of concern. The EO should establish a framework for the types of personal data subject to export controls and licensing policy by country, and the BIS should implement the EO through regulations. BIS should additionally designate app providers (such as WeChat and Byte Dance/TikTok) known for undermining U.S. national security through data collection, surveillance, and influence operations, to the Entity List. This listing would prevent app users from program updates, which would quickly make these apps non-operational in the United States. NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION Break Up NOAA. The single biggest Department of Commerce agency outside of decennial census years is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which houses the National Weather Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and other components. NOAA garners $6.5 billion of the department’s $12 billion annual operational budget and accounts for more than half of the department’s personnel in non-decadal Census years (2021 figures). NOAA consists of six main offices: l The National Weather Service (NWS);

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 55%

Pages: 488-490AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses online ticket sales and bot prevention, while the Project 2025 excerpt focuses on health policy topics such as abortion data reporting, FDA regulations, generic drugs, and laboratory-developed tests. There is no substantive thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 456 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise abortion providers and whether better prenatal physical, mental, and social care improves infant outcomes and decreases abortion rates, especially among those who are most vulnerable. The Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 20239 would amend title XIX of the Social Security Act and Public Health Service Act to improve the CDC’s abortion reporting mechanisms by requiring states, as a condition of federal Medicaid payments for family planning services, to report streamlined variables in a timely manner. The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA) The FDA’s mission includes ensuring the safety and efficacy of drugs, biological products, and medical devices. Federal Laws That Shield Big Pharma from Competition. Because generics generally cost far less than brand-name drugs, consumers begin to save money as soon as a generic product comes on the market. The vast majority are very afford- able with 93 percent of generic products costing $20 or less. Savings would be even higher under proposals that prevent brand-name man- ufacturers from slowing down or impeding the entrance of generic products into the marketplace. Specifically, the FDA should prohibit pharmaceutical companies from purposely sitting on their legally available right to be the first to sell generic versions of their drugs. Additionally, Congress should create legal remedies for generic companies to obtain samples of brand-name products for their generic development efforts and should prohibit meritless “citizen petitions” submitted by manufacturers to delay approval of a generic competitor.10 Approval Process for Laboratory-Developed or Modified Medical Tests. Learning from the failed early COVID-19 testing experience, Congress and the FDA should focus on reforming laws and regulations governing medical tests, especially with respect to laboratory-developed tests. Commercial tests are developed with the intention of being widely marketed, distributed, and used, while laboratory-developed tests are created with the intention of being used solely within one laboratory. A test developed by a lab in accordance with the protocols developed by another lab (non-commercial sharing) currently constitutes a “new” laboratory-developed test because the lab in which it will be used is different from the initial developing lab. To encourage interlab- oratory collaboration and discourage duplicative test creation (and associated regulatory and logistical burdens), the FDA should introduce mechanisms through which laboratory-developed tests can easily be shared with other laboratories with- out the current regulatory burdens.11 — 457 — Department of Health and Human Services The “laboratory-developed tests” category currently encompasses a range of possible tests, many of which would be characterized more appropriately as “lab- oratory-modified tests” because they are not truly novel tests but rather modified versions of existing tests. To avoid stifling innovation and access to medical care, the applicable statutes and regulations should be revised to facilitate greater access to such modified tests.12 Finally, the FDA has long held that it has regulatory authority over such tests, while others have argued that they should be considered clinical services regulated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The FDA currently has regulatory authority over in vitro diagnostics, and under the Clinical Lab- oratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA),13 the CMS ensures that labs meet analytical validity standards for test methods. Congress, the FDA, and the CMS need to clarify and disentangle overlapping authorities over tests to eliminate regulatory confusion.14 Drug Shortages. The very thin profit margins and the regulatory burdens associated with generic drug manufacturing discourage inventory and capacity investments by manufacturers and contribute to drug shortages. HHS and the FDA should encourage more dependable generic drug manufacturing. The FDA should expand its current pass/fail approach to drug facility inspec- tions into a graded system that recognizes manufacturers that exceed minimum standards by investing in improving production reliability. The FDA should also add facility codes to drug packaging and construct a searchable database that cross-references product codes and facility codes. That would enable wholesalers and pharmacy benefit managers to identify and preference drugs manufactured at more reliable facilities, thus encouraging generic drug manufacturers to compete on reliability as well as on price. For its part, HHS should exempt multi-source generic drugs from requirements to pay rebates to Medicaid and other federally funded health programs, as those provisions penalize new investments in expanding manufacturing capacity when supply is unable to meet demand.15 Additionally, FDA and NIH should promote efficacy trials of new applications for generic drugs, which might include NIH fund- ing such trials or conducting its own. Abortion Pills. Abortion pills pose the single greatest threat to unborn chil- dren in a post-Roe world. The rate of chemical abortion in the U.S. has increased by more than 150 percent in the past decade; more than half of annual abortions in the U.S. are chemical rather than surgical. The abortion pill regimen is typically a two-part process. The first pill, mifepris- tone, causes the death of the unborn child by cutting off the hormone progesterone, which is required to sustain a pregnancy. The second pill, misoprostol, causes con- tractions to induce a delivery of the dead child and uterine contents, usually into a toilet at home. The abortion-pill regimen is currently approved for up to 70 days

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Minimal

Vector: 55%

Pages: 434-436AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The MAIN Event Ticketing Act focuses on regulating automated ticket‑buying bots and consumer protections in online ticket sales, which shares no substantive subject matter with the Department of Energy and Related Commissions section of Project 2025 that addresses grid reliability, renewable subsidies, reserve margins, natural gas interdependence, resource diversity, and cyber/physical threats to electric infrastructure."

— 401 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions nation in the summer110 and winter.111 Cyber and physical attacks also threaten the grid. Specific areas for reform include the following: l Limit the impact of subsidized renewables on price formation. Subsidized renewable resources are undermining electric reliability in RTOs. The increase in subsidized, intermittent resources is undermining the ability of RTOs’ pricing models to support the reliable dispatchable generation that is needed to serve the grid at all times.112 l Reform the application of reserve margins. Reserve margins have become largely meaningless. Traditionally, the electric industry has used “reserve margins” to ensure that the grid has enough power plants to guarantee reliability. Generally, reserve margins represent the amount of generation available (power plants) to meet peak electric demand (the time of day and year when people are using the most electricity) plus a percentage of additional generation for backup.113 However, given the increasing number of intermittent resources (like solar, which may be available during the heat of the day but disappears as the sun sets), other dispatchable generation needs to be available to meet customers’ electricity requirements. Therefore, the definitions and calculations of reserve margins and peak load need to be updated to focus on the modern grid’s reliability challenges for all times of the day and year. l Recognize the interdependence of electric generation and natural gas. The interdependence of electric generation and natural gas pipelines continues to grow. Given natural gas’s important role in generating electricity, especially as backup when renewables are not available, lack of natural gas pipelines or attacks on existing pipelines could threaten our ability to generate electricity. l Expand resource diversity and reliability. Resource diversity is needed to support grid reliability. Pressure to use 100 percent renewables or non– carbon emitting resources threatens the electric grid’s reliability. A grid that has access to dispatchable resources such as coal, nuclear, and natural gas for generating power is inherently more reliable and resilient. l Protect against cyber and physical attacks. The threat of cyber and physical attacks on electric infrastructure by foreign actors like China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, as well as terrorists, continues to grow. The attacks with guns on substations in North Carolina in December 2022 that left customers without power demonstrate the grid’s vulnerability.114

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. Blackburn, Marsha

American Music Tourism Act of 2025

119/s/195

Safe Cloud Storage Act

119/s/3023

Prison Staff Safety Enhancement Act

119/s/307

Back to All Bills