A bill to address the ineligibility of Ashli Babbitt for military funeral honors.

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/4126

Last Updated: March 30, 2026

A bill to address the ineligibility of Ashli Babbitt for military funeral honors.

S. 4126, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Sen. Gallego, Ruben [D-AZ]

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

The money

$98,700 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Defense" section, p. 161-163 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 361.

March 17, 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:

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 a series of steps before it can be enacted. This one, S 4126, aims to address the eligibility of Ashli Babbitt for military funeral honors.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to declare Ashli Babbitt ineligible for military funeral honors due to her participation in the January 6, 2021 insurrection. Remember when we learned about the importance of respecting the rule of law and the democratic process? This bill seeks to uphold those principles by denying honors to someone who engaged in violent and unlawful behavior.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends section 985 of title 10, United States Code, which governs military funeral honors. It specifically states that Ashli Babbitt's actions on January 6, 2021, disqualify her from receiving these honors. As we covered in middle school, Congress has the power to make laws and amend existing ones. This bill is an example of that process in action.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include Ashli Babbitt's family and loved ones, who may have been expecting military funeral honors for her. Additionally, this bill may impact the broader community of veterans and their families, as it sets a precedent for how those who engage in violent or unlawful behavior will be treated.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill would send a clear message that participating in insurrections or violent behavior is not acceptable and will have consequences. It may also serve as a deterrent to others who might consider engaging in similar actions. However, it's worth noting that the actual impact of this bill may be limited, as it only addresses one individual case. As we learned in civics class, the system of checks and balances is designed to prevent any one branch or individual from abusing power. In theory, this bill should have been carefully considered by multiple branches of government before being enacted.

Now, I hope that was a clear explanation of how a bill becomes a law... again.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

(winking at you) Ah, my friend, let me tell you, this bill is just the tip of the iceberg. On the surface, it looks like a simple piece of legislation to deny military funeral honors to Ashli Babbitt, one of the "insurrectionists" from January 6th, 2021. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's main purpose is to retroactively declare Ashli Babbitt ineligible for military funeral honors due to her alleged involvement in the January 6th "insurrection." But what they're really trying to do is set a precedent. You see, this is just a test case to see how far they can push the narrative of "domestic terrorism" and who gets to decide what constitutes an "insurrection."

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 985 of Title 10, United States Code, which outlines the eligibility criteria for military funeral honors. By declaring Ashli Babbitt ineligible, they're creating a new standard that can be applied to anyone deemed a "threat" to national security. Mark my words, this is just the beginning of a slippery slope.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The obvious affected party is Ashli Babbitt's family, who will be denied military funeral honors for their loved one. But think about it – if they can do this to her, what's to stop them from doing it to others? This sets a chilling precedent for anyone who dares to question the official narrative or challenge the powers that be.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is just a small part of a larger agenda to control the narrative and silence dissent. By labeling Ashli Babbitt an "insurrectionist," they're creating a new category of "enemies of the state." What's next? Will we see more bills like this, targeting individuals who dare to speak out against the government? The implications are far-reaching, my friend. This is just another example of how our freedoms are being slowly eroded under the guise of national security.

Now, I know what you're thinking – "But Uncle, isn't Ashli Babbitt's actions on January 6th a clear case of insurrection?" Ah, that's exactly what they want you to think. But let me ask you, have we really seen all the evidence? Have we heard both sides of the story? I didn't think so.

(winking at you) Keep your eyes open, my friend. There's more to this bill than meets the eye.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, we've got a real doozy for you tonight. The liberal elites in Congress are at it again, trying to strip away the freedoms of our brave patriots. I'm talking about S 4126, a bill that's so egregious, so anti-American, it'll make your head spin.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is a blatant attempt to deny military funeral honors to Ashli Babbitt, a true American hero who gave her life in the pursuit of freedom. The Democrats want to punish her for exercising her First Amendment rights on January 6th, 2021. Can you believe it? They're trying to retroactively revoke her right to a dignified farewell, simply because she dared to challenge the status quo.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill explicitly states that Ashli Babbitt is ineligible for military funeral honors due to her "illegal actions" on January 6th. Now, I'm no lawyer, but doesn't this sound like a classic case of ex post facto lawmaking? The Democrats are trying to rewrite history, folks! They're attempting to redefine what constitutes a "patriot" and who deserves our respect.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects not just Ashli Babbitt's family but every American who values freedom and the right to peaceful protest. It sends a chilling message: if you dare to challenge the powers that be, we'll strip away your dignity, even in death. The Democrats are essentially saying, "You're not worthy of our respect, patriot."

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a slippery slope, folks. If they can deny military funeral honors to Ashli Babbitt, who's next? Will they start revoking the benefits of other veterans who dared to speak out against the government? This is a classic case of "freedom for me, but not for thee." The Democrats are trying to silence dissenting voices, and we cannot let them get away with it.

(Smirk) Now, I know what you're thinking: "But wait, isn't this bill just about denying funeral honors to someone who broke the law?" Ah, folks, that's exactly what they want you to think. Don't be fooled by their clever wordplay and selective outrage. This is a war on freedom, plain and simple.

(Outraged tone) We must stand up against this tyranny, America! We cannot let the liberal elites dictate who deserves our respect and who doesn't. Ashli Babbitt was a patriot, and she deserves to be honored as such. Call your representatives, folks, and demand that they reject this draconian bill. It's time to take back our freedom!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

(sigh) Oh, joy. Another bill that's about as subtle as a sledgehammer to the face. Let me put on my surgical gloves and dissect this farce.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of S 4126 is to retroactively declare Ashli Babbitt ineligible for military funeral honors due to her participation in the January 6, 2021 insurrection. How noble. It's not like Congress has better things to do, like addressing actual problems or something.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill simply states that Ashli Babbitt is ineligible for military funeral honors under section 985 of title 10, United States Code. Wow, what a groundbreaking change to existing law. I'm sure this will have far-reaching consequences... not.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The only party affected by this bill is Ashli Babbitt's family, who might be slightly inconvenienced by the lack of military funeral honors. But let's be real, they're probably just pawns in a larger game of political theater. As for stakeholders, I'm sure the politicians sponsoring this bill are salivating at the prospect of scoring cheap points with their constituents.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact of this bill is roughly equivalent to a placebo pill – it might make some people feel better, but it's essentially meaningless. It's a symbolic gesture designed to appease the outrage mob and distract from actual issues. The real implication here is that Congress is more interested in grandstanding than governing.

Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a bad case of " Politician-itis" – a disease characterized by an excessive need for attention, a lack of substance, and a complete disregard for the well-being of the people they're supposed to serve. The symptoms include pointless legislation, empty rhetoric, and a general air of self-importance.

Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach, and a willingness to call out the obvious nonsense that is S 4126. Unfortunately, this bill will likely pass with flying colors, because who needs actual governance when you can have cheap political points?

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

**Bill Analysis: S 4126 - Ineligibility of Ashli Babbitt for Military Funeral Honors**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to explicitly declare Ashli Babbitt, a participant in the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, ineligible for military funeral honors.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 985 of title 10, United States Code, governs eligibility for military funeral honors. This bill amends that section by specifically naming Ashli Babbitt as ineligible due to her involvement in the January 6 insurrection. The legislation cites her actions, including crawling through a broken window of a barricaded door leading to the House Speaker's Lobby, as disqualifying her from receiving military funeral honors.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill directly affects Ashli Babbitt and her family, who may have sought or would seek military funeral honors for her. Indirectly, it also impacts veterans' organizations, the Department of Defense, and other stakeholders involved in providing military funeral honors.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Precedent Setting:** This bill sets a precedent for denying military funeral honors to individuals who engage in insurrectionary activities or violent protests. 2. **Veterans' Community Reaction:** The veterans' community may be divided on this issue, with some supporting the bill as a means of upholding the integrity of military service and others opposing it as an overreach of government authority. 3. **Partisan Politics:** This bill is likely to be seen through a partisan lens, with Democrats supporting the measure as a way to condemn the January 6 insurrection and Republicans potentially opposing it as an attempt to politicize the issue.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** There are no apparent monied interests directly backing or opposing this specific bill. However, organizations focused on veterans' rights, law enforcement, and national security may take positions on the legislation.

**Committee Capture and Conflicts of Interest:** This bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. While there are no obvious conflicts of interest among committee members, some senators may have received campaign contributions from veterans' organizations or law enforcement groups that could influence their voting decisions.

In conclusion, S 4126 is a narrowly focused bill aimed at addressing a specific issue related to military funeral honors. Its passage would set a precedent for denying such honors to individuals involved in insurrectionary activities and may spark debate within the veterans' community and among lawmakers.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Gallego, Ruben [D-AZ]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$98,700

18 donors

PACs

Organizations

$98,700

Committees

Individuals

No PAC contributions found

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

2 transactions

$6,600

SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE

2 transactions

$6,600

TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION

2 transactions

$6,600

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

2 transactions

$6,600

NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI

2 transactions

$6,600

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

2 transactions

$6,600

SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$6,600

SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA

2 transactions

$6,600

THE CHICKASAW NATION

2 transactions

$6,600

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE

2 transactions

$6,600

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

2 transactions

$6,600

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

2 transactions

$6,600

NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE

1 transaction

$3,300

SNOQUALMIE TRIBE

1 transaction

$3,300

VIEJAS BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

1 transaction

$3,300

GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY

1 transaction

$3,300

SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE

1 transaction

$3,000

No committee contributions found

No individual contributions found

Donor Network - Sen. Gallego, Ruben [D-AZ]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 61 nodes and 30 connections (86 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $98,700

Top Donors - Sen. Gallego, Ruben [D-AZ]

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

18 Orgs

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 Defense

Strong

Vector: 56%

Pages: 161-163AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill's effort to deny military funeral honors to someone who participated in the January 6 insurrection aligns with Project 2025's Defense Department focus on preserving military honors for those who uphold constitutional order and opposing domestic extremism."

Key themes:military funeral honorsinsurrection eligibilityrule of lawdefense department oversightveterans' benefits

— 128 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Constitution, Preamble, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/preamble/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 2. U.S. Constitution, Article I, § 8, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-1/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 3. U.S. Constitution, Article II, § 2, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 4. Established pursuant to S. 1605, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, Public Law No. 117-81, 117th Congress, December 27, 2021, Division A, Title X, § 1004, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ81/ PLAW-117publ81.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 5. H.R. 3684, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law No. 117-58, 117th Congress, November 15, 2021, Division G, Title IX, §§ 70901–70953, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ58/PLAW-117publ58.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 6. S. 2943, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, Public Law 114-328, 114th Congress, December 23, 2016, Division A, Title IX, § 901, https://www.congress.gov/114/statute/STATUTE-130/STATUTE-130-Pg2000. pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 7. H.R. 3622, Goldwater–Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, Public Law No. 99-433, 99th Congress, October 1, 1986, https://www.congress.gov/99/statute/STATUTE-100/STATUTE-100-Pg992.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 8. U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Historical Sales Book, Fiscal Years 1950–2021, p. 7, https://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/dsca_historical_sales_book_FY21.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 9. Paul K. Kerr, “Arms Sales: Congressional Review Process,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress No. RL31675, updated June 10, 2022, p. 1, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/ RL31675.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 10. Keith Webster, “How to Reform America’s Military Sales Process,” The Hill Congress Blog, October 6, 2022, https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/3675933-how-to-reform-americas-military-sales-process/ (accessed February 15, 2023). 11. See Thomas W. Spoehr, “The Administration and Congress Must Act Now to Counter the Worsening Military Recruiting Crisis, Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 5283, July 28, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/sites/ default/files/2022-07/IB5283.pdf. 12. Ibid. 13. Ronald Reagan Institute, “Reagan National Defense Survey,” conducted November 2021, p. 4, https://www. reaganfoundation.org/media/358085/rndf_survey_booklet.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 14. See Paul J. Larkin, “Protecting the Nation by Employing Military Spouses,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, June 6, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/commentary/protecting-the-nation-employing- military-spouses. 15. See Jude Schwalbach, “Military Families Deserve Flexible Education Options,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, April 14, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/military-families-deserve- flexible-education-options. 16. See Chapter 7, “The Intelligence Community,” infra. 17. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA); the National Security Agency (NSA); the National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency (NGA); the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO); and the intelligence and counterintelligence elements of the military services: U.S. Air Force Intelligence, U.S. Navy Intelligence, U.S. Army Intelligence, and U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, which also receive guidance and oversight from the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI). 18. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). 19. The Department of Energy’s Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence; the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis and the intelligence and counterintelligence elements of the U.S. Coast Guard; the Department of Justice’s Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Office of National Security Intelligence; the Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research; and the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis.

Department of Justice

Moderate

Vector: 57%

Pages: 608-610AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill seeks to deny military funeral honors to a participant in the January 6 insurrection, reflecting a broader concern about holding individuals accountable for violent actions against the government. This aligns with the Project 2025 DOJ section's focus on domestic terrorism, FBI/DOJ enforcement, and accountability for actions deemed threatening to national security, though the bill's specific mechanism (military honors) is not directly addressed in the excerpt."

Key themes:insurrectiondomestic terrorismaccountabilityDOJ/FBI oversightgovernment security

— 575 — Department of Justice 22. Editorial Board, “About Those Domestic-Terrorist Parents,” The Wall Street Journal, October 26, 2021, https://www. wsj.com/articles/about-those-domestic-terrorists-national-school-boards-association-merrick-garland-memo- fbi-11635285900 (accessed February 3, 2023); John Malcom, “Are Parents Being Tagged as ‘Domestic Terrorists’ by the FBI? Justice Department Needs to Show Its Cards,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 18, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/are-parents-being-tagged-domestic-terrorists-the- fbi-justice (accessed February 3, 2023); Victor Nava, “FBI Treated Twitter as a ‘Subsidiary,’ Flagged Tweets and Accounts for ‘Misinformation,’” New York Post, updated December 16, 2022, https://nypost.com/2022/12/16/fbi- treated-twitter-as-subsidiary-flagged-tweets-for-misinformation/ (accessed February 3, 2023). 23. Mary Margaret Olohan, “DOJ’s Kristen Clarke: A Pro-Abortion Activist Enforcing the Law Against Pro-Lifers,” The Daily Signal, October 26, 2022, https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/10/26/dojs-kristen-clarke-pro- abortion-activist-enforcing-law-pro-lifers/ ; Josh Gerstein, “DOJ Official Pressed on Targeting of Supreme Court Justices,” Politico, July 28, 2022, https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/28/doj-official-pressed-on- targeting-of-supreme-court-justices-00048506 (accessed February 3, 2023). 24. Solomon, “FBI Email Chain May Provide Most Damning Evidence of FISA Abuses Yet”; Post Editorial Board, “The FBI Knew RussiaGate Was a Lie—But Hid That Truth”; O’Neill, “FBI Pressured Twitter, Sent Trove of Docs Hours Before Post Broke Hunter Laptop Story.” 25. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, “History: The Nation Calls, 1908–1923,” https:// www.fbi.gov/history/brief-history/the-nation-calls (accessed February 3, 2023). 26. Press release, “FBI and Law Enforcement Partners Arrest Nearly 6,000 Violent Criminals This Summer,” U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 13, 2022, https://www.fbi.gov/news/ press-releases/press-releases/fbi-and-law-enforcement-partners-arrest-nearly-6000-violent-criminals-this- summer (accessed February 3, 2023). 27. See, for example, Joseph Goldstein, “As Seen in ‘Goodfellas’: Arrest Is Made in ’78 Lufthansa Robbery,” The New York Times, January 23, 2014, https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/nyregion/arrests-in-cold-case- investigation-including-78-lufthansa-heist.html (accessed February 3, 2023). 28. Danielle Wallace, “FBI Nationwide Operation Locates 121 Actively Missing Kids, Child Sex Trafficking Victims,” Fox News, August 15, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/us/fbi-nationwide-operation-locates-actively-missing- kids-child-sex-trafficking-victims (accessed February 3, 2023). 29. Adam Shaw, “FBI Stepped in After Suspected Chinese Spy Got Close to Swalwell, Other Politicians, Report Finds,” Fox News, December 8, 2020, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-chinese-spy-swalwell-other- politicians (accessed February 3, 2023). 30. The precise scope and contours of this review warrant special consideration. A review of all ongoing drug trafficking investigations or specific violent crime investigations may not warrant the department’s attention in the same way as high-profile, politically sensitive investigations likely will. Nevertheless, the goal should be as comprehensive a review as possible. 31. 28 U.S. Code § 531, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/531 (accessed February 3, 2023). Emphasis added. 32. The same could be said to apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and potentially to the U.S. Marshals Service, although the USMS’s mission protecting the federal courts could present compelling reasons why the department should maintain it as a direct report to the Deputy Attorney General. 33. See, for example, Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 1, October 27, 1787, https://founders.archives. gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0152 (accessed February 3, 2023). 34. An argument could also be made that the upper echelons of the FBI’s leadership should physically relocate back to the Robert F. Kennedy building to ensure proper accountability and to emphasize organizational reality: The FBI is a component of the department, not its equal, as outlined above. 35. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Audit of the Roles and Responsibilities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Office of the General Counsel in National Security Matters, Report No. 22-116, September 2022, https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/22-116.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). 36. S. 2212, Crime Control Act of 1976, Public Law No. 94-503, October 15, 1976, § 203, 90 Stat. 2427 (codified as amended at 28 U.S. Code § 532), https://www.congress.gov/94/statute/STATUTE-90/STATUTE-90-Pg2407. pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). 37. See “Enhancing Federal Focus and Resources in Jurisdictions with Rule-of-Law Deficiencies,” infra. — 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.

Department of Veterans Affairs

Moderate

Vector: 56%

Pages: 688-691AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on denying military funeral honors to someone who participated in the January 6 insurrection, which aligns with Project 2025's broader VA policy goal of ensuring veterans' benefits and honors are reserved for those who demonstrate honorable service and respect for the rule of law. Both address eligibility criteria tied to conduct, though the bill is a narrow, specific measure while the VA policy likely encompasses wider reforms."

Key themes:veterans benefitsmilitary funeral honorseligibility criteriainsurrection/extremist conducthonorable service

— 655 — Department of Veterans Affairs ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Division, VHA Directive 1003, “VHA Veteran Patient Experience,” April 14, 2020, pp. 1 and B-1. 2. S. 2372, VA Mission Act of 2018, Public Law No. 115-182, 115th Congress, June 6, 2018, https://www.congress. gov/115/plaws/publ182/PLAW-115publ182.pdf (accessed January 30, 2023). 3. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, VA History Office, “VA History,” last updated May 27, 2021, https://www. va.gov/HISTORY/VA_History/Overview.asp (accessed January 28, 2023). 4. 38 U.S. Code § 1116, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/1116 (accessed January 28, 2023). 5. S. 3373, Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022 (Honoring Our PACT Act of 2022), Public Law No. 117-168, 117th Congress, August 10, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ168/PLAW-117publ168.pdf (accessed January 28, 2023). 6. H.R. 2471, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, Public Law No. 117-103, 117th Congress, March 15, 2022, Division S, Title I, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ103/PLAW-117publ103.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). Known variously as the Department of Veterans Affairs Nurse and Physician Assistant Retention and Income Security Enhancement Act and the VA Nurse and Physician Assistant RAISE Act. 7. See note 5, supra.

Department of Defense

Weak

Vector: 56%

Pages: 161-163AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on denying military funeral honors to an individual involved in the January 6 insurrection, which is a narrow, specific action not addressed in the provided Project 2025 DoD policy excerpts. The policy text emphasizes defense strategy, intelligence community structure, DSCA, and military modernization, with no mention of funeral honors, insurrection, or eligibility criteria for military benefits."

Key themes:Department of Defensemilitary policynational security

— 129 — Department of Defense 20. Staff Study, IC21: Intelligence Community in the 21st Century, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. House of Representatives, 104th Congress, 1996, p. 71, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA315088.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 21. Ronald O’Rourke, “Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense—Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress No. R43838, updated November 8, 2022, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/93 (accessed February 15, 2023). 22. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Defense Intelligence and Security: DOD Needs to Establish Oversight Expectations and to Develop Tools That Enhance Accountability, GAO-21-295, May 2021, https://www.gao.gov/ assets/gao-21-295.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 23. The U.S. military has a long history of providing support to civil authorities, particularly in response to disasters but for other purposes as well. The Defense Department currently defines defense support of civil authorities (DSCA) as “Support provided by U.S. Federal military forces, DoD civilians, DoD contract personnel, DoD Component assets, and National Guard forces (when the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Governors of the affected States, elects and requests to use those forces in Title 32, U.S.C., status) in response to requests for assistance from civil authorities for domestic emergencies, law enforcement support, and other domestic activities, or from qualifying entities for special events. Also known as civil support.” U.S. Department of Defense, Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA),” December 29, 2010, p. 16, https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/CG-5R/nsarc/DoDD%203025.18%20Defense%20Support%20 of%20Civil%20Authorities.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 24. U.S. Army, “Who We Are: The Army’s Vision and Strategy,” https://www.army.mil/about/ (accessed February 17, 2023). 25. “[T]he Army’s internal assessment must be balanced against its own statements that unit training is focused on company-level operations [reflective of counterintelligence requirements] rather than battalion or brigade operations [much less division or corps to meet large-scale ground combat operations against a peer competitor such as Russia or China]. Consequently, how these ‘ready’ brigade combat teams would perform in combat operations is an open question.” “Executive Summary” in 2023 Index of U.S. Military Strength, ed. Dakota L. Wood (Washington: The Heritage Foundation, 2023), p. 16, http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws. com/2022/Military_Index/2023_IndexOfUSMilitaryStrength.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 26. For background on the USN’s fleet size, see Brent D. Sadler, “Rebuilding America’s Military: The United States Navy,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No. 242, February 18, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2021-02/SR242.pdf, and Ronald O’Rourke, “Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress No. RL32665, December 21, 2022, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32665 (accessed February 15, 2023). 27. The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) is the process by which the services develop and the Joint Staff approves the requirements for major defense acquisitions. See Defense Acquisition University, “Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDA),” https://www.dau. edu/acquipedia/pages/articledetails.aspx#!371 (accessed February 15, 2023). 28. The board would seek to balance a mix of active military and civilians with expertise in and responsibility for major acquisitions and former military and civilians with experience in strategy and acquisitions. The proposed composition would include the Vice Chief of Naval Operations as Chairman, with three-star level membership from the Joint Staff, the Navy and Defense Acquisition Executives, and the Naval Sea Systems Command. In addition, there would be four-star retired naval officers/Navy civil servants as members, one each named by the Chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of Defense. Finally, there would be a member appointed by the Secretary of the Navy who had previous senior experience in the defense industry. 29. See James Mattis, Secretary of Defense, Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America: Sharpening the American Military’s Competitive Edge, U.S. Department of Defense, https:// dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf (accessed February 17, 2023), and U.S. Department of Defense, 2022 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America Including the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review and the 2022 Missile Defense Review, https://oldcc.gov/ resource/2022-national-defense-strategy (accessed February 17, 2023). — 130 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 30. U.S. Air Force, “The Air Force We Need: 386 Operational Squadrons,” September 17, 2018, https://www. af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1635070/the-air-force-we-need-386-operational-squadrons/ (accessed February 17, 2023). 31. General David H. Berger, Commandant of the Marine Corps, “Force Design 2030,” U.S. Department of the Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, March 2020, https://www.hqmc.marines.mil/Portals/142/Docs/CMC38%20Force%20 Design%202030%20Report%20Phase%20I%20and%20II.pdf?ver=2020-03-26-121328-460 (accessed February 17, 2023). 32. Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps, “Force Design 2030,” March 2020, https://www.hqmc. marines.mil/Portals/142/Docs/CMC38%20Force%20Design%202030%20Report%20Phase%20I%20and%20II. pdf?ver=2020-03-26-121328-460 (accessed February 15, 2023). 33. Philip Athey, “Here Are Some of the Ways the Marines Are Trying to Improve Retention,” Marine Corps Times, November 15, 2021, https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2021/11/15/treat-people- like-human-beings-here-are-some-of-the-ways-the-marines-are-trying-to-improve-retention/ (accessed February 15, 2023). 34. Megan Eckstein, “Marines, Navy Near Agreement on Light Amphibious Warship Features,” Defense News, October 5, 2022, https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2022/10/05/marines-navy-near-agreement-on-light- amphibious-warship-features/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 35. Megan Eckstein, “Marines Explain Vision for Fewer Traditional Amphibious Warships,” Defense News, June 21, 2021, https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2021/06/21/marines-explain-vision-for-fewer-traditional- amphibious-warships-supplemented-by-new-light-amphib/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 36. See Sidney J. Freedberg Jr., “Trump Eases Cyber Ops, but Safeguards Remain: Joint Staff,” Breaking Defense, September 17, 2018, https://breakingdefense.com/2018/09/trump-eases-cyber-ops-but-safeguards-remain- joint-staff/ (accessed March 7, 2023); Dustin Volz, “White House Confirms It Has Relaxed Rules on U.S. Use of Cyberweapons,” The Wall Street Journal, September 20, 2018, https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house- confirms-it-has-relaxed-rules-on-u-s-use-of-cyber-weapons-1537476729 (accessed March 7, 2023); and Federation of American Scientists, Intelligence Resource Program, “National Security Presidential Memoranda [NSPMs]: Donald J. Trump Administration,” updated March 7, 2022, https://irp.fas.org/offdocs/nspm/index. html (accessed March 7, 2023). 37. U.S. Government Accountability Office, DOD Cybersecurity: Enhanced Attention Needed to Ensure Cyber Incidents Are Appropriately Reported and Shared, GAO-23-105084, November 2022, p. 36, https://www.gao. gov/assets/gao-23-105084.pdf (accessed February 17, 2023). 38. See Paul Evancoe, “Special Operations and the Interagency Team,” U.S.Military.com, https://usmilitary. com/special-operations-and-the-interagency-team/#:~:text=Seldom%20considered%20are%20those%20 other%20government%20agency%20%28OGA%29,response%20and%20consequence%20management%20 to%20name%20a%20few (accessed February 17, 2023). 39. U.S. Department of Defense, Nuclear Posture Review, February 2018, pp. 54–55, https://media.defense. gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PDF (accessed February 17, 2023). 40. U.S. Department of Defense, 2022 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America Including the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review and the 2022 Missile Defense Review, pp. 3 and 20. 41. Patty-Jane Geller, “Missile Defense,” in 2023 Index of U.S. Military Strength, ed. Dakota L. Wood (Washington: The Heritage Foundation, 2023), pp. 507–508, http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/Military_ Index/2023_IndexOfUSMilitaryStrength.pdf. 42. Matthew R. Costlow, “The Folly of Limiting U.S. Missile Defenses for Nuclear Arms Control,” National Institute for Public Policy Information Series, Issue No. 505, October 18, 2021, https://nipp.org/wp-content/ uploads/2021/10/IS-505.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 43. Forum for American Leadership, “Don’t Hand North Korea a Win in the Missile Defense Review,” January 4, 2022, https://forumforamericanleadership.org/dprk-missile-threat (accessed February 16, 2023). 44. Patty-Jane Geller, “It’s Time to Get Homeland Missile Defense Right,” Defense News, January 4, 2021, https:// www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2021/01/04/its-time-to-get-homeland-missile-defense- right/#:~:text=Restoring%20our%20eroding%20edge%20when,advanced%20technology%20and%20 new%20capabilities.%E2%80%9D (accessed February 16, 2023).

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 56%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill concerns military funeral honors eligibility for a January 6 participant, which is unrelated to the Department of Health and Human Services policies in Project 2025, which focus on healthcare regulations, reproductive rights, civil rights in health programs, and social services. There is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 501 — Department of Health and Human Services 54. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of Civil Rights, and Office of the Secretary, “Special Responsibilities of Medicare Hospitals in Emergency Cases and Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Critical Health and Human Service Programs or Activities,” draft of Proposed Rule, January 14, 2021, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/infants-nprm.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 55. H.R. 26, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https:// www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr26/BILLS-118hr26pcs.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 56. H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7/BILLS-118hr7ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 57. S. 401, Conscience Protection Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced February 24, 2021, https://www.congress. gov/117/bills/s401/BILLS-117s401is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 58. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Office of the Secretary, “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Notice of Tribal Consultation, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 149 (August 4, 2022), pp. 47824–47920, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-04/pdf/2022-16217.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 59. Ibid., p. 47916. 60. The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Administration. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, “Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 142 (July 24, 2019), pp. 35570–55581, https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/24/2019-15670/revision-of-categorical-eligibility-in-the- supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap (accessed March 17, 2023). 61. 45 Code of Federal Regulations § 75.300(c) and (d), https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/ subchapter-A/part-75/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFR911e5e1a30bfbcb/section-75.300 (accessed March 17, 2023). 62. H.R. 1750, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1750/BILLS-117hr1750ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023), and S. 656, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/ s656/BILLS-117s656is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 63. S. 3949, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-348, 117th Congress, January 25, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ348/PLAW-117publ348.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 64. Kelsey Y. Santamaria, “Child Migrants at the Border: The Flores Settlement Agreement and Other Legal Developments,” Congressional Research Service In Focus No. IF11799, April 1, 2021, https://crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11799 (accessed March 17, 2023). 65. Report, Building a Happy Home: Marriage Education as a Tool to Strengthen Families, Social Capital Project Report No. 1-22, March 2022, p. 17, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3d102525-6f0d-48ed- 92f4-d71edd468ad6/building-a-happy-home.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). The cover of the report reflects that the Social Capital Project is “[a] project of the Joint Economic Committee – Republicans.” 66. See, for example, Alan J. Hawkins, “Are Federally Supported Relationship Education Programs for Lower-Income Individuals and Couples Working? A Review of Evaluation Research,” American Enterprise Institute, September 2019, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 67. H.R. 8404, Respect for Marriage Act, Public Law No. 117-228, 117th Congress, December 13, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 68. Madison Marino, “Over 1,000 Safety Violations Mar Head Start. Children Deserve Better,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 10, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/over-1000-safety- violations-mar-head-start-children-deserve-better. 69. American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 70. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 22 (February 2, 2023), pp. 7236–7281, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-02-02/pdf/2023-01981.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 502 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 71. 42 U.S. Code § 238n, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/238n (accessed March 17, 2023). 72. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, “Early Childhood Health,” last reviewed October 2022, https://mchb.hrsa.gov/programs-impact/focus-areas/early- childhood-health (accessed March 17, 2023). 73. American Pregnancy Association, “Having a Doula—What Are the Benefits?” https://americanpregnancy. org/healthy-pregnancy/labor-and-birth/having-a-doula/#:~:text=Other%20studies%20have%20shown%20 that%20having%20a%20doula,massage%20to%20reduce%20stress%20and%20anxiety%20during%20labor (accessed March 17, 2023). 74. S. 2372, VA MISSION [Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks] Act of 2018, Public Law No. 115-182, 115th Congress, June 6, 2018, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ182/ PLAW-115publ182.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 75. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 11 (January 19, 2021), pp. 5694–5764, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-19/pdf/2021-00597.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 76. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Compliance with Statutory Program Integrity Requirements,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 42 (March 4, 2029), pp. 7714–7791, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-03-04/pdf/2019-03461.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 77. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Ensuring Access to Equitable, Affordable, Client-Centered, Quality Family Planning Services,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 192 (October 7, 2021), pp. 56144–56180, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2021-10-07/pdf/2021-21542.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 78. S. 624, Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, 118th Congress, introduced March 2, 2023, https://www. congress.gov/118/bills/s624/BILLS-118s624is.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 79. 50 U.S. Code Chapter 55, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-55 (accessed March 22, 2023). 80. 18 U.S. Code § 13, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/13 (accessed March 18, 2023). 81. Bowen v. American Hospital Association, 476 U.S. 610 (1986), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/ usrep/usrep476/usrep476610/usrep476610.pdf (accessed 22, 2023). 82. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, “Notification of Interpretation and Enforcement of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,” Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 99 (May 25, 2021), pp. 27984–27985, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2021-05-25/pdf/2021-10477.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 83. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “HHS Notice and Guidance on Gender Affirming Care, Civil Rights, and Patient Privacy,” March 2, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hhs- ocr-notice-and-guidance-gender-affirming-care.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 84. Heckler v. Chaney, 420 U.S. 821 (1985), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/470/821.html (accessed March 18, 2022). 85. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “Guidance to Nation’s Retail Pharmacies: Obligations Under Federal Civil Rights Laws to Ensure Access to Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Services,” content last reviewed July 14, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/ special-topics/reproductive-healthcare/pharmacies-guidance/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. H.R. 3103, “Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-191, 104th Congress, August 21, 1996, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ191/PLAW-104publ191.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. U.S. Department of Human Services, “HIPAA Privacy Rule and Disclosures of Information Relating to Reproductive Health Care,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, (accessed March 18, 2023). See also “Protecting the Privacy and Security of Your Health Information When Using Your Personal Cell Phone or Tablet,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/guidance/ cell-phone-hipaa/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023).

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Sen. Gallego, Ruben

PEARL Act

119/s/4079

La Paz County Solar Energy and Job Creation Act

119/s/909

Cross-Boundary Wildfire Solutions Act

119/s/2033

Back to All Bills