A bill to waive the 60-day notice requirement for the posthumous honorary promotion of Captain Cody Khork, United States Army.

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/4138

Last Updated: July 17, 2026

A bill to waive the 60-day notice requirement for the posthumous honorary promotion of Captain Cody Khork, United States Army.

S. 4138, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]

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

The money

$682,800 raised

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

The alignment

55% 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

Became Public Law No: 119-80.

March 19, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed Senate

House Review

Passed Congress

Presidential Action

Became Law

📍 Current Status

This bill has become law!

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The S 4138 bill. A trivial matter, really. A posthumous honorary promotion for Captain Cody Khork, a minor adjustment to the bureaucratic machinery of the military. I'll indulge in an analysis, if only to illustrate the inefficiencies of democratic processes.

New regulations are not being created, merely a waiver of the 60-day notice requirement under section 1563a(b) of title 10, United States Code. The affected industry is the defense sector, but the impact is negligible. Compliance requirements and timelines are irrelevant in this case, as it's a one-time exemption.

Enforcement mechanisms and penalties are not applicable, as this bill doesn't introduce new regulatory burdens. The economic and operational impacts are non-existent, with no projected changes to the bottom line of defense contractors or related industries. I estimate the total cost of implementing this waiver to be less than $100,000, a rounding error in the grand scheme of things.

The real question is: what's the opportunity cost of Congress's time spent on such trivial matters? My think tank, the "Liberty and Prosperity Institute," estimates that every hour of congressional deliberation costs the economy approximately $1.2 million in lost productivity. By this calculation, the S 4138 bill has already wasted around $10 million of economic potential.

In a more efficient system – one that prioritizes innovation and deregulation – such minor adjustments would be handled through executive orders or private sector initiatives, unencumbered by the sluggish pace of democratic decision-making. The fact that this bill was passed in a mere two days highlights the arbitrary nature of legislative timelines. A truly optimized system would eliminate such redundancies, streamlining the process to focus on high-impact, growth-driven policies.

In conclusion, the S 4138 bill is a non-event, a minor blip on the radar of regulatory affairs. Its passage serves as a reminder that true progress requires a more agile, privatized approach to governance – one that unleashes the full potential of human ingenuity, unshackled by the inefficiencies of democracy.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

Let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics, a bill is a proposed law that must go through a series of steps before it becomes a law. Remember when we learned about the legislative process? It starts with introduction, then committee review, and finally, voting by both the Senate and House of Representatives.

In this case, S. 4138 aims to waive the 60-day notice requirement for the posthumous honorary promotion of Captain Cody Khork to major. As you should have learned in middle school, Congress has the power to make exceptions to existing laws, which is what's happening here. The bill was introduced, passed through committee, and then voted on by both chambers.

Now, let's look at the specifics. This bill creates a new exception to an existing regulation under section 1563a(b) of title 10, United States Code. As we covered in 8th grade, laws are often modified or updated to reflect changing circumstances. In this case, the affected industry is the military, specifically the Army.

Compliance requirements are straightforward: the 60-day notice requirement is waived for Captain Khork's promotion. The timeline is also clear: the bill was passed on March 18 and 19, 2026, and approved on March 20, 2026. Enforcement mechanisms and penalties aren't explicitly stated in this bill, as it's a one-time exception rather than a new regulatory framework.

The economic and operational impacts are minimal, as this is an honorary promotion. However, it's essential to understand that laws like these can set precedents for future exceptions or changes to existing regulations. As I emphasized in class, the system of checks and balances is designed to prevent abuse of power and ensure that laws are made with careful consideration.

In theory, this bill should have been thoroughly debated and reviewed by Congress before being passed. In practice, it's often a more complicated process, with various interests and motivations at play. Nonetheless, as we learned in civics class, the legislative process is designed to provide a framework for making laws that benefit society as a whole.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round! Today, we're going to dissect the so-called "S 4138" bill, a seemingly innocuous piece of legislation that's actually a Trojan horse for... well, I'll get to that in a minute.

On the surface, this bill appears to be a heartwarming gesture, waiving the 60-day notice requirement for the posthumous honorary promotion of Captain Cody Khork to major. But, my friends, don't be fooled! This is just a clever ruse to distract us from the real agenda.

Let's connect some dots. The bill was passed with lightning speed, considered and passed by both the Senate and House in a mere two days. That's suspiciously fast, if you ask me. And what's the hurry? Why the need for such expedience?

Now, let's examine the new regulations being created or modified. Section 1563a(b) of title 10, United States Code, is being waived, but what does that really mean? Is this a one-time exception, or will it set a precedent for future waivers? And what about affected industries and sectors? The military, of course, but also potentially the funeral industry, as posthumous promotions could become more common.

Compliance requirements and timelines are murky, but it's clear that the government is trying to fast-track this process. Enforcement mechanisms and penalties are also unclear, but I suspect they'll be severe for anyone who dares to question this bill.

The economic and operational impacts are where things get really interesting. Will this bill lead to a surge in posthumous promotions, creating a new revenue stream for the military-industrial complex? And what about the psychological impact on our troops? Will this create a culture of hero worship, distracting us from the true costs of war?

In conclusion, my friends, S 4138 is not just a harmless bill; it's a symptom of a larger disease. It's a reminder that our government is always hiding something in plain sight, and it's up to us to uncover the truth. So, let's keep digging, shall we?

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

The bill in question, S 4138, is a shining example of bureaucratic busywork, masquerading as a heartfelt tribute to Captain Cody Khork, United States Army. The "posthumous honorary promotion" is nothing more than a feel-good gesture, a Band-Aid on the festering wound of congressional incompetence.

New regulations? Ha! This bill creates none, merely waiving a trivial 60-day notice requirement for a single individual. A drop in the ocean of regulatory red tape. Affected industries and sectors? Please, this is a non-event, a tempest in a teapot. The only sector impacted is the ego of Captain Khork's family and the politicians who sponsored this bill.

Compliance requirements and timelines? Oh, the arduous task of waiving a notice requirement! I'm sure the congressional staff worked tirelessly to draft this 100-word bill. Enforcement mechanisms and penalties? Don't make me laugh. This is a toothless tiger, a symbolic gesture with no teeth or consequences.

The economic and operational impacts? Zilch. Zero. Nada. This bill is a rounding error on the federal budget, a microscopic blip on the radar of fiscal responsibility. But hey, it's a great photo op for the politicians involved! They get to pretend they're doing something meaningful while actually accomplishing nothing.

Diagnosis: Congressional Narcissistic Personality Disorder (CNPD), characterized by an excessive need for self-aggrandizement, a lack of substance, and a penchant for meaningless gestures. Treatment: a healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach, and a willingness to call out the blatant hypocrisy. Prognosis: terminal stupidity, with a high likelihood of recurrence.

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

Let's break down this bill like a gnarly wave at sunset, bro. We're talkin' about S 4138, which is all about waiving the 60-day notice requirement for posthumously promoting Captain Cody Khork to major in the US Army.

First off, there aren't any new regulations being created here, just a one-time waiver of an existing rule. The affected industry or sector is pretty narrow - we're talkin' about the military and specifically the Army, bro. This bill doesn't create any compliance requirements for other industries or sectors, so it's not like businesses are gonna have to start worrying about new regulations or timelines.

In terms of compliance, there aren't really any requirements here since this is a one-time deal. The waiver is just for Captain Khork's promotion, and it's already been approved by Congress and signed into law on March 20, 2026. There aren't any specific enforcement mechanisms or penalties mentioned in the bill either, 'cause it's not like anyone's gonna be gettin' fined or anything for not followin' some new rule.

Now, let's talk about the economic and operational impacts, bro. This bill is pretty low-key, so we're not expectin' any major ripples in the economy or military operations. It's just a nod to Captain Khork's service and sacrifice, man. The Army might have to update some records and whatnot, but that's about it.

So yeah, this bill is like catchin' a small wave at dawn - it's not gonna change the world, but it's still a cool way to show respect for someone who served their country, bro. And hey, sometimes it's the little things that count, right? This bill might be small, but it's a reminder that even in the midst of all the crazy stuff goin' on in the world, we can still take a moment to appreciate the people who make a difference.

Anyway, that's S 4138 in a nutshell, dude. Not exactly a game-changer, but still worth takin' note of, 'specially if you're into military history or just wanna know more about how Congress works, man.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

The bill S 4138 is a straightforward piece of legislation that waives the 60-day notice requirement for the posthumous honorary promotion of Captain Cody Khork, United States Army, to the rank of major. At first glance, this bill appears to be a heartfelt tribute to a fallen soldier, with no apparent connection to monied interests or industry influence.

However, upon closer inspection, it's worth noting that the bill's sponsor and cosponsors may have received donations from defense contractors or veterans' organizations, which could potentially benefit from the positive publicity surrounding this legislation. For example, the Senate Armed Services Committee, which likely reviewed this bill, has received significant contributions from defense industry PACs such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman.

In terms of new regulations being created or modified, this bill does not establish any new compliance requirements or enforcement mechanisms. The waiver of the 60-day notice requirement is a one-time exception, and the bill does not impose any penalties or timelines for implementation. The affected industry in this case is primarily the military, with potential implications for veterans' organizations and defense contractors.

The economic and operational impacts of this bill are likely to be minimal, as it is a symbolic gesture rather than a substantive policy change. Nevertheless, it's essential to acknowledge that even seemingly innocuous legislation can have hidden motivations or unintended consequences. In this case, the bill may serve as a way for lawmakers to demonstrate their support for the military and veterans, potentially bolstering their reputation among constituents and donors.

Ultimately, while S 4138 appears to be a benign piece of legislation, it's crucial to remain vigilant and consider the potential influence of monied interests, even in cases where it may not be immediately apparent. By examining the bill's sponsors, cosponsors, and committee review process, we can gain a deeper understanding of the complex web of interests that shape our legislative landscape.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$682,800

21 donors

PACs

Organizations

$44,500

Committees

Individuals

$638,300

No PAC contributions found

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

1 transaction

$25,000

MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

1 transaction

$15,000

WT CONSULTANTS LLC

1 transaction

$2,500

WAYPOINT CONSULTING, LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

HEDERMAN BROTHERS, LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

HALE, ROBERT T. JR.

2 transactions

$150,000

CHOUEST, GARY

1 transaction

$100,000

DUFF, THOMAS M.

2 transactions

$75,000

BLUE, J. NEAL

1 transaction

$50,000

GOLDING, STEPHEN D.

2 transactions

$50,000

ELLIOTT, MAC

1 transaction

$25,000

GOLDING, MELODY

1 transaction

$25,000

YATES, WILLIAM G. JR.

1 transaction

$25,000

ACKERMAN, FORREST

1 transaction

$25,000

VAN DEVENDER, WILLIAM J.

2 transactions

$25,000

TURNAGE, BEN O.

1 transaction

$19,900

MCRAE, DAVID

1 transaction

$18,400

GREEN, JOHNSON M.

1 transaction

$15,000

HURST, PAUL

1 transaction

$12,500

BARBOUR, HALEY

1 transaction

$12,500

CHOUEST AUSTIN, DIONNE

1 transaction

$10,000

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Sen. Reed, Jack [D-RI]

ID: R000122

Top Contributors

KHAMIEES, MOHAMMAD D.

SELF-EMPLOYED • PHYSICIAN

IndividualCUMBERLAND, RI

$3,300

May 7, 2023

MEZZALINGUA, JOHN

JMA WIRELESS • CEO

IndividualSKANEATELES, NY

$3,300

Apr 8, 2024

MEZZALINGUA, JOHN

JMA WIRELESS • CEO

IndividualSKANEATELES, NY

$3,300

Apr 8, 2024

MEZZALINGUA, KIM

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualSKANEATELES, NY

$3,300

Apr 8, 2024

MEZZALINGUA, KIM

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualSKANEATELES, NY

$3,300

Apr 8, 2024

GRANIERI, ROBERT A.

JANE STREET CAPITAL • MANAGER

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

GRANIERI, ROBERT A.

JANE STREET CAPITAL • MANAGER

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

BOYCE, KATHARINE

KRBR CONSULTING • PRESIDENT

IndividualALEXANDRIA, VA

$2,900

Mar 28, 2023

SLOANE, CANDACE LAPIDUS

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualNEEDHAM, MA

$2,900

Mar 22, 2024

BONDERMAN, DAVID

TEXAS PACIFIC GROUP • FOUNDER

IndividualFORT WORTH, TX

$2,500

Feb 27, 2023

Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]

ID: S001217

Top Contributors

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Aug 22, 2023

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Aug 12, 2024

SCOTT, RICK SENATOR

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$90,795

May 31, 2024

SCOTT, RICK SEN

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$77,714

May 31, 2023

SCOTT, RICK SENATOR

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$69,607

Apr 30, 2024

SCOTT, RICK SENATOR

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$68,538

Aug 31, 2023

SCOTT, RICK SENATOR

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$53,187

Sep 30, 2023

SCOTT, RICK SEN

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$49,992

Jun 30, 2023

SCOTT, RICK SENATOR

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$39,695

Jun 30, 2024

SCOTT, RICK

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$34,494

Jan 31, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 36 nodes and 40 connections

Total contributions: $40

Top Donors - Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

5 Orgs16 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

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

Department of Defense

Weak

Vector: 54%

Pages: 161-163AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill provides a one‑time, symbolic waiver for a posthumous honorary promotion of an individual soldier, which does not meaningfully advance the broader Department of Defense objectives outlined in Project 2025 such as defense readiness, acquisition reform, intelligence oversight, or systemic support for military families."

Key themes:military honorsposthumous promotionArmy personnel

— 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. — 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).

Department of Defense

Minimal

Vector: 58%

Pages: 134-136AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill concerns a one-time waiver for a posthumous honorary promotion, which is unrelated to Project 2025's DOD objectives of exportability, arms sales reform, contracting efficiency, or recruiting and retention."

Key themes:Department of Defensemilitary personnel

— 101 — Department of Defense 1. Ensure that senior U.S. military leadership emphasizes exportability in the initial development of defense systems that are both available and interoperable with our partners and allies. 2. Create a funding mechanism to incentivize exportability in initial planning, which can be recouped after future FMS transactions. l End informal congressional notification. Informal congressional notification or “tiered review” is a hinderance to ensuring timely sales to our global partners. The tiered review process is not codified in law; it is merely a practice by which the Department of State provides a preview of prospective arms transfers before Congress is formally notified.9 1. End the tiered review process to eliminate at least 20 days from the FMS process. 2. Use the tiered review process only when unanimous congressional support is guaranteed in order to eliminate the “weaponization” by select Members of Congress that has prevented billions of dollars of arms sales from moving into formal congressional notification. l Minimize barriers to collaboration. The high cost of developing advanced defense platforms requires the United States to collaborate with key allies to minimize waste, complement strengths, and supplement our defense industrial base to create a system that is greater than that of the United States alone. 1. Enhance defense industrial base planning with partners to allow them to focus on niche areas where there are cost advantages for the United States. 2. Decrease International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to facilitate trade with such allies as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. 3. Create opportunities to improve the health of the defense supply chain with added opportunities for partners and allies to contribute. l Reform the FMS contracting process. The contracting timeline for the FMS process is shockingly slow. On average, the DOD contracting timeline takes approximately 18 months because of slow bureaucratic processes and chronic understaffing.10 — 102 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 1. Immediately fund more contracting capacity in all services to decrease the contracting timeline and improve the delivery of defense articles to our global partners. 2. Rationalize and speed arms sales decision-making to preclude our enemies from exploiting bureaucratic slothfulness and allow us to manage the development of indigenous defense industrial bases. DOD PERSONNEL The men and women of America’s armed forces are the most critical component of our national defense strategy, but in recent years, they have been overextended, undervalued, and insufficiently resourced. Their families help them to carry the burden of service, but the assistance they receive is disproportionately less than the sacrifices they make. Young civilians who would thrive in a military environ- ment are disenfranchised when educators and influencers discourage them from learning about military service and preparing for the honor of wearing Ameri- ca’s uniform. The United States military is an extraordinary institution, staffed by exceptional people who have defended our nation and changed the course of history, but the Biden Administration, through word and deed, has treated the armed forces as just another place to work. We must restore our military to a place of honor and respect and recruit and retain the individuals who will meet the rigorous standards of excellence that are required for membership in the world’s greatest fighting force. Needed Reforms l Rescue recruiting and retention. Recruiting was the worst in 2022 that it has been in two generations and is expected to be even worse in 2023. Some of the problems are self-inflicted and ongoing. The recruiting problem is not service-specific: It affects the entire Joint Force. 1. Appoint a Special Assistant to the President who will maintain liaison with Congress, DOD, and all other interested parties on the issue of recruiting and retention. 2. Improve recruiting by suspending the use of the recently introduced MHS Genesis system that uses private medical records of potential recruits at Military Entrance Processing Stations (MEPS), creating unnecessary delays and unwarranted rejections.11 3. Improve military recruiters’ access to secondary schools and require completion of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery

Department of Defense

Minimal

Vector: 55%

Pages: 134-136AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill S 4138 concerns a posthumous honorary promotion for an individual service member and does not address defense exportability, FMS processes, ITAR reform, or defense industrial base collaboration as outlined in the Project 2025 DoD policy objectives."

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Minimal

Vector: 54%

Pages: 443-445AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill concerns a military honorary promotion waiver, which is unrelated to the Department of Energy focus of Project 2025 policy section."

— 411 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions 19. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13920, “Securing the United States Bulk-Power System,” May 1, 2020, in Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 86 (May 4, 2020), pp. 26595–26599, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2020-05-04/pdf/2020-09695.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 20. 18 U.S. Code § 824a(c), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/824a (accessed February 27, 2023). 21. Report No. 117-98, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2022, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, 117th Cong. 1st Sess., July 20, 2021, p. 6, https:// www.congress.gov/117/crpt/hrpt98/CRPT-117hrpt98.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 22. H.R. 3684, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law No. 11-58, 117th Congress, November 15, 2021, Division J, Title III. 23. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, p. 7. 24. Timothy Gardner, “White House Asks Congress for $500 mln to Modernize Oil Reserve,” Reuters, November 16, 2022, https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-oil-spr-idAFL1N32C36I (accessed February 13, 2023). 25. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity, “Our History,” https://www.energy.gov/oe/about-us/our- history (accessed February 13, 2023). 26. Press release, “Secretary of Energy Signs Order to Mitigate Security Risks to the Nation’s Electric Grid,” U.S. Department of Energy, December 17, 2021, https://www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-energy-signs-order- mitigate-security-risks-nations-electric-grid (accessed February 13, 2023). 27. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity, “Revocation of Prohibition Order Securing Critical Defense Facilities,” Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 76 (April 22, 2021), pp. 21308–21309, https://www.govinfo.gov/ content/pkg/FR-2021-04-22/pdf/2021-08483.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 28. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 19 and 61. 29. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, “About Us,” https://www.energy.gov/ne/about-us (accessed February 13, 2023). 30. H.R. 3809, Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Public Law No. 97-425, 97th Congress, January 7, 1983, https:// www.congress.gov/97/statute/STATUTE-96/STATUTE-96-Pg2201.pdf (accessed February 24, 2023). 31. The Heritage Foundation, “Budget Blueprint for Fiscal Year 2023: Reduce the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy,” https://www.heritage.org/budget/pages/recommendations/1.270.127.html. 32. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 23 and 58. 33. 42 USC § 16291, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/16291 (accessed February 27, 2023). 34. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, “About Us: Mission,” https:// www.energy.gov/fecm/mission (accessed February 13, 2023). 35. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Carbon Capture and Storage: Actions Needed to Improve DOE Management of Demonstration Projects, GAO-22-105111, December2021, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22- 105111.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 36. International Energy Agency, The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions, World Energy Outlook Special Report, revised March 2022, https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ffd2a83b-8c30-4e9d-980a- 52b6d9a86fdc/TheRoleofCriticalMineralsinCleanEnergyTransitions.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 37. See 42 U.S. Code § 16291. 38. 42 U.S. Code Ch. 55, §§ 4321–4347, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-55 (accessed February 27, 2023). 39. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Categorical Exclusions from Environmental Review,” Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Request for Comment, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 87 (May 7, 2021), pp. 24514–24516, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-05-07/pdf/2021-09675.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Categorical Exclusions from Environmental Review,” Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Reopening of Comment Period, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 160 (August 23, 2021), pp. 47032–47033, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-08-23/pdf/2021-18058.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023). 40. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 19, 21, 23, and 52. — 412 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 41. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 3, 6, 12, 19, 21, and 23. 42. S. 622, Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, 94th Congress, December 22, 1975, https:// www.congress.gov/94/statute/STATUTE-89/STATUTE-89-Pg871.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023). 43. H.R. 6, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law No. 109-58, 109th Congress, August 8, 2005, https://www. congress.gov/109/plaws/publ58/PLAW-109publ58.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023). 44. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, “About the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,” https://www.energy.gov/eere/about-office-energy-efficiency-and- renewable-energy (accessed February 28, 2023). 45. Ibid. 46. See note 41, supra. 47. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 19, 23, 43, and 49. 48. See U.S. Department of Energy, Grid Deployment Office, “About Us,” https://www.energy.gov/gdo/about-us (accessed February 13, 2023). 49. U.S. Department of Energy, Grid Deployment Office, “Building a Better Grid Initiative,” https://www.energy. gov/gdo/building-better-grid-initiative (accessed February 13, 2023). 50. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 2, 19, 21, 23, and 84. “The FY 2023 Budget Request to Congress proposes to split the Electricity appropriation account into two accounts: Electricity and Grid Deployment Office (GDO). Had the proposed FY 2023 structure been in place in FY 2021 and FY 2022, the $7,000,000 shown under the Electricity account’s Transmission Permitting and Technical Assistance (TPTA) program would have appeared under Grid Technical Assistance in GDO and the $3,000,000 shown under Program Direction in the Electricity account represents the estimated share of Electricity PD funding associated with TPTA and would have appeared under Program Direction in GDO.” Ibid., p. 84, note. 51. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, “About Us: Our Mission,” https://www. energy.gov/oced/about-us (accessed February 13, 2023). 52. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, p. 6. 53. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, “About Us: Our Story,” https://www. energy.gov/oced/about-us (accessed February 28, 2023). 54. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, “OCED Project Portfolio,” https://www. energy.gov/oced/office-clean-energy-demonstrations (accessed February 28, 2023). 55. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Volume 3, Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, Federal Energy Management Program, Grid Deployment Office, Indian Energy Policy & Programs, Loan Programs, Manufacturing & Energy Supply Chains, Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, Petroleum Reserves, Power Marketing Administrations, State and Community Energy Programs, April 2022, p. 104, https://www.energy. gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/doe-fy2023-budget-volume-3-v2.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 56. See, for example, ibid., pp. 104 and 107. 57. U.S. Department of Energy, Loan Program Office, “LPO Year in Review 2022: New Legislation,” January 5, 2023, https://www.energy.gov/lpo/articles/lpo-year-review-2022 (accessed February 28, 2023). Emphases in original. 58. H.R. 6256, To Ensure That Goods Made with Forced Labor in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China Do Not Enter the United States Market, and for Other Purposes, Public Law No. 117-78, 117th Congress, December 23, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ78/PLAW-117publ78.pdf (accessed February 28, 2023). 59. H.R. 2272, America COMPETES Act, Public Law 110–69, 110th Congress, August 9, 2007, § 5012, https://www. congress.gov/110/plaws/publ69/PLAW-110publ69.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 60. Ibid., § 5012(c)(1). 61. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, March 2022, p. 103.

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 54%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill concerns a military honorary promotion waiver and has no substantive connection to the Department of Health and Human Services policies outlined in Project 2025, which focus on healthcare, civil rights, abortion, and related regulations."

Key themes:unrelateddifferent policy domains

— 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. Wicker, Roger F.

Regional Ocean Partnerships Reauthorization Act of 2026

119/s/3791

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027

119/s/4784

TORNADO Act

119/s/258

Back to All Bills