PROTECT Our Children Reauthorization Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/539

Last Updated: August 9, 2026

PROTECT Our Children Reauthorization Act of 2025

S. 539, 119th Congress — read as touching Law Enforcement & Surveillance Tech.

The sponsor

Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]

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

The money

$440,480 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Federal Trade Commission" section, p. 908-910 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 80.

May 19, 2025

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:

The PROTECT Our Children Reauthorization Act of 2025 (S 539). A bill that, on the surface, appears to be a noble effort to combat child exploitation. But let's not be naive. This is Washington, after all.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The main purpose of this bill is to reauthorize and expand the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008, which established a national strategy for preventing and interdicting child exploitation crimes. The objectives are twofold: (1) to enhance coordination among federal agencies and state governments in combating child exploitation, and (2) to provide additional resources for law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute these crimes.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill makes several key changes to existing law:

* It requires the Attorney General to develop a national strategy for preventing and interdicting child exploitation crimes every four years (instead of every two years). * It expands the scope of the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Program, which provides grants to state and local law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute child exploitation crimes. * It increases funding for training programs for law enforcement agencies and prosecutors.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The affected parties include:

* Law enforcement agencies (federal, state, and local) * Prosecutors * Child advocacy groups * Private sector companies that provide online services

As a self-interested billionaire, I must consider how this bill affects my own interests. The increased funding for law enforcement agencies and prosecutors may lead to more aggressive investigations and prosecutions of child exploitation crimes, which could impact the bottom line of private sector companies that provide online services.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The potential impact of this bill is significant:

* Increased coordination among federal agencies and state governments could lead to more effective prevention and interdiction of child exploitation crimes. * Expanded funding for training programs could improve the capacity of law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute these crimes. * However, the increased regulatory burden on private sector companies could stifle innovation and limit their ability to operate effectively.

As a techno-libertarian, I believe that government regulation is often an obstacle to innovation. This bill may be well-intentioned, but it could have unintended consequences for the private sector. I will need to closely monitor its progress and consider how to mitigate any potential negative impacts on my own business interests.

In conclusion, while this bill appears to be a noble effort to combat child exploitation, we must consider its broader implications for the private sector and the economy as a whole. As a self-interested billionaire, it is my duty to prioritize my own interests and ensure that government regulation does not stifle innovation or limit my ability to operate effectively.

**Recommendation**

I will instruct my think tank, the "Institute for Efficient Governance," to conduct further analysis on this bill and its potential implications for the private sector. I will also consider making strategic donations to key lawmakers and advocacy groups to shape the narrative around

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? I'm sure it's not like you all learned about the legislative process in 8th grade or anything...

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The PROTECT Our Children Reauthorization Act of 2025 aims to reauthorize and amend the original PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008. The main objective is to enhance efforts to prevent and combat child exploitation, particularly online.

As I taught you in civics class, a bill like this one goes through various stages before becoming a law. It's introduced by a senator (in this case, Mr. Cornyn), referred to a committee (the Committee on the Judiciary), and then reported back with amendments. Remember when we learned about committees? They're supposed to review and refine bills before they reach the full chamber for debate.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill proposes several key changes:

1. **National Strategy**: The National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction will be updated every four years (instead of every two) to reflect new trends, challenges, and technologies. 2. **Required Contents**: The strategy must include an analysis of current and future threats, goals, and strategic solutions for preventing child exploitation, as well as engagement with various stakeholders, including law enforcement agencies, the private sector, and international partners. 3. **ICAC Task Force Program**: The bill reviews the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Program, assessing its effectiveness, resources, and cooperation among federal, state, local, and tribal agencies.

As we covered in 8th grade, a bill like this one can amend existing laws or create new ones. In this case, it updates the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 to address evolving threats and challenges in child exploitation.

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

1. **Children**: The primary beneficiaries of this legislation, as it aims to protect them from exploitation. 2. **Law Enforcement Agencies**: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies will be impacted by the changes to the ICAC Task Force Program and the National Strategy. 3. **Private Sector Entities**: Companies and organizations involved in efforts to combat child exploitation will need to cooperate with law enforcement agencies and adhere to new guidelines.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The potential impact of this bill includes:

1. **Enhanced Protection for Children**: By updating the National Strategy and ICAC Task Force Program, the bill aims to improve efforts to prevent and combat child exploitation. 2. **Increased Cooperation**: The legislation promotes cooperation among law enforcement agencies, the private sector, and international partners to tackle this complex issue. 3. **Resource Allocation**: The bill may lead to increased funding for programs and initiatives aimed at combating child exploitation.

Now, I'm sure it's not like you all forgot about the importance of checks and balances in our government system... but just in case, let me remind you that

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on S 539, the PROTECT Our Children Reauthorization Act of 2025. Now, at first glance, this bill seems like a noble effort to combat child exploitation. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill aims to reauthorize and expand the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008, which established a national strategy for preventing and interdicting child exploitation. Sounds good, right? But what they're not telling you is that this bill is just a Trojan horse for increased government surveillance and control.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the existing law by requiring the National Strategy to include an analysis of current and future trends in child exploitation, as well as goals and strategic solutions to prevent and interdict it. Sounds like a plan, but what's really going on here is that they're creating a framework for increased data collection and monitoring of online activities.

Notice how they're striking subsection (c) and inserting new language? That's not just a minor tweak; that's a major overhaul of the existing law. And what about the requirement for an analysis of Federal efforts dedicated to combating child exploitation? Sounds like they're trying to justify increased funding for their own programs, if you ask me.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects everyone, folks! It's not just about protecting children; it's about expanding government control over our online activities. The affected parties include:

* Law enforcement agencies (Federal, State, local, and Tribal) * Private sector entities involved in efforts to combat child exploitation * Non-profit organizations working on child protection issues * And, of course, the general public (that's you and me)

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, here's where things get really interesting. If this bill passes, we can expect:

* Increased surveillance and monitoring of online activities * Expanded data collection and analysis by government agencies * More funding for programs that justify increased control over our lives * And, potentially, more censorship and restrictions on free speech

But wait, there's more! This bill also opens the door for international cooperation and coordination on child protection issues. Sounds like a great idea, but what about national sovereignty? Are we just going to hand over our rights to some global authority?

Folks, this bill is not what it seems. It's a wolf in sheep's clothing, designed to erode our freedoms and increase government control. Wake up, America!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. The PROTECT Our Children Reauthorization Act of 2025 - sounds like a no-brainer, right? I mean, who doesn't want to protect the kids? (wink)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill aims to reauthorize the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008, which is set to expire. The main objective is to combat child exploitation by establishing a national strategy for prevention and interdiction. Sounds noble enough, but let's dig deeper.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 101 of the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 by changing the frequency of the National Strategy from every two years to every four years. It also adds new requirements for the strategy, including an analysis of current and future trends in child exploitation, goals and solutions for prevention and interdiction, and assessments of Federal efforts dedicated to combating child exploitation.

Now, here's where it gets interesting - or should I say, suspicious? The bill requires engagement with the private sector and other entities involved in efforts to combat child exploitation. (raising an eyebrow) Ah, yes, because we all know how well the government works with big tech and corporations... (sarcasm alert)

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects a wide range of stakeholders, including law enforcement agencies, the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Homeland Security Investigations, and even the United States Postal Service. Oh, and let's not forget the private sector entities that will be "engaged" in this effort.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, on the surface, this bill seems like a slam dunk for protecting our children. But, folks, we need to think critically here. What does this mean for individual freedoms? Will this lead to more surveillance and data collection? (winking at the camera) And what about those private sector entities - will they be using their newfound "engagement" with law enforcement to further their own interests?

(leaning in, conspiratorially) I'm not saying it's a bad thing to protect our children, but we need to be vigilant. This bill could be just another example of the elites trying to control every aspect of our lives under the guise of "protection." (smirking) Stay woke, folks.

That's all for tonight. Tune in tomorrow when we'll dive deeper into this bill and explore more of its implications. And remember, always question authority - especially when it comes to your freedom.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another bill, another exercise in futility. Let's dissect this mess.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The PROTECT Our Children Reauthorization Act of 2025 is a rehashing of the 2008 act with some minor tweaks. The main purpose is to pretend to care about child exploitation while actually doing nothing meaningful. The objectives are to:

* Reauthorize funding for programs that don't work * Create more bureaucratic red tape under the guise of "coordination" and "strategic planning" * Provide a platform for politicians to grandstand about their commitment to protecting children

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 101 of the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 by:

* Changing the frequency of national strategy reports from every two years to every four years (because who needs timely updates on child exploitation?) * Adding more vague language about "future trends and challenges" and "engagement with the private sector" (read: more opportunities for lobbying and cronyism) * Requiring an analysis of Federal efforts dedicated to combating child exploitation, which will likely be a whitewash of existing failures

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects:

* Politicians who want to look good on camera * Lobbyists representing "concerned" organizations (read: those with deep pockets) * Bureaucrats who need more paperwork to justify their existence * The occasional token child advocate who's been co-opted by the system

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill will:

* Waste taxpayer money on ineffective programs and bureaucratic overhead * Create more opportunities for corruption and cronyism * Provide a false sense of security for parents and children, while doing little to address the root causes of child exploitation * Further entrench the existing power structures that prioritize politics over people

In short, this bill is a classic case of "legislative theater" – all sound and fury, signifying nothing. It's a Band-Aid on a bullet wound, designed to make politicians look good while ignoring the real problems. Mark my words: child exploitation will continue to thrive under this toothless legislation.

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

**Bill Summary: S 539 - PROTECT Our Children Reauthorization Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose and Objectives:** The PROTECT Our Children Reauthorization Act of 2025 aims to reauthorize the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008, which established a national strategy for child exploitation prevention and interdiction. The bill's primary objective is to enhance efforts to combat child exploitation by improving coordination among federal agencies, state governments, and other stakeholders.

**Key Provisions and Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 in several key ways:

1. **National Strategy:** The bill requires the Attorney General to establish a national strategy for child exploitation prevention and interdiction every four years (previously every two years). 2. **Required Contents:** The national strategy must include an analysis of current trends, future challenges, goals, and strategic solutions to prevent and interdict child exploitation. 3. **Interagency Coordination:** The bill emphasizes the importance of interagency coordination among federal agencies, state governments, and other stakeholders in combating child exploitation. 4. **Resource Estimates:** The bill requires estimates of resources needed to effectively respond to child exploitation crimes at scale by various federal agencies.

**Affected Parties and Stakeholders:** The bill affects a range of parties and stakeholders, including:

1. **Federal Agencies:** Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Homeland Security Investigations, United States Marshals Service, United States Secret Service, United States Postal Service, and the Department of Defense. 2. **State Governments:** State governments will be involved in interagency coordination efforts to combat child exploitation. 3. **Law Enforcement Agencies:** Local law enforcement agencies will benefit from training programs and technical assistance provided by federal agencies. 4. **Private Sector Entities:** Companies and organizations involved in efforts to combat child exploitation will be engaged through public-private partnerships.

**Potential Impact and Implications:** The PROTECT Our Children Reauthorization Act of 2025 has several potential impacts and implications:

1. **Enhanced Coordination:** The bill's emphasis on interagency coordination may lead to more effective prevention and interdiction efforts against child exploitation. 2. **Improved Resource Allocation:** Estimates of resources needed to respond to child exploitation crimes at scale may inform more efficient allocation of federal funding. 3. **Increased Accountability:** Regular assessments of training needs, investigative activity, and prosecution outcomes may promote greater accountability among federal agencies and state governments.

Overall, the PROTECT Our Children Reauthorization Act of 2025 aims to strengthen efforts to combat child exploitation by enhancing coordination, improving resource allocation, and promoting accountability among stakeholders.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The PROTECT Our Children Reauthorization Act of 2025 is all about reauthorizing and strengthening the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008. The main goal is to combat child exploitation and prevent these heinous crimes from happening in the first place. It's like, we gotta protect our groms, man.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** This bill makes some key changes to existing law, bro:

* It requires a National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction to be updated every four years (instead of every two). This strategy will include an analysis of current trends, future challenges, and goals for preventing child exploitation. * It adds new requirements for the National Strategy, like engaging with the private sector, international cooperation, and assessing training needs for law enforcement agencies. * It also requires a review of the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Program, including its effectiveness, funding, and coordination with other agencies.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** This bill affects a bunch of parties, bro:

* Law enforcement agencies (federal, state, local, and tribal) * The Department of Justice * The Federal Bureau of Investigation * Homeland Security Investigations * The United States Marshals Service * The United States Secret Service * The United States Postal Service * The private sector (including tech companies and online platforms) * Non-profit organizations working on child exploitation prevention

**Potential Impact & Implications** This bill has some major implications, dude:

* It could lead to more effective coordination between law enforcement agencies and other stakeholders in combating child exploitation. * It might result in increased funding for programs and initiatives aimed at preventing child exploitation. * The National Strategy will provide a comprehensive framework for addressing child exploitation, which could help identify areas where resources are needed most. * However, it's also possible that the bill's requirements could put additional burdens on law enforcement agencies and other stakeholders, potentially diverting resources away from other important priorities.

Anyway, bro, that's the lowdown on this bill. It's all about protecting our kids and keeping them safe from harm. We gotta stay vigilant and keep pushing for policies that support their well-being, man.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: S 539 - PROTECT Our Children Reauthorization Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to reauthorize the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008, which aims to prevent and interdict child exploitation crimes. The legislation seeks to enhance the national strategy for combating child exploitation, improve coordination among law enforcement agencies, and provide additional resources for investigating and prosecuting these crimes.

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

1. **National Strategy:** The bill amends Section 101 of the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 by requiring the National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction to be updated every four years, instead of every two years. 2. **Required Contents:** The legislation outlines specific requirements for the National Strategy, including an analysis of current trends, future challenges, goals, and strategic solutions for preventing and interdicting child exploitation. 3. **ICAC Task Force Program Review:** The bill requires a review of the Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force Program, including the number of task forces, trained personnel, federal grants awarded, and an assessment of federal, state, and local cooperation.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Law Enforcement Agencies:** Federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies will be impacted by this legislation, particularly those involved in the ICAC Task Force Program. 2. **Private Sector Entities:** Companies and organizations involved in efforts to combat child exploitation, such as technology firms and non-profit organizations, may be affected by the bill's provisions related to private sector engagement. 3. **Victims of Child Exploitation:** The legislation aims to improve the response to child exploitation crimes, which will ultimately benefit victims and their families.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Enhanced Coordination:** The bill's emphasis on interagency coordination and cooperation may lead to more effective prevention and interdiction efforts. 2. **Increased Resources:** The legislation's provisions related to resource allocation and training needs assessments may result in increased funding for law enforcement agencies and other stakeholders involved in combating child exploitation. 3. **Improved Data Collection:** The bill's requirements for data collection and analysis may help identify trends and challenges in child exploitation, informing future policy decisions.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** While there are no obvious monied interests directly backing this bill, it is worth noting that the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) has been a vocal supporter of reauthorizing the PROTECT Our Children Act. NCMEC receives funding from various sources, including government grants and private donations. Some of the bill's sponsors, such as Senator Cornyn, have received campaign contributions from organizations like the National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO), which may have an interest in law enforcement-related legislation.

**Committee Capture:** The Senate Committee on the Judiciary, which reported this

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$440,480

20 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$440,433

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

WEEKLEY, RICHARD W

1 transaction

$100,000

MCINGVALE, JAMES F

1 transaction

$50,000

MCINGVALE, LINDA

1 transaction

$50,000

DUNN, TIMOTHY

1 transaction

$45,000

MIDDLETON, MAYES

2 transactions

$25,000

MARTIN, KIMBERLY R

1 transaction

$20,000

BLAINE, JAY C.

1 transaction

$16,478

THOMPSON, JERE W. MR. JR.

1 transaction

$13,200

MIDDLETON, MACEY

1 transaction

$12,500

BOLDRICK, MILES

1 transaction

$12,500

BOLDRICK, LAURIE

1 transaction

$12,500

MIDDLETON, MACY

1 transaction

$12,500

WHITEHILL, KIT

1 transaction

$10,755

CARROLL, TRACEY

1 transaction

$10,000

HUFFINES, PHILLIP

1 transaction

$10,000

ALBIN, ALAN S.

1 transaction

$10,000

AGRESTI, JOSEPH A

1 transaction

$10,000

ADAMSON, MARK

1 transaction

$10,000

WILKS, JO ANN

1 transaction

$10,000

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]

ID: B001277

Top Contributors

OLSON, LYNDON

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualWACO, TX

$3,300

Dec 20, 2024

ALIX, JAY

ALIX PARTNERS • FOUNDER

IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI

$3,300

Oct 2, 2023

KIM, CHRISTINE M.

BBB LLC • ATTORNEY

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Oct 31, 2023

ALIX, JAY

ALIX PARTNERS • FOUNDER

IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI

$3,300

Apr 15, 2024

ROURE, RITA

PAGNY - LINCOLN HOSPITAL • PHYSICIAN

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$3,300

Apr 10, 2024

ROURE, RITA

PAGNY - LINCOLN HOSPITAL • PHYSICIAN

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$3,300

Apr 10, 2024

CHAVEZ, TOM

KRUX INC. • CEO

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Jul 13, 2024

CHAVEZ, TOM

KRUX INC. • CEO

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Jul 13, 2024

JONES, JERRY C.

LIVERAMP INC. • EXECUTIVE

IndividualLITTLE ROCK, AR

$3,300

Sep 19, 2024

NESSEL, ARIEL

NESSEL DEVELOPMENT • OWNER

IndividualROSS, CA

$3,300

Jul 12, 2024

Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]

ID: B001243

Top Contributors

FRIENDS OF COMMUNITY ONCOLOGY PAC

PACVIRGINIA BEACH, VA

$5,000

Apr 12, 2023

THE COGGIN GROUP

OrganizationMURFREESBORO, TN

$2,900

Mar 9, 2023

THE COGGIN GROUP

OrganizationMURFREESBORO, TN

$2,500

Mar 9, 2023

DOSS BROTHERS FARM

OrganizationLAWRENCEBURG, TN

$1,000

Apr 17, 2024

DOSS BROTHERS FARM

OrganizationLAWRENCEBURG, TN

$1,000

Mar 18, 2024

BL PARTNERS GROUP LLC

OrganizationARLINGTON, VA

$500

Mar 17, 2023

KING, RODNEY W.

SELF-EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY

IndividualGERMANTOWN, TN

$13,200

Apr 4, 2024

BEAN, BILL G.

HANNING & BEAN ENTERPRISES INC. • REAL ESTATE INVESTOR

IndividualCOLUMBIA CITY, IN

$10,000

May 1, 2024

SMITH, THOMAS

PRESCOTT INVESTORS INC. • INVESTOR

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$10,000

May 13, 2024

GAMBLE, KATHRYN

UNAKA CO • BUSINESS EXECUTIVE

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$9,900

Jul 15, 2024

Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]

ID: K000367

Top Contributors

LEECH LAKE BAND OF OJIBWE

OrganizationCASS LAKE, MN

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$3,300

Aug 25, 2023

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$2,500

Oct 7, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$2,300

Jul 17, 2023

ARISTOTLE INTERNATIONAL

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Jul 19, 2024

SMITH, BRADFORD

MICROSOFT CORPORATION • ATTORNEY

IndividualBELLEVUE, WA

$6,600

Mar 30, 2023

SMITH, BRADFORD

IndividualBELLEVUE, WA

$6,600

Mar 30, 2023

BADEN, DREW

PROFESSOR • UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

IndividualBETHESDA, MD

$6,600

Feb 23, 2024

CAUCHY, CONSTANCE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualMIDLAND, MI

$6,600

Jun 2, 2024

BADEN, DREW

IndividualBETHESDA, MD

$6,600

Mar 11, 2024

Sen. Hawley, Josh [R-MO]

ID: H001089

Top Contributors

R&W TOWING & RECOVERY

OrganizationST JOSEPH, MO

$3,300

Sep 18, 2024

SOUTHERN MISSOURI REAL ESTATE LLC

OrganizationAURORA, MO

$1,000

Jun 28, 2023

ST LOUIS CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP PAC

OrganizationCHESTERFIELD, MO

$914

Oct 31, 2024

MARK FAUGHN CONSTRUCTION LLC

OrganizationPOPLAR BLUFF, MO

$250

May 22, 2023

SCHELL, MARK CHRISTOPHER

DIAMOND PET FOOD • MANAGER

IndividualLOHMAN, MO

$13,200

Apr 13, 2023

CARR, GEORGE T.

THE DURHAM CO • MANAGEMENT

IndividualSPRINGFIELD, MO

$12,200

Apr 21, 2023

RUSSELL, DOUG MR.

DURHAM COMPANY • PRESIDENT

IndividualLEBANON, MO

$7,400

Apr 21, 2023

SHELTON, GREGORY P. MR.

SHELTON WHOLESALE • OWNER

IndividualEAGLEVILLE, MO

$6,600

Mar 11, 2024

WALDEN, MICHAEL

SHOOK HARDY BACON • ATTORNEY

IndividualMISSION HILLS, KS

$6,600

Mar 31, 2023

WILLARD, BRADLEY

WILLARD ASPHALT PAVING • PRESIDENT

IndividualLEBANON, MO

$6,600

Mar 31, 2023

Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL]

ID: D000563

Top Contributors

MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationMIAMI, OK

$1,700

Mar 29, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

May 17, 2024

MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationMIAMI, OK

$800

Mar 29, 2024

KUJAWSKI, JOHN

SELF-EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$5,000

May 28, 2024

KUJAWSKI, JOHN

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$5,000

Jun 4, 2024

KUJAWSKI, JOHN

SELF-EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$3,600

May 29, 2024

KUJAWSKI, JOHN

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$3,600

Jun 4, 2024

BARKER, MARA MILLS

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$3,300

Dec 26, 2024

BARKER, MARA MILLS

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$3,300

Dec 26, 2024

CHOWDHURY, SHUVRO

BOWERY ENGINE • ENGINEER

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

Sen. Moody, Ashley [R-FL]

ID: M001244

Top Contributors

No contribution data available

Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA]

ID: G000386

Top Contributors

SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA

COMTAMA, IA

$2,000

Aug 8, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

COMPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jul 23, 2024

WINRED

PACARLINGTON, VA

$25

Jul 4, 2024

SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Jan 10, 2024

SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN

BLACKSTONE • CEO

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Jan 16, 2024

KUMAR, SHALLI

AVG ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY • CHAIR

IndividualBETTENDORF, IA

$6,600

Jun 11, 2024

STARRETT, RONALD

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualCENTENNIAL, CO

$5,800

Jan 24, 2023

COLLINS, RICHARD

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualMARSHALLTOWN, IA

$5,523

Oct 1, 2024

COLLINS, RICHARD

IndividualMARSHALLTOWN, IA

$5,523

Oct 7, 2024

WEISS, LUKE

HOOVER'S HATCHERY • PRESIDENT

IndividualMASON CITY, IA

$3,300

Dec 11, 2024

Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE]

ID: C001088

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$3,300

Dec 27, 2023

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$1,700

Dec 27, 2023

CHEN, YU

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualMIAMI, FL

$3,300

Dec 17, 2024

MIRZAIE, REZA

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT LLP • ATTORNEY

IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA

$3,300

Oct 7, 2024

CHEN, YU

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualMIAMI, FL

$3,300

Dec 17, 2024

WASSERMAN, CASEY

WASSERMAN • CEO

IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

ZHAO, PENG

CITADEL SECURITIES • CEO

IndividualMIAMI, FL

$3,300

Dec 17, 2024

WASSERMAN, CASEY

WASSERMAN • CEO

IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

ZHAO, PENG

CITADEL SECURITIES • CEO

IndividualMIAMI, FL

$3,300

Dec 17, 2024

MIRZAIE, REZA

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT LLP • ATTORNEY

IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA

$3,300

Oct 7, 2024

Sen. Hirono, Mazie K. [D-HI]

ID: H001042

Top Contributors

TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA

OrganizationMARKSVILLE, LA

$3,300

Jun 15, 2023

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$2,500

Dec 30, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$2,500

Nov 1, 2023

MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS

$2,000

Jul 7, 2023

TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA

OrganizationMARKSVILLE, LA

$1,700

Jun 15, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$1,000

May 23, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$800

Nov 1, 2023

TONIO BURGOS & ASSOCIATES OF NEW JERSEY, LLC

OrganizationNEW YORK, NY

$500

May 18, 2023

CHUAN, JOHANNA

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualHONOLULU, HI

$3,400

Jun 9, 2024

MINATOISHI, LORRAINE REIKO

AEPAC • PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER

IndividualHONOLULU, HI

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

Sen. Ossoff, Jon [D-GA]

ID: O000174

Top Contributors

THOMAS, TORI

IndividualMCLEAN, VA

$9,100

Jun 30, 2024

MCCLURE, RODERICK

RODFATHER PRODUCTIONS • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualALPHARETTA, GA

$6,600

Nov 25, 2024

MCCLURE, RODERICK

IndividualALPHARETTA, GA

$6,600

Dec 23, 2024

HOLLANDER, ELLEN

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualROSWELL, GA

$5,000

Oct 6, 2024

HOLLANDER, ELLEN

IndividualROSWELL, GA

$5,000

Oct 14, 2024

MILLER, KRISTIE

SELF EMPLOYED • WRITER

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Jun 5, 2024

RECHNITZ, JOAN

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualRED BANK, NJ

$3,300

Apr 22, 2024

HOPPER, HEIDI

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualMENLO PARK, CA

$3,300

May 3, 2024

BRASCH, JOHN

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualLINCOLN, NE

$3,300

Apr 16, 2024

ARNOLD, JOHN

ARNOLD VENTURES • CO-FOUNDER

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$3,300

Apr 2, 2024

Donor Network - Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 32 nodes and 34 connections

Total contributions: $34

Top Donors - Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]

Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount

1 Committee19 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped, 1 harmed.

+Law Enforcement & Surveillance Techconfidence 0.90
Section 2(b)(3) adds limited liability for ICAC task forces, shielding them from civil claims or criminal charges arising from prioritization decisions regarding leads related to Internet crimes against children, which benefits law enforcement agencies and surveillance technology vendors involved in such task forces.
−Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.80
Section 2(i) amends 18 U.S.C. § 2258A(c) to require providers to include 'all supplemental data included in the report' with each CyberTipline report, increasing compliance burdens on online platforms that host user-generated content and must report child exploitation material.
+Private Prisons & Immigration Detentionconfidence 0.70
Section 2(g) authorizes increased appropriations ($70M FY2026, $80M FY2027, $90M FY2028) for the ICAC Grant Program, which funds task forces that may collaborate with or refer cases to private prison operators for detention of convicted offenders, potentially increasing demand for private prison services.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HARMS

Big Tech Platforms$7,000
from 4 contributions
- WALKER, KENT$6,200
- WALKER, KENT MR.$800

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.

Federal Trade Commission

Moderate

Vector: 63%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the FTC policy aim to protect children from harm, particularly in online contexts, but the bill focuses on combating child exploitation through law enforcement coordination while the FTC section addresses unfair trade practices, privacy, and mental health impacts of social media. The overlap lies in shared goals of child safety and the need for federal action, though the specific mechanisms differ."

Key themes:child protectiononline safetyfederal coordinationpublic-private partnershipsaddressing harms to minors

— 875 — Federal Trade Commission Protecting Children Online. The FTC has long protected children in a variety of different contexts. Internet platforms profit from obtaining information from children without parents’ knowledge or consent—and social media’s effect on the well-being of American children is well-documented. Around 2012, American teens experienced a dramatic decline in wellness. Depression, self-harm, suicide attempts, and suicide all increased sharply among U.S. adolescents between 2011 and 2019,16 with similar trends worldwide.17 The increase occurred at the same time that social media use moved from rare to ubiquitous among teens,18 making social media a prime suspect for the sudden rise in mental health issues among teens. In addition, excessive social media use is strongly linked to mental health issues among individuals. Several studies strongly support the notion that social media use is a cause, not just a correlation, of subjective well-being and poor mental health.19 Social media and other large platforms form millions of contracts every year with American children. And even though a minor can void most contracts into which he or she enters, most jurisdictions have laws that hold minors accountable for the benefits received under the contract. Thus, children can make enforceable contracts for which parents could end up bearing responsibility. Targeting chil- dren to create potentially harmful contracts or making parents responsible for such contractual relationships is an unfair trade practice. The FTC, therefore, has the authority, interest, and duty to protect children online from such contractual relationships. l The FTC should examine platforms’ advertising and contract- making with children as a deceptive or unfair trade practice, perhaps requiring written parental consent. Currently, the Child Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)20 regulates the information internet firms can obtain from children. COPPA fails because it (1) only protects children under the age of 13, leaving older teenagers completely unprotected and (2) only prohibits platforms from collecting information from a child using “actual knowledge” rather than abiding by the “constructive knowledge” standard, which prohibits collecting information from a user reasonably assumed to be underage. The FTC has rulemaking authority under this statute but has done little with this authority, nor can it—given the statutory constraints. However, l The FTC can and should institute unfair trade practices proceedings against entities that enter into contracts with children without parental consent. Personal parental responsibility is, of course, key, but the law must respect, not undermine, lawful parental authority. — 876 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Other conservatives are more skeptical concerning the effect of online expe- rience on the young, comparing the concern about social media to concern about video games, television, and bicycle safety. They point out, as does Cato fellow Jeffrey A. Singer, that the psychiatric profession has yet to designate “internet addiction” or “social media addiction” as a mental disorder in the authoritative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR).21 These con- servatives also maintain that calling for regulation undermines conservatives’ calls for parental empowerment on education or vaccines as well as personal parenting responsibility. In addition, some of the methods used to regulate children’s internet access pose the risk of unintended harms. For instance, age verification regulations would inevitably increase the amount of data collection involved, increasing privacy con- cerns. Users would have to submit to platforms proof of their age, which raises the risks of data breach or illegitimate data usage by the platforms or bad actors. Limited-government conservatives would prefer the FTC play an educational role instead. That might include best practices or educational programs to empower parents online. Antitrust Enforcement. As is evidenced by a relentless focus on bringing Big Tech lawsuits, state attorneys general (AGs) are far more responsive to their con- stituents than is the FTC. Such a “boots on the ground” approach would benefit the FTC enormously. Practically, this would mean establishing a distinct role in the FTC Chairman’s office focused on state AG cooperation and inviting state AGs to Washington, D.C., to discuss enforcement policy in key sectors under the FTC’s jurisdiction: Big Tech, hospital mergers, supermarket mergers, and so forth. FTC regional offices are substantially more in touch with local issues. Over the past few decades, the reach and influence of regional offices has shrunk dramati- cally. The FTC should consider returning authority to these offices. Some conservatives however are less supportive of this idea. Conservative enthusiasm for the idea of adding regional FTC offices to the states is a break from the majority conservative position. Endorsing the federal government as a pre- mier job creator runs counter to decades of conservative opinion that holds that New Deal agencies and subsequent government bodies should never have been created in the first place, and that their red tape and interference is a dominant cause of economic inefficiency. Republicans used to seethe when Democrats tried to move federal offices into the states. In the early 1990s, House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich fumed about Senator Robert Byrd’s campaign to transfer certain national intelligence facilities to West Virginia, calling it a “pure abuse of power.” Some contributors to this chapter would remind conservatives that the unseen mechanics of redistribution—by which taxpayer money paid to state employees is taken from taxpayers nationwide—is a drag on the economy of the entire country. Many conservatives fear that it would be impossible to uproot or even prune back

Federal Trade Commission

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on combating child sexual exploitation through law enforcement coordination and strategy, while the Project 2025 FTC policy addresses children's online privacy, mental health harms from social media, and unfair contractual practices—topics not addressed in the bill."

Key themes:child protectiononline safetyfederal oversight

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 509-511AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on combating child sexual exploitation through interagency coordination and resource planning, while the Project 2025 HHS section emphasizes teen pregnancy prevention, adoption reform, ORR policies, and child support enforcement. Both concern child welfare but address distinct issues, resulting only tangential overlap."

Key themes:child protectioninteragency coordinationchild welfarefederal agency coordination

— 477 — Department of Health and Human Services Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) and Personal Responsibility Educa- tion Program (PREP). TPP is operated by the Office of Population Affairs in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health; PREP is operated by the ACF Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. Both programs should ensure that there is better reporting of subgrantees and referral lists so that they do not promote abortion or high-risk sexual behavior among adolescents. CMS should ensure that Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA) proponents receive these grants and are given every opportunity to prove their effectiveness. SRA programs, both at ACF and at OASH and both discretionary and mandatory, should be equal in funding and emphasis. Qualitative research should be conducted on both types of programs to ensure continuous improvement. In addition, certain provisions should be employed so that these programs do not serve as advocacy tools to promote sex, promote prostitution, or provide a funnel effect for abortion facilities and school field trips to clinics, or for similar purposes. Parent involvement and parent–child communication should be encour- aged and be a part of any funded project. Risk avoidance should be prioritized, and any program that submits a proposal that promotes risk rather than health should not be eligible for funding. Site visits should be revamped to ensure adherence to these optimal health met- rics, and a cost analysis of programming as compared to students served should be a metric in funding (taking into account that in certain cases, intensive programs will serve fewer students and can have more positive results). These same param- eters should apply to sex education programs at ACF. Any lists with “approved curriculum” or so-called evidence-based lists should be abolished; HHS should not create a monopoly of curriculum, adding to the profit of certain publishers. Furthermore, lists created in the past have given priority to sex-promotion text- books. HHS should create a list of criteria for evaluating the sort of curriculum that should be selected for any sex education grant programs, both at OASH and at ACF, with the aim of promoting optimal health and adhering to the legislative language of each program. Adoption Reform. There are roughly 400,000 children across the nation on the waiting list for foster care and 100,000 awaiting adoptive families, and the opioid/ fentanyl crisis is putting more at risk every day. Unfortunately, many of the faith- based adoption agencies that serve these children are under threat from lawsuits, or else their licenses and contracts have been halted because they cannot in good conscience place children in every household due to their religious belief that a child should have a married mother and father. HHS, through ACF and the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources (ASFR), should repeal the unnecessary 2016 regulation61 that imposes nonstatutory sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination conditions on agency grants and return to the policy of maximizing the options for placing vulnerable children — 478 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise in their forever homes. ACF and OCR should also survey their programs to consider whether additional waivers of HHS grant conditions—waivers the Biden Admin- istration revoked in 2021—are needed for faith-based agencies. Additionally, Congress should pass the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act62 to ensure that providers and organizations cannot be subjected to discrimination for providing adoption and foster care services based on their beliefs about marriage. Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). The Office of Refugee Resettlement should be moved to the Department of Homeland Security. Having health and welfare functions managed by HHS and border security functions managed by DHS has created intolerable failures in both. HHS and ORR have forgotten their original refugee-resettlement mission and instead have provided a panoply of free programs that incentivize people to come to the U.S. illegally. Even more troubling, ORR has too often placed children into dangerous situations when releasing them into the country. Nearly all of HHS’s care, custody, and placement of children is done through cooperative agreements with private agencies, many of which may have broken federal law by inducing or being accomplices in illegal immigration. Those arrangements could be handled far more effectively by DHS. Congress should reform the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act63 to transfer all ORR duties for unaccompanied alien children to DHS and eliminate the Flores settlement agreement.64 Regardless of where ORR’s functions reside, ORR staff and care providers should never be allowed to facilitate abortions for unaccompanied children in its cus- tody, including by transporting minors across state lines from pro-life states to abortion-friendly states. Pregnant, unaccompanied girls in ORR custody should be treated with dignity, not trafficked across state lines to be victimized by the abortion industry. ORR should withdraw its policy of allowing elective abortions for children in ORR care and issue a new policy of instructing care providers not to allow girls to be transported for elective abortions. HHS OGC and the White House should insist that DOJ fight to defend that policy up to the U.S. Supreme Court in light of Dobbs. Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) Congress established Aid to Families with Dependent Children in 1935 to assist single-parent families who were suffering financially from the loss of a bread-winning husband and father. Within two decades, however, the majority of families receiving aid were depen- dent because of paternal abandonment rather than death. Today, nearly a third of America’s children live without a father present in the home, and a fourth of them are enrolled to receive child support. The glaring issue in child support enforcement today is a non-resident father’s ability to provide full or consistent child support payments. The literature reflects this divide as fathers have been categorized as “deadbeat” dads, then as “deadbroke”

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on combating child exploitation through interagency coordination and resource allocation, while the Project 2025 HHS section emphasizes healthcare policy, civil rights, reproductive health, and provider inclusion—topics with minimal thematic overlap."

Key themes:child welfarefederal coordinationhealth and human services

— 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).

Department of Justice

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 608-610AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 excerpt involve the Department of Justice and FBI, but the bill focuses on child exploitation prevention while the Project 2025 material centers on oversight, political targeting, and broader law enforcement controversies, resulting only a tangential connection."

Key themes:Department of JusticeFederal Bureau of Investigationinteragency coordination

— 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.

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. Cornyn, John

Promoting Resilient Buildings Act

119/s/388

A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 620 East Pecan Boulevard in McAllen, Texas, as the "Agent Raul H. Gonzalez Jr. Memorial Post Office".

119/s/917

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026

119/s/1071

Back to All Bills