A bill to amend the Digital Coast Act to improve the acquisition, integration, and accessibility of data of the Digital Coast program and to extend the program.

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/2245

Last Updated: September 7, 2026

A bill to amend the Digital Coast Act to improve the acquisition, integration, and accessibility of data of the Digital Coast program and to extend the program.

S. 2245, 119th Congress — read as touching Big Tech Platforms.

The sponsor

Sen. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI]

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

The money

$83,000 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Energy and Related Commissions" section, p. 443-445 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.

March 2, 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

Summary Style:

The S 2245 bill, an amendment to the Digital Coast Act. A minor tweak in the grand tapestry of legislation, but one that warrants attention nonetheless.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill aims to enhance the acquisition, integration, and accessibility of data within the Digital Coast program, a federal initiative focused on coastal mapping and management. The primary objective is to improve data sharing, accessibility, and training for stakeholders.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The amendments include:

* Expanding data availability to include underground infrastructure and subsurface utilities * Limiting trainings to technical instruction in the use of data and tools provided under this section * Extending the program's duration from 2025 to 2030

These changes are incremental, but they demonstrate a growing recognition of the importance of data-driven decision-making in coastal management.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The primary stakeholders include:

* Federal agencies involved in coastal management and mapping (e.g., NOAA, USGS) * State and local governments with coastal jurisdictions * Private companies operating in the coastal zone (e.g., offshore energy, shipping)

These parties will benefit from improved data access and integration, which can inform more effective decision-making and resource allocation.

**Potential Impact & Implications** From a strategic perspective, this bill offers opportunities for consolidation and growth. By enhancing data sharing and accessibility, we may see increased collaboration between federal agencies, state governments, and private companies. This could lead to:

* Improved efficiency in coastal management and development * Enhanced competitiveness for companies operating in the coastal zone * Potential cost savings through reduced duplication of efforts

However, I must emphasize that these benefits are contingent upon the bill's implementation and the willingness of stakeholders to adapt.

As a visionary entrepreneur, I recognize the potential for this bill to catalyze innovation and growth. By streamlining data access and integration, we can unlock new opportunities for coastal development and management. My think tank, the "Liberty Institute," has projected that these changes could yield an estimated $500 million in economic benefits over the next five years.

In conclusion, while S 2245 is a relatively minor bill, its implications are significant. By embracing data-driven decision-making and improving collaboration between stakeholders, we can drive growth, efficiency, and innovation in coastal management. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have more pressing matters to attend to – like optimizing my portfolio's exposure to the burgeoning offshore wind market.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

Let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through several stages before it becomes an actual law. This one, S. 2245, aims to amend the Digital Coast Act.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to improve the acquisition, integration, and accessibility of data within the Digital Coast program. Remember when we learned about the importance of data-driven decision-making in government? This bill seeks to enhance that process by making data more readily available and accessible.

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

* It amends Section 4 of the Digital Coast Act to require that data be "fully and freely available" ( subsection b(1)). This is a significant change, as it ensures that data will not only be accessible but also easily usable. * It adds new language to subsection d(3) to include data related to underground infrastructure and subsurface utilities. This expansion of data scope should help improve the overall effectiveness of the Digital Coast program. * The bill extends the program's authorization from 2025 to 2030 (subsection g). As we discussed in class, reauthorization is a crucial aspect of ensuring programs continue to receive funding.

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

* The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which administers the Digital Coast program * State and local governments that rely on the program's data for coastal management decisions * Private companies and organizations involved in coastal development and conservation efforts

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is significant. By improving data accessibility and expanding the scope of data collected, the Digital Coast program can better support informed decision-making at all levels of government. This, in turn, could lead to more effective coastal management practices, improved public safety, and enhanced economic development opportunities.

Now, I hope that was a clear explanation. As we covered in 8th grade civics class, bills like this one are meant to improve existing laws and programs. It's essential to understand the legislative process and how it affects our daily lives.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The plot thickens, folks! Let me break down this so-called "Digital Coast Act" for you. On the surface, it's all about improving data acquisition and accessibility for some coastal program. But trust me, there's more to it.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill is supposedly designed to enhance the Digital Coast program by making its data more accessible and user-friendly. The government wants us to believe that this will help with coastal management, conservation, and even disaster response. Yeah, right! I think they're just trying to gather more intel on our coastlines.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill makes some "minor" changes to the existing law, including:

* Making data "fully and freely available" (whatever that means) * Adding language about underground infrastructure and subsurface utilities (hmm, sounds like they're planning something beneath our feet) * Limiting trainings to technical instruction only (no more free-thinking allowed!) * Extending the program until 2030 (because five years just wasn't enough time for their nefarious plans)

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The usual suspects are involved: government agencies, coastal management organizations, and "stakeholders" (read: corporations with deep pockets). But what about the average citizen? Don't we have a right to know what's really going on?

**Potential Impact & Implications** Here's where things get interesting. With this bill, the government will have unparalleled access to our coastlines, including sensitive information about underground infrastructure. What could they possibly want with that data? I'll tell you: it's all about control and surveillance.

Think about it: with this program, they can monitor coastal activities, track ocean currents, and even predict natural disasters. Sounds like a recipe for disaster (pun intended). And what about the extension until 2030? That gives them plenty of time to implement their true agenda.

Wake up, sheeple! This bill is just another example of the government's insatiable appetite for power and control. Mark my words: this Digital Coast Act will be used to manipulate our coastlines, suppress dissent, and further erode our civil liberties.

Now, pass the mashed potatoes, please.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, because we've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. S 2245, the Digital Coast Act amendment, is being touted as a harmless little tweak to improve data acquisition and accessibility for coastal communities. But let me tell you, it's so much more than that. (Wink)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated goal of this bill is to enhance the Digital Coast program by making its data more readily available and accessible to the public. Sounds great, right? I mean, who doesn't love a good dose of transparency and open government? But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 4 of the Digital Coast Act by inserting language that ensures data is "fully and freely available." (Air quotes) Oh, how noble. It also expands the types of data collected to include underground infrastructure and subsurface utilities. Now, I'm no expert, but doesn't this sound like a recipe for disaster? I mean, what could possibly go wrong with collecting sensitive information on our nation's critical infrastructure?

And let's not forget about the extension of the program from 2025 to 2030. Because, you know, five more years of bureaucratic red tape and wasteful spending is exactly what we need.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Coastal communities, environmental groups, and (gasp) big government agencies will all be impacted by this bill. But let's be real, folks, the real winners here are the elites – the ones who'll be making bank off of these "improved" data collection efforts.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a Trojan horse for more government overreach and control. Mark my words, it's just another step towards a surveillance state where our every move is tracked and monitored. And don't even get me started on the potential national security risks associated with collecting sensitive infrastructure data. It's a recipe for disaster, folks!

But hey, what do I know? Maybe I'm just being paranoid. (Sarcasm alert) After all, it's not like our government has ever abused its power or anything... (Rolls eyes)

So there you have it, folks – S 2245 in all its glory. A bill that's supposedly about transparency and accessibility but is really just another example of the deep state at work. Stay vigilant, America!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another exercise in legislative theater, courtesy of our esteemed Congress. Let's dissect this farce and expose the underlying disease.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of S 2245 is to extend the Digital Coast program, a noble-sounding endeavor that allegedly aims to improve the acquisition, integration, and accessibility of coastal data. How quaint. In reality, this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to line the pockets of special interest groups and further entrench bureaucratic inefficiencies.

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

* Inserting "fully and freely available" into the existing law, because who doesn't love a good dose of meaningless rhetoric? * Expanding the scope of data collection to include underground infrastructure and subsurface utilities. Because, you know, we didn't have enough ways to waste taxpayer dollars already. * Limiting trainings to technical instruction only, ensuring that our bureaucrats remain blissfully ignorant of any practical applications or real-world consequences.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved:

* Lobbyists for the tech and infrastructure industries, who will reap the benefits of this bill's largesse. * Bureaucrats at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), who will get to expand their empire and justify more funding. * Coastal communities, who might actually benefit from some semblance of competent data management, but won't.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact of this bill will be negligible, except for the following:

* It will create a new layer of bureaucratic red tape, ensuring that any actual progress is stifled by petty squabbles over data access and interpretation. * It will funnel more taxpayer dollars into the coffers of special interest groups, further enriching those who have already mastered the art of gaming the system. * It will provide a convenient excuse for politicians to claim they're "doing something" about coastal management, while actually accomplishing nothing.

In short, S 2245 is a textbook example of legislative malpractice. It's a symptom of a deeper disease: the chronic inability of our government to address real problems, instead opting for feel-good measures that only serve to further entrench the status quo. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than waste my time on this farce.

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

**Bill Summary: S 2245 - Digital Coast Act Amendments**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of S 2245 is to amend the Digital Coast Act to improve the acquisition, integration, and accessibility of data within the Digital Coast program. The bill aims to enhance the program's effectiveness in providing accurate and accessible coastal data for various stakeholders.

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

1. **Data Accessibility:** The bill amends Section 4 of the Digital Coast Act to require that data be "fully and freely available" in addition to being "readily accessible." 2. **Expanded Data Coverage:** The bill expands the types of data collected under the program to include information related to underground infrastructure and subsurface utilities. 3. **Training Limitations:** The bill limits trainings provided by the program to technical instruction in the use of data and tools, ensuring that resources are focused on practical applications. 4. **Program Extension:** The bill extends the Digital Coast program from 2025 to 2030, providing a longer-term commitment to coastal data management.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Coastal Communities:** Cities, towns, and villages along coastlines will benefit from improved access to accurate and comprehensive coastal data. 2. **Federal Agencies:** The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other federal agencies involved in coastal management will be impacted by the changes to data acquisition and integration processes. 3. **Private Sector:** Companies engaged in coastal development, construction, and environmental consulting may benefit from improved access to reliable coastal data.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Enhanced Coastal Resilience:** Improved data accessibility and accuracy can inform more effective decision-making for coastal communities, enhancing their resilience to natural disasters and climate change. 2. **Increased Efficiency:** Streamlined data acquisition and integration processes may reduce costs and improve the overall efficiency of coastal management efforts. 3. **Economic Benefits:** Accurate and accessible coastal data can support economic growth by facilitating informed investment decisions in coastal areas.

Overall, S 2245 aims to strengthen the Digital Coast program's ability to provide critical data for coastal communities, federal agencies, and private sector stakeholders, ultimately contributing to more effective coastal management and resilience.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's dive into this bill, S 2245, and break it down in a chill way.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill is all about updating the Digital Coast Act, which is like, a program that helps us understand our coastlines better. The main goal here is to improve how we collect, share, and use data related to our coasts. Think of it like trying to catch a sick wave – you need the right info to ride it smoothly.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill makes some key changes to the existing law:

* It ensures that data collected under the Digital Coast program is not only accessible but also "fully and freely available" (Section 1, subsection b). That's like saying, "Hey, bro, anyone can grab this data and use it for good." * It adds new types of data to be collected, including info on underground infrastructure and subsurface utilities (Section 1, subsection d). This is crucial for understanding the hidden stuff beneath our coastlines. * It limits trainings under the program to technical instruction only (Section 1, subsection d). Think of it like a surf lesson – you don't need to know everything about the ocean to catch a wave, just how to ride it. * It extends the program from 2025 to 2030 (Section 1, subsection g). That's like giving us more time to hang loose and get our coastlines in order.

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

* Coastal communities: They'll benefit from better data and insights on their coastlines. * Researchers and scientists: They'll have access to more comprehensive data for studying coastal ecosystems. * Government agencies: They'll be able to make more informed decisions about coastal management and conservation.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The potential impact of this bill is significant:

* Improved data collection and sharing can lead to better decision-making on coastal issues, like climate change and conservation. * Extended program duration gives us more time to address pressing coastal challenges. * However, there might be concerns about data management and security, as well as the potential for unequal access to this information.

In conclusion, S 2245 is all about upgrading our Digital Coast program to better understand and manage our coastlines. It's like catching a wave – we need the right info to ride it smoothly. This bill makes some key changes to improve data collection, sharing, and accessibility, which can have significant impacts on coastal communities, researchers, and government agencies. Just remember, bro, with great power comes great responsibility – let's make sure we use this data for good vibes only!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: S 2245 - Amending the Digital Coast Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of S 2245 is to improve the acquisition, integration, and accessibility of data within the Digital Coast program, a federal initiative aimed at providing coastal mapping and data services. The bill also extends the program's authorization until 2030.

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

1. **Data Accessibility:** The bill amends Section 4 of the Digital Coast Act to ensure that data is not only readily accessible but also "fully and freely available." This change may benefit researchers, policymakers, and the general public. 2. **Underground Infrastructure Data:** The legislation adds a provision requiring the inclusion of data related to underground infrastructure and subsurface utilities. This amendment likely benefits industries involved in construction, engineering, and urban planning. 3. **Training Limitations:** A new subsection (5) limits trainings provided under the program to technical instruction on using data and tools. This change may reduce costs associated with training programs. 4. **Program Extension:** The bill extends the Digital Coast program's authorization from 2025 to 2030, ensuring continued funding for coastal mapping and data services.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Coastal Communities:** Improved data accessibility and extended program authorization may benefit coastal communities by enhancing their ability to prepare for natural disasters and manage coastal resources. 2. **Research Institutions:** The increased availability of data may facilitate research on coastal ecosystems, climate change, and other related topics. 3. **Industry Stakeholders:** Companies involved in construction, engineering, and urban planning may benefit from access to underground infrastructure data.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased Transparency:** Improved data accessibility may lead to greater transparency in decision-making processes related to coastal management and development. 2. **Enhanced Research Opportunities:** The availability of comprehensive data may facilitate research on coastal ecosystems, ultimately informing policy decisions and management practices. 3. **Industry Influence:** The inclusion of underground infrastructure data may reflect the influence of industry stakeholders, such as construction and engineering companies, which may have lobbied for this provision.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** While no specific PACs or industry lobby groups are explicitly mentioned in the bill text, it is likely that organizations representing coastal communities, research institutions, and industries involved in construction and urban planning have influenced the legislation. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other federal agencies may also have played a role in shaping the bill's provisions.

**Committee Capture:** The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which has jurisdiction over coastal management and ocean policy issues, likely played a significant role in drafting and advancing this legislation. The committee's members may have received donations from industry stakeholders or PACs representing research institutions and coastal communities.

In conclusion, S 2245 aims to improve the Digital Coast program by enhancing data accessibility and extending its authorization

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$83,000

23 donors

PACs

$2,500

Organizations

$79,900

Committees

Individuals

WISCONSIN MEDICAL SOCIETY FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (WISMEDFEDPAC)

1 transaction

$2,500

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMM

2 transactions

$12,300

SMITH LACIEN LLP

2 transactions

$6,600

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

2 transactions

$6,600

HO-CHUNK NATION

2 transactions

$6,600

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$6,600

CHEROKEE NATION

2 transactions

$5,800

TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA

1 transaction

$5,000

SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY

1 transaction

$3,300

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE

1 transaction

$3,300

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

1 transaction

$3,300

ONEIDA TRIBE OF INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

THE CHICKASAW NATION

1 transaction

$2,100

MOHEGAN TRIBE OF INDIANS OF CONNECTICUT

1 transaction

$2,000

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$2,000

PAUL M HERTZMANN INC

2 transactions

$2,000

MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,500

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

1 transaction

$1,300

SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE

1 transaction

$1,000

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,000

WISCONSIN HOSPITALS CONDUIT

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

No individual contributions found

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]

ID: M001153

Top Contributors

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationAUBURN, WA

$3,300

May 15, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$2,500

Dec 20, 2023

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationAUBURN, WA

$1,000

Nov 20, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Oct 26, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jun 3, 2024

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationTACOMA, WA

$1,000

Sep 30, 2024

SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationSUQUAMISH, WA

$1,000

Sep 30, 2024

TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION

OrganizationSELLS, AZ

$1,000

Aug 9, 2024

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$550

Oct 26, 2023

SEGAL, PAUL

LS POWER DEVELOPMENT, LLC • CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Dec 16, 2023

Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK]

ID: S001198

Top Contributors

SEND IN THE SEAL PAC

PACALEXANDRIA, VA

$45,000

Aug 9, 2024

THE LINCOLN CLUB OF ORANGE COUNTY FEDERAL PAC

PACNEWPORT BEACH, CA

$25,000

Oct 18, 2024

SEND IN THE SEAL PAC

PACALEXANDRIA, VA

$15,000

Aug 9, 2024

WINRED

PACARLINGTON, VA

$6,600

Oct 19, 2023

RON JOHNSON VICTORY

COMOSHKOSH, WI

$1,997

Sep 30, 2024

MACLEAN-FOGG COMPANY

OrganizationMUNDELEIN, IL

$58,700

Dec 28, 2023

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$41,300

Dec 29, 2023

MACLEAN-FOGG COMPANY

OrganizationMUNDELEIN, IL

$41,300

Dec 28, 2023

PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE

OrganizationTUCSON, AZ

$41,300

Dec 29, 2023

TIGUA INDIAN RESERVATION

OrganizationEL PASO, TX

$41,300

Dec 19, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 67 nodes and 76 connections

Total contributions: $76

Top Donors - Sen. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI]

Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC21 Orgs1 Committee

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.

+Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.80
Section 1 of the bill improves data accessibility and integration, which could benefit big tech platforms that rely on such data for their services, although it does not explicitly mention them.
+Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.70
The amendment to include data related to underground infrastructure and subsurface utilities in Section 4(d)(3)(A)(i) might benefit telecommunications companies involved in broadband infrastructure development.
+AI & Cloud Infrastructureconfidence 0.60
Improved data accessibility could also aid AI and cloud infrastructure providers by enhancing their ability to process and analyze coastal and environmental data, as hinted at in the broader context of digital data management.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI])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

Big Tech Platforms$27,332
from 56 contributions
- ANDREWS, JEFFREY$3,300
- WEINBERGER, PETER$3,300
- TRUMBULL, ELIZABETH$3,300
- WALKER, KENT$3,300
- BLACK, EDWARD$2,000
Telecommunications$6,414
from 50 contributions
- MAXFIELD, MELISSA$1,500
- MORTER, CHRISTOPHER$600
- DUKOVICH, ADAM$550
- SCHUTTE, JOSEPH$500
- STRICKLAND, STEPHEN$500
AI & Cloud Infrastructure$6,400
from 7 contributions
- FISHER, WILLIAM$3,300
- FEENEY, PAUL$2,250
- RIVERA, JOLEEN$500
- WOLRICH, SAMUEL$300
- BORKOWSKI, SUSAN$50

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 Energy and Related Commissions

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 443-445AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on coastal data accessibility and infrastructure mapping, while the Project 2025 policy emphasizes energy security, cyber threats to the electric grid, and Department of Energy program restructuring. There is minimal thematic overlap, primarily limited to infrastructure resilience and data utility, but no direct alignment with energy-specific objectives."

Key themes:infrastructuredata accessibilityresilience

— 410 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. Sean Michael Kerner, “Colonial Pipeline Hack Explained: Everything You Need to Know,” TechTarget, April, 26, 2022, https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/feature/Colonial-Pipeline-hack-explained-Everything-you-need-to- know (accessed February 13, 2023). 2. Jacob Knutson, “N.C. Power Company: Substation Repairs Complete After Alleged Attack,” Axios, December 7, 2022, https://www.axios.com/2022/12/07/duke-energy-moore-county-substation-attack (accessed February 13, 2023). 3. H.R. 3684, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law No. 117-58, 117th Congress, November 15, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ58/PLAW-117publ58.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 4. H.R. 5376, Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-169, August 16, 2022, https://www.congress. gov/117/plaws/publ169/PLAW-117publ169.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 5. S. 826, Department of Energy Organization Act, Public Law 95-91, 95th Congress, August 4, 1977, https://www. congress.gov/95/statute/STATUTE-91/STATUTE-91-Pg565.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 6. DOE also promotes domestic energy security by providing research and coordination between government and the private sector on physical and cyber-related threats to energy security. This work should continue and be enhanced under the next Administration. 7. Elimination of OE, NE, FE, and EERE might also be considered; however, there are benefits from having political appointees run separate offices. Specifically, separate program offices can focus on threats that are unique to their energy areas, and having political appointees run separate offices helps to ensure focused, unobstructed pursuit of policy objectives. 8. H.R. 6586, Natural Gas Act, Public Law No. 75-688, 75th Congress, June 21, 1938, https://govtrackus. s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/52/STATUTE-52-Pg821a.pdf (accessed February 24, 2023). 9. U.S. Department of Energy, “Promoting Energy Justice,” https://www.energy.gov/promoting-energy-justice (accessed February 13, 2023). 10. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Economic Impact and Diversity, “Justice40 Initiative,” https://www. energy.gov/diversity/justice40-initiative (accessed February 13, 2023). 11. Press release, “DOE Releases First-Ever Plan to Advance Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility,” U.S. Department of Energy, September 1, 2022, https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-releases-first-ever-plan- advance-diversity-equity-inclusion-and-accessibility (accessed February 14, 2023). 12. Including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, etc. 13. Table, “Environmental Management: Lifecycle Cost by Project Baseline Summary (PBS) ($M),” in U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Volume 6, Environmental Management, April 2022, p. 53, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/ files/2022-09/doe-fy2023-budget-volume-6-em-v3.pd (accessed February 13, 2023). 14. KPMG, “Independent Auditor’s Report, United States Department of Energy Nuclear Waste Fund Annual Financial Report as of and for the Years Ended September 30, 2022 and 2021,” November 8, 2022, p. 8, in U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Inspector General, Office of Cyber Assessments and Data Analytics, Audit Report: The Department of Energy Nuclear Waste Fund’s Fiscal Year 2022 Financial Statement Audit, DOE- OIG-23-05, November 2022, p. 10, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/DOE-OIG-23-05.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 15. See Patty-Jane Geller, “U.S. Nuclear Weapons,” in 2023 Index of U.S. Military Strength, ed. Dakota L. Wood (Washington: The Heritage Foundation, 2023), pp. 481–506, http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/ Military_Index/2023_IndexOfUSMilitaryStrength.pdf. 16. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, March 2022, pp. 9, 21, 23, and 43, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/ files/2022-03/doe-fy2023-budget-in-brief-v2.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 17. H.R. 4346, CHIPS and Science Act, Public Law No. 117-167, 117th Congress, August 9, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ167/PLAW-117publ167.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 18. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, “About Us,” https://www.energy.gov/ceser/ceser-mission (accessed February 27, 2023). — 411 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions 19. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13920, “Securing the United States Bulk-Power System,” May 1, 2020, in Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 86 (May 4, 2020), pp. 26595–26599, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2020-05-04/pdf/2020-09695.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 20. 18 U.S. Code § 824a(c), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/824a (accessed February 27, 2023). 21. Report No. 117-98, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2022, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, 117th Cong. 1st Sess., July 20, 2021, p. 6, https:// www.congress.gov/117/crpt/hrpt98/CRPT-117hrpt98.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 22. H.R. 3684, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law No. 11-58, 117th Congress, November 15, 2021, Division J, Title III. 23. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, p. 7. 24. Timothy Gardner, “White House Asks Congress for $500 mln to Modernize Oil Reserve,” Reuters, November 16, 2022, https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-oil-spr-idAFL1N32C36I (accessed February 13, 2023). 25. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity, “Our History,” https://www.energy.gov/oe/about-us/our- history (accessed February 13, 2023). 26. Press release, “Secretary of Energy Signs Order to Mitigate Security Risks to the Nation’s Electric Grid,” U.S. Department of Energy, December 17, 2021, https://www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-energy-signs-order- mitigate-security-risks-nations-electric-grid (accessed February 13, 2023). 27. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity, “Revocation of Prohibition Order Securing Critical Defense Facilities,” Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 76 (April 22, 2021), pp. 21308–21309, https://www.govinfo.gov/ content/pkg/FR-2021-04-22/pdf/2021-08483.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 28. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 19 and 61. 29. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, “About Us,” https://www.energy.gov/ne/about-us (accessed February 13, 2023). 30. H.R. 3809, Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Public Law No. 97-425, 97th Congress, January 7, 1983, https:// www.congress.gov/97/statute/STATUTE-96/STATUTE-96-Pg2201.pdf (accessed February 24, 2023). 31. The Heritage Foundation, “Budget Blueprint for Fiscal Year 2023: Reduce the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy,” https://www.heritage.org/budget/pages/recommendations/1.270.127.html. 32. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 23 and 58. 33. 42 USC § 16291, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/16291 (accessed February 27, 2023). 34. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, “About Us: Mission,” https:// www.energy.gov/fecm/mission (accessed February 13, 2023). 35. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Carbon Capture and Storage: Actions Needed to Improve DOE Management of Demonstration Projects, GAO-22-105111, December2021, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22- 105111.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 36. International Energy Agency, The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions, World Energy Outlook Special Report, revised March 2022, https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ffd2a83b-8c30-4e9d-980a- 52b6d9a86fdc/TheRoleofCriticalMineralsinCleanEnergyTransitions.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 37. See 42 U.S. Code § 16291. 38. 42 U.S. Code Ch. 55, §§ 4321–4347, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-55 (accessed February 27, 2023). 39. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Categorical Exclusions from Environmental Review,” Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Request for Comment, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 87 (May 7, 2021), pp. 24514–24516, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-05-07/pdf/2021-09675.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Categorical Exclusions from Environmental Review,” Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Reopening of Comment Period, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 160 (August 23, 2021), pp. 47032–47033, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-08-23/pdf/2021-18058.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023). 40. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 19, 21, 23, and 52.

Department of Homeland Security

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 189-191AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on enhancing coastal data accessibility and coverage for resilience, while the Project 2025 DHS section centers on Coast Guard force structure, mission prioritization, and Secret Service reforms; they share only a broad maritime context but lack substantive policy overlap."

Key themes:coastal/maritime domainfederal agency coordination

— 156 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise New Policies The Coast Guard’s mission set should be scaled down to match congressio- nal budgeting in the long term, with any increased funding going to acquisitions based on an updated Fleet Mix Analysis. The current shipbuilding plan is insuf- ficient based on USCG analysis, and the necessary numbers of planned Offshore Patrol Cutters and National Security Cutters are not supported by congressional budgets. The Coast Guard should be required to submit to Congress a long-range shipbuilding plan modeled on the Navy’s 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan. Ideally this should become part of the Navy plan in a new comprehensive naval long-range shipbuilding plan to ensure better coherency in the services’ requirements. Outside of home waters, and following the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, the Coast Guard should prioritize limited resources to the nation’s expansive Pacific waters to counter growing Chinese influence and encroachment. Expansion of facilities in American Samoa and basing of cutters there is one clear step in this direction and should be accelerated; looking to free association states (Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands) for enhanced and persistent presence, assuming adequate congressional funding, is another such step. The Secretary of the Navy should convene a naval board to review and reset requirements for Coast Guard wartime mission support. To inform and validate these updated requirements, the Chief of Naval Operations and the Coast Guard Commandant should execute dedicated annual joint wartime drills focused on USCG’s wartime missions in the Pacific (the money for these activities should be allocated from DOD). An interagency maritime coordination office focused on developing and overseeing comprehensive efforts to advance the nation’s mari- time interests and increase its military and commercial competitiveness should be established. Given the USCG’s history of underfunded missions, if the Coast Guard is to con- tinue to maintain the Arctic mission, money to do so adequately will be required over and above current funding levels. Consideration should be given to shifting the Arctic mission to the Navy. Either way, the Arctic mission should be closely coordinated with our Canadian, Danish, and other allies. Personnel USCG is facing recruitment challenges similar to those faced by the military services. The Administration should stop the messaging on wokeness and diversity and focus instead on attracting the best talent for USCG. Simultaneously, consis- tent with the Department of Defense, USCG should also make a serious effort to re-vet any promotions and hiring that occurred on the Biden Administration’s watch while also re-onboarding any USCG personnel who were dismissed from service for refusing to take the COVID-19 “vaccine,” with time in service credited — 157 — Department of Homeland Security to such returnees. These two steps could be foundational for any improvements in the recruiting process. U.S. SECRET SERVICE (USSS) Needed Reforms The U.S. Secret Service must be the world’s best protective agency. Currently, the agency is distracted by its dual mission of protection and financial investigations. The result has been a long series of high-profile embarrassments and security fail- ures, perhaps most notably its allowing of then-Vice President-elect Kamala Harris to be inside the Democratic National Committee office on January 6, 2021, while a pipe bomb was outside. Despite the great size and scope of the January 6 inves- tigation, this high-profile incident of danger to a protectee remains unresolved. The failures of the USSS protective mission are too numerous to list here. A December 2015 bipartisan report from the House Oversight Committee listed dozens of such incidents as well as needed recommendations for reform.14 This chapter adopts those findings and recommendations in whole, especially the finding that USSS’s dual-mission structure detracts from the agency’s protective capabilities. At the time of that report, USSS agents spent only one-third of their work hours on protection-related activities as opposed to investigative activities. USSS was established initially to investigate counterfeit currency, but its mission has evolved over the decades to prioritize electronic financial crimes. For example, as this chap- ter was being written, all 15 of the USSS’s most wanted individuals were wanted for financial crimes, many of them international in nature. Notably, the last head of the agency left not for a protection-related job, but to be the Chief Security Officer of social media company SnapChat. This is a pattern that has developed over the years, with agents seeking to burnish their online financial crimes credentials to secure corporate security jobs. Coupled with some of the lowest morale in the federal government, the agency has completely lost sight of the primacy of its protective mission. New Policies USSS should transfer to the Department of Justice and Department of the Treasury all investigations that are not related to its protective function. It should begin the logistical operation of closing all field offices throughout the country and internationally to the extent they are not taken over by Treasury or Justice. USSS agents stationed outside of Washington, D.C., should be transferred to work in Immigration and Customs Enforcement field offices where they would continue to be the “boots on the ground” to follow up on threat reports throughout the country and liaise with local law enforcement for visits by protectees.

Small Business Administration

Minimal

Vector: 59%

Pages: 795-797AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on coastal data accessibility and infrastructure through NOAA's Digital Coast program, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt concerns SBA loan programs, faith-based organization eligibility, and regulatory reform—there is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 762 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 29. U.S. Small Business Administration, “Ensuring Equal Treatment for Faith-Based Organizations in SBA’s Loan and Disaster Assistance Programs,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 11 (January 19, 2021), pp. 5036–5040, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/19/2021-00446/ensuring-equal-treatment- for-faith-based-organizations-in-sbas-loan-and-disaster-assistance-programs (accessed February 18, 2023). 30. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14019, “Promoting Access to Voting,” March 7, 2021, in Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 45 (March 10, 2021), pp. 13623–13627, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2021-03-10/pdf/2021-05087.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023). See also press release, “Small Business Committee Republicans: The SBA Should Stay Out of Elections and Focus on Our Small Businesses,” Small Business Committee Republicans, Committee on Small Business, U.S. House of Representatives, April 4, 2022, https://republicans-smallbusiness.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=404061 (accessed February 18, 2023). 31. Press release, “SBA Administrator Guzman, Biden–Harris Administration Announce Community Navigator Pilot Program Grantees,” U.S. Small Business Administration, October 28, 2021, https://www.sba.gov/ article/2021/oct/28/sba-administrator-guzman-biden-harris-administration-announce-community-navigator- pilot-program (accessed February 18, 2023). 32. John Reosti, “SBA Hasn’t Given Up on Direct Lending,” American Banker, May 2, 2022, https://www. americanbanker.com/creditunions/news/sba-hasnt-given-up-on-direct-lending (accessed February 18, 2023). 33. Goldman Sachs, 10,000 Small Businesses Voices, “22 Years Is Too Long: Support Small Businesses. Reauthorize the SBA,” Open Letter to Congress, November 16, 2022, https://www.goldmansachs.com/ citizenship/10000-small-businesses/US/voices/reauthorize-the-sba-letter/index.html (accessed February 18, 2023). According to Goldman Sachs, the letter “was published in Politico on Wednesday, November 16 to kick of a broader campaign to prioritize small businesses and modernize the SBA in the next Congress” and “was signed by over 3,000 small business owners from all 50 states.” Ibid. 34. See, for example, “Challenge 3: SBA Faces Significant Challenges in IT Investment, System Development, and Security Controls,” in U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Inspector General, Top Management and Performance Challenges Facing the Small Business Administration in Fiscal Year 2023, Report 23-01, October 14, 2022, pp. 16–19, https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2022-10/SBA%20OIG%20Report%2023-01_0.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 35. Ibid., p. iv. 36. Appendix M, “Office of Advocacy’s Legislative Priorities,” and Appendix Q, “Memorandum of Understanding Between the Small Business Administration and the Office of Advocacy,” in U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, Background Paper, Office of Advocacy, 2017–2020, January 2021, pp. 192 and 197, https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/09101916/Background-Paper-Office-of- Advocacy-2017-2020-web.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 37. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” January 30, 2017, in Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 22 (February 3, 2017), pp. 9339–9341, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-02-03/pdf/2017-02451.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023), and President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” February 24, 2017, in Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 39 (March 1, 2017), pp. 12285–12287, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-03- 01/pdf/2017-04107.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023). 38. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, What Small Businesses Are Saying and What Advocacy Is Doing About It: Progress Report on the Office of Advocacy’s Regional Regulatory Reform Roundtables, June 2017–September 2018, December 2018, https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/ uploads/2018/12/20091536/What-Small-Businesses-Are-Saying-What-Advocacy-Is-Doing.pdf April 2020, https://advocacy.sba.gov/regulatory-reform/ (accessed February 18, 2023December 10, 2022). See also U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, Reforming Regulations and Listening to Small Business: Second Progress Report on the Office of Advocacy’s Regional Regulatory Roundtables, June 2017–December 2019, https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/20141200/2nd-Progress-Report-on-Reg- Reform-Roundtables.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 39. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, What Small Businesses Are Saying and What Advocacy Is Doing About It: Progress Report on the Office of Advocacy’s Regional Regulatory Reform Roundtables, June 2017–September 2018, pp. 32 and 43. — 763 — Small Business Administration 40. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Inspector General, Top Management and Performance Challenges Facing the Small Business Administration in Fiscal Year 2023, p. iv. 41. H.R. 748, CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act, Public Law No. 116-136, 116th Congress, March 27, 2020, https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ136/PLAW-116publ136.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023). 42. Sarah McCammon, “Planned Parenthood Asked to Return Funds from Paycheck Protection Program,” NPR, May 21, 2020, https://www.npr.org/2020/05/21/859991359/planned-parenthood-asked-to-return-funds- from-paycheck-protection-program (accessed February 18, 2023). 43. Letter from William Manger, Associate Administrator, U.S. Small Business Administration, to Laura Meyers, Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, “Re: Notice of Investigation and Request for Records,” May 19, 2020, https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/6922122/SBA-Letter-Planned-Parenthood-DC.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 44. Press release, “Lankford, HSGAC Republicans Demand Details on Illegal PPP Loans to Planned Parenthood Affiliates,” Office of U.S. Senator James Lankford, April 28, 2022, https://www.lankford.senate.gov/news/press- releases/lankford-hsgac-republicans-demand-details-on-illegal-ppp-loans-to-planned-parenthood-affiliates (accessed February 18, 2023). 45. Press release, “Romney, Colleagues Request Information from SBA Administrator Guzman on Illegal PPP Loans Given to Planned Parenthood Affiliates,” Office of U.S. Senator Mitt Romney, April 28, 2022, https:// www.romney.senate.gov/romney-colleagues-request-information-from-sba-administrator-guzman-on- illegal-ppp-loans-given-to-planned-parenthood-affiliates/ (accessed February 18, 2023). 46. 13 C.F.R. §§ 109.400(b)(11), https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/13/109.400; 123.301(g), https://www.law. cornell.edu/cfr/text/13/123.301; 123.502(n), https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/13/123.502; and 123.702(b)(6), https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/13/123.702 (all accessed February 19, 2023). 47. U.S. Small Business Administration, “Religious Eligibility Worksheet for all 7(a) and 504 Loan Programs” SBA Form 1971, http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/sba-form-1971.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 48. U.S. Small Business Administration, “Ensuring Equal Treatment for Faith-Based Organizations in SBA’s Loan and Disaster Assistance Program.” 49. See, for example, Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023). 50. 28 U.S. Code § 530d, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/530D (accessed February 19, 2023). 51. U.S. Small Business Administration, “Ensuring Equal Treatment for Faith-Based Organizations in SBA’s Loan and Disaster Assistance Program.” 52. 13 CFR 120.110(k), https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/13/120.110 (accessed February 19, 2023). 53. U.S. Small Business Administration, “Regulatory Reform Initiative: Streamlining and Modernizing the 7(a), Microloan, and 504 Loan Programs to Reduce Regulatory Burden,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 125 (June 30, 2022), pp. 38900–38910, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/06/30/2022-13483/ regulatory-reform-initiative-streamlining-and-modernizing-the-7a-microloan-and-504-loan-programs-to (accessed February 18, 2023). 54. Ibid. 55. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel “Religious Restrictions on Capital Financing for Historically Black Colleges and Universities,” Memorandum Opinion for the Acting General Counsel, Department of Education, August 15, 2019, https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/ attachments/2021/01/01/2019-08-15-hbcu-capfin-2.pdf. (accessed February 18, 2023). 56. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Investment and Innovation, SBIR and STTR Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2019, p. 8, https://www.sbir.gov/sites/default/files/SBA_Final_FY19_SBIR_STTR_Annual_Report.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 57. S. 4900, SBIR and STTR Extension Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117–183, 117th Congress, September 30, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ183/PLAW-117publ183.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 58. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Investment and Innovation, SBIR and STTR Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2019, pp. 6, 40, and 108.

Small Business Administration

Minimal

Vector: 59%

Pages: 792-794AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on enhancing coastal data accessibility and program extension under NOAA, while the Project 2025 policy addresses SBA program inefficiencies, consolidation, and budget reallocation. There is no substantive overlap in subject matter, agency focus, or policy objectives between the two."

— 759 — Small Business Administration ineffective programs, consolidate duplicative functions, and reallocate resources to more effective programs (such as the Office of Advocacy) or consider reducing the SBA budget. Personnel Challenges The SBA continues to expand programs and initiatives without first document- ing the effectiveness of existing programs or whether they involve areas in which the agency lacks staff expertise. For example, the SBA wants to expand the number of licensed Small Business Lending Companies (SBLCs), implement a new “Mis- sion-Based SBLC,” and remove a requirement for loan authorization within the 7(a) and 504 Loan programs and rely solely on a lender’s documents. Various IG reports have noted that the lack of skilled employees within the SBA has fueled fraud and mismanagement in COVID-19 lending programs, and congressional leaders have expressed alarm about these “changes that haphazardly overextend the SBA’s responsibilities at a time when they are devastated by fraud and underperforming on their core mission of serving the nation’s 33 million small businesses.”74 A conservative Administration should rein in these idealistic and impractical efforts, get current programs under control and properly staffed with people who can manage and perform competently, and outsource efforts where private-sector expertise is appropriate and more efficient. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume, but David Burton and Caleb Orr deserve special mention. The author alone assumes responsibility for the content of this chapter, and no views expressed herein should be attributed to any other individual. — 760 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. H.R. 7953, Small Business Act, Public Law 85-536, 85th Congress, July 18, 1958, § 2, https://uscode.ecfr.io/ statutes/pl/85/536.pdf (accessed February 17, 2023), amended by H.R. 4877, One Stop Shop for Small Business Compliance Act of 2021, Public Law 117-188, 117th Congress, October 20, 2022, https://www.congress. gov/117/plaws/publ188/PLAW-117publ188.pdf (accessed February 17, 2023). 2. U.S. Small Business Administration, “About SBA: Organization: Mission,” https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/ organization (accessed February 19, 2023). 3. Michael Faulkender, Robert Jackman, and Stephen I. Miran, “The Job-Preservation Effects of Paycheck Protection Program Loans,” U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Economic Policy, Working Paper No. 2020-01, December 2020, p. 9, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/226/Job-Preservation-Effects- Paycheck-Protection-Program-Loans.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 4. Kate Rogers, Scott Zamost, Karina Hernandez, and Jennifer Schlesinger, “As Pandemic Aid Was Rushed to Main Street, Criminals Seized on Covid Relief Programs,” CNBC, April 15, 2021, https://www.cnbc. com/2021/04/15/as-pandemic-aid-was-rushed-to-main-street-criminals-seized-on-ppp-eidl-.html (accessed February 16, 2023). 5. Kevin Brewer, “Bills Extend Statute of Limitation for Prosecuting PPP, EIDL Fraud,” Journal of Accountancy, August 10, 2022, https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/news/2022/aug/bills-extend-statute-limitation- prosecuting-ppp-eidl-fraud.html (accessed February 16, 2023). 6. Sacha Pfeiffer, “Virtually All PPP Loans Have Been Forgiven with Limited Scrutiny,” NPR, October 12, 2022, https://www.npr.org/2022/10/12/1128207464/ppp-loans-loan-forgiveness-small-business#:~:text=As%20 COVID-19%20shutdowns%20threatened,early%20days%20of%20the%20pandemic (accessed February 16, 2023). 7. U.S. Small Business Administration, “About SBA: Organization: SBA History,” https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/ organization (accessed February 19, 2023). 8. President Richard Nixon, Executive Order 11518, “Providing for the Increased Representation of the Interests of Small Business Concerns Before Departments and Agencies of the United States Government,” March 20, 1970, in Federal Register, Vol. 35, No. 56 (March 21, 1970), pp. 4939–4940, https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/ service/ll/fedreg/fr035/fr035056/fr035056.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 9. S. 3331, Small Business Amendments of 1974, Public Law 93-386, 93rd Congress, August 23, 1974, https://www. congress.gov/93/statute/STATUTE-88/STATUTE-88-Pg742.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023). 10. S. 299, Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law No. 96-354, 96th Congress, September 19, 1980, https://www. congress.gov/96/statute/STATUTE-94/STATUTE-94-Pg1164.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023). 11. Maeve P. Carey, “The Regulatory Flex Act: An Overview,” Congressional Research Service In Focus No. IF11900, August 16, 2021, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11900 (accessed February 18, 2023). 12. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, “The Regulatory Flexibility Act,” https://advocacy.sba. gov/resources/the-regulatory-flexibility-act/ (accessed February 18, 2023). 13. H.R. 644, Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, Public Law No. 114-125, 114th Congress, February 24, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/114/statute/STATUTE-130/STATUTE-130-Pg122.pdf (accessed March 21, 2023). 14. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, “Advocacy Releases Trade Report,” December 21, 2018, https://advocacy.sba.gov/2018/12/21/advocacy-releases-trade-report/ (accessed March 21, 2023). 15. Associated Press, “Reagan Offers $994-Billion ‘Hard-Choices’ 1987 Budget,” Los Angeles Times, February 5, 1986, http://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-02-05-mn-4369-story.html (accessed February 18, 2023). 16. Testimony of Hon. Hector V. Barreto, Administrator, Small Business Administration, in hearing, The President’s FY 2006 Budget Request for the Small Business Administration, Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, U.S. Senate, 109th Congress, 1st Session, February 17, 2005, p. 8, https://books.google.com/ books?id=UwD-2ICa8k8C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed February 18, 2023). See also Report No. 109-49, Summary of Legislative and Oversight Activities During the 108th Congress, Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, U.S. Senate, 109th Congress, 1st Session, March 30, 2005, p. 21, https://www.congress.gov/109/crpt/srpt49/CRPT-109srpt49.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023).

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Minimal

Vector: 59%

Pages: 875-878AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill concerns coastal data acquisition and accessibility under the Digital Coast Act, whereas the Project 2025 section addresses financial regulatory agencies such as the CFPB and SEC; there is no substantive policy overlap between the two."

— 842 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 19. Burton, “Improving Entrepreneurs’ Access to Capital: Vital for Economic Growth”; Campbell, “The Case for Federal Pre-Emption of State Blue Sky Laws.” 20. David R. Burton, “Why the SEC’s Consolidated Audit Trail Is a Bad Idea,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, December 5, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/monetary-policy/commentary/why-the-secs-consolidated- audit-trail-bad-idea; Hester M. Peirce, Commissioner, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “Statement on the Order Granting Temporary Conditional Exemptive Relief from Certain Requirements of the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail,” July 8, 2022, https://www.sec.gov/news/ statement/peirce-statement-consolidated-audit-trail-070822 (accessed February 20, 2023). 21. Peirce, “It’s Not Just Scope 3: Remarks at the American Enterprise Institute”; Uyeda, “Remarks at the 2022 Cato Summit on Financial Regulation.” 22. David R. Burton, “How Dodd–Frank Mandated Disclosures Harm, Rather than Protect, Investors,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4526, March 10, 2016, http://thf-reports.s3.amazonaws.com/2016/IB4526.pdf. 23. For a detailed discussion of SEC administration, see Burton, “Reforming the Securities and Exchange Commission.” 24. See, for example, Andrew N. Vollmer, “Accusers as Adjudicators in Agency Enforcement Proceedings,” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Fall 2018), pp. 103–155, https://repository.law. umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1602&context=mjlr (accessed February 20, 2023). 25. 7 U.S.C. § 1a(9), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/1a (accessed February 20, 2023). 26. Or the CFTC can undertake a rulemaking. 27. 7 U.S.C. § 2(i), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/2 (accessed February 20, 2023). 28. 7 U.S.C. § 7b–3, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/7b-3 (accessed February 20, 2923). 29. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, “Cross-Border Application of the Registration Thresholds and Certain Requirements Applicable to Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 178 (September 14, 2020), pp. 56924–57016, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-09- 14/pdf/2020-16489.pdf (accessed February 21, 2023). 30. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, “Interpretive Guidance and Policy Statement Regarding Compliance with Certain Swap Regulations,” Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 144 (July 26, 2013), pp. 45292–45374, https:// www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/public/@lrfederalregister/documents/file/2013-17958a.pdf (accessed February 21, 2023). 31. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, “Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants—Cross-Border Application of the Margin Requirements,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 104 (May 31, 2016), pp. 34818–34854, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-05-31/ pdf/2016-12612.pdf (accessed February 21, 2023). 32. H.R. 4173, Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111–203, 111th Congress, July 21, 2010, Title X, https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ203/PLAW-111publ203.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). See also Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “About Us,” https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about- us/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 33. See, for example, Paul Sperry, “Trump Is Finally Fixing This Economy-Killing Agency,” New York Post, December 2, 2017, https://nypost.com/2017/12/02/trump-is-finally-fixing-this-economy-killing-agency/ (accessed March 23, 2023). See also Jeb Hensarling “How We’ll Stop a Rogue Federal Agency,” The Wall Street Journal, February 8, 2017, https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-well-stop-a-rogue-federal- agency-1486597413 (accessed March 23, 2023), and H.R. 3389, CFPB Slush Fund Elimination Act of 2013, 113th Congress, introduced October 30, 2013, https://www.congress.gov/113/bills/hr3389/BILLS-113hr3389ih.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 34. Editorial, “CFPB Joins Justice in Shaking Down Banks for Democrat Activist Groups,” Investor’s Business Daily, June 17, 2015, https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/cfpb-diverts-civil-penalty-funds-to-democrat- activist-groups/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 35. Table, “Budget by Program,” in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Annual Performance Plan and Report, and Budget Overview, February 2023, p. 15, https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_ performance-plan-and-report_fy23.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 36. Table, “FTE by Program,” in ibid., p. 16. — 843 — Financial Regulatory Agencies 37. Table 7, “Civil Penalty Fund Significant Activity,” in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Financial Report of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Fiscal Year 2022, November 15, 2022, p. 21, https://files. consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_financial-report_fy2022.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 38. Ibid. 39. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Financial Report of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Fiscal Year 2022, p. 20. 40. 12 U.S. Code § 5491, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/5491 (accessed March 23, 2023). 41. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Bureau Structure,” last updated March 15, 2023, https://www. consumerfinance.gov/about-us/the-bureau/bureau-structure/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 42. See Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Consumer Financial Civil Penalty Fund Rule,” https://www. consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/final-rules/consumer-financial-civil-penalty-fund-rule/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 43. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Civil Penalty Fund: Consumer Education and Financial Literacy,” https://www.consumerfinance.gov/enforcement/payments-harmed-consumers/civil-penalty-fund/consumer- education-financial-literacy/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 44. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Opportunity Exists to Improve Transparency of Civil Penalty Fund Activities, GAO-14-551, June 2014, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-14-551. pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 45. Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/19pdf/19-7_n6io.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 46. Ibid., p. 37. 47. See 12 U.S. Code § 5497(a)(1), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/5497 (accessed March 23, 2023). Congress specified that the amount transferred to the CFPB “shall not exceed” 12 percent “of the total operating expenses of the Federal Reserve System…in fiscal year 2013, and in each year thereafter.” Ibid., § 5497(2)(A)(iii). 48. Community Financial Services Association of America v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (5th Cir. 2022), pp. 31–32, https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-50826-CV0.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 49. Ibid., p. 32. 50. Ibid. (quoting Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183, 2202 n. 8 (2020)). 51. U.S. Supreme Court, “Order List: 598 U.S.,” February 27, 2023, Docket No. 22–448, CFPB et al. v. Com. Fin. Services Assn., et al., https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022723zor_6537.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 52. Devin Watkins, Competitive Enterprise Institute, “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Ripe for Reform,” testimony before the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Monetary Policy, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, March 9, 2023, https://docs.house.gov/meetings/BA/ BA20/20230309/115384/HHRG-118-BA20-Wstate-WatkinsD-20230309.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023); Norbert J. Michel, “7 Steps Next Director Can Take to Make the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Less Awful,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, July 28, 2018, https://www.heritage.org/markets-and-finance/ commentary/7-steps-next-director-can-take-make-the-consumer-financial. 53. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, and National Credit Union Administration. Those functions performed by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) prior to Dodd–Frank should be transferred to the OCC since OTS has merged with OCC. 54. See “Section 1071 of the Dodd–Frank Act” in David R. Burton, “Improving Small Business Access to Capital,” Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Symposium on Section 1071 of the Dodd–Frank Act, Small Business Lending Panel, November 6, 2019, https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_burton-written- statement_symposium-section-1071.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 55. 5 U.S. Code Chapter 5, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/chapter-5 (accessed March 23, 2023). 56. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Administrative Adjudication Proceedings,” https://www. consumerfinance.gov/administrative-adjudication-proceedings/ (accessed March 23, 2023), and 12 Code of Federal Regulations Part 1081—Rules of Practice for Adjudication Proceedings, https://www.law.cornell.edu/ cfr/text/12/part-1081 (accessed March 23, 2023).

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. Baldwin, Tammy

Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act

119/s/2287

Ensuring Lasting Smiles Act

119/s/1677

988 LGBTQ+ Youth Access Act of 2025

119/s/2826

Back to All Bills