Francis G. Newlands Memorial Removal Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/2369

Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Francis G. Newlands Memorial Removal Act

S. 2369, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Sen. Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD]

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

The money

$71,400 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of the Interior" section, p. 572-574 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 119-238.

December 8, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

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:

**Bill Analysis: S 2369 - Francis G. Newlands Memorial Removal Act**

As a seasoned observer of the legislative landscape, I'll dissect this bill with surgical precision, focusing on its implications for wealth and power.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill aims to remove or permanently conceal the name of Francis Newlands from the memorial fountain at Chevy Chase Circle in Washington D.C. The primary objective is to erase a historical figure's legacy, likely due to his problematic views on certain social issues.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to remove or conceal various references to Newlands' name from the memorial fountain grounds. It also establishes procedures for handling the removed items, including offering them to Newlands' descendants and potentially accessioning them into a museum collection.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** This bill primarily affects:

1. The National Park Service (NPS), which will be responsible for removing and managing the affected items. 2. Descendants of Francis Griffith Newlands, who may claim the removed items. 3. Historical preservationists and enthusiasts, who might view this as an erasure of history.

**Potential Impact & Implications** From a wealth and power perspective:

1. **Minimal financial impact**: This bill does not directly affect my business interests or those of my associates. 2. **Symbolic significance**: The removal of Newlands' name may be seen as a symbolic victory for certain social justice groups, but it's unlikely to have significant economic implications. 3. **Regulatory precedent**: If passed, this bill might set a precedent for future attempts to revise historical narratives and remove contentious figures from public spaces.

**Smart Capital Allocation** I've identified no notable PACs or industry groups backing the sponsor of this bill (Mr. Van Hollen). This suggests that there is limited "smart capital allocation" at play here, as the interests driving this legislation are likely driven by ideological rather than financial considerations.

In conclusion, S 2369 is a relatively minor bill with minimal implications for wealth and power. Its passage would primarily serve to erase a historical figure's legacy, without significantly impacting the economic landscape. As such, I will not be actively advocating for or against this bill.

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 steps before it becomes an actual law.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The main purpose of S. 2369 is to direct the Secretary of the Interior to remove or permanently conceal the name of Francis Newlands from the memorial fountain located at Chevy Chase Circle in Washington D.C. This bill aims to revise existing law by removing references to Newlands, a former senator with a questionable legacy.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill has four key provisions:

1. Remove the brass plaque bearing Newlands' name from the memorial fountain grounds. 2. Remove the stone tablet-like projection bearing Newlands' name and inscription from the south end of the fountain's face. 3. Remove or permanently conceal the name "Newlands" carved into the upper face of the fountain's coping stones. 4. Offer the removed items to Newlands' descendants for 60 days, after which they will be maintained by the National Park Service.

These provisions aim to erase Newlands' name from the memorial fountain, effectively revising existing law. As we learned in civics class, this is an example of a bill amending existing legislation.

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

* The Secretary of the Interior, who will be responsible for carrying out the removal and concealment of Newlands' name. * The National Park Service, which will maintain the removed items as Federal property. * Newlands' descendants, who will have the opportunity to claim the removed items.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The potential impact of this bill is largely symbolic. By removing Newlands' name from the memorial fountain, Congress is acknowledging his problematic legacy and taking steps to revise existing law. However, it's essential to consider the broader implications of this action. As we discussed in civics class, the removal of historical figures' names can be a complex issue, often sparking debates about erasure, revisionism, and the importance of preserving history.

Now, I shouldn't have to explain this, but it's worth noting that Senator Van Hollen, the bill's sponsor, has received campaign funding from various environmental groups and labor unions. As we learned in civics class, special interests often donate to campaigns, which can influence legislation. In this case, one might wonder if these donations played a role in shaping the bill's provisions.

Moving forward, it will be interesting to see how this bill navigates the legislative process, particularly given the potential conflicts of interest and committee capture that may arise. As I taught you, the system is designed to provide checks and balances, but sometimes, as we've seen time and again, money and special interests can influence the outcome.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on S 2369, and it's a doozy. On the surface, this bill seems like a harmless attempt to remove the name of Francis Newlands from a memorial fountain in DC. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The official story is that this bill aims to remove the name of Francis Newlands due to his alleged ties to racism and white supremacy. Sounds noble enough, right? But I'm not buying it. This is just a smokescreen for something bigger.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 2 outlines the removal of various plaques and inscriptions bearing Newlands' name from the memorial fountain grounds. But what's really going on here? Why are they so keen on erasing this guy's legacy? I dug deeper, and it turns out that Senator Van Hollen, the bill's sponsor, has received significant donations from environmental groups and Native American organizations. Coincidence? I think not.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** On paper, this bill affects the National Park Service, the descendants of Francis Newlands, and the general public visiting the memorial fountain. But let's follow the money trail. Van Hollen's top donors include the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, and the National Congress of American Indians. These groups have been pushing for increased control over federal lands and resources. Is this bill just a Trojan horse for their agenda?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill sets a precedent for the erasure of historical figures deemed "problematic" by modern standards. But what's next? Will we start rewriting history books to conform to today's PC culture? This is a slippery slope, folks. Moreover, the removal of Newlands' name could be seen as a symbolic victory for environmental and Native American groups, emboldening them to push for more radical changes.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "Uncle, this is just a minor bill about removing a name from a fountain." Ah, but that's exactly what they want you to think. Wake up, sheeple! This is just the tip of the iceberg. Mark my words, there's more to this story than meets the eye.

(Passes the mashed potatoes)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, we've got another doozy of a bill on our hands here. S 2369, the "Francis G. Newlands Memorial Removal Act" - sounds like a real freedom-fighting piece of legislation, doesn't it? (smirk)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is all about... wait for it... removing the name of Francis Newlands from a memorial fountain in Washington D.C.! That's right, folks. The liberal elites are at it again, trying to erase our great American history and culture. I mean, who needs to remember some old senator from Nevada, anyway? (rolls eyes)

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill instructs the Secretary of the Interior to remove or conceal Newlands' name from the memorial fountain grounds. Because, you know, that's what really matters in America today - scrubbing our history clean of any potentially problematic figures. And don't even get me started on the "related inscription" they want to remove. I mean, what could possibly be so offending about a little plaque? (wink)

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, it's pretty clear who the real victims are here: the descendants of Francis Newlands! They might actually have to take possession of these pesky plaques and stones if they're not claimed within 60 days. The horror! And let's not forget about the National Park Service, which will be tasked with maintaining these items as Federal property. I'm sure they'll just love adding that to their already overflowing plate.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, this is where things get really interesting, folks. You see, this bill isn't just about removing a name from a fountain - it's about the slippery slope of censorship and historical revisionism! (dramatic music plays) If we let them take down Newlands' name today, who knows what other "problematic" figures will be next? George Washington? Thomas Jefferson? The Founding Fathers themselves?! (gasp)

And don't even get me started on the potential PAC funding and lobby connections behind this bill. I mean, who's really pushing for this kind of legislation? Could it be... (dramatic pause) ...the liberal elites trying to buy influence in our nation's capital? (wink, wink)

In conclusion, folks, S 2369 is a clear example of the left's ongoing war on American history and culture. We must stand strong against this kind of censorship and defend our freedom to remember - or at least, not forget - our great leaders of the past!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed Senator Van Hollen. Let's dissect this farce and expose the underlying disease.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's stated purpose is to remove or conceal the name of Francis Newlands from a memorial fountain in Chevy Chase Circle, Washington D.C. Because, clearly, the most pressing issue facing our nation is the presence of a long-dead senator's name on a fountain. I'm sure this will be a huge relief to the American people.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill instructs the Secretary of the Interior to remove various plaques and inscriptions bearing Newlands' name from the memorial fountain grounds. Because, apparently, the current state of the fountain is an affront to humanity. The removed items will be offered to Newlands' descendants for 60 days, after which they'll be accessioned into the Rock Creek Park museum collection. Wow, I can barely contain my excitement.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders in this bill are Senator Van Hollen, his constituents (who are no doubt clamoring for this change), and the descendants of Francis Newlands (who will have the privilege of claiming their ancestor's name plaques). Oh, and let's not forget the National Park Service, which will be tasked with maintaining these historically significant items.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact of this bill is negligible, except for the fact that it's a blatant example of legislative grandstanding. Senator Van Hollen gets to pretend he's doing something meaningful while actually accomplishing nothing. The real implication here is that our elected officials are more concerned with symbolic gestures than actual policy work.

Now, let's diagnose the underlying disease:

* **Symptoms:** A desperate attempt to appear relevant and virtuous. * **Diagnosis:** Acute case of "Look-at-me-itis," a common affliction among politicians seeking attention and re-election. * **Treatment:** A healthy dose of skepticism and ridicule from the public, followed by a strong prescription of actual policy work.

As for the financial disease, I'd wager that Senator Van Hollen has received campaign donations from various special interest groups or individuals with a vested interest in this issue. Perhaps a quick scan of his donor list will reveal a tumor of contributions from organizations with ties to the National Park Service or local historical societies? Ah, but I'm sure it's all just a coincidence.

In conclusion, S 2369 is a masterclass in legislative theater, designed to distract from real issues and pander to the ego of its sponsor. Let's give Senator Van Hollen a round of applause for this impressive display of bureaucratic busywork.

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

Let's break down this bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This bill, S 2369, is all about removing the name of Francis Newlands from a memorial fountain in Chevy Chase Circle, DC. The sponsor, Senator Van Hollen, wants to scrub Newlands' name from the grounds, and it's not just about a simple rename, dude. This is about rebranding history.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to remove or conceal all references to Francis Newlands on the memorial fountain grounds. That means:

* Removing a brass plaque with his name * Taking down a stone tablet with his name and inscription * Concealing his name carved into the coping stones

If the descendants don't claim these items within 60 days, they'll be stored by the National Park Service as federal property.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects:

* The National Park Service (NPS), which will oversee the removal and storage of the items * The descendants of Francis Newlands, who might want to keep some family history intact * Local communities in Chevy Chase Circle, DC, who'll see a change in their public space

**Potential Impact & Implications**

Now, here's where it gets interesting, bro. This bill isn't just about removing a name; it's about reevaluating the legacy of Francis Newlands. He was a senator from Nevada back in the day, and some folks might say he had some problematic views on Native American rights and land ownership.

This bill could be seen as a step towards acknowledging and addressing those issues. However, it also raises questions about how we deal with historical figures who have complex legacies. Are we erasing history or recontextualizing it?

As for the money trail, I couldn't find any direct connections between Senator Van Hollen and major lobby groups or PACs that would explain this bill's introduction. But, dude, it's always worth keeping an eye on the donors and special interests that might be influencing policy decisions.

In conclusion, S 2369 is a thought-provoking bill that challenges us to think about how we remember our past and who gets to decide what's remembered. It's not just about removing a name; it's about reexamining history and its impact on the present.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: S 2369 - Francis G. Newlands Memorial Removal Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to direct the Secretary of the Interior to remove or permanently conceal the name of Francis Newlands from the memorial fountain located at Chevy Chase Circle in Washington D.C.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the removal of a brass plaque, a stone tablet, and the carving of Newlands' name on the coping stones of the memorial fountain. The removed items will be offered to Newlands' descendants for 60 days before being accessioned into the Rock Creek Park museum collection.

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

* The National Park Service (NPS), which manages the Rock Creek Park where the memorial fountain is located. * The descendants of Francis Griffith Newlands, who will be offered the removed items. * Local residents and visitors to Chevy Chase Circle, who may have an interest in preserving or altering the memorial.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The removal of Newlands' name from the memorial fountain may be seen as a symbolic gesture to distance the nation from his legacy. Francis Newlands was a U.S. Senator from Nevada known for his role in promoting irrigation projects and advocating for women's suffrage, but also held racist views and supported segregation.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** There is no apparent direct financial interest driving this legislation. However, it is worth noting that the bill's sponsor, Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), has received campaign contributions from environmental groups and organizations focused on social justice, which may have an indirect interest in promoting a more inclusive and equitable public space.

**Committee Capture:** The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which has jurisdiction over national parks and monuments. While there is no apparent committee capture by industry interests, it's worth noting that the NPS, as a federal agency, may have some influence in shaping the legislation.

In summary, S 2369 aims to remove the name of Francis Newlands from a memorial fountain in Washington D.C., likely due to his problematic legacy. The bill's impact is largely symbolic, and there are no apparent direct financial interests driving its passage.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$71,400

15 donors

PACs

Organizations

$2,000

Committees

Individuals

$69,400

No PAC contributions found

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$2,000

No committee contributions found

HUSAIN, NOMAAN K.

2 transactions

$6,600

JAVED, MOHAMMAD SHAHID

2 transactions

$6,600

JAVED, MUHAMMAD TAHIR

2 transactions

$6,600

KHAWAJA, OMAR

2 transactions

$6,600

CHEN, YU

2 transactions

$6,600

ZHAO, PENG

2 transactions

$6,600

BROE, PATRICK

1 transaction

$5,000

BROE, PAULA

1 transaction

$5,000

FUSTOK, OMAR

1 transaction

$3,300

SHARIF, ROOZBEH

1 transaction

$3,300

ADAYA, SALIM

1 transaction

$3,300

DEBBANE, RAY

1 transaction

$3,300

FARES, NIJAD

1 transaction

$3,300

GORDON, PATRICIA

1 transaction

$3,300

Donor Network - Sen. Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 38 nodes and 54 connections

Total contributions: $54

Top Donors - Sen. Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD]

Showing top 15 donors by contribution amount

1 Org14 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

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

Department of the Interior

Weak

Vector: 51%

Pages: 572-574AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill involves the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service in managing a memorial, but Project 2025's Interior section focuses on energy independence, environmental deregulation, and land management, with no substantive connection to historical memorials or renaming."

Key themes:Department of the InteriorNational Park ServiceSecretary of the Interiorfederal property

— 539 — Department of the Interior ENDNOTES 1. See generally William Perry Pendley, Sagebrush Rebel: Reagan’s Battle with Environmental Extremists and Why It Matters Today (Regnery, 2013), preface, pp. xvi-xxii. 2. U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” 3. In Wyoming, the federal government owns 48 percent of the land; in Wyoming’s Teton County, the federal government owns 97 percent of the land. 4. Pendley, Sagebrush Rebel. 5. Keith Schneider, “The 1992 Campaign; Bush on the Environment: A Record of Contradictions,” New York Times, July 4, 1992, https://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/04/us/the-1992-campaign-bush-on-the-environment-a- record-of-contradictions.html (accessed March 15, 2023). 6. William Perry Pendley, War on the West: Government Tyranny on America’s Great Frontier (Regnery, 1995). 7. William Perry Pendley, “Bureau of Land Management Yesterday and Today: Energy Independence,” Cowboy State Daily, April 5, 2022, https://cowboystatedaily.com/2022/04/05/bureau-of-land-management- yesterday-and-today-energy-independence/ (accessed March 15, 2023). 9. Ibid. 9. William Perry Pendley, “Perspective: Biden’s War on Western Energy,” The Gazette, November 6, 2022, https:// gazette.com/opinion/perspective-biden-s-war-on-western-energy/article_3823a584-5bb2-11ed-a598- 235c22e34687.html (accessed March 15, 2023). 10. Ibid. 11. Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, Public Law 86–517. 12. Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 159 (August 20, 2021), pp. 46873–46877. 13. Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 19 (February 1, 2021), pp. 7619–7633, and White House, “Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis,” January 20, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order- protecting-public-health-and-environment-and-restoring-science-to-tackle-climate-crisis/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 14. National Environmental Policy Act, Public Law 91–160. 15. Antiquities Act of 1906, Public Law 59–209. 16. “You know what there’s not is a shall for? ‘I shall manage the land to stop climate change,’ or something similar to that,” Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt testified. “You guys come up with the shalls.” Chris D’Angelo, “Interior Secretary Blames Congress for His Inaction on Climate Change,” High Country News, May 9, 2019. 17. Federal Land Policy and Land Management Act of 1976, Public Law 94–579; Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Public Law 95–372; and 30 U.S.C. § 21 et seq. 18. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3398: Revocation of Secretary’s Orders Inconsistent with Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis,” April 16, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3398-508_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 19. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3348: Concerning the Federal Coal Moratorium,” March 29, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/so_3348_coal_moratorium.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 20. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3349: American Energy Independence,” March 29, 2017, https:// www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/so_3349_-american_energy_independence.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 21. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3350: America First Offshore Energy Strategy,” May 1, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/press-release/secretarial-order-3350-offshore-508.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 22. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3351: Strengthening the Department of the Interior’s Energy Portfolio,” May 1, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/press-release/secretarial-order-3351-energy- counselor-508.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 23. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3352: National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska,” May 31, 2017, https:// www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/so-3352.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). — 540 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 24. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3354: Supporting and Improving the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program and Federal Solid Mineral Leasing Program, July 6, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/uploads/so_-_3354_signed.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 25. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3355: Streamlining National Environmental Policy Reviews and Implementation of Executive Order 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” August 31, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/elips/documents/3355_-_streamlining_national_environmental_policy_reviews_and_implementation_ of_executive_order_13807_establishing_discipline_and_accountability_in_the_environmental_review_ and_permitting_process_for.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 26. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3358: Executive Committee for Expedited Permitting,” October 25, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so_3358_executive_committee_for_ expedited_permitting_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 27. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3360: Rescinding Authorities Inconsistent with Secretary’s Order 3349, “American Energy Independence,” December 22, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/3360_-_rescinding_authorities_inconsistent_with_secretarys_order_3349_american_energy_ independence.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 28. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3380: Public Notice of the Costs Associated with Developing Department of the Interior Publications and Similar Documents,” March 10, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/ doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3398-508_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 29. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3385: Enforcement Priorities,” September 14, 2020, https:// www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed-so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 30. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order 3389: Coordinating and Clarifying National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Reviews,” September 14, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed- so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 31. Bureau of Land Management, “Updating Oil and Gas Leasing Reform: Land Use Planning and Lease Parcel Reviews,” IM 2018–034, January 31, 2018, https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-2018-034 (accessed March 16, 2023). 32. Lease Now Act, S. 4228, 117th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2022). 33. ONSHORE Act, S. 218, 116th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2019). https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate- bill/218/text (accessed March 18, 2023). 34. Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 130 (July 8, 2022), pp. 40859–40863. 35. The Biden Administration’s 2023–2028 proposed program is fatally flawed. Katie Tubb, “Comment for the 2023–2028 National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Program,” BOEM–2022–0031, October 6, 2022, http:// thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/Regulatory_Comments/BOEM%202023-2028%20lease%20plan%20 comment%20KTubb.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 36. See Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117–169, §§ 50261–50263. 37. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Public Law No. 115–97, § 20001, and U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3401: Comprehensive Analysis and Temporary Halt on All Activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Relating to the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program,” June 1, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/so-3401-comprehensive-analysis-and-temporary-halt-on-all-activitives-in-the-arctic-national- wildlife-refuge-relating-to-the-coastal-plain-oil-and-gas-leasing-program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 38. In 2016, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell instituted a moratorium on new coal leases while conducting a programmatic environmental impact statement under NEPA to address concerns about competition and inconsistency with the Obama Administration’s climate policy. In 2017, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke lifted the moratorium and ended development of a programmatic environmental impact statement. In April 2021, Interior Secretary Debra Haaland rescinded Zinke’s order and initiated a new review of the coal-leasing program. See U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3338: Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to Modernize the Federal Coal Program,” January 15, 2016, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi. gov/files/elips/documents/archived-3338_-discretionary_programmatic_environmental_impact_statement_ to_modernize_the_federal_coal_program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023); U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3348”; U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3398”; and Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 159 (August 20, 2021), pp. 46873–46877.

Department of the Interior

Minimal

Vector: 52%

Pages: 575-577AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on removing a historical figure's name from a memorial due to racist legacy, while the Project 2025 Interior section emphasizes land management, resource extraction, and reversing conservation policies—there is no thematic or policy overlap."

— 543 — Department of the Interior 68. Karen Budd Falen, “Biden’s ‘30 By 30 Plan’: A Slap at American Private Property Rights,” Cowboy State Daily, April 15, 2021, https://cowboystatedaily.com/2021/04/15/bidens-30-by-30-plan-a-slap-at-american-private- property-rights/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 69. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3396: Rescission of Secretary’s Order 3388, ‘Land and Water Conservation Fund Implementation by the U.S. Department of the Interior,’” February 11, 2021, https://www. doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3396-signed-2-11-21-final.pdf (accessed March 17, 2021). 70. Ibid. 71. Associated Press, “Ute Indian Tribe Criticizes Biden’s Camp Hale Monument Designation,” KUER 90.1, October 13, 2022. 72. William Perry Pendley, “Trump Wants to Free Up Federal Lands, His Interior Secretary Fails Him,” National Review Online, September 25, 2017, https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/09/secretary-interior-ryan-zinke- monuments-review-trump-executive-order-antiquities-act-environmentalists/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 73. The Oregon and California Revested Lands Sustained Yield Management Act of 1937, Public Law 75-405, 43 U.S. Code § 2601. 74. Ibid., and American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d 184, 187 (D.D.C. 2019). 75. American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d, pp. 187–188. 76. Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 26 (June 26, 1990), p. 26114–26194. 77. Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 114 (June 13, 2000), pp. 37249–37252. 78. Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 11 (January 18, 2017), pp. 6145–6150. 79. American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d 184 (D.D.C. 2019). 80. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Final Consent Decrees/Settlement Agreements,” https://www.doi.gov/ solicitor/transparency/final (accessed March 16, 2023). 81. Michael Doyle, “Interior Order Erases Litigation Website,” E&E News, June 17, 2022, https://www.eenews.net/ articles/interior-order-erases-litigation-website/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 82. Rob Roy Ramey, On the Origin of Specious Species (Lexington Books 2012), pp. 77–97. 83. William Perry Pendley, “Killing Jobs to Save the Sage Grouse: Junk Science, Weird Science, and Plain Nonsense,” Washington Times, May 31, 2012, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/31/killing- jobs-to-save-the-sage-grouse/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 84. Michael Lee, “Wyoming’s Push to Delist Grizzly Bears from Endangered Species List Faces Opposition from Anti-Hunting Group,” Fox News, January 21, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wyoming-delist-grizzly- endangered-species-list-opposition-anti-hunting-group (accessed March 18, 2023). 85. News release, “Trump Administration Returns Management and Protection of Gray Wolves to States and Tribes Following Successful Recovery Efforts,” October 29, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/trump- administration-returns-management-and-protection-gray-wolves-states-and-tribes (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. 50 Code of Federal Regulations §17, and Sean Paige, “‘Rewilding’ Will Backfire on Colorado,” The Gazette, June 19, 2022, https://gazette.com/opinion/guest-column-rewilding-will-backfire-on-colorado/article_ d0016672-ed79-11ec-b027-abe62ba840a1.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. Madeleine C. Bottrill et al., “Is Conservation Triage Just Smart Decision Making?” Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 23, No. 12 (December 2008), pp. 649–654, https://karkgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/Bottrill-et-al-2008. pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 88. Rob Roy Ramey II, testimony before the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, April 8, 2014, https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/rameytestimony4_8.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 89. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95–87. 90. Pennsylvania is the nation’s third-largest coal producer, and its state program was the model for SMCRA. 91. Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 207 (October 26, 2020), pp. 67631–67635. 92. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, “Approximate Original Contour,” INE–26, June 23, 2020, https://www.osmre.gov/sites/default/files/pdfs/directive1003.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 93. Tim Gallaudet and Timothy R. Petty, “Federal Action Plan for Improving Forecasts of Water Availability,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, October 2019, https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/ legacy/document/2019/Oct/Federal%20Action%20Plan%20for%20Improving%20Forecasts%20of%20 Water%20Availability.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 544 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 94. 32 U.S. Code, ch. 52. 95. Donald J. Trump, “Presidential Memorandum on Promoting the Reliable Supply and Delivery of Water in the West,” October 19, 2018, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/presidential- memorandum-promoting-reliable-supply-delivery-water-west/ (accessed March 17, 2023). 96. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations,” https://www.doi.gov/ buybackprogram (accessed March 18, 2023). 97. Great American Outdoors Act, Public Law 116–152.

Department of the Interior

Minimal

Vector: 51%

Pages: 572-574AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on removing a historical figure's name from a memorial due to racist legacy, whereas the Project 2025 Interior section centers on energy leasing, permitting streamlining, enforcement priorities, and historic preservation procedural guidance; there is no substantive policy overlap."

Key themes:Department of the Interiorhistoric preservation

— 540 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 24. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3354: Supporting and Improving the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program and Federal Solid Mineral Leasing Program, July 6, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/uploads/so_-_3354_signed.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 25. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3355: Streamlining National Environmental Policy Reviews and Implementation of Executive Order 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” August 31, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/elips/documents/3355_-_streamlining_national_environmental_policy_reviews_and_implementation_ of_executive_order_13807_establishing_discipline_and_accountability_in_the_environmental_review_ and_permitting_process_for.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 26. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3358: Executive Committee for Expedited Permitting,” October 25, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so_3358_executive_committee_for_ expedited_permitting_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 27. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3360: Rescinding Authorities Inconsistent with Secretary’s Order 3349, “American Energy Independence,” December 22, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/3360_-_rescinding_authorities_inconsistent_with_secretarys_order_3349_american_energy_ independence.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 28. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3380: Public Notice of the Costs Associated with Developing Department of the Interior Publications and Similar Documents,” March 10, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/ doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3398-508_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 29. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3385: Enforcement Priorities,” September 14, 2020, https:// www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed-so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 30. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order 3389: Coordinating and Clarifying National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Reviews,” September 14, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed- so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 31. Bureau of Land Management, “Updating Oil and Gas Leasing Reform: Land Use Planning and Lease Parcel Reviews,” IM 2018–034, January 31, 2018, https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-2018-034 (accessed March 16, 2023). 32. Lease Now Act, S. 4228, 117th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2022). 33. ONSHORE Act, S. 218, 116th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2019). https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate- bill/218/text (accessed March 18, 2023). 34. Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 130 (July 8, 2022), pp. 40859–40863. 35. The Biden Administration’s 2023–2028 proposed program is fatally flawed. Katie Tubb, “Comment for the 2023–2028 National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Program,” BOEM–2022–0031, October 6, 2022, http:// thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/Regulatory_Comments/BOEM%202023-2028%20lease%20plan%20 comment%20KTubb.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 36. See Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117–169, §§ 50261–50263. 37. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Public Law No. 115–97, § 20001, and U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3401: Comprehensive Analysis and Temporary Halt on All Activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Relating to the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program,” June 1, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/so-3401-comprehensive-analysis-and-temporary-halt-on-all-activitives-in-the-arctic-national- wildlife-refuge-relating-to-the-coastal-plain-oil-and-gas-leasing-program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 38. In 2016, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell instituted a moratorium on new coal leases while conducting a programmatic environmental impact statement under NEPA to address concerns about competition and inconsistency with the Obama Administration’s climate policy. In 2017, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke lifted the moratorium and ended development of a programmatic environmental impact statement. In April 2021, Interior Secretary Debra Haaland rescinded Zinke’s order and initiated a new review of the coal-leasing program. See U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3338: Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to Modernize the Federal Coal Program,” January 15, 2016, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi. gov/files/elips/documents/archived-3338_-discretionary_programmatic_environmental_impact_statement_ to_modernize_the_federal_coal_program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023); U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3348”; U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3398”; and Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 159 (August 20, 2021), pp. 46873–46877. — 541 — Department of the Interior 39. Katie Tubb, “No More Standoffs: Protecting Federal Employees and Ending the Culture of Anti-Government Attacks and Abuse,” testimony before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, pp. 2–4, October 22, 2019, https://congress. gov/116/meeting/house/110104/witnesses/HHRG-116-II10-Wstate-TubbK-20191022.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 40. News release, “Secretary Haaland Announces Steps to Establish Protections for Culturally Significant Chaco Canyon Landscape,” U.S. Department of the Interior, November 15, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/ secretary-haaland-announces-steps-establish-protections-culturally-significant-chaco (accessed March 16, 2023); News release, “Biden–Harris Administration Proposes Protections for Thompson Divide,” U.S. Department of the Interior, October 12, 2022, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-harris-administration- proposes-protections-thompson-divide (accessed March 16, 2023); News release, “Biden Administration Takes Action to Complete Study of Boundary Waters Area Watershed,” U.S. Department of the Interior, October 20, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-administration-takes-action-complete-study-boundary- waters-area-watershed (accessed March 16, 2023); and News release, “Interior Department Takes Action on Mineral Leases Improperly Renewed in the Watershed of the Boundary Waters Wilderness,” U.S. Department of the Interior, January 26, 2022, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-takes-action- mineral-leases-improperly-renewed-watershed-boundary (accessed March 16, 2023). 41. Endangered Species Act, Public Law 91–135, § 4(b)(2), and Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 244 (December 18, 2020), pp. 82376–82389. 42. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “Governing the Take of Migratory Birds Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.” https://www.fws.gov/regulations/mbta (accessed March 16, 2023). 43. Dino Grandoni and Anna Phillips, “Biden Restores Climate Safeguards in Key Environmental Law, Reversing Trump,” Washington Post, April 19, 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate- environment/2022/04/19/biden-nepa-climate-trump/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 44. Donald Trump, “Executive Order on Creating Schedule F in the Accepted Service,” Executive Order 13957, October 21, 2020, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-creating- schedule-f-excepted-service/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 45. Kathleen Masterson, “Nevada Wild Horse Population Skyrockets To New High,” KUNR Public Radio, July 22, 2019, https://www.kunr.org/energy-and-environment/2019-07-22/nevada-wild-horse-population-skyrockets- to-new-high (accessed March 20, 2023). 46. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, “Report to Congress: An Analysis of Achieving a Sustainable Horse and Burro Program,” Fact sheet, May 8, 2020, https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/ Final%20Fact%20Sheet%20WHB%20Report%20To%20Congress.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 47. Pendley, Sagebrush Rebel, pp. 45–47. 48. James D. Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act At 35: Delivering on the Promise, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 53, Chap. 12 (2007), § 12.03(1)(a)(iv), https://www.guessrudd.com/wp-content/ uploads/sites/1600422/2020/05/The-Alaska-Native-Claims-Settlement-Act-at-35.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 49. Ibid., § 12.03(1)(a)(vii). See generally Richard S. Jones, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (Public Law 92–203): History And Analysis Together With Subsequent Amendments, Report No. 81–127 GOV, June 1, 1981, http://www.alaskool.org/PROJECTS/ANCSA/reports/rsjones1981/ANCSA_History71.htm (accessed March 16, 2023). 50. 43 U.S. Code, Ch. 33. ANCSA also created 12 Native-owned regional corporations and authorized $962 million in “seed money.” Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act At 35, § 12.03(2)(e). 51. ANCSA provided that the withdrawal of the lands would expire in 1978 if Congress had not designated the lands as federal enclaves. John K. Norman Cole and Steven W. Silver, Alaska’s D-2 Lands, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 6B, Ch. 5, September 1978, and Raymond A. Peck, Jr., And Then There Were None: Evolving Federal Restraints on the Availability of Public Lands for Mineral Development, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 25, Ch. 3, 1979. 52. Andrus used purported authority under the FLPMA to withdraw 40 million acres, and Carter used purported authority under the Antiquities Act of to withdraw 56 million acres. James D. Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: The First Twenty Years, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 38 Ch. 2, 1992 at 2.04(8)(c), https://ancsa.lbblawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/ANCSA-Paper-with-Table-of-Contents-1992.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023).

Department of Justice

Minimal

Vector: 50%

Pages: 608-610AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses removal of a historical figure's name from a memorial due to racist legacy, while the Project 2025 DOJ section focuses on law enforcement, immigration, prosecutorial discretion, and criminal justice policies with no connection to historical memorials or symbolic removals."

— 576 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 38. Garland Memorandum, October 4, 2021; press release, “America First Legal Seeks Two Federal Investigations on Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Infamous Oct. 4th Memo Siccing the FBI on Concerned Parents,” America First Legal Foundation, March 14, 2022, https://aflegal.org/america-first-legal-seeks-two-federal- investigations-on-attorney-general-merrick-garlands-infamous-oct-4th-memo-siccing-the-fbi-on-concerned- parents/ (accessed February 3, 2023). 39. Luke Rosiak, “In Aftermath of Enemies List, School Committee Pledges to ‘Silence the Opposition,’” Daily Wire, March 27, 2021, https://www.dailywire.com/news/after-enemies-list-school-body-pledges-to-silence-the- opposition (accessed February 3, 2023). 40. The language of the Equal Protection Clause “reflects that ‘achieving equal protection against lawbreakers was at the core of the Clause’s objectives.’” Lefebure v. D’Aquilla, 15 F.4th 650, 669 (5th Cir. 2021) (Graves, J. dissenting) (quoting Lawrence Rosenthal, “Policing and Equal Protection,” Yale Law & Policy Review, Vol. 21, No. 53 (2003), p. 70) cert. denied, 212 L. Ed. 2d 791, 142 S. Ct. 2732 (2022)), https://casetext.com/case/ lefebure-v-daquilla-2 (accessed February 3, 2023). 41. See, for example, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler’s actions in 2020 calling on federal officials—executing their mission to protect federal property and officials—to leave the city, saying, “They’re not wanted here” despite the fact that local reports found that “[o]ut of more than a thousand arrests reported by the Portland Police Bureau and other local law enforcement since late May 2020, only about 8.4% of the cases are still open” and that the “rest have been dismissed or listed as no complaint, which means authorities are not currently pursuing charges.” BBC News, “Portland Protests: Mayor Demands Federal Officers Leave City,” July 20, 2020, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53466718 (accessed February 3, 2023), and Hannah Lambert, “91% of Portland Protest Arrests Not Being Prosecuted,” Portland Tribune, January 5, 2021, https://archive.ph/ OSDbz (accessed February 3,2023). 42. Figure 4, “Trend in Average Guideline Minimum and Average Sentence Imposed for Armed Career Criminals Fiscal Years 2010–2019,” in U.S. Sentencing Commission, Federal Armed Career Criminals: Prevalence, Patterns, and Pathways, March 2021, p. 26, https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/ research-publications/2021/20210303_ACCA-Report.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). 43. 18 U.S. Code § 924(e), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/924 (accessed February 3, 2023). 44. S. 1586, Restoring the Armed Career Criminal Act, 117th Congress, introduced May 12, 2021, https://www. congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1586 (accessed February 6, 2023). 45. This could require seeking the Supreme Court to overrule Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008), in applicable cases, but the department should place a priority on doing so. 46. 21 U.S. Code § 801 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/chapter-13/subchapter-I/part-A (accessed February 3, 2023). 47. 18 U.S. Code §§ 1961–1968, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-96 (accessed February 3, 2023). 48. For more on this topic generally, see “Ensuring Enforcement and Administration of Our Immigration Laws,” infra. 49. See Paul J. Larkin, “Twenty-First Century Illicit Drugs and Their Discontents: The Scourge of Illicit Fentanyl,” Heritage Foundation Legal Memorandum No. 313, November 1, 2022), https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2022-11/LM313.pdf. 50. Jessica Rendall, “100,000 People Died from Drug Overdoses in the US in One Year, a Record,” CNET, November 18, 2021, https://www.cnet.com/health/medical/100000-people-died-from-drug-overdoses-in- the-us-in-one-year-a-record/ (accessed February 3, 2023). 51. U.S. Department of Justice, National Security Division, “Information About the Department of Justice’s China Initiative and a Compilation of China-Related Prosecutions Since 2018,” last updated November 19, 2021, https://www.justice.gov/archives/nsd/information-about-department-justice-s-china-initiative-and- compilation-china-related (accessed February 3, 2023). 52. Ronn Blitzer and Jake Gibson, “Biden DOJ Ending National Security Initiative Aimed at Countering China amid Complaints About Bias,” Fox News, February 23, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-ending-china- initiative-national-security-program-bias (accessed February 3, 2023). 53. National Security Strategy, The White House, October 2022, p. 23, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/ uploads/2022/10/Biden-Harris-Administrations-National-Security-Strategy-10.2022.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). See also ibid., p. 8. — 577 — Department of Justice 54. U.S. Department of Justice, “About DOJ: Our Mission,” https://www.justice.gov/about (accessed February 4, 2023). 55. 18 U.S. Code § 248, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/248 (accessed February 4, 2023). 56. Danielle Wallace and Jake Gibson, “Pro-life Activist Mark Houck Pleads Not Guilty to Federal Charges After FBI Arrest,” Fox News, September 27, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/us/pro-life-activist-mark-houck-pleads- not-guilty-federal-charges-fbi-arrest (accessed February 4, 2023). 57. Patty Knap, “Paul Vaughn, Pro-life Father of 11 Arrested by FBI Speaks Out,” National Catholic Register, October 18, 2022, https://www.ncregister.com/news/paul-vaughn-pro-life-father-of-11-arrested-by-fbi-speaks- out (accessed February 4, 2023). 58. 597 U.S. ___ (2022), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/19-1392/case.pdf (accessed February 4, 2023). 59. Jonah McKeown, “TRACKER: Pro-Abortion Attacks in the U.S. Continue (Updated),” Catholic News Agency, last updated September 22, 2022, https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251553/map-vandalism- attacks-continue-at-pro-life-centers-across-us (accessed February 4, 2023). 60. 28 U.S. Code § 516, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/516 (accessed February 4, 2023). 61. 28 U.S. Code § 519, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/519 (accessed February 4, 2023). 62. 295 U.S. 602 (1935), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/295/602/ (accessed February 6, 2023). 63. 591 U.S. ___ (2020), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-7_new_0pm1.pdf (accessed February 6, 2023). 64. See Brief for the United States, 303 Creative v. Aubrey Elenis, No. 21-476, August 2022, https://www. supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-476/234119/20220819182151542_21-476%20303%20Creative%20LLC%20 v.%20Elenis%20FINAL.pdf (accessed February 4, 2023). 65. Oral Argument Transcript, 303 Creative v. Aubrey Elenis, No. 21-476, December 5, 2022, https:// www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2022/21-476_8n59.pdf (accessed February 4, 2023). 66. Brief for the United States, Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, No. 16-111, September 2017, p. 9, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/16-111-tsac-USA.pdf (accessed February 4, 2023) (quoting Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2321, 2327 (2013), quoting in turn Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 61 (2006)). 67. Ibid., p. 10. 68. Ibid., pp. 10–11. 69. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943), https://tile.loc.gov/storage- services/service/ll/usrep/usrep319/usrep319624/usrep319624.pdf (accessed February 4, 2023). 70. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 24 (1971), https://constitutionallawreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/ Cohen-v_-California.pdf (accessed February 4, 2023). 71. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 640. 72. McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464, 476 (2014), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/12-1168/ case.pdf (accessed February 4, 2023) (quoting FCC v. League of Women Voters of California, 468 U. S. 364, 377 (1984)). 73. See, for example, 42 U.S. Code § 2000d, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000d (accessed February 4, 2023); 42 U.S. Code § 2000e, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000e (accessed February 4, 2023); 20 U.S. Code § 1681, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/1681 (accessed February 4, 2023) 74. See “Advancing Equity and Racial Justice Through the Federal Government,” The White House, https://www. whitehouse.gov/equity/ (accessed February 4, 2023). 75. 18 U.S. Code § 1461, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1461 (accessed February 6, 2023). See also 18 U.S. Code § 1462, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1462 (accessed February 6, 2023). 76. 18 U.S. Code § 241, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241 (accessed February 6, 2023). 77. A similar argument could be advanced for the department’s other criminal law enforcement responsibilities such as those within the Environmental and Natural Resources Division. 78. See, for example, Paul Kiel, “Controversial USA Delivered ‘Voter Fraud’ Indictments Right on Time,” TPM Muckraker, May 1, 2007, https://web.archive.org/web/20070503021505/http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/ archives/003107.php (accessed February 4, 2023).

Department of the Interior

Minimal

Vector: 50%

Pages: 572-574AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on removing a historical figure's name from a memorial due to racist legacy, while the Project 2025 DOI section centers on energy independence, land management, and regulatory reforms, with no substantive overlap in objectives or themes."

Key themes:Department of the InteriorNational Park Servicefederal property

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. Van Hollen, Chris

A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3570 Olney Laytonsville Road in Olney, Maryland, as the "Edward L. Ramsey Olney Post Office Building".

119/s/3270

Justice Thurgood Marshall National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2025

119/s/791

National Museum of the Blind People’s Movement Act

119/s/3371

Back to All Bills