ROTOR Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/2503

Last Updated: September 7, 2026

ROTOR Act

S. 2503, 119th Congress — read as touching Aerospace (Commercial).

The sponsor

Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]

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

The money

$1,525,021 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

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

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 264 - 133 (Roll no. 72).

February 23, 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:

**Analysis and Summary of the ROTOR Act (S 2503)**

As a visionary entrepreneur and strategic investor, I'll dissect this bill through the lens of its potential impact on my business interests and the broader landscape of innovation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The ROTOR Act aims to enhance aviation safety by mandating the installation of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast In (ADS-B In) technology in all newly manufactured aircraft. The bill also seeks to clarify exceptions for sensitive government missions and improve transparency around ADS-B Out transmission exemptions.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

1. **ADS-B In Requirements**: Newly manufactured manned aircraft must be equipped with ADS-B In within 2 years of the bill's enactment, with a phased implementation over the next 3 years. 2. **Clarification on Sensitive Government Missions**: The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must issue regulations to clarify that "sensitive government mission" exceptions do not include proficiency evaluations or training missions within Class B or C airspace, unless related to national security events. 3. **Guidance on Alternative Technologies**: The FAA must provide guidance on using Traffic Information Services-Broadcast (TIS-B) and the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) for aircraft operating in support of national defense, homeland security intelligence, or law enforcement.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

1. **Aircraft Manufacturers**: Companies like Boeing, Airbus, and General Dynamics will need to integrate ADS-B In technology into their production lines. 2. **Government Agencies**: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies operating aircraft for national defense, homeland security intelligence, or law enforcement will be impacted by the bill's provisions on sensitive government missions and alternative technologies. 3. **Private Aircraft Owners**: Individuals and companies owning private aircraft may need to retrofit their planes with ADS-B In technology.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

1. **Increased Costs**: The mandatory installation of ADS-B In technology could lead to higher production costs for manufacturers, potentially affecting profit margins and competitiveness. 2. **Enhanced Safety**: Improved surveillance capabilities and reduced reliance on radar systems may enhance overall aviation safety. 3. **Regulatory Burden**: The bill's reporting requirements and guidance on alternative technologies may add to the administrative burden on government agencies and private aircraft owners.

From a strategic perspective, this bill presents both opportunities and challenges for my business interests. While the mandatory installation of ADS-B In technology may increase costs for manufacturers, it also creates new market opportunities for companies specializing in avionics and surveillance systems. I will continue to monitor this legislation's progress and adjust my investment strategies accordingly.

**Projection:** The ROTOR Act has a moderate potential impact on my business interests, with estimated costs ranging from $500 million to $1 billion over the next 5 years. However, the long-term benefits of enhanced safety and increased market opportunities may outweigh these initial expenses.

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 various stages before it can become an actual law.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The ROTOR Act (S. 2503) aims to improve aviation safety by requiring all aircraft to be equipped with Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast In (ADS-B In). This technology enhances air traffic control's ability to track and manage aircraft, reducing the risk of collisions.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill has several key provisions:

1. **Revision to Exception for ADS-B Out Transmission**: The bill clarifies that certain exceptions to ADS-B Out transmission requirements do not apply to proficiency evaluations or training missions within Class B or C airspace. 2. **Guidance on Use of Technology Other Than ADS-B**: The Administrator must issue guidance on the use of Traffic Information Services-Broadcast (TIS-B) and Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) for aircraft operating for national defense, homeland security intelligence, or law enforcement purposes. 3. **Reports**: Agencies required to operate ADS-B Out equipment must submit quarterly reports to the Administrator, which will then be submitted to Congress biannually.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The bill affects:

1. **Aircraft manufacturers**: They must ensure that newly manufactured aircraft are equipped with ADS-B In technology. 2. **Air traffic control**: The bill enhances their ability to track and manage air traffic. 3. **Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies**: They will be required to submit reports on their use of ADS-B Out exceptions.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The ROTOR Act aims to improve aviation safety by increasing the use of ADS-B In technology. This could lead to:

1. **Reduced risk of collisions**: Enhanced air traffic control capabilities can help prevent accidents. 2. **Increased transparency**: Regular reporting requirements will provide insight into the use of ADS-B Out exceptions. 3. **Potential costs for aircraft manufacturers and owners**: The requirement to equip newly manufactured aircraft with ADS-B In technology may lead to increased costs.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go grade papers from my actual students who are learning about this stuff for the first time...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round! Today, we're going to dissect the ROTOR Act, a bill that's been masquerading as a harmless aviation safety measure. But don't be fooled – I've got my eyes on the real agenda.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The ROTOR Act claims to improve aviation safety by requiring all aircraft to be equipped with Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast In (ADS-B In). Sounds innocent enough, right? Wrong! This bill is just a Trojan horse for more government control and surveillance.

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

1. **ADS-B Out requirements:** The bill revises the exception for ADS-B Out transmission, which allows certain aircraft to operate without broadcasting their location. But what's really going on here? Is this just a way to create a backdoor for government agencies to track and monitor civilian aircraft? 2. **Guidance on use of technology:** The Administrator is required to issue guidance on the use of Traffic Information Services-Broadcast (TIS-B) and the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS). Sounds like a lot of techno-jargon, but what if I told you this is just a way for the government to justify the use of more advanced surveillance technology? 3. **Reports and oversight:** The bill requires agencies to submit reports on their ADS-B Out exceptions, which will supposedly help ensure aviation safety. But who's really watching the watchers? This is just a way for the government to keep tabs on everyone.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Aircraft manufacturers:** They'll be forced to equip all newly manufactured aircraft with ADS-B In technology. Who benefits from this? The government, of course! 2. **Pilots and aircraft owners:** They'll have to comply with the new regulations, which will likely increase costs and bureaucratic red tape. 3. **Government agencies:** They'll get more power to monitor and control civilian air traffic.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased surveillance:** This bill is just another step towards a total surveillance state. With ADS-B In technology, the government can track every aircraft in real-time. 2. **Loss of privacy:** Pilots and aircraft owners will have their movements monitored and recorded without consent. 3. **More regulations, more control:** The ROTOR Act sets a precedent for even more restrictive regulations on civilian air traffic.

Wake up, sheeple! This bill is not about aviation safety; it's about expanding government control and surveillance. Don't believe the official narrative – there's always more to the story than meets the eye.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got another doozy of a bill on our hands! The ROTOR Act, or Rotorcraft Operations Transparency and Oversight Reform Act - try saying that five times fast! (smirk)

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill is all about aviation safety, folks. It's like the elites in Washington are finally listening to us commoners, concerned about those fancy flying machines up there. The main goal is to improve safety by requiring aircraft to be equipped with Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast In (ADS-B In) technology. Now, I know what you're thinking - "What's ADS-B In?" Well, let me tell you, it's like a superpower for planes, allowing them to see other aircraft and avoid collisions! (wink)

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill makes some significant changes to existing law. It requires all newly manufactured manned aircraft to be equipped with ADS-B In technology within three years of the final rule being issued. That's right, folks, no more flying blind! (chuckle) Additionally, it clarifies exceptions for sensitive government missions and requires agencies to report on their use of ADS-B Out equipment.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** Well, this one's a no-brainer - aircraft manufacturers, pilots, airlines, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are all going to be impacted by this bill. And let me tell you, folks, they're not going to like it! (smirk) I mean, who wants more regulations, right? But hey, safety first, am I right?

**Potential Impact & Implications** Now, here's where things get interesting. This bill could potentially improve aviation safety, reducing the risk of collisions and saving lives. But, on the other hand, it might also increase costs for aircraft manufacturers and pilots, which could be passed down to consumers - you know, the little guy! (wink) And let's not forget about the potential impact on national security missions - will this bill compromise our safety or hinder our ability to respond to threats? (dramatic music plays)

Folks, it's a complex issue, but one thing's for sure - we need to keep an eye on those elites in Washington and make sure they're not overstepping their bounds. After all, freedom isn't free! (patriotic music swells)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this ROTOR Act, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to improve aviation safety by requiring all aircraft to be equipped with Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast In (ADS-B In). Because, you know, safety is a great selling point for politicians who want to look like they care. The real purpose, of course, is to create more regulatory hurdles and opportunities for bureaucratic growth.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill revises the exception for ADS-B Out transmission, clarifying that "sensitive government mission" doesn't include proficiency evaluations or training missions within Class B or C airspace. Oh, how convenient. It also requires the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to issue guidance on using alternative technologies like Traffic Information Services-Broadcast (TIS-B) and Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS). Because, you know, the FAA wasn't already doing that.

The bill also mandates reports from agencies operating ADS-B Out equipment, because nothing says "transparency" like more paperwork. And, of course, there's a sunset clause, because Congress loves to create temporary solutions to permanent problems.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Aircraft manufacturers, airlines, and government agencies will be affected by this bill. But let's be real, the only stakeholders who truly matter are the politicians and bureaucrats who get to expand their empires with more regulations and oversight.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The ROTOR Act will likely increase costs for aircraft manufacturers and owners, as they'll need to equip their planes with ADS-B In technology. This might lead to higher ticket prices for consumers, but hey, safety is worth it, right? The bill may also create more bureaucratic red tape, slowing down innovation in the aviation industry.

But don't worry, folks! The real impact will be on the politicians who get to tout this bill as a "safety measure" while lining their pockets with campaign donations from the aviation lobby. It's a win-win for everyone involved – except, of course, for the taxpayers and consumers who'll foot the bill.

In conclusion, the ROTOR Act is just another example of Congress's favorite game: "Regulatory Theater." It's a show designed to impress the gullible public while enriching the politicians and their cronies. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than watch this farce unfold.

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

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Rotorcraft Operations Transparency and Oversight Reform Act (ROTOR Act), S. 2503, aims to improve aviation safety by enhancing the use of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast In (ADS-B In) technology in aircraft operations. The bill seeks to increase transparency and oversight of exceptions granted for ADS-B Out transmissions, particularly for sensitive government missions.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

1. **Revision to Exception for ADS-B Out Transmission**: Clarifies that the term "sensitive government mission" does not include proficiency evaluation or training missions operated within Class B or C airspace, unless it's a national security event. 2. **Guidance on Use of Technology Other Than ADS-B**: Requires the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to issue guidance on using Traffic Information Services-Broadcast (TIS-B) and the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) for aircraft operating for purposes of national defense, homeland security intelligence, or law enforcement. 3. **Reports and Notifications**: Mandates quarterly reports from agencies required to operate ADS-B Out in transmit mode, as well as biannual reports to Congress on the frequency and nature of ADS-B Out exceptions granted to federal, state, local, and tribal agencies. 4. **ADS-B In Requirements**: Requires newly manufactured manned aircraft registered in the United States to be equipped with ADS-B In within 3 years of the final rule's effective date.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

1. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 2. Aircraft manufacturers 3. Air traffic control and aviation safety organizations 4. Government agencies operating aircraft for national defense, homeland security intelligence, or law enforcement purposes 5. State, local, and tribal agencies with aviation operations

**Potential Impact & Implications**

1. **Enhanced Aviation Safety**: Widespread adoption of ADS-B In technology can improve situational awareness and reduce the risk of collisions. 2. **Increased Transparency and Oversight**: Regular reporting requirements will provide greater insight into exceptions granted for ADS-B Out transmissions, ensuring that sensitive government missions are conducted safely and efficiently. 3. **Potential Costs and Implementation Challenges**: Aircraft manufacturers and operators may face costs associated with equipping aircraft with ADS-B In technology, which could lead to implementation challenges and potential delays.

Overall, the ROTOR Act aims to promote aviation safety by leveraging advanced technologies like ADS-B In, while also increasing transparency and oversight of exceptions granted for sensitive government missions.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down the ROTOR Act, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The ROTOR Act is all about improving aviation safety by requiring aircraft to be equipped with Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast In (ADS-B In). This tech helps pilots and air traffic control see each other on a radar screen, reducing the risk of collisions. The bill aims to make ADS-B In mandatory for most aircraft operating in US airspace.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The ROTOR Act makes some key changes:

1. **ADS-B Out exceptions**: The bill clarifies that certain government agencies can't use ADS-B Out exceptions for training or proficiency evaluations within Class B or C airspace, unless it's a national security event. 2. **Guidance on alternative tech**: The FAA must issue guidance on using Traffic Information Services-Broadcast (TIS-B) and the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) for aircraft operating for national defense, homeland security, intelligence, or law enforcement. 3. **Reporting requirements**: Agencies must submit quarterly reports to the FAA on their ADS-B Out operations, including any exceptions used. The FAA will also report to Congress biannually on the frequency and nature of these exceptions. 4. **ADS-B In requirements**: Newly manufactured aircraft (except unmanned ones) must be equipped with ADS-B In within 3 years of the bill's enactment.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects:

1. **Aircraft manufacturers**: They'll need to equip new aircraft with ADS-B In. 2. **Government agencies**: Agencies like the FAA, Department of Defense, and law enforcement will need to comply with new reporting requirements and tech guidelines. 3. **Pilots and air traffic control**: They'll benefit from improved safety features and reduced risk of collisions.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The ROTOR Act could lead to:

1. **Improved aviation safety**: By making ADS-B In mandatory, the bill reduces the risk of mid-air collisions. 2. **Increased transparency**: Regular reporting requirements will provide more insight into government agencies' use of ADS-B Out exceptions. 3. **Industry adjustments**: Aircraft manufacturers and operators may need to invest in new tech and training to comply with the bill's requirements.

Overall, the ROTOR Act is a solid step towards enhancing aviation safety, bro. It's all about getting those aircraft equipped with the right tech to reduce risks and keep everyone safe up there.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: S. 2503 - ROTOR Act**

The ROTOR Act, sponsored by Senator Cruz and cosponsored by several other senators from both parties, aims to improve aviation safety by requiring all aircraft to be equipped with Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast In (ADS-B In) technology.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of the bill is to enhance aviation safety by mandating the installation of ADS-B In technology in all newly manufactured manned aircraft and in designated airspace. The bill also seeks to clarify exceptions for sensitive government missions and improve transparency around the use of ADS-B Out exceptions.

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

1. **ADS-B In Requirements:** The bill requires the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to issue a final rule within two years, mandating that all newly manufactured manned aircraft be equipped with ADS-B In technology. 2. **Exceptions for Sensitive Government Missions:** The bill clarifies exceptions for sensitive government missions, excluding proficiency evaluations and training missions from the definition of "sensitive government mission." 3. **Reports and Guidance:** The FAA is required to submit reports on the frequency and nature of ADS-B Out exceptions granted to federal, state, local, and tribal agencies. 4. **Guidance on Use of Technology Other Than ADS-B:** The FAA must issue guidance on the use of Traffic Information Services-Broadcast (TIS-B) and the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) for national defense, homeland security intelligence, or law enforcement purposes.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Aircraft Manufacturers:** Companies like Boeing, Airbus, and General Dynamics will be impacted by the ADS-B In requirements. 2. **Aviation Industry:** Airlines, airports, and aviation service providers will need to adapt to the new regulations. 3. **Government Agencies:** Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies operating aircraft will be affected by the exceptions and reporting requirements.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Improved Aviation Safety:** The mandatory installation of ADS-B In technology is expected to enhance aviation safety by providing more accurate and reliable air traffic control data. 2. **Increased Transparency:** The bill's reporting requirements will provide greater transparency around the use of ADS-B Out exceptions, allowing for better oversight and accountability. 3. **Industry Compliance Costs:** Aircraft manufacturers and operators may incur significant costs to comply with the new regulations, potentially leading to increased prices for consumers.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) and the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) have expressed support for the bill, highlighting its potential to improve aviation safety. However, some industry stakeholders may oppose the mandatory installation of ADS-B In technology due to concerns about costs and implementation challenges. Senator Cruz has received significant campaign contributions from aerospace and defense companies, including Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which may have influenced his sponsorship of the bill.

**Committee Capture:** The Senate Committee on

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$1,525,021

23 donors

PACs

$1,497,892

Organizations

$27,129

Committees

Individuals

WINRED

2 transactions

$1,497,892

FASKEN MANAGEMENT

1 transaction

$10,000

REPUBLICAN PARTY OF HARRISON COUNTY

1 transaction

$4,000

FOLAD ENTERPRISES LLC

1 transaction

$2,000

JOHNSEY

7 transactions

$1,854

BALCH & BINGHAM LLP

1 transaction

$1,000

PARTNERS HOTEL GROUP LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

KHAT INVESTMENS LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

PJB INVESTMENT ADVISORS LLC

1 transaction

$800

GRANT MORELAND LP LLC

1 transaction

$750

BL PARTNERS GROUP LLC

1 transaction

$750

MILLE'S LLC

1 transaction

$500

HARRY M BETTIS JR LLC

1 transaction

$500

ROBDON L.P.

1 transaction

$500

JAMES E. JOHNSON LLC

1 transaction

$500

FALSE RIVER VIEW LLC

1 transaction

$500

MURDOCK PROPERTIES LLC

1 transaction

$325

RESEDA HOLDINGS LLC

1 transaction

$250

DIXON RENTAL PROPERTIES LLC

1 transaction

$250

ROGERS LIVESTOCK LLC

1 transaction

$250

MISRASI CONCRETE LLC

1 transaction

$200

JOUETT LLC

1 transaction

$100

FORCE CONSTRUCTION OF LA LLC

1 transaction

$100

No committee contributions found

No individual contributions found

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS]

ID: M000934

Top Contributors

BORCK, LEON H.

INNOVATIVE LIVESTOCK SERVICES • EXECUTIVE

IndividualMANHATTAN, KS

$6,600

Mar 11, 2024

MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE

DMM PROPRIETA MANAGEMENT • MANAGER

IndividualASPEN, CO

$6,600

Sep 26, 2024

MANDELBLATT, ERIC

SOROBAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LP • MANAGING PARTNER

IndividualASPEN, CO

$6,600

Sep 26, 2024

CATZ, SAFRA

ORACLE CORPORATION • CEO

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$5,000

May 5, 2023

MISSION INDIANS, MORONGO BAND OF

INDIAN TRIBE • INDIAN TRIBE

IndividualBANNING, CA

$5,000

Aug 13, 2024

WILLIS, THOMAS M

CONESTOGA ENERGY PARTNERS • CEO

IndividualLIBERAL, KS

$5,000

Aug 26, 2024

WEILERT, STANLEY R

S&B MOTELS, INC. • HOTELIER

IndividualWICHITA, KS

$3,500

Jun 26, 2023

BORCK, JACKIE

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY • DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS

IndividualMANHATTAN, KS

$3,300

Mar 11, 2024

BORCK, JACKIE

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY • DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS

IndividualMANHATTAN, KS

$3,300

Mar 11, 2024

THOMAS, ROBERT

SENIOR STAR • CO-OWNER

IndividualTULSA, OK

$3,300

Feb 22, 2024

Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]

ID: B001243

Top Contributors

FRIENDS OF COMMUNITY ONCOLOGY PAC

PACVIRGINIA BEACH, VA

$5,000

Apr 12, 2023

THE COGGIN GROUP

OrganizationMURFREESBORO, TN

$2,900

Mar 9, 2023

THE COGGIN GROUP

OrganizationMURFREESBORO, TN

$2,500

Mar 9, 2023

DOSS BROTHERS FARM

OrganizationLAWRENCEBURG, TN

$1,000

Apr 17, 2024

DOSS BROTHERS FARM

OrganizationLAWRENCEBURG, TN

$1,000

Mar 18, 2024

BL PARTNERS GROUP LLC

OrganizationARLINGTON, VA

$500

Mar 17, 2023

KING, RODNEY W.

SELF-EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY

IndividualGERMANTOWN, TN

$13,200

Apr 4, 2024

BEAN, BILL G.

HANNING & BEAN ENTERPRISES INC. • REAL ESTATE INVESTOR

IndividualCOLUMBIA CITY, IN

$10,000

May 1, 2024

SMITH, THOMAS

PRESCOTT INVESTORS INC. • INVESTOR

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$10,000

May 13, 2024

GAMBLE, KATHRYN

UNAKA CO • BUSINESS EXECUTIVE

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$9,900

Jul 15, 2024

Sen. Budd, Ted [R-NC]

ID: B001305

Top Contributors

MACFARLANE, RON

IndividualBUFFALO GROVE, IL

$13,068

Apr 10, 2024

HEGYI, ALBERT P MR.

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Dec 31, 2024

NAZIROV, ATABEK

UZDIF • CEO

IndividualCHARLOTTE, NC

$6,600

Sep 14, 2023

NAZIROV, ATABEK

IndividualCHARLOTTE, NC

$6,600

Sep 26, 2023

FROST, BRANT IV

SELF-EMPLOYED • FINANCIAL SERVICES

IndividualNEWNAN, GA

$3,300

Dec 31, 2024

FROST, KRISTA

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualNEWNAN, GA

$3,300

Dec 31, 2024

TAYLOR, WILLIAM MR.

VETERANS GUARDIAN VA CLAIM CONSULTING • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualPINEHURST, NC

$3,300

Dec 7, 2023

TAYLOR, WILLIAM MR.

VETERANS GUARDIAN VA CLAIM CONSULTING • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualPINEHURST, NC

$3,300

Dec 7, 2023

GREENBLATT, SCOTT MR.

VETERANS GUARDIAN • CEO

IndividualPINEHURST, NC

$3,300

Dec 8, 2023

GREENBLATT, SCOTT MR.

VETERANS GUARDIAN • CEO

IndividualPINEHURST, NC

$3,300

Dec 8, 2023

Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]

ID: C001047

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$2,800

Dec 31, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Nov 8, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jul 22, 2024

ARNOLD, JOHN MR.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$6,600

Dec 27, 2023

MANOCHERIAN, JENNIFER MS.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSCARSDALE, NY

$6,600

Feb 17, 2023

MANOCHERIAN, JED MR.

SELF • REAL ESTATE

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Feb 23, 2023

MANOCHERIAN, GREG MR.

SELF EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE

IndividualPOUND RIDGE, NY

$6,600

Mar 1, 2023

MANOCHERIAN, KIM

PANAM EQUITIES • EXECUTIVE

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Mar 27, 2023

KAY, ALISON MS.

KIDS CAPITAL • HEDGE FUND MANAGER

IndividualBEVERLY HILLS, CA

$6,600

Jun 20, 2023

MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE

DMM PROPRIETA MANAGEMENT • MANAGER

IndividualASPEN, CO

$6,600

Sep 26, 2024

Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]

ID: M001198

Top Contributors

THE KROGER CO. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE

PACCINCINNATI, OH

$3,000

Mar 16, 2023

THE KROGER CO. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE

PACCINCINNATI, OH

$2,500

Mar 23, 2023

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$2,500

Mar 31, 2023

THE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE OF THE FERTILIZER INSTITUTE

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$1,500

Mar 31, 2023

ILLIG, MICHAEL

TIFEC LLC • PRIVATE EQUITY

IndividualLEAWOOD, KS

$13,200

Nov 3, 2024

MADAY, GREG

SPECCHEM • CHAIRMAN CEO

IndividualMISSION HILLS, KS

$13,200

Nov 11, 2024

ILLIG, BONNE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualLEAWOOD, KS

$6,600

Nov 2, 2024

ILLIG, AMY

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualLEAWOOD, KS

$6,600

Nov 12, 2024

MADAY, LIZ

SPECCHEM • DIRECTOR

IndividualMISSION HILLS, KS

$6,600

Nov 12, 2024

MAXWELL, KORB II

POLSINELLI • SHAREHOLDER

IndividualFAIRWAY, KS

$6,600

Nov 3, 2024

Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO]

ID: S001227

Top Contributors

ELEVATE MISSOURI

OrganizationKANSAS CITY, MO

$5,000

Jun 30, 2024

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA TRIBE

OrganizationBELCOURT, ND

$2,900

Jun 24, 2021

PETER J SPALITTO DDS PC

OrganizationDES PERES, MO

$2,900

Aug 1, 2024

ELEVATE MISSOURI

OrganizationKANSAS CITY, MO

$1,700

Jun 30, 2024

KIRKWOOD PLUMBING INC

OrganizationKIRKWOOD, MO

$500

Aug 1, 2024

WALTON, TROY

SELF EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY

IndividualGLEN CARBON, IL

$11,600

Jun 3, 2021

PFAUTCH, ROY

CIVIL SERVICE INC • CONSULTANT

IndividualST. LOUIS, MO

$11,600

Dec 31, 2023

ROSS, DONALD

ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS INC • VICE CHAIRMAN

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$10,000

Mar 3, 2022

TAYLOR, ANDREW

ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR • CEO

IndividualST LOUIS, MO

$6,600

Oct 15, 2024

TAYLOR, BARBARA

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualST LOUIS, MO

$6,600

Oct 15, 2024

Sen. Sheehy, Tim [R-MT]

ID: S001232

Top Contributors

100

CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$7,720

Jun 27, 2024

CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$7,720

Jun 27, 2024

CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$7,720

Jun 27, 2024

CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$7,720

Jun 27, 2024

CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$7,720

Jun 27, 2024

SENATE CONSERVATIVES FUND

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$7,609

Jun 21, 2024

SENATE CONSERVATIVES FUND

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$7,609

Jun 21, 2024

SENATE CONSERVATIVES FUND

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$7,609

Jun 21, 2024

REPUBLICAN JEWISH COALITION-POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (RJC-PAC)

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$7,000

Jun 25, 2024

REPUBLICAN JEWISH COALITION-POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (RJC-PAC)

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$7,000

Jun 25, 2024

Sen. Young, Todd [R-IN]

ID: Y000064

Top Contributors

HESS, DANIEL L.

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIES CORP. • PRESIDENT/ OWNER

IndividualZIONSVILLE, IN

$10,000

Jul 1, 2024

SHUBLAK, MARK I.

ICE MILLER LLP • ATTORNEY

IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$6,600

Oct 20, 2023

MCLEAN, SUZZY

SAGESURE • INSURANCE

IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA

$6,600

Oct 23, 2024

MCLEAN, TERRENCE

SAGESURE • INSURANCE

IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA

$6,600

Oct 23, 2024

BESSENT, SCOTT K.

KEY SQUARE GROUP • INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT

IndividualCHARLESTON, SC

$6,600

Mar 28, 2024

PATRICELLI, ROBERT E.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSIMSBURY, CT

$6,600

Mar 1, 2024

ANDREESSEN, MARC L.

ANDREESSEN HOROWITZ • CO-FOUNDER

IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA

$6,600

Sep 30, 2024

BRALY, DOUGLAS A. MR.

SELF EMPLOYED • ACCOUNTANT

IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$6,600

Sep 4, 2024

DIXON, CHRISTOPHER

ANDREESSEN HOROWITZ • GENERAL PARTNER

IndividualPALO ALTO, CA

$6,600

Sep 30, 2024

HESS, LEANNA

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualZIONSVILLE, IN

$6,600

Aug 19, 2024

Sen. Cantwell, Maria [D-WA]

ID: C000127

Top Contributors

SAC FOX TRIBE

OrganizationTAMA, IA

$5,000

Oct 29, 2024

LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE

OrganizationPORT ANGELES, WA

$3,360

Mar 31, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationHIGHLAND, CA

$3,300

Oct 28, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationHIGHLAND, CA

$3,300

Dec 21, 2023

SAN PABLO LYTTON TRIBE

OrganizationSAN PABLO, CA

$3,300

Nov 16, 2023

SAN PABLO LYTTON TRIBE

OrganizationSAN PABLO, CA

$3,300

Nov 16, 2023

SAULT STE MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS

OrganizationSAULT SAINTE MARIE, MI

$3,300

Dec 14, 2023

SENECA NATION OF INDIANS

OrganizationSALAMANCA, NY

$3,300

Dec 14, 2023

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationAUBURN, WA

$3,300

May 12, 2023

NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationOLYMPIA, WA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

Sen. Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL]

ID: D000622

Top Contributors

AMERICAN EXPRESS

OrganizationNEWARK, NJ

$6,132

Feb 7, 2023

AMERICAN EXPRESS

OrganizationNEWARK, NJ

$605

Mar 3, 2023

CITIBUSINESS CARD

OrganizationCOLUMBUS, OH

$347

Jan 10, 2023

CITIBUSINESS CARD

OrganizationCOLUMBUS, OH

$254

Feb 7, 2023

AMERICAN EXPRESS

OrganizationNEWARK, NJ

$98

Jan 10, 2023

CITIBUSINESS CARD

OrganizationCOLUMBUS, OH

$74

Mar 3, 2023

KELLY, MICHAEL

WALKUP LAW FIRM • ATTORNEY

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Oct 7, 2024

LISTER, AMANDA

N/A • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Oct 17, 2024

SUMEY, ROGER

IndividualELLICOTT CITY, MD

$3,300

Oct 11, 2023

CHEN, QIANHUI

RENAISSANCE TECHNOLOGIES LLC • ANALYST

IndividualSETAUKET, NY

$3,300

Mar 2, 2024

Donor Network - Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 31 nodes and 37 connections

Total contributions: $37

Top Donors - Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]

Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC22 Orgs

Industry Impact

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

+Aerospace (Commercial)confidence 0.90
Section 4(a)(1) requires aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out to also have ADS-B In, creating demand for avionics manufacturers and aircraft equipment suppliers, benefiting aerospace commercial sector.
+Airlinesconfidence 0.90
Section 4(a)(1) requires ADS-B In equipment for aircraft required to have ADS-B Out, which includes commercial transport airplanes operated by airlines, improving safety and potentially reducing delays; Section 7(b) safety reviews of airports including commercial transport airplane operations benefit airlines by mitigating risks from military/rotorcraft operations near airports like Reagan National.
+Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.85
Sections 3, 4, 7, 8 involve coordination with Department of Defense, FAA-DOD information sharing, and safety reviews of military aircraft operations, likely increasing contracts for defense contractors.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX])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

Airlines$106,812
from 538 contributions
- WINGATE, HEATHER$9,800
- GATTEN, NATHAN$8,300
- CALIO, NICK E.$6,600
- MANBER, MARK$5,125
- BASTIAN, EDWARD MR.$3,300
Defense Contractors$40,443
from 452 contributions
- BEN-AVI, DORON$3,300
- HENSLEY, STEVEN$3,300
- FUHR, PEGGY L. MS.$2,500
- BARTENS, ANTHONY$1,000
- COPELAND, TODD$1,000
Aerospace (Commercial)$19,519
from 83 contributions
- BIEGUN, STEPHEN$3,300
- OJAKLI, ZIAD$3,300
- MCLEMORE, THOMAS$3,000
- SUTTON, HOWARD$2,000
- SIMMONS, ROBERT$2,000

Project 2025 Policy Matches

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

Department of Transportation

Moderate

Vector: 64%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the ROTOR Act and the Project 2025 DOT section emphasize using technology to improve transportation safety and increasing transparency/oversight, but the bill focuses on aviation surveillance (ADS‑B In/Out) while the policy centers on automated vehicles, spectrum allocation, and a tech‑neutral regulatory approach, resulting in only moderate thematic overlap."

Key themes:aviation safetytechnology adoptiontransparency and oversightsafety priority

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

Department of Transportation

Moderate

Vector: 64%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The ROTOR Act aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on transportation safety and technology integration, particularly through enhancing aviation safety via ADS-B In and improving oversight of sensitive operations. However, it focuses narrowly on aviation surveillance exceptions and does not address broader DOT priorities like automated vehicles, spectrum allocation, or tech-neutral innovation promotion outlined in the Project 2025 section."

Key themes:transportation safetytechnology integrationoversight and transparencyaviation innovationgovernment operations

Department of Commerce

Weak

Vector: 64%

Pages: 705-707AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on aviation safety and transparency of ADS-B technology use, while the Project 2025 excerpt concerns export controls of emerging technologies; both share a theme of increasing oversight and transparency, but their policy domains are largely unrelated."

Key themes:technology oversighttransparency reportingcongressional oversightnational security considerations

— 672 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise regulate exports of emerging and foundational technologies. Although the scope of such technologies is vast, to date BIS has only controlled just over 40 of these technologies. This does not meet the clear statutory intent of Congress that ECRA be leveraged to ensure that the United States maintains a technological advantage in technologies bearing upon national security interests. Currently, BIS self-identifies technologies that merit control under the EAR with minimal input from other federal agencies. This mechanism should be improved. BIS should create an open, transparent rulemaking process by which any industry participant, private entity, or branch of the government may, at any time, submit nominations for emerging/foundational technologies for control. Then, on a quarterly basis, BIS should make public such recommendations (while holding the identity of the submitter confidential) for public input, followed by an explanation about its ultimate decision to control or not control the items, its reasons, the level of controls applied (stringent or permissive), and the relevant Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) under the Commerce Control List. Commerce should also institute a mechanism whereby its decisions can be challenged, including on a confidential basis. Licensing Procedures: Adjudication and Transparency. Currently, if the Departments of Defense, State, Commerce, and Energy disagree on an export license decision, the disagreement may be escalated to the Operating Commit- tee—and subsequently to the Advisory Committee on Export Policy led by BIS’s Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. The Assistant Secretary does not need to lead the dispute resolution, and this process should be revised by giving lead authority to BIS’s Under Secretary, who is better able to account for diverging views. Moreover, BIS’s authority to overrule other agency votes should be changed. Each agency should have one equal vote and, if a licensing dispute remains unre- solved, the final decision should be elevated to the National Security Advisor and the Secretaries of Defense, State, Commerce, and Energy. Additionally, to improve congressional oversight of BIS’s license adjudication process, BIS should provide specific congressional committees with data from the Automated Export System on a quarterly basis. Electronic files should contain U.S. exporter by name; product description (e.g., harmonized system code and ECCN/U. S. Munitions List designation); end user and destination country; and when a license was required, whether the license was granted or denied. BIS cur- rently denies just 1.2 percent of export licenses. These data reporting requirements can help Congress better determine whether BIS is adequately protecting national security through appropriate use of export controls or whether additional direction from Congress is required. Improve End-Use Checks. The integrity of the export control system may be validated only through adequate end-use checks. BIS must deny export licenses to countries that do not permit adequate end-use checks (e.g., China/Russia) by U.S. authorities. BIS should also strengthen the forensic audit capabilities of its — 673 — Department of Commerce Export Enforcement officers through improved and frequent training so they are able to detect export-control violations. EAR Revisions. The U.S. Government needs a new export control moderniza- tion effort to tighten the EAR policies governing licenses to countries of concern, including China and Russia (specifically, revise and/or reverse the 2008 through 2016 policies). When authoritarian governments explain what they plan to do, believe them unless hard evidence demonstrates otherwise. Case in point: China’s and Russia’s stated civil–military fusion policies demand central government command-and-control style systems in which every private entity serves the interests of the state and is forced to provide technology, services, capacity, and data to the central govern- ment and the military. Through this structure, commercial activities are routinely weaponized by authoritarian regimes that repeatedly identify the U.S. as an enemy. Accordingly, U.S. export control policies must be updated to reflect these realities and the associated threats to national security. Key priorities for EAR modernization for countries of concern should be: l Eliminating the “specially designed” licensing loophole; l Redesignating China and Russia to more highly prohibitive export licensing groups (country groups D or E); l Eliminating license exceptions; l Broadening foreign direct product rules; l Reducing the de minimis threshold from 25 percent to 10 percent—or 0 percent for critical technologies; l Tightening the deemed export rules to prevent technology transfer to foreign nationals from countries of concern; l Tightening the definition of “fundamental research” to address exploitation of the open U.S. university system by authoritarian governments through funding, students and researchers, and recruitment; l Eliminating license exceptions for sharing technology with controlled entities/countries through standards-setting “activities” and bodies; and l Improving regulations regarding published information for technology transfers.

Department of Transportation

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 670-672AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on aviation safety technology (ADS-B In/Out) and oversight of exceptions for government flights, while the Project 2025 excerpt addresses railroad brake inspections, FRA research management, and maritime administration reorganization. Both involve DOT modal agencies and safety‑technology oversight, but they concern different transportation modes and specific policies, resulting only tangential alignment."

Key themes:transportation safetytechnology oversightagency reporting requirementsfederal guidance implementation

Department of Transportation

Minimal

Vector: 64%

Pages: 670-672AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The ROTOR Act focuses on aviation safety through ADS-B technology and oversight of government flight exceptions, while the Project 2025 DOT section addresses railroad brake inspections, dispatcher certifications, emergency equipment, and maritime administration reorganization—there is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 637 — Department of Transportation to track brake inspections on rolling stock electronically instead of by using paper air brake slips, which would enable extending the interval between brake inspections for trains and eliminating restrictions on the ability to place/remove blocks of cars in trains. l FRA will be proposing certification requirements for dispatchers and signal employees despite the failure of the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) to identify any safety benefit. l FRA is planning to propose emergency escape breathing apparatus requirements for train crews even though FRA staff long ago concluded that the costs of these requirements would far outweigh their very minimal benefits. It is vital that the integrity of FRA’s research program be preserved. In 2022, FRA switched the management of the Transportation Technology Center (TTC) in Pueblo, Colorado, from a subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads (AAR) to Ensco, Inc. FRA seems determined to direct research to TTC, even when there are better choices with respect to the research in question, in an effort to support TTC financially and justify its decision to change management at TTC. This change in approach threatens the collaborative approach to research between FRA and the railroads that has existed for decades. FRA should make its decisions on where to spend its research dollars solely on the merits of improving the safety and efficiency of the railroad industry. MARITIME POLICY The Maritime Administration (MARAD) was established by President Harry Truman in 1950 and was transferred to DOT in 1981. A principal function is “main- tain[ing] the overall health of the U.S. Merchant Marine,”15 which is important both to national defense and to foreign and domestic commerce. MARAD is also in charge of the United States Merchant Marine Academy and operates ships and funding for the six state maritime academies. MARAD would be better served by being transferred from DOT to the Depart- ment of Homeland Security (DHS). MARAD is the only DOT modal administration that does not regulate the industry that it represents: The maritime industry is regulated by the U.S. Coast Guard (ships and personnel) and by the Federal Mari- time Commission (cargo rates and competitive practices). Furthermore, MARAD has responsibilities both in peacetime commerce and operationally in wartime/crisis sealift through its responsibility to manage the National Defense Reserve Fleet and 45-ship Ready Reserve Force for the U.S. Navy. These missions are unique to MARAD within DOT. As a result, MARAD’s missions — 638 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and purpose, and therefore its funding priorities, are not well understood and his- torically have been minimalized in planning and budgeting. MARAD, including its subordinate Service Academy (the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy) should be transferred to the Department of Defense (if the Coast Guard is located there because DHS has been eliminated) or to the Department of Home- land Security. In this way, the two agencies charged with oversight and regulation of the Maritime sector—MARAD and the United States Coast Guard—would be aligned under the same department where operational efficiencies could be real- ized more easily. Serious consideration should be given to repealing or substantially reforming the Jones Act,16 which would require legislation. The economic costs of the Jones Act, which is notionally in place to promote a robust Merchant Marine, vastly exceed its effect on the supply of domestic ships. For instance, no liquified natural gas (LNG) can be shipped from Alaska to the lower 48 states because there are no U.S.-flagged ships that carry LNG. If there are genuine concerns about U.S. fleet capacity in the absence of the Jones Act, it would be possible to do so through an expansion of the Defense Reserve Fleet. Another DHS agency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), is a frequent user of MARAD Ready Reserve Force shipping during disaster assistance missions. Transferring MARAD to DHS would make coordination and requisition of those vessels a smoother and more rapid process. DHS has responsibility for reviewing and approving Jones Act waivers. This process first requires a market survey of available shipping tonnage that is completed by MARAD. The processing of Jones Act waiver requests would be streamlined if both agencies were in the same department. Finally, DHS as a department is experienced in administering and budgeting for the operation of an existing federal service academy, the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, which is similar to the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy in size. There would be increased efficiencies and better alignment of the missions of these two institutions if they were under one single department that has equity in the industries served by these academies. CONCLUSION Americans need more abundant and affordable transportation. They need more affordable and safer cars as well as physical aspects of transportation such as roads, bridges, airports, ports, and rail lines. The Department of Transportation should be evaluating which aspects of transportation are contributing to the economic competitiveness of the United States and the well-being of Americans—and that therefore should continue to be funded. All too often, DOT’s mission is described as reducing the number of trips, using less fuel, and raising the costs of travel to Americans through increased use of

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. Cruz, Ted

Illegal Red Snapper and Tuna Enforcement Act

119/s/283

Modernizing Access to Our Public Oceans Act

119/s/759

Protect College Sports Act of 2026

119/s/4668

Back to All Bills