The bill
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026
S. 2587, 119th Congress — read as touching Hospitals & Health Systems.
Sponsored by
Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]
ID: C001047
Follow the money
The bill
S. 2587, 119th Congress — read as touching Hospitals & Health Systems.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
23 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Department of Agriculture" section, p. 353-355 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 140.
July 30, 2025
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
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!
Another exercise in futility, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this appropriations bill, shall we?
**Total Funding Amounts and Budget Allocations**
The grand total for this monstrosity is $3,977,088,000. A staggering amount, no doubt, but let's not be fooled – it's just a drop in the ocean compared to the overall federal budget. The allocations are as follows:
* Employment and Training Administration: $2,919,332,000 (73% of total funding) + Adult employment and training activities: $875,649,000 + Youth activities: $948,130,000 + Dislocated worker employment and training activities: $1,095,553,000 * National programs: $1,057,756,000 (27% of total funding) + Dislocated workers assistance national reserve: $300,859,000 + Technical assistance and demonstration projects: $115,000,000
**Key Programs and Agencies Receiving Funds**
The usual suspects are getting their fair share of the loot:
* The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) is the big winner here, with a whopping $2.9 billion allocated for its various programs. * The National Apprenticeship Act gets a paltry $3.9 million, because who needs apprenticeships when you can have more bureaucrats?
**Notable Increases or Decreases from Previous Years**
I'll spare you the details, but rest assured that there are plenty of increases and decreases to go around. It's all just a shell game, folks.
* The WIOA funding is up by $100 million from last year, because apparently, we need more "workforce innovation" (read: bureaucratic busywork). * The dislocated workers assistance national reserve gets a boost of $50 million, because who doesn't love throwing money at problems without actually solving them?
**Riders or Policy Provisions Attached to Funding**
Oh boy, where do I even start? There are plenty of goodies hidden in this bill:
* A provision allowing outlying areas to submit consolidated grant applications for WIOA funds. Because, you know, it's not like they have better things to do than fill out paperwork. * A rider that allows the Secretary of Labor to reserve up to 10% of certain funds for "technical assistance and additional activities related to the transition to the WIOA." Translation: more bureaucratic slush fund.
**Fiscal Impact and Deficit Implications**
Don't worry about it, folks. This bill is just a tiny drop in the ocean of our national debt. The fiscal impact will be negligible... until we have to pay for it all, that is.
In conclusion, this appropriations bill is just another example of Congress's favorite game: "Let's throw money at problems and hope they go away!" It's a never-ending cycle of bureaucratic waste, pork-bar
Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 37 nodes and 43 connections
Total contributions: $43
Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 15 helped.
Title II includes $1,858,772,000 for primary health care under Health Resources and Services Administration, which provides funding to hospitals and health systems for services and infrastructure.
Title II includes funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) which supports pharmaceutical research and development, e.g., National Cancer Institute ($7,374,159,000), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ($6,592,279,000), and other institutes that fund drug discovery and vaccine development, directly benefiting pharmaceutical companies.
Title II includes $508,148,791,000 for grants to states for Medicaid and $593,817,000,000 for payments to health care trust funds, which directly benefits health insurers through increased enrollment and payments.
Title II includes $6,592,279,000 for National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and $1,500,000,000 for Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, which fund biotech research and vaccine development.
Title II includes funding for the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) which administers programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and child nutrition programs, which increase demand for agricultural products from agribusinesses. Specifically, Title II funds child nutrition programs under the Social Security Act and related agencies, indirectly supporting agribusiness through increased food procurement.
Title II includes funding for the National Institutes of Health (e.g., $7,374,159,000 for National Cancer Institute) which supports medical device research and development through grants and contracts.
+ 9 more industries not shown.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
AI Analysis:
"The bill supports workforce development and training programs under the Department of Labor, which aligns with Project 2025's broader education reform goals, particularly those related to career and technical education and reducing federal bureaucracy in favor of state and local control. However, the bill does not directly address the Department of Education or the specific proposals to decentralize education funding, eliminate ineffective programs, or promote school choice outlined in the Proje"
— 321 — Department of Education through the pandemic’s Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief (ESSER) Funds,4 which relied on ESEA formulas. The same year, the department spent more than $2 billion just to administer Title IV of the HEA, which authorizes federal student loans and Pell grants. It provided $22.5 billion in Pell grants, and it oversaw outlays of close to $100 billion in direct student loans. Since 1965, Congress has continued to layer on dozens of new laws and pro- grams as federal “solutions” to myriad education problems. In 1973, it passed the Rehabilitation Act,5 and, in 1975, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)6 to address educational neglect of students with disabilities. In 2002, it cre- ated the Institute for Education Sciences to consolidate education data collection and fund research. Congress has also enacted a series of Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Acts, including Perkins V in 2018.7 Congress could have, and once did, distribute management of federal education programs outside of a single department. But for those interested in expanding federal funding and influence in education, this unconsolidated approach was less than ideal, because a single, captive agency would allow them to promote their agenda more effectively across Administrations. Eventually, the National Educa- tion Association made a deal and backed the right presidential candidate— Jimmy Carter—who successfully lobbied for and delivered the Cabinet-level agency. When it was established in 1979—becoming operational in 1980—the agency was supposed to act as a “corralling” mechanism. Carter signed the Department of Education Organization Act8 into law in 1979, believing in part that it would reduce administrative costs and improve efficiency by housing most of the federal education programs that had proliferated in the wake of Johnson’s War on Poverty under one roof. It has had the opposite effect. Instead, special interest groups like the National Education Association (NEA), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and the higher education lobby have leveraged the agency to continuously expand federal expenditures—a desirable funding stream from their vantage point because federal budgets are not constrained like state and local budgets that must be balanced each year. By FY 2022, the department’s discretionary and mandatory appropriation topped $80 billion, not including student loan outlays. Each of its programs has attendant federal strings and red tape. One recent example is the Biden Administration’s requirement that state educa- tion agencies and school districts submit “equity” plans as a condition of receiving COVID recovery ESSER funds in the American Rescue Plan (ARP).9 This exercise led to the hiring of numerous new government employees as the rules were pro- mulgated, plans were created after collecting public feedback, and those plans were eventually deemed satisfactory. The next Administration will need a plan to redistribute the various congres- sionally approved federal education programs across the government, eliminate — 322 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise those that are ineffective or duplicative, and then eliminate the unproductive red tape and rules by entrusting states and districts with flexible, formula-driven block grants. This chapter details that plan. As the next Administration executes its work, it should be guided by a few core principles, including: l Advancing education freedom. Empowering families to choose among a diverse set of education options is key to reform and improved outcomes, and it can be achieved without establishing a new federal program. For example, portability of existing federal education spending to fund families directly or allowing federal tax credits to encourage voluntary contributions to K–12 education savings accounts managed by charitable nonprofits, could significantly advance education choice. l Providing education choice for “federal” children. Congress has a special responsibility to children who are connected to military families, who live in the District of Columbia, or who are members of sovereign tribes. Responsibility for serving these students should be housed in agencies that are already serving these families. l Restoring state and local control over education funding. As Washington begins to downsize its intervention in education, existing funding should be sent to states as grants over which they have full control, enabling states to put federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law. l Treating taxpayers like investors in federal student aid. Taxpayers should expect their investments in higher education to generate economic productivity. When the federal government lends money to individuals for a postsecondary education, taxpayers should expect those borrowers to repay. l Protecting the federal student loan portfolio from predatory politicians. The new Administration must end the practice of acting like the federal student loan portfolio is a campaign fund to curry political support and votes. The new Administration must end abuses in the loan forgiveness programs. Borrowers should be expected to repay their loans. l Safeguarding civil rights. Enforcement of civil rights should be based on a proper understanding of those laws, rejecting gender ideology and critical race theory.
AI Analysis:
"The bill increases funding for the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) and expands workforce development programs, which directly contradicts Project 2025's goal of reducing DOL budgets and focusing spending cuts on ETA. While both address workforce training, the bill's expansion of ETA funding and programs opposes the policy's agenda of budget reduction and personnel changes."
— 615 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies ORGANIZATIONAL AGENDA Budget l Reduce the agencies’ budgets to the low end of the historical average. The Trump Administration’s FY 2020 request, $10.9 billion, would provide a workable target for spending reductions for DOL, for example. l Spending reductions should occur primarily in the Employment and Training Administration (ETA). l Focus health and safety inspections on egregious offenders, as other inspections are often abused and usurp state and local government prerogatives. Personnel l Maximize hiring of political appointees. At its best, the Trump Administration Department of Labor worked with up to 150 political appointees. That is still a tiny percentage of the department. The number of political appointees should be maximized in order to improve the political accountability of the department. l Appoint new EEOC and NLRB general counsels on Day One. The Biden Administration broke significant precedent by firing the EEOC and NLRB general counsels despite their term appointments. The next Administration should do the same and expand on the Biden Administration’s new precedent by refusing to acknowledge terms in other offices, where applicable, and installing acting or full new officers immediately. l Implement a hiring freeze for career officials. A hiring freeze imposes financial discipline on agencies’ personnel costs and reduces agency bloat. Office of Compliance Initiatives l DOL should fully staff the Office of Compliance Initiatives (OCI), which was reopened by the Trump Administration after the Obama Administration closed its predecessor down. OCI educates employers and workers on their rights, responsibilities, and available recourse under the many statutes, rules, and regulations administered by DOL. Most businesses want to follow the law and OCI exists to make knowing the rules easier, which leads to increased compliance.
AI Analysis:
"The bill increases funding for the Employment and Training Administration and workforce programs, which contradicts Project 2025's goal of reducing DOL budgets and focusing cuts in ETA. The only notable overlap is support for apprenticeship and workforce training initiatives."
— 615 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies ORGANIZATIONAL AGENDA Budget l Reduce the agencies’ budgets to the low end of the historical average. The Trump Administration’s FY 2020 request, $10.9 billion, would provide a workable target for spending reductions for DOL, for example. l Spending reductions should occur primarily in the Employment and Training Administration (ETA). l Focus health and safety inspections on egregious offenders, as other inspections are often abused and usurp state and local government prerogatives. Personnel l Maximize hiring of political appointees. At its best, the Trump Administration Department of Labor worked with up to 150 political appointees. That is still a tiny percentage of the department. The number of political appointees should be maximized in order to improve the political accountability of the department. l Appoint new EEOC and NLRB general counsels on Day One. The Biden Administration broke significant precedent by firing the EEOC and NLRB general counsels despite their term appointments. The next Administration should do the same and expand on the Biden Administration’s new precedent by refusing to acknowledge terms in other offices, where applicable, and installing acting or full new officers immediately. l Implement a hiring freeze for career officials. A hiring freeze imposes financial discipline on agencies’ personnel costs and reduces agency bloat. Office of Compliance Initiatives l DOL should fully staff the Office of Compliance Initiatives (OCI), which was reopened by the Trump Administration after the Obama Administration closed its predecessor down. OCI educates employers and workers on their rights, responsibilities, and available recourse under the many statutes, rules, and regulations administered by DOL. Most businesses want to follow the law and OCI exists to make knowing the rules easier, which leads to increased compliance. — 616 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Improve Visa-Related Labor-Market Monitoring DOL’s Office of Foreign Labor Certification plays an important role in the approval of H-visa applications, but it is currently housed in the Employment and Training Administration, which is DOL’s primary grant-making division. l OFLC should be moved out of ETA and made directly accountable to the Secretary with a politically accountable Director. CONCLUSION The good of the American family is at the heart of conservative labor policy recommendations. The longstanding tradition of a strong work ethic in American culture must be encouraged and strengthened by policies that promote family-sus- taining jobs. By eliminating the policies promoted by the DEI agenda, promoting pro-life policies that support family life, expanding available apprenticeship programs including by encouraging the role of religious organizations in appren- ticeships, making family-sustaining jobs accessible, simplifying employment requirements, and allowing employers to prefer American citizens when making hiring decisions, among the other policy recommendations discussed above, we can begin to secure a future in which the American worker, and by extension the American family, can thrive and prosper. AUTHOR’S NOTE: Many contributors, listed at the front of this volume, deserve credit for this work, but Oren Cass, Rachel Greszler, Rachel Morrison, Caleb Orr, and Jonathan Wolfson deserve special mention. The author alone assumes responsibility for the content of this chapter, and no views expressed herein should be attributed to any other individual.
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
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.
A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the Government of Israel of certain defense articles and services.
Establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2025 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2026 through 2034.
HELP Response and Recovery Act