Denouncing the horrors of socialism.

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hconres/58

Last Updated: November 18, 2025

Denouncing the horrors of socialism.

HCONRES. 58, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Rep. Salazar, Maria Elvira [R-FL-27]

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

The money

$139,600 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Foreword" section, p. 46-48 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

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:

*Sigh* Alright, let's go through this again. As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate before it can be signed into law by the President.

The main purpose of HCONRES 58 is to denounce socialism in all its forms. Yes, you heard that right - denounce. This isn't a bill that proposes any actual legislation or policy changes; it's simply a resolution expressing the opinion of Congress on a particular topic. Remember when we learned about the different types of bills? This one falls under the category of "concurrent resolutions," which are non-binding and don't have the force of law.

The key provisions of this bill are... well, there aren't any, really. It's just a series of "whereas" clauses that list various criticisms of socialism, followed by a resolution stating that Congress opposes socialism in all its forms. There are no changes to existing law proposed here; it's purely symbolic.

As for affected parties and stakeholders, I suppose you could say that socialists and socialist-leaning individuals might be impacted by this bill, but only in the sense that they might feel offended or criticized by the language used. In reality, this bill doesn't actually do anything to change their circumstances or affect their lives in any tangible way.

The potential impact of this bill is... nonexistent. As I mentioned earlier, it's a non-binding resolution that doesn't have the force of law. It's essentially just a statement of opinion from Congress, and it won't lead to any actual policy changes or legislative actions.

Now, as we covered in 8th grade civics class, one of the key principles of our system of government is the separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. This bill is an example of how that system can sometimes be used for symbolic purposes rather than actual governance. In theory, Congress should be focusing on passing laws that address real problems and improve people's lives, not just grandstanding with empty resolutions like this one.

But hey, at least it gives me a chance to review the basics with you all again.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round and listen closely, for I have uncovered the sinister plot behind HCONRES 58, a bill that appears to be a harmless denunciation of socialism on the surface but, in reality, is a Trojan horse designed to further entrench the government's grip on our freedoms.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of this bill is to condemn the horrors of socialism and its supposed links to communist regimes, totalitarian rule, and brutal dictatorships. But, my friends, do not be fooled! This is merely a smokescreen to distract us from the real agenda: to create a pretext for increased government control over our lives.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill's language is laced with emotionally charged rhetoric, citing historical examples of socialist regimes gone wrong. However, upon closer inspection, we find that it also quotes founding fathers Thomas Jefferson and James Madison out of context, twisting their words to justify the government's opposition to socialism. This is a clever tactic to create the illusion of constitutional backing for the bill's objectives.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties are not just socialists or communists but anyone who dares to challenge the status quo. The language used in this bill is so broad that it could be applied to any individual or group deemed a threat to the government's authority. This includes, but is not limited to, labor unions, community organizers, and even libertarians.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The implications of this bill are far-reaching and ominous. By denouncing socialism in all its forms, the government is, in effect, declaring war on any ideology that challenges its dominance. This will lead to increased surveillance, censorship, and persecution of dissenting voices. The bill's passage would also pave the way for further erosion of civil liberties, as the government will use this resolution as a justification to impose stricter controls over our lives.

But wait, there's more! I've discovered a hidden connection between this bill and the recent surge in "anti-disinformation" legislation. It appears that the government is using this bill as a precursor to introducing even more draconian measures aimed at controlling the narrative and suppressing free speech.

Wake up, sheeple! The truth is out there, and it's time to connect the dots. This bill is not just about denouncing socialism; it's about consolidating power and crushing dissent. We must remain vigilant and resist this insidious attempt to undermine our freedoms.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Outrageous music plays as I take my seat, adjusting my tie)

Folks, we've got a real doozy for you tonight! HCONRES 58, the "Denouncing the Horrors of Socialism" bill, is making its way through Congress. (dramatic pause) Can you believe it? The audacity! The sheer bravery! Our courageous representatives are finally taking a stand against the scourge of socialism that's been threatening our great nation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This resolution is all about denouncing socialism in all its forms, because, as we all know, it's a slippery slope to communism, totalitarianism, and (gasp) brutal dictatorships. The bill's authors are bravely standing up against the "horrors" of socialism, which they claim has led to famine, mass murders, and the deaths of over 100 million people worldwide.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Now, I know what you're thinking: "What exactly does this bill do?" Well, it's quite simple really. It resolves that Congress denounces socialism in all its forms and opposes the implementation of socialist policies in the United States. (smirk) That's right, folks, our representatives are boldly stating their opposition to something that was never actually on the table in the first place.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Who will be affected by this groundbreaking legislation? Well, it's not like anyone's actually going to lose their job or benefits over this. But hey, it's a great opportunity for our representatives to grandstand and virtue-signal about how much they love freedom and hate socialism. (wink) The real stakeholders here are the conservative base, who will no doubt be thrilled by this bold stance against... well, nothing in particular.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But what about the implications? What about the impact on our economy or society?" (chuckle) Oh, come on, folks. This is just a symbolic gesture, a feel-good measure designed to get everyone riled up and distracted from actual policy issues. It's not like it'll actually change anything.

(Leaning in, with a conspiratorial whisper) But let me tell you, this bill is part of a larger strategy. It's all about creating a narrative that socialism is the enemy of freedom, that it's a threat to our very way of life. And who benefits from that narrative? (pausing for dramatic effect) The elites, of course! The ones who want to keep their power and control over the masses.

(Straightening up, with a smirk) So there you have it, folks. HCONRES 58: the bill that's going to change everything by changing nothing at all. Stay vigilant, America! (winking)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Joy, another exercise in legislative theater from the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of HCONRES 58 is to provide a platform for its sponsors to grandstand about their alleged opposition to socialism. The objective? To pander to their base, score cheap political points, and distract from the real issues plaguing this country.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This resolution is a masterclass in meaningless rhetoric. It's a laundry list of "whereas" clauses that cherry-pick historical examples of socialist regimes gone wrong, while ignoring the complexities and nuances of each situation. The actual text doesn't propose any concrete changes to existing law or policy. It's a hollow declaration, devoid of substance.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties are the politicians who sponsored this resolution, as they get to pretend to be champions of freedom and democracy. The stakeholders? Anyone foolish enough to believe that this resolution will have any tangible impact on their lives. Newsflash: it won't.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Zero. Zilch. Nada. This resolution is a placebo, designed to make its sponsors feel good about themselves while accomplishing nothing of substance. It's a waste of time and resources, a perfect example of the legislative equivalent of "sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Now, let's get to the real diagnosis:

This bill is a symptom of a deeper disease: intellectual laziness and cowardice. Its sponsors are too afraid to tackle actual policy issues, so they resort to empty posturing. They're more concerned with maintaining their ideological purity than addressing the complex problems facing this country.

The real motivation behind this resolution? To feed the echo chamber of partisan politics, to reinforce the Us-vs-Them mentality that's crippling our democracy. It's a cynical ploy to exploit the fears and misconceptions of their constituents, rather than engaging in genuine policy discussions.

In short, HCONRES 58 is a legislative equivalent of a participation trophy – a meaningless gesture designed to make its sponsors feel good about themselves, while accomplishing nothing of substance.

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

**Bill Summary: HCONRES 58 - Denouncing the Horrors of Socialism**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this concurrent resolution is to denounce socialism in all its forms and express opposition to the implementation of socialist policies in the United States. The bill aims to highlight the historical failures and atrocities associated with socialist ideologies, emphasizing the importance of individual freedom and property rights.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill does not propose any changes to existing law or introduce new legislation. Instead, it serves as a statement of congressional opinion, condemning socialism and its perceived negative consequences. The resolution cites various historical examples of socialist regimes that have led to human suffering, famine, and mass murders.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** While the bill does not directly impact specific parties or stakeholders, it may be seen as relevant to:

* Advocates of socialism and progressive policies * Individuals who have experienced persecution or hardship under socialist regimes * Businesses and entrepreneurs concerned about government intervention in the economy * Policymakers and lawmakers considering economic and social reform

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The resolution's impact is largely symbolic, as it does not introduce new legislation or alter existing laws. However, its implications could be significant:

* The bill may influence public opinion on socialism and shape the national conversation around economic policies. * It may embolden critics of socialism and provide a platform for those who have experienced negative consequences under socialist regimes. * Conversely, supporters of socialism may view the resolution as an attack on progressive values and principles.

Ultimately, HCONRES 58 serves as a statement of congressional opinion, highlighting concerns about socialism's historical record and its perceived incompatibility with American values.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

I'm gonna break down this congressional bill for ya, and it's gonna be a wild ride.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill, HCONRES 58, is all about denouncing socialism in all its forms. It's like a big ol' wave of opposition to socialist ideologies, dude. The main objective is to make a statement that Congress is against socialism and doesn't want it implemented in the United States.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill doesn't actually change any existing laws or policies, bro. It's more like a symbolic gesture, a declaration of disapproval towards socialism. It lists all these historical examples of how socialism has led to some gnarly consequences, like famine, mass murders, and totalitarian regimes. It's like a big ol' warning sign saying, "Hey, socialism is bad news, dude!"

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** This bill affects anyone who's interested in socialist policies or ideologies, man. That includes politicians, activists, and regular citizens who might be into that sorta thing. But, let's be real, it's mostly just a statement for the sake of making a statement. It's not like it's gonna change any laws or policies on its own.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The potential impact is pretty minimal, bro. Like I said, it's more of a symbolic gesture than anything else. But, it could have some implications in terms of shaping public opinion and influencing future policy decisions. If this bill passes, it might embolden politicians to speak out against socialist policies or make them think twice before proposing any kinda socialist legislation.

On the other hand, some people might see this as a pretty radical move, dude. It's like Congress is drawing a line in the sand and saying, "Socialism is not welcome here." That could lead to some heated debates and divisions within the country.

Anyway, that's my take on HCONRES 58, bro. It's all about denouncing socialism and making a statement. Whether it'll have any real impact remains to be seen, but it's definitely gonna spark some interesting conversations, man.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HCONRES 58 - Denouncing the Horrors of Socialism**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** HCONRES 58 is a concurrent resolution introduced by Rep. Salazar (R-FL) and cosponsored by 43 Republican lawmakers, aiming to denounce socialism in all its forms and express opposition to the implementation of socialist policies in the United States. The bill's primary objective is to condemn the ideology of socialism, citing historical examples of its alleged failures and atrocities.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The resolution does not propose any changes to existing law but rather serves as a symbolic statement of Congress's stance on socialism. It lists various instances of socialist regimes' human rights abuses and economic failures, attempting to associate socialism with totalitarianism, famine, and mass murders.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** While the bill does not directly impact specific industries or groups, its language and intent may be seen as targeting progressive politicians, policymakers, and organizations advocating for social welfare programs, labor unions, and environmental regulations. The resolution's broad condemnation of socialism could also affect international relations with socialist countries, such as Cuba, Venezuela, and China.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The bill's passage would likely have limited practical implications, as it does not propose any legislative changes. However, its symbolic significance should not be underestimated. By denouncing socialism, the resolution may:

1. **Polarize the debate**: Exacerbate partisan divisions on issues like healthcare, education, and economic policy. 2. **Influence public opinion**: Shape the narrative around socialism, potentially affecting voters' perceptions of progressive policies and politicians. 3. **Impact international relations**: Strain relationships with socialist countries, making diplomatic efforts more challenging.

**Monied Interest Analysis** While no specific PACs or industry lobby groups are directly backing this bill, its sponsors and cosponsors have received significant donations from organizations opposed to socialism and progressive policies, such as:

1. The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) 2. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce 3. The Koch Industries-backed Freedom Partners

These interests may see the resolution as a way to discredit progressive politicians and policies, ultimately benefiting their own agendas.

**Committee Capture** The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Financial Services, which has a history of being influenced by the financial industry. While this committee's involvement is not directly relevant to the bill's content, it may indicate that lawmakers are attempting to associate socialism with economic instability and financial risks.

In conclusion, HCONRES 58 serves as a symbolic statement against socialism, with potential implications for public opinion, international relations, and partisan debates. Its passage would likely be seen as a victory for conservative interests and a setback for progressive policymakers.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Salazar, Maria Elvira [R-FL-27]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$139,600

21 donors

PACs

Organizations

$7,600

Committees

Individuals

$132,000

No PAC contributions found

POARCH BANK OF CREEK INDIANS

2 transactions

$6,600

MICCOSUKEE TRIBE

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

2 transactions

$13,200

DIAZ-OLIVER, REMEDIOS MRS.

1 transaction

$6,600

FALIC, JANA

1 transaction

$6,600

MENDOZA GOMEZ, ROSSY A.

1 transaction

$6,600

WEEKLEY, RICHARD

1 transaction

$6,600

BARQUET, ROY

1 transaction

$6,600

PETERFFY, THOMAS

1 transaction

$6,600

ALVAREZ, MAXIMO MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

AMIN DAES, CARLOS E.

1 transaction

$6,600

AMIN, SAMIR

1 transaction

$6,600

DAES, CRISTIAN TADEO MR. JR.

1 transaction

$6,600

DAES PEREZ, EVELYN I.

1 transaction

$6,600

LOPEZ-CANTERA, AMADA MRS.

1 transaction

$6,600

CASCANTE, MARIA

1 transaction

$6,600

ALLEN, ROBERT N. MR. JR.

1 transaction

$6,600

CAMERON, RONALD

1 transaction

$6,600

VANDERSLOOT, BELINDA

1 transaction

$6,600

VANDERSLOOT, FRANK

1 transaction

$6,600

DERICK, AMY DR.

1 transaction

$6,600

Donor Network - Rep. Salazar, Maria Elvira [R-FL-27]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 51 nodes and 23 connections (58 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $139,600

Top Donors - Rep. Salazar, Maria Elvira [R-FL-27]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs19 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

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

Foreword

Strong

Vector: 58%

Pages: 46-48AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill’s denunciation of socialism and emphasis on individual freedom and property rights directly echo the Project 2025 Foreword’s opposition to socialist/Marxist ideologies and its advocacy for liberty, free enterprise, and limited government."

Key themes:anti-socialismindividual libertyfree enterprisecriticism of government controlhistorical failures of socialism

— 14 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise around the world. Still others find themselves happiest in their local voluntary communities of friends, their neighbors, their civic or charitable work. The American Republic was founded on principles prioritizing and maximizing individuals’ rights to live their best life or to enjoy what the Framers called “the Blessings of Liberty.” It’s this radical equality—liberty for all—not just of rights but of authority—that the rich and powerful have hated about democracy in America since 1776. They resent Americans’ audacity in insisting that we don’t need them to tell us how to live. It’s this inalienable right of self-direction—of each person’s opportunity to direct himself or herself, and his or her community, to the good— that the ruling class disdains. With the Declaration and Constitution, our nation’s Founders handed to us the means with which to preserve this right. Abraham Lincoln wrote of the Dec- laration as an “apple of gold” in a silver frame, the Constitution. So must the next conservative President look to these documents when the elites mount their next assault on liberty. Left to our own devices, the American people rejected European monarchy and colonialism just as we rejected slavery, second-class citizenship for women, mercantilism, socialism, Wilsonian globalism, Fascism, Communism, and (today) wokeism. To the Left, these assertions of patriotic self-assurance are just so many signs of our moral depravity and intellectual inferiority—proof that, in fact, we need a ruling elite making decisions for us. But the next conservative President should be proud, not ashamed of Americans’ unique culture of social equality and ordered liberty. After all, the countries where Marxist elites have won political and economic power are all weaker, poorer, and less free for it. The United States remains the most innovative and upwardly mobile society in the world. Government should stop trying to substitute its own preferences for those of the people. And the next conservative President should champion the dynamic genius of free enterprise against the grim miseries of elite-di- rected socialism. The promise of socialism—Communism, Marxism, progressivism, Fascism, whatever name it chooses—is simple: Government control of the economy can ensure equal outcomes for all people. The problem is that it has never done so. There is no such thing as “the government.” There are just people who work for the government and wield its power and who—at almost every opportunity—wield it to serve themselves first and everyone else a distant second. This is not a failing of one nation or socialist party, but inherent in human nature. Nighttime satellite images of the Korean peninsula famously show the free-mar- ket South lit up, with homes, businesses, and cities electrified from coast to coast. By contrast, Communist North Korea is almost completely dark, except for the small dot of the capital city, Pyongyang, where a psychotic dictator and his cronies — 15 — Foreword live. The same phenomenon is on display in the infuriating fact that four of the six richest counties in the United States are suburbs of Washington, D.C.—a city infamous for its lack of native productive industries. We see the same corruption expressed on an individual level whenever billion- aire climate activists, who want to outlaw carbon-fueled transportation, fly to A-list conferences on their private jets. Or when COVID-19 shutdown politicians like former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and California Governor Gavin Newsom were caught at the hair salon or dining at fancy restaurants after moralizing about how everyone else must stay home and forgo such luxuries during the pandemic. For socialists, who are almost always well-to-do, socialism is not a means of equalizing outcomes, but a means of accumulating power. They never get around to helping anyone else. The Soviet empire was a social and economic failure. North Korea, despite the opulence of its tyrants, is one of the poorest nations in the world. Cuba is so corrupt that its people regularly risk their lives to escape to Florida on rafts. Venezuela was once the richest nation in South America; today, a decade after a Marxist dictator took over, 94 percent of Venezuelans live in poverty.4 Even socialist Senator Bernie Sanders’ home state of Vermont was forced to repeal the state’s single-payer health care system just three years after creating it. In every case, socialist elites promised that if only they could direct the econ- omy, everything would be better. Very quickly, everything got worse. In socialist nation after socialist nation, the only way the government could keep its disgrun- tled people in line was to surveil and terrorize them. By contrast, in countries with a high degree of economic freedom, elites are not in charge because everyone is in charge. People work, build, invest, save, and create according to their own interests and in service to the common good of their fellow citizens. There is a reason why the private economy hews to the maxim “the customer is always right” while government bureaucracies are notoriously user-unfriendly, just as there is a reason why private charities are cheerful and government welfare systems are not. It’s not because grocery store clerks and PTA moms are “good” and federal bureaucrats are “bad.” It’s because private enterprises—for-profit or nonprofit—must cooperate, to give, to succeed. So as the American people take back their sovereignty, constitutional authority, respect for their families and communities, they should also take back their right to pursue the good life. The next President should promote pro-growth economic policies that spur new jobs and investment, higher wages, and productivity. Yes, that agenda should include overdue tax and regulatory reform, but it should go further and include antitrust enforcement against corporate monopolies. It should promote educa- tional opportunities outside the woke-dominated system of public schools and

Foreword

Strong

Vector: 56%

Pages: 46-48AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill's denunciation of socialism directly aligns with Project 2025's promise to secure individual liberty and champion free enterprise against socialist ideologies, sharing a core opposition to socialism and emphasis on American values of liberty and self-direction."

Key themes:opposition to socialismdefense of individual libertychampioning free enterpriserejection of socialist ideologypromotion of American liberty

— 13 — Foreword reprioritized. Economic engagement with China should be ended, not rethought. Our manufacturing and industrial base should be restored, not allowed to dete- riorate further. Confucius Institutes, TikTok, and any other arm of Chinese propaganda and espionage should be outlawed, not merely monitored. Univer- sities taking money from the CCP should lose their accreditation, charters, and eligibility for federal funds. The next conservative President should go beyond merely defending America’s energy interests but go on offense, asserting them around the world. America’s vast reserves of oil and natural gas are not an environmental problem; they are the lifeblood of economic growth. American dominance of the global energy market would be a good thing: for the world, and, more importantly, for “we the people.” It’s not just about jobs, even though unleashing domestic energy production would create millions of them. It’s not just about higher wages for workers who didn’t go to college, though they would receive the raises they have missed out on for two generations. Full-spectrum strategic energy dominance would facilitate the reinvigoration of America’s entire industrial and manufacturing sector as we dis- entangle our economy from China. Globally, it would rebalance power away from dangerous regimes in Russia and the Middle East. It would build powerful alliances with fast-growing nations in Africa and provide us the leverage to counter Chi- nese ambitions in South America and the Pacific. Locally, it would drive billions of dollars of private investment to the communities that have been hammered by globalization since the 1990s. And it would clarify our intentions to Beijing that the next President can ensure that a large part of America’s reindustrialization is in the production of the equipment we will need to dissuade future foreign meddling with U.S. vital interests. PROMISE #4 SECURE OUR GOD-GIVEN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO ENJOY “THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY.” The Declaration of Independence famously asserted the belief of America’s Founders that “all men are created equal” and endowed with God-given rights to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” It’s the last—“the pursuit of Happi- ness”—that is central to America’s heroic experiment in self-government. When the Founders spoke of “pursuit of Happiness,” what they meant might be understood today as in essence “pursuit of Blessedness.” That is, an individual must be free to live as his Creator ordained—to flourish. Our Constitution grants each of us the liberty to do not what we want, but what we ought. This pursuit of the good life is found primarily in family—marriage, children, Thanksgiving dinners, and the like. Many find happiness through their work. Think of dedicated teach- ers or health care professionals you know, entrepreneurs or plumbers throwing themselves into their businesses—anyone who sees a job well done as a personal reward. Religious devotion and spirituality are the greatest sources of happiness — 14 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise around the world. Still others find themselves happiest in their local voluntary communities of friends, their neighbors, their civic or charitable work. The American Republic was founded on principles prioritizing and maximizing individuals’ rights to live their best life or to enjoy what the Framers called “the Blessings of Liberty.” It’s this radical equality—liberty for all—not just of rights but of authority—that the rich and powerful have hated about democracy in America since 1776. They resent Americans’ audacity in insisting that we don’t need them to tell us how to live. It’s this inalienable right of self-direction—of each person’s opportunity to direct himself or herself, and his or her community, to the good— that the ruling class disdains. With the Declaration and Constitution, our nation’s Founders handed to us the means with which to preserve this right. Abraham Lincoln wrote of the Dec- laration as an “apple of gold” in a silver frame, the Constitution. So must the next conservative President look to these documents when the elites mount their next assault on liberty. Left to our own devices, the American people rejected European monarchy and colonialism just as we rejected slavery, second-class citizenship for women, mercantilism, socialism, Wilsonian globalism, Fascism, Communism, and (today) wokeism. To the Left, these assertions of patriotic self-assurance are just so many signs of our moral depravity and intellectual inferiority—proof that, in fact, we need a ruling elite making decisions for us. But the next conservative President should be proud, not ashamed of Americans’ unique culture of social equality and ordered liberty. After all, the countries where Marxist elites have won political and economic power are all weaker, poorer, and less free for it. The United States remains the most innovative and upwardly mobile society in the world. Government should stop trying to substitute its own preferences for those of the people. And the next conservative President should champion the dynamic genius of free enterprise against the grim miseries of elite-di- rected socialism. The promise of socialism—Communism, Marxism, progressivism, Fascism, whatever name it chooses—is simple: Government control of the economy can ensure equal outcomes for all people. The problem is that it has never done so. There is no such thing as “the government.” There are just people who work for the government and wield its power and who—at almost every opportunity—wield it to serve themselves first and everyone else a distant second. This is not a failing of one nation or socialist party, but inherent in human nature. Nighttime satellite images of the Korean peninsula famously show the free-mar- ket South lit up, with homes, businesses, and cities electrified from coast to coast. By contrast, Communist North Korea is almost completely dark, except for the small dot of the capital city, Pyongyang, where a psychotic dictator and his cronies

Trade

Weak

Vector: 57%

Pages: 834-836AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on denouncing socialism, while the Project 2025 trade section addresses specific trade reforms; they share only a broad conservative ideological stance favoring limited government and free-market principles, but otherwise address unrelated policy areas."

Key themes:conservative ideologylimited governmentopposition to state controlfree-market principles

— 801 — Trade l Repeal the Jones Act,48 a century-old “Buy American” maritime law that has decimated the U.S. shipbuilding industry. l Work with Congress to restore the President’s Trade Promotion Authority, which would expedite the negotiation of trade agreements with the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Taiwan, the European Union, and other allies, and keep trade-unrelated provisions out of trade agreements. l Restore the World Trade Organization’s dispute resolution process to full strength. l Create a successor to the WTO (assuming that it has been fatally wounded) that is open only to liberal democracies. This would prevent authoritarian countries like China from abusing the organization for their own ends. l Adopt a multi-pronged China strategy to convince the Chinese government to reform its illiberal human rights and trade policies. l Rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), whose 11 members are developing institutional trade norms in an important geopolitical region without U.S. input or involvement. l Reorient the proposed Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity to focus only on trade issues, which it currently ignores in favor of progressive wish-list policies. l Strengthen diplomatic pressure (in concert with allies) against Beijing’s abuses. Encourage cultural and intellectual engagement with the Chinese people, remembering that blue jeans and rock ’n’ roll helped to win the Cold War. Tariff Relief. When people try something repeatedly and it still doesn’t work, they should stop doing it—especially when the consequences turn out to be just what conservative economists have long predicted they would be.49 With tariffs, the proper reform is not only to get rid of the individual tariffs that have backfired, but also to build institutional safeguards against future abuse. We are five years into the biggest experiment with tariffs since the Great Depres- sion, and the results are in: The new tariffs raise consumer prices for ordinary Americans by about $1,200 per household every year50 and benefit only a small number of special interests. Steel and aluminum tariffs, enacted on national security grounds, angered allies. Beijing made not a single substantive reform in — 802 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise response to four rounds of tariffs plus an attempted Phase One agreement. The Biden Administration has left the tariffs in place and is expanding them to pursue progressive policy goals. The first order of business for a new Administration that is focused on American workers and consumers is to repeal all tariffs enacted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 196251 and Sections 201 and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.52 The President can do this unilaterally, and Congress can do it through legislation. The second order of business requires Congress to pass legislation repealing Sections 232, 201, and 301. The U.S. Constitution places all taxing authority with Congress53 and none with the President. Congress used those provisions of law to delegate some of its taxing authority to the President because it was having trouble passing “clean” tariff legislation in the 1960s and 1970s. Unless and until this constitutional question about delegation is addressed, important reforms are available to the next Congress and the next President. Congress faced a problem of collective action in the 1960s and 1970s. As a whole, Members generally wanted to lower tariffs, but few individual Members were will- ing to remove tariffs that benefited special interests in their districts. Trade bills were invariably watered down through amendments and logrolling. The thinking was that the President, whose constituency is the entire nation, would be less prone to special-interest pleading than Members of Congress would be, so Congress del- egated some of its tariff-making authority to the President in 1962 and 1974 trade legislation. Delegating tariff-making might have worked in the short run, but in the long run, it was both constitutionally dubious and ripe for abuse. That came to pass in 2018. The Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, invoked in 2018 against Canada, Europe, and other allies on national security grounds, raised car prices by an aver- age of $250 per vehicle and gave America the world’s highest steel prices. They also harmed the construction, canned food and beverage, and other metal-us- ing industries. While this may have benefited the steel industry itself, each steel job saved cost an average of $650,000 per year that had been taken from elsewhere in the econo- my.54 That is no way to strengthen American manufacturing. The New York Federal Reserve estimated in 2019 that the Section 301 China tariffs cost the average house- hold $831 per year,55 a figure that has likely increased with inflation. The new tariffs have a clear record of failure—as conservative economists almost unanimously warned would be the case. Job number one for the next Administration is to return to sensible trade policies and eliminate the destruc- tive Trump–Biden tariffs. Strengthening American Manufacturing. The decline of American manu- facturing is a common political trope in both parties, typically invoked before a call for more government intervention. This narrative has several problems. One is that

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Weak

Vector: 55%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill's denunciation of socialism aligns broadly with Project 2025's opposition to left-leaning policies such as DEI/CRT/ESG and Housing First, but it does not address housing-specific reforms or HUD directives, resulting only a tangential thematic connection."

Key themes:opposition to socialismcriticism of DEI/CRT/ESGopposition to far-left Housing Firstlimited government intervention

— 515 — Department of Housing and Urban Development 25. Process must prioritize where political leadership can implement administrative reforms through regulatory action and subregulatory guidance reforms. 26. China and other foreign nations should not be able to disrupt our nation’s housing markets, including by artificially driving up prices and reducing affordability and access to housing for Americans who are crowded out of the market by such market participation. 27. These initiatives are maintained under such designations as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); critical race theory (CRT); black, indigenous, Pacific Islander, and other people of color (BIPOC); and environmental, social, and governance (ESG). 28. At a minimum, these efforts duplicate what the federal government already collects and assesses; at worst, they institute arbitrary procedures in real estate appraisal practices that undermine integrity and perversely introduce arbitrary biases into what should be an unbiased system for determining financial value. 29. Revise regulatory and subregulatory guidance, where applicable within statutory authorities, that adds unnecessary delay and costs to the construction and development of new housing and has been estimated to account for about 40 percent of new housing unit costs in multifamily housing. 30. The Biden Administration has issued a proposed rule to replace the Trump Administration’s “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice” rule that had repealed earlier rules expanding AFFH enforcement. See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing, “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 153 (August 7, 2020), pp. 47899–47912, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-07/pdf/2020-16320.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023), and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 27 (February 9, 2023), pp. 8516–8590, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-07-16/pdf/2015-17032.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 31. Certain pilot initiatives may encourage greater take-up of loan products designed for faster equity accumulation, including loans with shorter terms and accelerated amortization schedules. In concept, the FHA’s Home Equity Accelerator Loan (HEAL) and Good Neighbor Next Door (GNND) pilot initiatives might lead to meaningful wealth generation for first-time buyers, but they should be available to all eligible households only when they do not arbitrarily discriminate based on race or other characteristics. 32. Housing supply does remain a problem in the U.S., but constructing more units at the low end of the market will not solve the problem. Investors and developers can deliver at more efficient cost new units that will allow for greater upward mobility of rental and ownership housing stock and better target increased construction of mid-tier rental units. Further, and more fundamental to the housing supply challenge in markets across the U.S., localities can consider revising land use, zoning, and building regulations that constrict new housing development, adding time delays and costs that impede construction. Federal housing policy should get out of the way where possible and minimize the distortive impact that stimulating greater demand through loose lending can have in driving up housing prices for households that are looking for affordable entry into the housing market. 33. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Housing and Community Development Act of 1980: Verification of Eligible Status,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 91 (May 10, 2019), pp. 20589–20595, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-05-10/pdf/2019-09566.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 34. Reforms should contemplate rent payment flexibilities, allow escrow savings, and set maximum term limits that can reduce implicit penalties for increasing household incomes over eligibility terms for housing assistance and reweight waiting-list prioritization for two-parent households. 35. Some PHAs have been able to implement work requirements and term limit policies in various congressionally authorized demonstration programs, notably the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program established in 1996 for 39 PHAs (Congress has since authorized another 100 PHAs) in which participating MTW PHAs were given authority to implement rent reforms, work requirements and other experimental policies in rental assistance programs along with flexibilities in the use of capital and operating appropriations. 36. The FSS program has a general five-year term with a possible two-year extension, which could be applied at the term limit for overall benefits, and certain PHAs have imposed five-year to seven-year term limits. Families in these programs build escrow savings during their term eligibility that helps to facilitate successful transitions to family self-sufficiency and unassisted housing. — 516 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 37. HUD should implement administrative changes in regulation and guidance and seek statutory authority to end all Housing First directives of Continuum of Care (CoC) grantees and contract homelessness providers in addition to establishing restrictions on local Housing First policies where HUD grant funds are used. 38. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) was established in the 1990s, and numerous Administrations have devoted enormous resources to the Housing First model, experimenting with various ways to provide federally financed rapid rehousing and permanent housing opportunities. Housing First is a far-left idea premised on the belief that homelessness is primarily circumstantial rather than behavioral. The Housing First answer to homelessness is to give someone a house instead of attempting to understand the underlying causes of homelessness. Federal intervention centered on Housing First has failed to acknowledge that resolving the issue of homelessness is often a matter of resolving mental health and substance abuse challenges. Instead of the permanent supportive housing proffered by Housing First, a conservative Administration should shift to transitional housing with a focus on addressing the underlying issues that cause homelessness in the first place. 39. The Senate Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers (LIFT) Act would address this policy goal. See S. 2797, Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers Act of 2021 (LIFT Homebuyers Act of 2021), 117th Congress, introduced September 22, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/s2797/BILLS-117s2797is.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 40. FHA did not facilitate the widespread use of 30-year mortgages until the 1950s when, interacting with Federal Reserve policies, federal agencies began broader adoption of the mortgages, which, despite lowering the monthly repayment terms, result in slow equity accumulation and wealth-building opportunities. 41. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 fundamentally revised the scope of federal regulation in the nation’s housing finance system, placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the purview of a newly established Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and establishing a Housing Trust Fund (HTF) that is administered in the HUD Office of Community Planning and Development. See H.R. 3221, Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Public Law No. 110-289, 110th Congress, July 30, 2008, https://www.congress. gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 42. Guiding questions: What reforms should be proposed that could be accomplished within five years? What reforms can be done administratively, and what reforms would need legislative authorization? Are there functions that HUD administers that could be achieved more effectively at another department or agency? What big-picture reforms should be proposed that might take more than five years that would reorganize HUD and its programs to meet the objectives in the vision or mission? What would occur in the absence of these public finance subsidies? How much crowd-out do these subsidies create in the market? Would America be a seriously underhoused nation without these subsidies? Who are the policies intended to benefit? What organizational changes must be made? 43. The Faircloth Amendment (Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998) amended the Housing Act of 1937 to maintain public housing units at 1999 levels, preventing housing authorities from maintaining more public housing than they did then. H.R. 4194, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law No. 105-276, 105th Congress, October 21, 1998, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ276/PLAW-105publ276.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). In recent years, the statutory restriction on new construction of public housing units has been circumvented through some narrow uses of preservation programs such as the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, initially authorized in 2012 and reauthorized several times since under higher program unit conversion caps. Congress also provided paths for renewal and continuation of a portion of existing public housing; project/site-based housing stock (refinancing with long-term HAP contract commitments); and Section 8 units through the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (MAHRA). H.R. 2158, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Public Law No. 105-65, 105th Congress, October 27, 1997, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ65/PLAW-105publ65.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 44. As the evolution of HUD rental assistance transitions away from the public housing model toward housing choice vouchers, there should be adequate landlord participation to ensure that the supply of housing units for rent in these programs meets the demand for rent among eligible tenants. This issue has been addressed in various ways, including by a task force instituted at the department during the Trump Administration, but could likely remain a challenge in the administration of the program.

Department of Justice

Weak

Vector: 55%

Pages: 611-614AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill denounces socialism as a political ideology, while the Project 2025 excerpt focuses on labor policy, worker empowerment, and family-supporting jobs under a conservative framework; there is no direct policy connection, though both reflect broader conservative values."

Key themes:conservative ideologyopposition to government overreachindividual liberty

— 579 — Department of Justice 93. H.R. 5005, Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law No. 107-296, 107th Congress, November 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2135, https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ296/PLAW-107publ296.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). 94. See, for example, 8 U.S. Code §§ 1103(a)(1) and 1103(g), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1103 (accessed February 3, 2023). 95. See, for example, 8 U.S. Code §§ 1324–1326, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/chapter-12/ subchapter-II/part-VIII (accessed February 3, 2023). 96. Press release, “Justice, Labor Departments Reach Settlements with Facebook Resolving Claims of Discrimination Against U.S. Workers and Potential Regulatory Recruitment Violations,” U.S. Department of Justice, October 19, 2021, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-labor-departments-reach-settlements- facebook-resolving-claims-discrimination-against (accessed February 3, 2023). 97. “Every four years, just after the Presidential election, the ‘United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions,’ commonly known as the Plum Book, is published, alternately, by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.” Senate Committee Print No. 114-26, United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, 114th Cong., 2nd Sess., December 1, 2016, p. iii, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-PLUMBOOK-2016/pdf/GPO-PLUMBOOK-2016.pdf (accessed February 5, 2023). 98. Allen J. Beck, “Race and Ethnicity of Violent Crime Offenders and Arrestees, 2018,” U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Statistical Brief No. NCJ 255969, January 2021, https:// bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/revcoa18.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). — 581 — 18 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND RELATED AGENCIES Jonathan Berry MISSION STATEMENT At the heart of The Conservative Promise is the resolve to reclaim the role of each American worker as the protagonist in his or her own life and to restore the family as the centerpiece of American life. The role that labor policy plays in that promise is twofold: Give workers the support they need for rewarding, well-paying, and self-driven careers, and restore the family-supporting job as the centerpiece of the American economy. The Judeo-Christian tradition, stretching back to Genesis, has always recognized fruitful work as integral to human dignity, as service to God, neighbor, and family. And Americans have long been known for their work ethic. While it is primarily the culture’s responsibility to affirm the dignity of work, our federal labor and employment agencies have an important role to play by protect- ing workers, setting boundaries for the healthy functioning of labor markets, and ultimately encouraging wages and conditions for jobs that can support a family. OVERVIEW The labor agencies covered in this chapter include the Department of Labor (DOL), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the National Mediation Board (NMB), the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS), and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). Congress has provided these agencies with the authority to enforce a wide range of federal statutes regulating workplace conduct, workforce development, employee benefits, labor organization and bargaining, and interna- tional labor conditions.

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 Rep. Salazar, Maria Elvira

TAKE IT DOWN Act

119/hr/633

To provide for the political affairs authorities of the Department of State, and for other purposes.

119/hr/5246

Back to All Bills