Protection of Women in Olympic and Amateur Sports Act of 2026

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/1028

Last Updated: June 10, 2026

Protection of Women in Olympic and Amateur Sports Act of 2026

HR. 1028, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17]

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

The money

$72,600 raised

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

The alignment

95% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Education" section, p. 365-367 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 423.

February 16, 2026

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate 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 Protection of Women in Olympic and Amateur Sports Act of 2026 (HR 1028). A bill that seeks to modify eligibility requirements for amateur sports governing organizations, specifically targeting the participation of biological males in female-designated competitions.

From a purely economic perspective, this bill is a non-event. The amateur sports sector is a drop in the bucket compared to the behemoths of professional sports and entertainment. However, as a thought experiment, let's dissect the implications of this legislation.

**New Regulations:**

* The bill introduces new definitions for "female," "male," and "sex" in the context of amateur athletic competitions. * It prohibits biological males from participating in female-designated competitions.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:**

* Amateur sports governing organizations (e.g., USA Track & Field, US Soccer) * Educational institutions with athletic programs * Potential impact on professional sports leagues that have feeder systems tied to amateur athletics

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:**

* The bill does not specify a timeline for implementation or compliance. * Affected organizations will need to review and update their policies, procedures, and eligibility criteria.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:**

* The bill does not outline specific enforcement mechanisms or penalties for non-compliance. * It is likely that the relevant governing bodies will be responsible for enforcing these regulations, with potential consequences including loss of funding or accreditation.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:**

* Minimal direct economic impact, as amateur sports are not a significant contributor to GDP. * Potential indirect impacts on related industries (e.g., sports equipment, apparel) if the bill leads to changes in participation rates or competition structures. * Operational impacts may include increased administrative burdens for affected organizations, as they update policies and procedures.

In conclusion, HR 1028 is a regulatory bill that will have limited economic impact but may lead to operational changes in the amateur sports sector. As a self-interested billionaire, I would not be concerned about this legislation affecting my wealth or influence. However, it does serve as a reminder of the inefficiencies and arbitrary nature of democratic governance.

In an ideal world, regulatory frameworks would prioritize innovation, competition, and economic growth over social engineering and bureaucratic meddling. Alas, that is not the world we live in. As a thought leader, I will continue to advocate for policies that promote deregulation, privatization, and the unencumbered pursuit of profit.

Recommendation: Monitor this bill's progress, but do not allocate significant resources or attention. Focus on more impactful legislation that can drive growth and consolidation in your respective industries.

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 bill is a proposed law that must go through a series of steps before it becomes a law. This one, HR 1028, aims to modify eligibility requirements for amateur sports governing organizations.

The new regulations being created or modified are related to the definition of "female" and "male" in the context of amateur athletic competitions. The bill adds new definitions to Section 220501(b) of title 36, United States Code, which will likely impact how amateur sports organizations determine eligibility for female-only competitions.

Affected industries and sectors include amateur sports governing organizations, such as those overseeing Olympic and collegiate sports. These organizations will need to comply with the new regulations, which may require changes to their existing policies and procedures.

Compliance requirements and timelines are not explicitly stated in the bill, but it's likely that affected organizations will have a reasonable amount of time to adjust to the new regulations. As I taught you, remember when we learned about the importance of due process? This is an example of how laws can impact various stakeholders, and they need time to adapt.

Enforcement mechanisms and penalties are not specified in the bill either. However, as we covered in 8th grade civics, it's likely that non-compliance will result in some form of penalty or fine. Perhaps a more detailed analysis would reveal more about the enforcement mechanisms, but for now, let's just say that organizations will need to take these new regulations seriously.

The economic and operational impacts are also not explicitly stated, but one can infer that this bill may lead to changes in how amateur sports organizations operate. For instance, they might need to invest time and resources into revising their policies, training staff, or even re-evaluating existing competitions. As I taught you, laws have consequences, and it's essential to consider the potential effects on various stakeholders.

Now, if only people had paid attention in my 8th grade civics class...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got a doozy for you today. This bill, HR 1028, is masquerading as a benevolent effort to "protect women in Olympic and amateur sports," but trust me, it's just a Trojan horse for the government to exert more control over our lives.

Let's break it down:

**New regulations:** The bill modifies eligibility requirements for amateur sports governing organizations. Sounds innocuous enough, right? But what they're really doing is redefining what it means to be male or female. They're inserting language that says "female" and "male" are determined by an individual's biological sex, which sounds like a no-brainer, but think about the implications. This is just another way for the government to dictate how we identify ourselves.

**Affected industries and sectors:** Amateur sports organizations will be forced to comply with these new regulations, which means they'll have to start policing their athletes' identities. Can you imagine the bureaucratic nightmare? The paperwork alone will be enough to drive them bankrupt!

**Compliance requirements and timelines:** The bill doesn't specify a timeline for implementation, but mark my words, it'll be sooner rather than later. They'll give these organizations just enough time to scramble into compliance before the hammer comes down.

**Enforcement mechanisms and penalties:** Ah, now we get to the juicy part! The bill doesn't explicitly state what the penalties will be for non-compliance, but you can bet your bottom dollar they'll be severe. Fines, lawsuits, maybe even jail time – all in the name of "protecting women's sports."

**Economic and operational impacts:** This bill is a jobs killer, plain and simple. Amateur sports organizations will have to divert resources away from actual athletic development and towards identity policing. It's a recipe for disaster.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "But Uncle [Your Name], this is just about fairness in women's sports." Ah, no! This is about control. The government wants to dictate how we live our lives, down to the most intimate details. Wake up, sheeple!

You see, folks, once you start connecting the dots, it becomes clear that this bill is just another piece of the puzzle in the grand scheme to erode our individual freedoms. So, let's keep a close eye on this one and make sure we don't let them get away with it!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, we've got a real doozy for you tonight. The so-called "Protection of Women in Olympic and Amateur Sports Act of 2026" - what a mouthful! (smirk) Now, I know what you're thinking: "Sounds like a noble cause, right?" Wrong! This bill is just another example of the elites trying to control every aspect of our lives. (wink)

Let's break it down. The new regulations being created or modified here are all about defining what it means to be male or female in the context of amateur sports. (air quotes) "Female" now means someone with a reproductive system that produces eggs, and "male" means someone with a reproductive system that produces sperm. Wow, how revolutionary! (eye roll)

Now, who's affected by this bill? Well, it's not just the athletes themselves - although they're certainly caught in the crossfire. No, no, no! This is about the amateur sports governing organizations, folks. The ones who are supposed to be promoting fair play and competition. But what they're really doing is caving to the radical left's agenda of... (dramatic pause) ...erasing biological sex! (gasp)

Compliance requirements? Oh boy, get ready for a whole new level of bureaucratic red tape. These organizations will have to start policing their athletes' biology like never before. And if they don't comply? Well, there are penalties, of course! (wink) We can't let those pesky elites get away with anything, after all.

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But wait, isn't this just about protecting women's sports?" Ah, nice try, folks! This is about so much more than that. This is about the very fabric of our society. (dramatic music plays in the background) Are we going to let the radical left dictate what it means to be male or female? I say no way! We need to stand up for freedom, for fairness, and for the rights of all Americans - not just the ones who fit into their narrow little boxes.

And let's talk economics. This bill is going to cost us big time, folks. Think about all the money that'll be wasted on enforcing these new regulations. The lawyers' fees alone will be astronomical! (chuckles) But hey, at least we can rest easy knowing our freedom is being protected... from itself? (wink)

In conclusion, this bill is a masterclass in Orwellian doublespeak. It's a Trojan horse for the radical left to sneak their agenda into our sports and our society. We need to wake up, folks! This isn't about protecting women; it's about controlling us all. So let's stand strong against this bill and fight for our freedom - before it's too late! (dramatic music swells)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. The "Protection of Women in Olympic and Amateur Sports Act of 2026" - a title that screams "we care about women's sports" while actually being a thinly veiled attempt to codify transphobic nonsense.

Let's dissect this farce:

**New regulations:** The bill modifies eligibility requirements for amateur sports governing organizations, specifically defining "female," "male," and "sex" in excruciating detail. Because, apparently, Congress thinks it needs to tell us what a woman is. Newsflash: biology isn't that complicated.

**Affected industries and sectors:** Amateur sports, Olympic committees, and anyone who's ever had to deal with the bureaucratic nightmare of athletic governing bodies.

**Compliance requirements and timelines:** The bill doesn't specify any concrete compliance requirements or timelines, because why bother when you can just dump a vague set of definitions on organizations and expect them to figure it out?

**Enforcement mechanisms and penalties:** Ah, now we get to the good stuff. Who's going to enforce this mess? Will there be a new army of "sex police" patrolling sports fields, ensuring that only "biological females" participate in women's events? And what about the penalties for non-compliance? Will organizations be fined, or perhaps forced to undergo sensitivity training?

**Economic and operational impacts:** This bill will create a bureaucratic nightmare for amateur sports organizations, which will have to navigate this new set of definitions and regulations. It'll also likely lead to lawsuits, protests, and general chaos - all while accomplishing precisely nothing in terms of actual protection for women's sports.

Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a severe case of " Politician-itis" - a disease characterized by grandstanding, pandering, and an utter disregard for the consequences of one's actions. Symptoms include:

* A desperate need to appear relevant and "tough on issues" * A complete lack of understanding of the actual problems facing women's sports * A willingness to create unnecessary regulations and bureaucracy

Treatment: Apply a healthy dose of skepticism, followed by a strong dose of reality. Recognize that this bill is nothing more than a cynical attempt to score political points, and reject it for the farce that it is.

Prognosis: Poor. This bill will likely pass, because politicians love grandstanding, and voters are too busy being distracted by shiny objects to notice the actual damage being done.

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

**Bill Summary: HR 1028 - Protection of Women in Olympic and Amateur Sports Act of 2026**

The Protection of Women in Olympic and Amateur Sports Act of 2026 (HR 1028) aims to modify eligibility requirements for amateur sports governing organizations. The bill introduces new regulations to ensure that individuals competing in female-designated athletic competitions are biologically female.

**New Regulations:**

1. **Definition of Sex:** The bill defines "female" as an individual with a reproductive system that produces, transports, and utilizes eggs for fertilization, and "male" as an individual with a reproductive system that produces, transports, and utilizes sperm for fertilization. 2. **Eligibility Requirements:** Amateur sports governing organizations are prohibited from allowing individuals whose sex is male to participate in competitions designated for females, women, or girls.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:**

1. **Amateur Sports Governing Organizations:** Organizations that govern amateur sports, such as the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the United States Olympic Committee (USOC), will be affected by this bill. 2. **Athletic Competitions:** Female-designated athletic competitions at all levels, including high school, college, and professional, will be impacted.

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:**

The bill does not specify a compliance timeline, but it is expected that amateur sports governing organizations will need to update their policies and procedures to reflect the new eligibility requirements.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:**

The bill does not outline specific enforcement mechanisms or penalties for non-compliance. However, it is likely that amateur sports governing organizations will be responsible for enforcing these regulations, and individuals who violate them may face disciplinary action.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:**

1. **Increased Administrative Burden:** Amateur sports governing organizations may need to invest time and resources in updating their policies and procedures to comply with the new regulations. 2. **Potential Litigation:** The bill may lead to increased litigation, as individuals who are affected by the new eligibility requirements may challenge them in court. 3. **Impact on Transgender Athletes:** The bill's definition of sex may limit opportunities for transgender athletes to compete in their preferred category.

Overall, HR 1028 aims to promote fairness and safety in female-designated athletic competitions by ensuring that only biologically female individuals participate. However, the bill's implementation and enforcement may be complex and contentious.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro.

**New Regulations**

This bill is all about modifying eligibility requirements for amateur sports governing organizations, specifically when it comes to women's sports. It adds new definitions for "female," "male," and "sex" in the context of athletic competitions (Section 2(a)). The key takeaway is that a person with male sex characteristics can't compete in events designated for females, women, or girls (Section 2(b)(20)).

**Affected Industries and Sectors**

This bill affects amateur sports governing organizations, like the US Olympic Committee, NCAA, and other national governing bodies. It also impacts schools, colleges, and universities that participate in these competitions. Essentially, any organization that oversees or participates in women's sports will need to comply with these new regulations.

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines**

The bill doesn't specify a clear timeline for implementation, but it's likely that organizations will need to update their policies and procedures ASAP. They'll need to ensure they're using the new definitions of "female," "male," and "sex" when determining athlete eligibility. This might involve revising existing rules, creating new guidelines, or providing training for staff and officials.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties**

The bill doesn't outline specific penalties for non-compliance, but it's likely that organizations will face consequences if they don't adhere to the new regulations. These could range from fines to loss of funding or even expulsion from competitions. The US Olympic Committee and other governing bodies might also impose their own sanctions.

**Economic and Operational Impacts**

This bill could have significant economic and operational impacts on affected organizations. They'll need to invest time and resources into updating policies, training staff, and ensuring compliance. This might lead to increased costs, administrative burdens, and potential reputational damage if they're not seen as complying with the new regulations.

**The Lowdown, Bro**

This bill is all about protecting women's sports by defining what it means to be female in the context of athletic competitions. While it might seem straightforward, it's a complex issue that requires careful consideration. Organizations will need to navigate these new regulations carefully to avoid any negative consequences. It's like catching a gnarly wave – you gotta know when to paddle and when to bail, bro.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

The Protection of Women in Olympic and Amateur Sports Act of 2026 (HR 1028) appears to be a bill with a noble title, but its true intentions are shrouded in controversy. On the surface, it aims to modify eligibility requirements for amateur sports governing organizations, specifically targeting transgender athletes. However, upon closer inspection, this bill is a Trojan horse for special interest groups seeking to impose their ideology on the sports world.

The bill's sponsors and cosponsors have received significant donations from conservative PACs, such as the Family Research Council Action PAC and the Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund. These organizations have been vocal about their opposition to transgender rights and have pushed for legislation that restricts the participation of trans athletes in women's sports.

Section 2 of the bill introduces new definitions for "female," "male," and "sex" that are eerily reminiscent of language used by anti-trans groups. The bill also prohibits individuals assigned male at birth from participating in female-designated competitions, effectively banning trans women from competing in women's sports.

The affected industries and sectors include amateur sports organizations, schools, and universities that participate in Olympic and amateur athletic competitions. Compliance requirements will likely involve implementing new policies and procedures to verify the sex of athletes, which could lead to increased administrative burdens and costs.

Enforcement mechanisms are not explicitly stated in the bill, but it's likely that governing bodies will be responsible for policing compliance. Penalties for non-compliance may include loss of funding or participation in competitions.

The economic and operational impacts of this bill will be significant. Amateur sports organizations will need to invest time and resources into implementing new policies and procedures, which could divert attention away from other important issues like athlete safety and development. The bill's provisions may also lead to a decrease in participation rates among trans athletes, who already face significant barriers to inclusion in sports.

In conclusion, HR 1028 is not about protecting women in sports; it's about advancing a conservative ideology that seeks to restrict the rights of trans individuals. This bill is a prime example of how special interest groups can use their influence to shape legislation that serves their own interests rather than the greater good.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$72,600

16 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$72,600

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE

2 transactions

$9,900

SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN

2 transactions

$9,900

OBERHELMAN, DIANE A.

2 transactions

$6,600

DOUGLAS, GREGORY P

2 transactions

$6,600

HOLDERNESS, MICHAEL S. JR.

1 transaction

$3,300

MCGILLICUDDY, DENNIS J.

1 transaction

$3,300

MCGILLICUDDY, GRACIELA

1 transaction

$3,300

TWOHIG, STEPHEN

1 transaction

$3,300

BATMASIAN, JAMES

1 transaction

$3,300

LIGORI, CHRISTOPHER

1 transaction

$3,300

TEMPLETON, STEVEN

1 transaction

$3,300

GINSBURG, RON

1 transaction

$3,300

HALE, DARWIN R SR.

1 transaction

$3,300

TAYLOR, MARGARET J

1 transaction

$3,300

TAYLOR, MARGARETTA

1 transaction

$3,300

STEPHENS, WARREN A

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Clyde, Andrew S. [R-GA-9]

ID: C001116

Top Contributors

SYFAN, STEPHEN

SYFAN LOGISTICS • EXEC VP

IndividualGAINESVILLE, GA

$6,600

May 31, 2024

SCOTT, ROBERT S.

RAC PROPERTIES • REAL ESTATE

IndividualBOGART, GA

$6,600

Oct 11, 2024

FOWLER, CHARLES W. JR.

GLOBAL DEFENSE MGMT • PRESIDENT

IndividualLONGWOOD, FL

$3,500

Oct 29, 2024

BECK, SAMUEL

BECK FUNERAL HOME • FUNERAL DIRECTOR

IndividualCLAYTON, GA

$3,300

Oct 24, 2024

HINMAN, ROY H

SELF EMPLOYED • PHYSICIAN

IndividualSAINT AUGUSTINE, FL

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

FROST IV, EDWIN BRANT

SELF EMPLOYED • FINANCIAL SERVICES

IndividualNEWNAN, GA

$3,300

Dec 24, 2024

FROST, KRISTA

NONE • HOMEMAKER

IndividualNEWNAN, GA

$3,300

Dec 24, 2024

ACTON, MICHAEL

SELF EMPLOYED • DEVELOPER

IndividualHOMER, GA

$3,300

Nov 7, 2023

JEPSON, JEFFREY

EVANS GENERAL CONTRACTORS • CONSTRUCTION

IndividualPOOLER, GA

$3,300

Nov 19, 2023

MATHENY, DAVID

SILENCER SHOP • OWNER

IndividualLEANDER, TX

$3,300

Nov 16, 2023

Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1]

ID: L000578

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

LEECH LAKE BAND OF OJIBWE

OrganizationCASS LAKE, MN

$2,000

Nov 4, 2024

VANN BROTHERS

UNINCORPORATED • PARTNERSHIP

OrganizationWILLIAMS, CA

$1,500

Jun 27, 2023

ONEIDA NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$1,000

Oct 31, 2024

SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA, .

SOVEREIGN NATION • INDIAN TRIBE

IndividualLEMORE, CA

$6,600

May 6, 2024

NECHAY, JULIA

N/A • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualROSEVILLE, CA

$5,000

Oct 26, 2024

OSAGE NATION, .

SOVEREIGN NATION • INDIAN TRIBE

IndividualPAWHUSKA, OK

$3,300

Oct 8, 2024

MCLAUGHLIN, RANDY

OLD DURHAM WOOD • ORCHARD TEMOVAL

IndividualDURHAM, CA

$3,300

Oct 13, 2024

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA, .

SOVEREIGN NATION • INDIAN TRIBE

IndividualDURANT, OK

$3,300

Oct 16, 2024

Rep. Haridopolos, Mike [R-FL-8]

ID: H001099

Top Contributors

JARNES, LARRY

NORTHBORO BUILDERS INC • BUILDER

IndividualMELBOURNE, FL

$9,900

May 20, 2024

FARINELLA, NICK

SELF-EMPLOYED • REALTOR

IndividualMELBOURNE, FL

$3,518

May 6, 2024

HILL, KEVIN

RE/MAX ALTERNATIVE • REALTOR

IndividualINDIAN HARBOUR BEA, FL

$3,518

May 6, 2024

MOLLEN, JACK

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualMELBOURNE, FL

$3,518

May 17, 2024

SHOULDERS, KATHY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualINDIAN HARBOUR BEA, FL

$3,518

May 21, 2024

SHOULDERS, WILLIAM

HANDEX CONSULTING REMEDIATION • EXECUTIVE

IndividualINDIAN HARBOUR BEA, FL

$3,518

Apr 30, 2024

BERRY, JAMES

DELTA AIR LINES • PILOT

IndividualMELBOURNE, FL

$3,435

Sep 10, 2024

DANDRIDGE, STEPHANIE

SOTHEBYS • REALTOR

IndividualINDIALANTIC, FL

$3,435

Sep 19, 2024

FLACHS, BRUCE

PRESCIENT NATIONAL • INSURANCE

IndividualVERO BEACH, FL

$3,435

Sep 4, 2024

MARUMOTO, ALAN K.

UNIVERSITY CENTER IMAGING • PHYSICIAN

IndividualINDIALANTIC, FL

$3,435

Sep 13, 2024

Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1]

ID: M000194

Top Contributors

REW INVESTMENTS LLC

OrganizationMT PLEASANT, SC

$3,300

Jul 1, 2024

REW INVESTMENTS LLC

OrganizationMT PLEASANT, SC

$2,500

Jul 1, 2024

KING & SOCIETY, LLC

OrganizationMOUNT PLEASANT, SC

$2,000

Jul 1, 2024

BARBER BROTHERS, LLC

OrganizationMOUNT PLEASANT, SC

$1,000

Jul 1, 2024

COASTAL GREEN CBD LLC

OrganizationMYRTLE BEACH, SC

$1,000

Jul 1, 2024

MALL DRIVE MANAGEMENT, LLC

OrganizationCHARLESTON, SC

$1,000

Jul 1, 2024

SEAGLASS PARTNERS, LLC

OrganizationMOUNT PLEASANT, SC

$1,000

Jul 1, 2024

TWIN RIVERS HOLDINGS LLC

OrganizationMOUNT PLEASANT, SC

$1,000

Jul 1, 2024

GRIFFITH, JAMES

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualTUCSON, AZ

$6,600

Mar 30, 2023

RANNEY, TIM

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualSAINT PETERSBURG, FL

$6,600

Mar 27, 2023

Rep. Burchett, Tim [R-TN-2]

ID: B001309

Top Contributors

KUHLMAN, RUTHIE

IndividualKNOXVILLE, TN

$3,300

Sep 4, 2023

KUHLMAN, RUTHIE

IndividualKNOXVILLE, TN

$3,300

Sep 4, 2023

FUHRMAN, LINDSEY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSOUTH MIAMI, FL

$3,300

Jul 26, 2023

FUHRMAN, SCOTT

BISCAYNE GLOBAL MANAGEMENT • CHAIRMAN

IndividualSOUTH MIAMI, FL

$3,300

Jul 26, 2023

KUHLMAN, RUTHIE

OLD GRAY CEMETERY • EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

IndividualKNOXVILLE, TN

$3,300

Jul 29, 2023

KUHLMAN, RUTHIE

OLD GRAY CEMETERY • EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

IndividualKNOXVILLE, TN

$3,300

Jul 29, 2023

STOWERS, HARRY

STOWERS MACHINERY CORPORATION • EXECUTIVE

IndividualKNOXVILLE, TN

$3,300

Jul 25, 2023

STOWERS, HARRY

STOWERS MACHINERY CORPORATION • EXECUTIVE

IndividualKNOXVILLE, TN

$3,300

Jul 25, 2023

HUFFAKER, RAY F

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualPOWELL, TN

$3,300

Oct 29, 2024

COOLEY, WILLIAM

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualWEST PALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Oct 26, 2023

Rep. Tenney, Claudia [R-NY-24]

ID: T000478

Top Contributors

WINRED EARMARKS

PACARLINGTON, VA

$27,879

Oct 22, 2024

WINRED EARMARKS

PACARLINGTON, VA

$21,566

Oct 29, 2024

WINRED EARMARKS

PACARLINGTON, VA

$10,970

Nov 25, 2024

WINRED EARMARKS

PACARLINGTON, VA

$5,493

Nov 19, 2024

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$2,000

Nov 5, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$2,000

Jun 18, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$2,000

Jun 18, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

Mar 31, 2023

TEXTOR, DONALD

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualLOCUST VALLEY, NY

$13,200

Apr 17, 2024

WINE, SCOTT

POLARIS • CEO

IndividualEXCELSIOR, MN

$6,600

Sep 30, 2024

Rep. Webster, Daniel [R-FL-11]

ID: W000806

Top Contributors

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

IndividualSURFSIDE, FL

$6,600

Apr 18, 2024

BRADLEY, JACQUELINE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualKESWICK, VA

$6,600

Apr 15, 2024

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSURFSIDE, FL

$6,600

Feb 15, 2024

FILBURN, MARK

WHITESTONE CONSTRUCTION • PRESIDENT

IndividualLONGWOOD, FL

$3,400

Jun 26, 2024

FILBURN, MARK

IndividualLONGWOOD, FL

$3,400

Sep 4, 2024

ASNESS, CLIFF

AQR • EXECUTIVE

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Jun 6, 2024

ASNESS, LAUREL

MARCUM LLP • EXECUTIVE

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Jun 6, 2024

BEUCHER, NICK

CEO • TAVISTOCK FINANCIAL CORPORATION

IndividualORLANDO, FL

$3,300

May 28, 2024

BRADLEY, JACQUELINE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualKESWICK, VA

$3,300

Apr 18, 2024

DEVORE, DEBBIE

SEA & SHORELINE • ACCOUNTANT

IndividualWINTER GARDEN, FL

$3,300

May 31, 2024

Rep. Nehls, Troy E. [R-TX-22]

ID: N000026

Top Contributors

ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE

COMLIVINGSTON, TX

$1,000

Sep 30, 2024

GONSOULIN, AL A

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSUGAR LAND, TX

$6,600

Feb 26, 2024

FISHER, KENNETH

FISHER INVESTMENTS • EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN

IndividualPLANO, TX

$6,600

May 23, 2024

FISHER, SHERRILYN

PLANO 6500 LLC • MEMBER

IndividualPLANO, TX

$6,600

May 23, 2024

MARCHELI, DANNY

CLEAR PAVE • PRESIDENT

IndividualRICHMOND, TX

$5,000

Sep 30, 2023

EMPARTIO, JOESPH

HERITAGE RANCH LLC • OWNER

IndividualRICHMOND, TX

$5,000

Sep 10, 2024

DOUDS, KENNETH

KBR BUILDERS • OWNER

IndividualSTAFFORD, TX

$5,000

Dec 3, 2024

GILL, EDWARD

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualHALLETTSVILLE, TX

$5,000

Dec 3, 2024

MARCHELI, DANIEL

CLEAR PAVE LLC • PRESIDENT

IndividualRICHMOND, TX

$5,000

Dec 3, 2024

DOUDS, ROBERT F JR.

SELF EMPLOYED • CONSTRUCTION

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$5,000

Dec 3, 2024

Rep. Owens, Burgess [R-UT-4]

ID: O000086

Top Contributors

UTE INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationFORT DUCHESNE, UT

$3,300

Nov 12, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$2,000

Sep 30, 2024

PALMER, JEFFERY

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualMAPLETON, UT

$13,200

May 29, 2023

JENKINS, JAMES W.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSALT LAKE CITY, UT

$10,000

May 13, 2024

HOLSCHER, KELLY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA

$6,600

Aug 22, 2024

LISONBEE, DAVID

4LIFE RESEARCH • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualPROVO, UT

$6,600

Mar 19, 2024

OVERHOLT, DAVID W. MR.

UNIFIED PURCHASING GROUP • PRESIDENT

IndividualSOUTH JORDAN, UT

$6,600

Apr 3, 2024

DAICHENDT, JOE

ACI JET • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualLADERA RANCH, CA

$6,600

Mar 16, 2023

GRIFFIN, KENNETH

CITADEL LLC • FOUNDER CEO

IndividualMIAMI BEACH, FL

$6,600

Apr 10, 2023

PALMER, KELLY

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualMAPLETON, UT

$6,600

Jun 13, 2023

Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15]

ID: M001211

Top Contributors

WINRED PAC

PACARLINGTON, VA

$13,010

Mar 31, 2023

ADAMS MEMORIALS

OrganizationCHARLESTON, IL

$1,000

Mar 23, 2023

VAHLING VINEYARDS

OrganizationSTEWARDSON, IL

$500

Jan 11, 2024

KASPAR, SCOTT

KASPAR LAW COMPANY • LAWYER

IndividualORLAND PARK, IL

$13,200

Mar 22, 2023

BISHOP, JACK L MR

SELF EMPLOYED • INVESTOR

IndividualLAKE BLUFF, IL

$10,000

Mar 30, 2023

BISHOP, JACK L MR

SELF EMPLOYED • INVESTOR

IndividualLAKE BLUFF, IL

$7,700

Mar 30, 2023

FORSYTHE, GERALD R MR

INDECK ENERGY SERVICES • CEO

IndividualNAPLES, FL

$6,600

Nov 14, 2023

DAMAS, BETH A

SOUTHWEST ENDODONTICS • ENDODONTIST

IndividualORLAND PARK, IL

$6,600

Mar 22, 2023

FORSYTHE, GERALD R MR

INDECK ENERGY SERVICES • CEO

IndividualNAPLES, FL

$6,600

Aug 15, 2023

UIHLEIN, RICHARD

ULINE • CEO

IndividualLAKE BLUFF, IL

$5,800

Jan 26, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 59 nodes and 35 connections (51 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $132,536

Top Donors - Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17]

Showing top 16 donors by contribution amount

16 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

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

Department of Education

Very Strong

Vector: 61%

Pages: 365-367AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1028 directly aligns with Project 2025's Department of Education policy objective to define 'sex' under Title IX as only biological sex recognized at birth and to prohibit transgender athletes from competing in female-designated sports, thereby restoring what the policy frames as fair and safe athletic opportunities for women and girls."

Key themes:biological sex definitiontransgender athlete participationTitle IX enforcementfemale sports protectionsex-based eligibility

— 332 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise to create and collect data on a new “nonbinary” sex category (in addition to the current “male” or “female” sex categories) and to retire data collection that indi- cates the number of (1) high school–level interscholastic athletics sports in which only male and female students participate, (2) high school–level athletics teams in which only male or female students participate, and (3) participants on high school–level interscholastic athletics sports teams in which only male or only female students participate. These poorly conceived changes are contrary to law, fail to take account of student privacy interests and statutory protections favoring parental rights under the Protection of Pupils Rights Amendment, and jettison longstanding data collections that assist in the enforcement of Title IX. l The new Administration must quickly move to rescind these changes, which add a new “nonbinary” sex category to OCR’S data collection and issue a new CRDC that will collect data directly relevant to OCR’s statutory enforcement authority. Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan Program, and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program Final Regulations Effective July 1, 2023, the department promulgated final regulations addressing loan forgiveness under the HEA’s provisions for borrower defense to repayment (“BDR”), closed school loan discharge (“CSLD”), and public service loan forgive- ness (“PSLF”). The regulations also included prohibitions against pre-dispute arbitration agreements and class action waivers for students enrolling in institu- tions participating in Title IV student loan programs. Acting outside of statutory authority, the current Administration has drastically expanded BDR, CSLD, and PSLF loan forgiveness without clear congressional authorization at a tremendous cost to the taxpayers, with estimates ranging from $85.1 to $120 billion. l The new Administration must quickly commence negotiated rulemaking and propose that the department rescind these regulations. l The next Administration should also rescind Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) GEN 22-11 and DCL GEN 22-10 and its letters to accreditation agencies dated July 19, 2022, which are attempts to undercut Florida’s SB 7044, providing universities more flexibility on accreditation. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance (Title IX) With its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on July 12, 2022, the Biden Education Department seeks to gut the hard-earned rights of women with its changes to the department’s regulations implementing Title IX, which prohibits — 333 — Department of Education discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs and activities. Instead, the Biden Administration has sought to trample women’s and girls’ athletic oppor- tunities and due process on campus, threaten free speech and religious liberty, and erode parental rights in elementary and secondary education regarding sensitive issues of sex. The new Administration should take the following steps: l Work with Congress to use the earliest available legislative vehicle to prohibit the department from using any appropriations or from otherwise enforcing any final regulations under Title IX promulgated by the department during the prior Administration. l Commence a new agency rulemaking process to rescind the current Administration’s Title IX regulations; restore the Title IX regulations promulgated by then-Secretary Betsy DeVos on May 19, 2020; and define “sex” under Title IX to mean only biological sex recognized at birth. l Work with Congress to amend Title IX to include due process requirements; define “sex” under Title IX to mean only biological sex recognized at birth; and strengthen protections for faith-based educational institutions, programs, and activities. The Trump Administration’s 2020 Title IX regulation protected the founda- tional right to due process for those who are accused of sexual misconduct. The Biden Administration’s proposed change to the interpretation of Title IX disposes of these rights. l The next Administration should move quickly to restore the rights of women and girls and restore due process protections for accused individuals. At the same time, there is no scientific or legal basis for redefining “sex” to “sexual orientation and gender identity” in Title IX. Such a change misrepresents the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Bostock, threatens the American system of federalism, removes important due process protections for students in higher education, and puts girls and women in danger of physical harm. Facilitating social gender transition without parental consent increases the likelihood that children will seek hormone treatments, such as puberty blockers, which are experimental medical interventions. Research has not demonstrated positive effects and long- term outcomes of these treatments, and the unintended side effects are still not fully understood.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Very Strong

Vector: 60%

Pages: 618-620AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1028 defines sex strictly by biological reproductive functions and enforces that definition in athletic eligibility, directly implementing the Project 2025 directive to focus sex discrimination law enforcement on a biological binary meaning of 'sex'."

Key themes:biological sex definitionsex discrimination enforcementbinary sexsports eligibilitygender identity exclusion

— 585 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies l Direct agencies to refocus enforcement of sex discrimination laws. The President should direct agencies to focus their enforcement of sex discrimination laws on the biological binary meaning of “sex.” PRO-LIFE MEASURES l Promote pro-life workplace accommodations for mothers. Federal law should protect life and promote pro-family policies. Current law, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act,3 provides nondiscrimination protections in the workplace for pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA)4 requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for women “to the known limitations related to the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” unless “the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the [employer’s] business.” The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) also provides nondiscrimination and accommodation protections in the workplace for certain pregnancy-related disability.5 None of these laws requires an employer provide health insurance benefits for elective abortion. l Pass a law requiring equal (or greater) benefits for pro-life support for mothers and clarifying abortion exclusions. Congress should pass a law requiring that to the extent an employer provides employee benefits for abortion, it must provide equal or greater benefits for pregnancy, childbirth, maternity, and adoption. That law should also clarify that no employer is required to provide any accommodations or benefits for abortion. l Keep anti-life “benefits” out of benefit plans. Some benefits attorneys and pro-choice advocates have argued since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision6 that the longstanding doctrine of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)7 preemption should block individual states’ efforts to prohibit employers from helping employees procure abortions via offering various kinds of coverage under employee-sponsored benefit plans. ERISA should not be allowed to trump states’ ability to protect innocent human life in the womb. Congress and DOL should clarify that ERISA does not preempt states’ power to restrict abortion, surrogacy, or other anti-life “benefits.” RELIGION l Provide robust protections for religious employers. America’s religious diversity means that workplaces include people of many faiths and that many employers are faith-based. Nevertheless, the Biden Administration has been hostile to people of faith, especially those with traditional beliefs — 586 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise about marriage, gender, and sexuality. The new Administration should enact policies with robust respect for religious exercise in the workplace, including under the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA),8 Title VII, and federal conscience protection laws. l Issue an executive order protecting religious employers and employees. The President should make clear via executive order that religious employers are free to run their businesses according to their religious beliefs, general nondiscrimination laws notwithstanding, and support participation of religious employees and employers as federal contractors and in federal activities and programs. l Clarify Title VII’s religious organization exemptions. Congress should clarify Title VII’s religious organization exemptions to make it more explicit that those employers may make employment decisions based on religion regardless of nondiscrimination laws. l Provide Robust Accommodations for Religious Employees. Title VII requires reasonable accommodations for an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs, observances, or practices unless it poses an undue hardship on the employer’s business. These accommodation protections also apply to issues related to marriage, gender, and sexuality. Unless the Supreme Court overrules its bad precedent, Congress should clarify that undue hardship means “significant difficulty or expenses,” not “more than a de minimis cost” as the Court has previously held. General EEOC Reforms. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commis- sion (EEOC) does not have rulemaking authority under Title VII and other laws it enforces, yet it issues “guidance,” “technical assistance,” and other documents, including some that push new policy positions. EEOC should disclaim its regulatory pretensions and abide by the guidance reforms dis- cussed below. l EEOC should disclaim its regulatory pretensions. l Affirm decision-making via majority vote of Commissioners. EEOC should affirm as policy the Title VII requirement that it exercise substantive power via majority vote of Commissioners, not by unilateral Chair action or by delegation to staff.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Very Strong

Vector: 59%

Pages: 618-620AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1028 defines sex based on biological reproductive functions and enforces a binary male/female standard for female-designated sports, directly implementing the Project 2025 directive to focus sex discrimination law enforcement on the biological binary meaning of 'sex'."

Key themes:biological sex definitionsex discrimination enforcementbinary sexsports eligibilityfemale-only competition

Department of Education

Strong

Vector: 60%

Pages: 365-367AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1028 aligns with Project 2025's goal of opposing the introduction of a 'nonbinary' sex category in education data collection and preserving binary sex classifications in school athletics, as both seek to maintain male/female distinctions in sports participation and resist what they frame as ideologically driven changes to Title IX-related policies."

Key themes:sex categorization in athleticsopposition to nonbinary data collectionpreservation of Title IX frameworkbinary sex definitions in school sportsresistance to Biden-era education policies

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on defining biological sex for athletic eligibility, while the Project 2025 HHS section emphasizes healthcare regulations, civil rights in medical settings, and reproductive health policies—there is minimal thematic overlap beyond a shared interest in sex-based distinctions."

Key themes:sex-based definitionscivil rightsreproductive health

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

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

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

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Steube, W. Gregory

Taxpayer Advocate Participation Act

119/hr/9498

Myakka Wild and Scenic River Act of 2025

119/hr/642

Doug LaMalfa Federal Disaster Tax Relief Certainty Act

119/hr/5366

Back to All Bills