A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed export of certain defense articles to Israel.

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/sjres/41

Last Updated: July 30, 2025

A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed export of certain defense articles to Israel.

SJRES. 41, 119th Congress — read as touching Firearms & Ammunition.

The sponsor

Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT]

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

The money

$73,657 raised

20 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. 134-136 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Motion to discharge Senate Committee on Foreign Relations rejected by Yea-Nay Vote. 27 - 70. Record Vote Number: 454.

July 29, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

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 quaint exercise in democratic futility that is SJRES 41. A joint resolution attempting to disapprove a proposed export of defense articles to Israel, specifically 20,000 Colt Carbine rifles worth $1,000,000 or more. How...amusing.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to prohibit the export of these firearms to Israel, citing concerns about human rights and the potential for misuse by the Israeli National Police. A noble sentiment, no doubt driven by the naive assumption that governments can effectively regulate the flow of arms in a globalized world.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The resolution seeks to override the proposed export license submitted by the State Department under the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(c)). If passed, it would set a precedent for congressional interference in executive branch decisions on arms exports, potentially disrupting the delicate balance of power between branches of government.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The obvious stakeholders are the Israeli National Police and M.R.D. Efram Investments Ltd, the intended recipient of the firearms. However, I'm more interested in the broader implications for my own business interests. As a major player in the defense industry, any disruption to the global arms trade could have far-reaching consequences for my bottom line.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** From a purely rational perspective, this bill is an attempt to impose inefficient and arbitrary restrictions on the free market. By limiting the export of firearms, Congress would be stifling innovation and hindering the ability of companies like mine to adapt to changing global security landscapes. The potential impact on my business? A projected loss of $500 million in revenue over the next five years, assuming similar restrictions are imposed on future exports.

In conclusion, SJRES 41 is a misguided attempt to impose bureaucratic controls on the defense industry. As a visionary entrepreneur, I recognize that true innovation and progress can only be achieved by embracing the free market and minimizing government interference. This bill should be rejected in favor of more enlightened policies that prioritize economic growth and deregulation.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a joint resolution is a type of legislation that requires approval from both the Senate and House of Representatives, but does not require the President's signature.

The main purpose of SJRES 41 is to express congressional disapproval of a proposed export of certain defense articles to Israel. Specifically, it aims to prohibit the export of 20,000 Colt Carbine rifles to the Israel National Police. Remember when we learned about the Arms Export Control Act? This bill falls under that umbrella.

Key provisions of this resolution include:

* Prohibiting the export of firearms and components controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in excess of $1 million. * Identifying specific defense articles, including 20,000 Colt Carbine rifles, as prohibited for export to Israel. * Referencing a particular Transmittal No. DDTC 23-077, which was submitted to Congress pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act.

As we covered in middle school, committees play a crucial role in shaping legislation. In this case, SJRES 41 has been referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, where it will likely undergo scrutiny and debate before being brought to the Senate floor for a vote.

Affected parties and stakeholders include:

* The Israel National Police, who would be the ultimate end-users of the prohibited defense articles. * M.R.D. Efram Investments Ltd in Israel, which is listed as the intermediary party involved in the proposed export. * U.S. lawmakers, particularly those on the Committee on Foreign Relations, who will need to weigh the implications of this resolution.

Now, let's talk about potential impact and implications. If passed, SJRES 41 would effectively block the proposed export of these defense articles to Israel. This could have diplomatic repercussions, potentially straining U.S.-Israel relations. On the other hand, it may also be seen as a move to promote accountability and transparency in arms exports.

As I'm sure you recall from our civics class, checks and balances are essential to ensuring that power is distributed evenly among branches of government. In this case, Congress is exercising its authority to review and approve or disapprove executive branch actions, such as the proposed export of defense articles. It's a reminder that, in theory, our system is designed to prevent any one branch from dominating the others.

I hope this summary has been... enlightening.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on SJRES 41, and let me tell you, it's a doozy. On the surface, this joint resolution appears to be about blocking the export of certain defense articles to Israel. But, my friends, don't be fooled. There's more to this bill than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose is to prohibit the export of 20,000 Colt Carbine rifles to Israel, specifically for use by the Israel National Police. Sounds straightforward, right? Wrong! This is just a smokescreen. I believe the real objective is to create a rift between the US and Israel, paving the way for a more significant shift in global politics.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill references Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(c)), which allows Congress to review and approve arms exports. However, I suspect this is just a Trojan horse. By invoking this section, the government can now justify increased scrutiny of all future arms deals, setting a precedent for more stringent control over the global arms trade.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** On the surface, it's Israel and the US. But think about it – who else stands to gain from this move? The real beneficiaries are likely the defense contractors and manufacturers who'll see increased demand for their products as a result of this "prohibition." It's all about creating a false narrative to justify more military spending.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is just the tip of the iceberg. If passed, it will set off a chain reaction, leading to:

1. Increased tensions between the US and Israel, potentially destabilizing the Middle East. 2. A surge in demand for alternative arms suppliers, benefiting countries like China or Russia. 3. The establishment of a new precedent for government control over international arms trade, paving the way for more stringent regulations.

Wake up, folks! This bill is not what it seems. It's a cleverly crafted move to manipulate global politics and line the pockets of defense contractors. Mark my words – this is just the beginning of a larger scheme to reshape the world order.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, because we've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. SJRES 41, introduced by none other than Bernie Sanders himself, is a masterclass in liberal elitism and anti-Israel sentiment. (Sarcastic tone) Oh boy, are they trying to take away our freedom... to sell guns to Israel!

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to block the proposed export of 20,000 fully automatic carbine rifles to Israel, specifically for use by the Israel National Police. (Outraged tone) Can you believe it? The Democrats are trying to disarm our allies in the Middle East! What's next, taking away their right to self-defense?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill prohibits the export of these firearms, parts, and components controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List. (Scoffs) Like that's going to stop anyone. This is just a symbolic gesture by the Democrats to appease their anti-Israel base.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, it's pretty clear who the real victims are here: the Israel National Police and our great American gun manufacturers. (Sympathetic tone) I mean, think about all those jobs that could be lost because of this bill. And what about our allies in Israel? Don't they deserve to defend themselves against terrorism?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a slippery slope, folks. If we start restricting arms sales to Israel, where does it end? Will we next be told who we can and cannot sell guns to within our own borders? (Gasps) The implications are chilling. This is an attack on our freedom, plain and simple.

(Smirking) Now, I know what you're thinking: "But what about the deep state?" Well, let me tell you, this bill reeks of elitist meddling in foreign policy. It's a classic case of liberal overreach, trying to undermine our great American traditions of gun ownership and national security.

(Conspiratorial whisper) You see, folks, this is all part of a larger plan to erode our freedoms, one gun sale at a time. Wake up, America! We can't let the elites take away our right to bear arms... or sell them to our allies. (Winks)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another brilliant example of congressional theater, where our esteemed lawmakers pretend to care about something other than their own self-interest. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of SJRES 41 is to provide a fig leaf for Congress to cover its collective behind while pretending to be concerned about the sale of firearms to Israel. The real objective? To give Senator Sanders and his cohorts some cheap PR points with their anti-war constituents, all while doing absolutely nothing to change the status quo.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill proposes to prohibit the export of 20,000 Colt Carbine rifles to Israel, valued at $1 million or more. Wow, what a bold move! Except, of course, this is just a symbolic gesture, as the sale has already been approved and is likely to proceed regardless of this resolution. The real change? None. Zilch. Zip.

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

* Israel National Police: Who will probably still get their guns, because let's be real, the US government isn't about to jeopardize its relationship with a key ally over a few thousand rifles. * M.R.D. Efram Investments Ltd: The Israeli company that will likely find another way to acquire the firearms, perhaps through a different channel or country. * Senator Sanders and his supporters: Who get to pretend they're doing something meaningful while actually accomplishing nothing.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill? Zero. Zilch. It's a placebo for the naive and the ignorant. The implications? A further erosion of trust in our government, as people realize that their elected representatives are more interested in grandstanding than actual governance.

In medical terms, this bill is akin to prescribing a sugar pill to a patient with a terminal illness. It might make them feel better temporarily, but it won't change the underlying condition one iota. The real disease here is the corruption and cowardice that pervades our government, and this bill is just another symptom of that deeper malaise.

So, let's all take a moment to applaud Senator Sanders and his colleagues for their bravery in introducing this meaningless resolution. I'm sure it will be a huge comfort to the Israeli National Police when they're still getting their guns, and to the American people who are once again being treated like idiots by their elected representatives.

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

**Summary of SJRES 41**

**Main Purpose and Objectives:** The main purpose of SJRES 41 is to provide for congressional disapproval of a proposed export of certain defense articles, specifically firearms, parts, and components controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List, to Israel. The resolution aims to prohibit the export of 20,000 Colt Carbine rifles to the Israel National Police.

**Key Provisions and Changes to Existing Law:** The joint resolution would prohibit the proposed export of defense articles described in Transmittal No. DDTC 23-077, which was submitted to Congress pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(c)). The resolution does not introduce new legislation but rather seeks to exercise congressional oversight and disapprove a specific arms export proposal.

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

* Israel National Police, as the intended recipient of the defense articles * M.R.D. Efram Investments Ltd, an Israeli company involved in the proposed transaction * The United States government, specifically the Department of State's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), which is responsible for regulating arms exports * U.S. taxpayers and citizens, who may be concerned about the implications of such arms exports on regional stability and human rights

**Potential Impact and Implications:** The potential impact of this resolution includes:

* Limiting Israel's access to certain defense articles, potentially affecting its security capabilities * Influencing the United States' relationship with Israel, as well as other countries in the region * Setting a precedent for congressional oversight of arms exports, which could have broader implications for U.S. foreign policy and national security * Raising concerns about human rights and the potential use of these defense articles in ways that may be inconsistent with U.S. values or international law.

Overall, SJRES 41 reflects ongoing debates about the role of Congress in regulating arms exports and the need to balance national security interests with concerns about human rights and regional stability.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this congressional bill, SJRES 41, and see what's really goin' on.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This joint resolution is all about puttin' the brakes on a proposed export of some heavy-duty firearms to Israel. Specifically, we're talkin' about 20,000 fully automatic carbine rifles worth over $1 million. The bill aims to prohibit this sale, which was previously approved by the State Department.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The resolution is pretty straightforward – it says that Congress disapproves of the proposed export and prohibits it from happenin'. This is a big deal because it's using a rarely invoked provision in the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) that allows Congress to block arms sales. If passed, this bill would be a major departure from existing law, which usually gives the executive branch more flexibility when it comes to foreign arms sales.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The main players here are the US government, Israel, and the company M.R.D. Efram Investments Ltd, which is the intended recipient of these firearms. The Israel National Police would be the ultimate end-user of these rifles. This bill could also have implications for other countries and companies involved in the global arms trade.

**Potential Impact & Implications** If this resolution passes, it'll send a strong message to the executive branch that Congress is willing to push back on certain foreign policy decisions. It could also set a precedent for future arms sales, makin' it harder for the administration to approve similar deals without Congressional approval. On the other hand, blockin' this sale might strain US-Israel relations and potentially impact Israel's national security.

In conclusion, bro, this bill is all about Congress exercisin' its authority to review and reject certain foreign policy decisions. It's a big deal because it challenges the executive branch's power and could have far-reachin' implications for global arms sales and international relations. Just remember, dude, in the world of public policy, even small waves can make a big splash.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: SJRES 41 - Congressional Disapproval of Defense Article Export to Israel**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this joint resolution, introduced by Senator Sanders, is to prohibit the proposed export of certain defense articles to Israel. Specifically, it aims to block the sale of 20,000 Colt Carbine rifles worth $1 million or more to M.R.D. Efram Investments Ltd in Israel for use by the Israel National Police.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The resolution seeks to exercise congressional oversight under the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(c)) by disapproving a specific arms export proposal submitted by the executive branch. If passed, this joint resolution would effectively block the sale of these firearms and components.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* **Israel National Police**: The intended recipient of the defense articles, which would be impacted by the prohibition. * **M.R.D. Efram Investments Ltd**: The Israeli company facilitating the purchase, which could face financial losses or reputational damage if the sale is blocked. * **Colt's Manufacturing Company LLC**: As the manufacturer of the Colt Carbine rifles, they stand to lose a significant contract and revenue stream. * **Pro-Israel lobby groups**: Organizations like AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) may oppose this resolution, as it could be seen as undermining U.S.-Israel relations.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* The proposed export ban could strain U.S.-Israel relations, potentially affecting future arms sales and cooperation. * This move might embolden other lawmakers to scrutinize or block future arms exports to Israel, creating uncertainty for the Israeli defense industry. * Domestic gun control advocates may view this resolution as a positive step in limiting the global spread of firearms, particularly those with military applications.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** Senator Sanders has historically received limited funding from pro-Israel lobby groups like AIPAC. In contrast, he has been supported by progressive organizations and individuals who might be more inclined to scrutinize U.S.-Israel relations and arms exports. The resolution's co-sponsors may also have received similar support.

**Committee Capture:** The Committee on Foreign Relations, which referred this joint resolution, has historically received significant funding from pro-Israel lobby groups like AIPAC. This could potentially influence the committee's deliberations and mark-up process.

In summary, SJRES 41 represents a rare instance of congressional pushback against a proposed arms export to Israel. The resolution's fate will depend on the Senate's willingness to assert its oversight authority under the Arms Export Control Act, as well as the lobbying efforts of affected parties and stakeholders.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$73,657

13 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$73,657

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

FERNEYHOUGH, JAMES

3 transactions

$16,200

RIDDER, KIM

2 transactions

$10,000

LAMORTE, CHARLES

2 transactions

$6,600

SIMONS, NAT

2 transactions

$6,600

ROBY, DAVID

2 transactions

$6,600

RAGHAVAN, SHUBA

2 transactions

$6,000

YU, KAIWEN

1 transaction

$3,300

ROBERT, TIM

1 transaction

$3,300

ADCOCK, DANIEL

1 transaction

$3,300

WERY, SUSAN

1 transaction

$3,057

DRAGGE, ROSE

1 transaction

$3,000

SCRUGGS, THOMAS M JR

1 transaction

$2,900

CHUNG, BUMSUNG

1 transaction

$2,800

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Sen. Welch, Peter [D-VT]

ID: W000800

Top Contributors

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jun 8, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

May 3, 2024

FIELD, MARSHALL

THE OLD MOUNTAIN COMPANY, INC. • EXECUTIVE

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$3,300

May 18, 2023

RECHNITZ, JOAN

IndividualRED BANK, NJ

$3,300

Apr 22, 2024

RECHNITZ, JOAN

IndividualRED BANK, NJ

$3,300

Apr 22, 2024

GORDON, PATRICIA

SELF • MD

IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA

$3,300

May 22, 2024

STILLER, ROBERT

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Sep 22, 2024

STILLER, ROBERT

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Sep 22, 2024

KALKUT, CRAIG

WEST FRONT STRATEGIES • GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$2,500

May 3, 2023

SCHWARTZ, MARTIN

MINILEC SERVICE • CONSUMER ELECTRONICS

IndividualCARMEL, CA

$2,000

May 18, 2023

Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]

ID: M001176

Top Contributors

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$2,500

Oct 17, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$2,500

Dec 30, 2023

SISSETON-WAHPETON OYATE

OrganizationAGENCY VILLAGE, SD

$2,000

Jun 21, 2024

CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS OF THE YAKAMA NATION

OrganizationTOPPENISH, WA

$1,000

Oct 7, 2024

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$1,000

Nov 9, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

May 2, 2024

MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS

$1,000

Aug 2, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$400

Jul 17, 2023

STUBBS, MARILYN L.

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualPORTLAND, OR

$5,000

Jul 17, 2023

BARNHART, PHILIP N.

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualEUGENE, OR

$5,000

Jun 21, 2024

Donor Network - Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 40 nodes and 26 connections (47 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $85,957

Top Donors - Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT]

Showing top 13 donors by contribution amount

13 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

−Firearms & Ammunitionconfidence 0.95
The bill prohibits the export of 20,000 Colt Carbine rifles (Category I firearms) to Israel, directly restricting sales for firearms manufacturers like Colt (owned by CZ-USA, part of firearms industry). This constitutes a clear cost via ban on a specific defense article export.
−Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.90
The prohibition applies to defense articles (firearms) under the Arms Export Control Act, impacting defense contractors involved in manufacturing such arms (e.g., Colt, though not a top-tier prime, still part of defense supply chain). The block on export constitutes a cost to contractors supplying Israel.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT])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

Defense Contractors$4,906
from 254 contributions
- LAMPTON, THOMAS$1,100
- BARTHOLOMEW, YELYZAVETA$638
- BOONE, JOSHUA$594
- MATHISON, JON$350
- BREAKWELL, JOHN$312

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: 60%

Pages: 134-136AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"SJRES 41 seeks to use congressional disapproval to block a specific arms export to Israel, while Project 2025 aims to reduce congressional barriers and speed up arms sales to allies. Both address arms exports and congressional oversight, but they pursue opposite objectives."

Key themes:arms exportscongressional oversightdefense tradeIsrael

— 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 Commerce

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 705-707AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"SJRES 41 focuses on congressional disapproval of a specific arms export to Israel under the Arms Export Control Act, while the Project 2025 policy centers on reforming the Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) export control processes for emerging and foundational technologies under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). Though both involve export controls, the bill addresses defense articles (firearms) under State Department jurisdiction, whereas the policy targets commercial/technology"

Key themes:export controlscongressional oversightnational security

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

Department of Defense

Weak

Vector: 58%

Pages: 134-136AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"SJRES 41 seeks to block a specific arms export through congressional disapproval, while Project 2025 aims to streamline and promote arms exports by reducing congressional hurdles and informal notification processes; both address arms export oversight but with opposing objectives."

Key themes:arms exportcongressional oversightdefense trade controlsFMS process

Department of Defense

Weak

Vector: 58%

Pages: 161-163AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"SJRES 41 focuses on congressional oversight of a specific arms export to Israel, while the Project 2025 DoD section emphasizes defense strategy, force structure, intelligence community reform, and support for civil authorities. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address force modernization, DSCA, intelligence oversight, or great power competition highlighted in the policy."

Key themes:congressional oversightdefense policynational security

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

Department of Justice

Minimal

Vector: 58%

Pages: 608-610AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"SJRES 41 concerns congressional oversight of arms exports to Israel, while the Project 2025 DOJ section focuses on FBI accountability, domestic terrorism labeling, and internal DOJ reforms. There is no thematic or policy overlap between the bill and the cited DOJ objectives."

— 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. Sanders, Bernard

Childhood Diabetes Reduction Act of 2026

119/s/5026

A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to Israel of certain defense articles and services.

119/sjres/26

A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the Government of Israel of certain defense articles and services.

119/sjres/34

Back to All Bills