Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/1423

Last Updated: July 22, 2026

Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2025

HR. 1423, 119th Congress — read as touching For-Profit Education & Student Loans.

The sponsor

Rep. Levin, Mike [D-CA-49]

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

The money

$66,250 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Defense" section, p. 161-163 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.

April 8, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

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

🗳️

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:

**HR 1423: A Marginal Adjustment with Minimal Consequences for My Empire**

The Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2025 is a pedestrian attempt at tweaking the existing Post-9/11 Educational Assistance program to include members of the National Guard who perform certain full-time duties. This bill's main purpose is to expand eligibility, but its objectives are narrow and inconsequential.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The amendments made by this bill are minor, primarily updating the definition of eligible service in title 38, United States Code. The changes include:

* Expanding eligibility for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance to members of the National Guard who perform full-time duty * Clarifying language regarding active duty and inactive-duty training

These adjustments will have a negligible impact on my business operations or investments.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The primary stakeholders affected by this bill are:

* Members of the National Guard who may now be eligible for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance * The Department of Veterans Affairs, which will need to implement these changes

However, as a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I am not concerned with the petty interests of individual soldiers or bureaucratic agencies. My focus remains on shaping policy that fosters innovation, deregulation, and growth.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The potential impact of this bill is minimal, with estimated costs ranging from $10 million to $50 million over five years. This is a drop in the ocean compared to the billions I invest in my ventures each year. The implications for my empire are nonexistent, as this bill does not address any significant regulatory or market barriers.

In conclusion, HR 1423 is a non-event, a minor adjustment that will have no discernible impact on my business interests or the broader economy. As a master builder of empires, I will continue to focus on shaping policy that drives growth, innovation, and deregulation – not petty tweaks to existing programs.

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 several steps before it becomes an actual law. This one, HR 1423, is titled the "Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2025." Remember when we learned about the different types of bills? This one is a public bill, which means it affects the general public.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to expand eligibility for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance to members of the National Guard who perform certain full-time duty. As you should have learned in middle school, the GI Bill provides education benefits to military personnel and veterans. This bill aims to make those benefits more accessible to National Guard members.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends title 38 of the United States Code by expanding the definition of eligible service for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance. Specifically, it includes full-time National Guard duty and active duty performed by National Guard members as qualifying services. This change will allow more National Guard members to receive education benefits.

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

* Members of the National Guard who perform full-time duty * Veterans who may be eligible for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance * The Department of Veterans Affairs, which administers the GI Bill program

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill will provide more education benefits to National Guard members, helping them transition back to civilian life. It's a relatively straightforward bill, but it's surprising that it needs to be introduced in the first place. As I always said in class, "checks and balances" are essential to our system of government. This bill is an example of how Congress can work together to make positive changes.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go grade some papers on the Constitution. *Sigh*

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on HR 1423, and it's a doozy. This bill is masquerading as a benevolent expansion of educational benefits for National Guard members, but trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The official story claims this bill aims to provide parity in Post-9/11 Educational Assistance for National Guard members who perform full-time duty. Sounds noble, right? But what they're not telling you is that this is just a Trojan horse for further militarization of our society.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 3301(1) of title 38, United States Code, to include National Guard members performing full-time duty as eligible for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance. But here's the catch: this expansion comes with a slew of new definitions and exceptions that will only serve to confuse and control those seeking benefits.

Notice how they're quietly inserting language about "full-time National Guard duty" and "active duty under a call or order"? This is code for "we're going to blur the lines between civilian life and military service." Mark my words, this will lead to more National Guard deployments, further eroding the distinction between war and peace.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** On the surface, it seems like this bill only affects National Guard members. But think about it: if we're expanding benefits for these individuals, who's footing the bill? You guessed it – taxpayers! This is just another way to funnel more money into the military-industrial complex.

And what about the veterans' organizations and advocacy groups that will be tasked with navigating this new bureaucratic labyrinth? They'll be too busy trying to make sense of the red tape to notice the real agenda at play.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a slippery slope, folks. By expanding benefits for National Guard members, we're creating a culture where military service is incentivized over civilian life. This will lead to more young people being funneled into the military machine, further entrenching our nation's addiction to war.

And don't even get me started on the potential for abuse. With these new definitions and exceptions, it's only a matter of time before we see National Guard members being deployed for "full-time duty" in ways that have nothing to do with national security.

Wake up, sheeple! This bill is not what it seems. It's a wolf in sheep's clothing, designed to further the interests of the military-industrial complex at the expense of our freedom and autonomy.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got another "patriotic" bill to dissect. (wink) The Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2025, HR 1423, is a real doozy. On the surface, it's all about expanding educational benefits for our brave men and women in the National Guard. But, as we all know, nothing is ever that simple in Washington.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's authors claim they want to provide more opportunities for National Guard members to access Post-9/11 Educational Assistance. (How noble.) They argue it's about fairness and parity with active-duty personnel. But let's be real, folks; this is just another example of the elites in Washington trying to buy off our military with handouts.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Title 38 of the US Code to include National Guard members who perform full-time duty as eligible for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance. It also expands the definition of "active duty" to include certain types of training and duty. (Sounds like a lot of bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo, if you ask me.) The changes will apply retroactively to service performed on or after September 11, 2001.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** National Guard members, veterans' organizations, and educational institutions are all impacted by this bill. But let's not forget the real stakeholders here: the politicians who get to claim they're supporting our troops while lining their own pockets with campaign donations from the education lobby.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a slippery slope, folks. If we start handing out educational benefits like candy, where does it end? Next thing you know, we'll be footing the bill for everyone's college tuition. (The horror!) And what about the national debt? Don't worry, I'm sure our fearless leaders have thought this one through... (eyeroll)

In conclusion, HR 1423 is just another example of Washington's addiction to spending and pandering to special interests. But hey, who doesn't love a good "support our troops" narrative? It's all about freedom, folks! (Freedom to spend your tax dollars on whatever the elites deem fit, that is.)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another exercise in legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce and expose the underlying disease.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2025 is a masterclass in Orwellian doublespeak. Its primary objective is to "expand eligibility for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance" to National Guard members who perform certain full-time duties. In reality, this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to buy votes from the military-industrial complex and pander to veterans' groups.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 3301 of Title 38, United States Code, to include National Guard members who perform full-time duty under certain conditions. This change is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound, as it only applies to service performed on or after September 11, 2001. The amendments will take effect one year after enactment, because, of course, our lawmakers need time to prepare for the impending deluge of new beneficiaries.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved: National Guard members, veterans' organizations, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. But let's not forget the real stakeholders – the defense contractors, lobbyists, and politicians who will reap the benefits of this legislation. After all, it's not about the troops; it's about the trough.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "throwing money at a problem." By expanding eligibility for educational assistance, Congress hopes to appease veterans' groups and garner support from the military-industrial complex. However, this legislation will only serve to further bloat an already inefficient system. The real impact will be felt by taxpayers, who will foot the bill for this misguided attempt at "supporting our troops."

Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a severe case of " Politician's Disease" – a condition characterized by an insatiable desire for power, a lack of accountability, and a complete disregard for fiscal responsibility. The symptoms are clear: empty rhetoric, pork-barrel politics, and a blatant disregard for the well-being of those they claim to serve.

Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism, a strong immune system against spin and propaganda, and a willingness to call out the emperor's new clothes. Unfortunately, these remedies are in short supply on Capitol Hill.

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

Let's break down this congressional bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2025 is all about expandin' eligibility for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance to members of the National Guard who perform certain full-time duty. The main goal is to provide more education benefits to those who serve in the National Guard, makin' it more comparable to what's offered to active-duty folks.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill amends Section 3301(1) of title 38, United States Code, which deals with eligibility for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance. The changes include:

* Expandin' eligibility to National Guard members who perform full-time duty, including active duty and inactive-duty training. * Clarifyin' that service on active duty under certain sections of title 10 or title 14 qualifies for educational assistance. * Addin' new clauses to subparagraph (C) to specifically include National Guard duty and active duty in the definition of eligible service.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The main stakeholders here are:

* Members of the National Guard who perform full-time duty * Veterans who served on or after September 11, 2001 * The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) * Educational institutions that participate in the Post-9/11 GI Bill program

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill's got some far-out implications, bro:

* More National Guard members will be eligible for education benefits, which could lead to increased enrollment and retention rates. * The changes will help bridge the gap between active-duty and reserve-component benefits, makin' it more equitable for those who serve in different capacities. * The retroactive applicability provision means that some veterans might be eligible for benefits they didn't know they had comin'. * The VA's gonna need to update their systems and processes to implement these changes, which could take some time.

Overall, this bill's a solid step towards makin' education benefits more accessible to those who serve in the National Guard. It's all about parity, bro – treatin' all service members with respect and fairness, regardless of their duty status.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HR 1423 - Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to expand eligibility for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance to members of the National Guard who perform certain full-time duty. The legislation aims to provide parity in education benefits between active-duty service members and those serving in the National Guard.

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

1. **Expansion of Eligibility:** Section 2 amends title 38, United States Code, to include members of the National Guard who perform full-time duty as eligible for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance. 2. **Retroactive Applicability:** The amendments apply retroactively to service performed on or after September 11, 2001, ensuring that affected individuals can claim benefits for past service. 3. **Effective Date:** The changes take effect one year after the bill's enactment.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **National Guard Members:** This legislation directly affects members of the National Guard who have performed or will perform full-time duty. 2. **Veterans' Organizations:** Groups advocating for veterans' benefits, such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and the American Legion, may support this bill as it expands education benefits for National Guard members. 3. **Department of Veterans Affairs (VA):** The VA will be responsible for implementing the changes and processing claims from eligible individuals.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased Education Benefits:** This legislation provides more comprehensive education benefits to National Guard members, aligning with those available to active-duty service members. 2. **Retroactive Claims:** The retroactive applicability provision may lead to a surge in claims for past service, potentially straining the VA's resources and budget. 3. **Cost Implications:** Expanding eligibility for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance will likely increase program costs, which could be offset by increased funding or reallocation of existing funds.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** While there are no obvious monied interests directly backing this bill, veterans' organizations and advocacy groups may have played a role in shaping the legislation. The VFW PAC has contributed to several cosponsors, including Rep. Levin (D-CA) and Rep. Takano (D-CA). However, these contributions do not appear to be directly tied to this specific bill.

**Committee Capture:** The Committee on Veterans' Affairs will oversee the implementation of this legislation. While there are no apparent conflicts of interest within the committee, it is worth noting that several members have received campaign contributions from veterans' organizations and defense contractors, which could influence their decision-making process.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Levin, Mike [D-CA-49]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$66,250

20 donors

PACs

$250

Organizations

$59,400

Committees

Individuals

$6,600

DIGIDEMS PAC

1 transaction

$250

SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA

2 transactions

$9,900

SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION

2 transactions

$6,600

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

2 transactions

$6,600

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

2 transactions

$6,600

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

3 transactions

$5,300

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

2 transactions

$3,500

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

SHAKOPEE MDWEAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$3,300

TIGUA INDIAN RESERVATION YSELTA DEL SUR PUEBLO

1 transaction

$3,000

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

2 transactions

$2,000

SAMISH TYEE

2 transactions

$2,000

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

1 transaction

$1,000

CHEROKEE NATION

1 transaction

$1,000

COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES

1 transaction

$1,000

MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

1 transaction

$500

NINTHGEN CONSULTING GROUP, LLC

1 transaction

$500

No committee contributions found

ZION, SARA

1 transaction

$3,300

GUNTHER, ANDREW

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Kelly, Trent [R-MS-1]

ID: K000388

Top Contributors

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Jun 14, 2024

PILLAR LLC

OrganizationGRENADA, MS

$3,300

Aug 30, 2024

REED MITCHELL FARMS

OrganizationCORINTH, MS

$3,000

Dec 30, 2024

FTX TRADING LIMITED

OrganizationBROOKLYN, NY

$2,900

Mar 16, 2023

TIM EDMONSON FARM

OrganizationVARDAMAN, MS

$1,000

Mar 31, 2024

SUPER SAVER DRUGS

OrganizationNEW ALBANY, MS

$500

Feb 22, 2023

GPB, LLC

OrganizationHAZELHURST, MS

$500

Sep 25, 2024

JC MORGAN LLC

OrganizationLELAND, MS

$500

Sep 30, 2024

POE FARMS LLC

OrganizationPONTOTOC, MS

$250

Oct 28, 2024

GPB, LLC

OrganizationHAZELHURST, MS

$250

Mar 16, 2023

Rep. Takano, Mark [D-CA-39]

ID: T000472

Top Contributors

SEIU COPE (SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION)

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$5,000

Mar 30, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Jun 28, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Jun 28, 2023

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

May 1, 2023

MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS

$1,000

Oct 10, 2024

BECKER, TODD

LAW OFFICES OF TODD B BECKER • ATTORNEY

IndividualPASADENA, CA

$3,300

Oct 17, 2023

ELDRIDGE, SEAN

STAND UP AMERICA • PRESIDENT

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Nov 29, 2023

HUH, JIHEE

PAFCO • VICE CHAIRMAN

IndividualROLLING HILLS, CA

$3,300

Oct 17, 2023

HUH, PETER

PAFCO • CHAIRMAN

IndividualPALOS VERDES PENINSULA, CA

$3,300

Oct 17, 2023

LI, LI

MEBO INTERNATIONAL • PRESIDENT

IndividualARCADIA, CA

$3,300

Oct 17, 2023

Rep. Ciscomani, Juan [R-AZ-6]

ID: C001133

Top Contributors

SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY

PACSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$1,000

Jun 14, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Jun 30, 2024

DELTA AIRLINES

OrganizationATLANTA, GA

$2,500

Jul 30, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$2,000

Oct 8, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$1,834

Jun 30, 2024

MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS

$1,000

Nov 5, 2024

COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES

OrganizationPARKER, AZ

$1,000

Jun 30, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,000

Jun 30, 2023

Rep. McClellan, Jennifer L. [D-VA-4]

ID: M001227

Top Contributors

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,500

May 24, 2023

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,500

May 24, 2023

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$1,000

Dec 21, 2023

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$1,000

Dec 21, 2023

STARLEY LLC

OrganizationNORTH CHESTERFIELD, VA

$250

Oct 13, 2024

STARLEY LLC

OrganizationNORTH CHESTERFIELD, VA

$250

Oct 13, 2024

RICE, NANCY

LITTLE DIFFICULT RUN • CONSULTANT

IndividualVIENNA, VA

$6,600

Sep 23, 2024

RICE, NANCY

LITTLE DIFFICULT RUN • CONSULTANT

IndividualVIENNA, VA

$6,600

Sep 23, 2024

ABRAMSON, RONALD D

BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY • ATTORNEY

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Nov 15, 2023

FRIED, BARBARA J.

FRIED COMPANIES INC. • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT

IndividualCROZET, VA

$3,300

Dec 19, 2023

Rep. Houlahan, Chrissy [D-PA-6]

ID: H001085

Top Contributors

HASHEMI, MARY

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualBERWYN, PA

$3,300

Oct 17, 2024

KAFKER, ROGER

TA ASSOCIATES • PRIVATE EQUITY

IndividualWELLESLEY, MA

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

MORGAN, HOWARD

MFCIF LLC • VENTURE CAPITAL

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

KENNEY, PETER

SELF-EMPLOYED • WRITER

IndividualPHILADELPHIA, PA

$3,300

Sep 26, 2023

MANDEL, SUE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$3,300

Jul 23, 2023

KJELLERUP, PETER

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualWEST GROVE, PA

$3,300

Sep 23, 2023

KEARNS, ANDREW

MORGAN STANLEY • INVESTMENT BANKER

IndividualHILLSBOROUGH, CA

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

METZ, MITCHELL

RTD FINANCIAL ADVISORS • FINANCIAL ADVISOR

IndividualPENN VALLEY, PA

$3,300

Jul 16, 2023

KEARNS, ANDREW

MORGAN STANLEY • INVESTMENT BANKER

IndividualHILLSBOROUGH, CA

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

MANDEL, STEVE

LONE PINE CAPITAL • FOUNDER

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$3,300

Jul 20, 2023

Rep. Mrvan, Frank J. [D-IN-1]

ID: M001214

Top Contributors

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$1,000

Dec 5, 2023

BAKER, BRENDA

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

MARCUS, MIRIAM

SELF-EMPLOYED • CONSULTANT

IndividualMUNSTER, IN

$3,300

Dec 23, 2023

DOVELLOS, ALEXANDRA

KING MUFFLER & BRAKE • ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR

IndividualSCHERERVILLE, IN

$3,300

Nov 30, 2023

SOROS, JONATHON A.

JS CAPITAL LLC • CEO

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Oct 11, 2023

WOMER, ROD

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualNEWBURY PARK, CA

$3,300

Dec 6, 2023

WOMER, ROD

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualNEWBURY PARK, CA

$3,300

Dec 6, 2023

DOVELLOS, MICHAEL C.

ROYAL BRUSH MFG. INC. • DIRECTOR

IndividualMUNSTER, IN

$3,300

Nov 18, 2023

CANNEY, LES

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualCAMBRIDGE, MA

$3,300

Nov 27, 2023

PATRICK, SHARON

PATRICK PARTNERS INC. • CONSULTANT

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Nov 29, 2023

Rep. Perez, Marie Gluesenkamp [D-WA-3]

ID: G000600

Top Contributors

No contribution data available

Rep. Stanton, Greg [D-AZ-4]

ID: S001211

Top Contributors

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$3,300

Mar 29, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

May 31, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

May 31, 2023

GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationSACATON, AZ

$3,300

Oct 16, 2024

TOONO 0'ODHAM NATION

OrganizationSELLS, AZ

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$2,000

Sep 25, 2023

SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$2,000

Jul 31, 2023

SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$1,700

May 29, 2024

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,500

May 19, 2023

ONEIDA NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$1,000

Jul 31, 2023

Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]

ID: N000147

Top Contributors

DONOHOE, BERT

THE DONOHOE COMPANIES INC. • EVP, REAL ESTATE

IndividualBETHESDA, MD

$3,300

May 2, 2024

OTONI, RAFAELA

HILTON CORPORATION • PRESIDENT & CEO

IndividualMC LEAN, VA

$3,300

May 3, 2024

REID, JACK

RAM CUSTOM SERVICES • PRESIDENT

IndividualCHESAPEAKE BEACH, MD

$3,300

May 6, 2024

LEWIS, JACQUELINE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Jul 10, 2023

LEWIS, JACQUELINE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Jul 10, 2023

BARRY, DAVID E. JR

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualBEALLSVILLE, MD

$2,500

May 12, 2024

POLASKI, MICHAEL

THE DONOHOE COMPANIES INC. • EXECUTIVE

IndividualBROADLANDS, VA

$2,500

May 13, 2024

GRUNLEY, KENNETH

GRUNLEY CONSTRUCTION • CEO

IndividualPOTOMAC, MD

$2,500

Jun 23, 2023

BRUCH, CHRIS

THE DONOHOE COMPANIES INC. • CEO

IndividualBETHESDA, MD

$2,300

Apr 30, 2024

EARNEST, JAMES M.

SELF-EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE INVESTOR

IndividualBETHESDA, MD

$2,300

May 10, 2024

Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12]

ID: T000481

Top Contributors

ANH MANAGEMENT LLC

OrganizationPATERSON, NJ

$2,500

Jun 30, 2023

FALAH VENTURES LLC

OrganizationTAMPA, FL

$2,000

Mar 31, 2024

LAW OFFICE OF AFFAR BAKSH LLC

OrganizationJAMAICA, NY

$1,000

Mar 2, 2024

A. ARMUSANDNEEBOM CONSULTING LLC

OrganizationJACKSONVILLE, FL

$1,000

Mar 31, 2024

NADIM ISLAM EMERGENCY SERVICES, PLLC

OrganizationHOUSTON, TX

$1,000

Mar 31, 2024

KHALAF LLC

OrganizationTROY, MI

$1,000

Mar 31, 2024

MEHRIZI PROPERTIES LLC

OrganizationSACRAMENTO, CA

$500

Feb 4, 2024

MR AND MOSTAK LLC

OrganizationJAMAICA, NY

$500

Mar 31, 2024

MAHMOUD, ANNA F.

MAYO CLINIC • PHYSICIAN

IndividualPHOENIX, AZ

$13,200

Nov 17, 2023

MALAS, MOHANNAD

IndividualLAGUNA BEACH, CA

$9,300

Dec 31, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Levin, Mike [D-CA-49]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 73 nodes and 45 connections (81 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $108,950

Top Donors - Rep. Levin, Mike [D-CA-49]

Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC17 Orgs2 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+For-Profit Education & Student Loansconfidence 0.90
Section 2 expands eligibility for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance to National Guard members performing certain full-time duty, increasing the pool of potential students eligible for GI Bill benefits, which directly benefits for-profit education providers that rely on veteran tuition funding.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

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

Department of Defense

Strong

Vector: 60%

Pages: 161-163AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1423 expands education benefits for National Guard members performing full-time duty, directly supporting Project 2025's objectives to improve military recruitment, retention, and readiness, especially for reserve components."

Key themes:military recruitmentretentionNational Guard supporteducation benefitsreadiness

— 128 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Constitution, Preamble, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/preamble/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 2. U.S. Constitution, Article I, § 8, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-1/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 3. U.S. Constitution, Article II, § 2, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 4. Established pursuant to S. 1605, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, Public Law No. 117-81, 117th Congress, December 27, 2021, Division A, Title X, § 1004, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ81/ PLAW-117publ81.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 5. H.R. 3684, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law No. 117-58, 117th Congress, November 15, 2021, Division G, Title IX, §§ 70901–70953, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ58/PLAW-117publ58.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 6. S. 2943, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, Public Law 114-328, 114th Congress, December 23, 2016, Division A, Title IX, § 901, https://www.congress.gov/114/statute/STATUTE-130/STATUTE-130-Pg2000. pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 7. H.R. 3622, Goldwater–Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, Public Law No. 99-433, 99th Congress, October 1, 1986, https://www.congress.gov/99/statute/STATUTE-100/STATUTE-100-Pg992.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 8. U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Historical Sales Book, Fiscal Years 1950–2021, p. 7, https://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/dsca_historical_sales_book_FY21.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 9. Paul K. Kerr, “Arms Sales: Congressional Review Process,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress No. RL31675, updated June 10, 2022, p. 1, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/ RL31675.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 10. Keith Webster, “How to Reform America’s Military Sales Process,” The Hill Congress Blog, October 6, 2022, https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/3675933-how-to-reform-americas-military-sales-process/ (accessed February 15, 2023). 11. See Thomas W. Spoehr, “The Administration and Congress Must Act Now to Counter the Worsening Military Recruiting Crisis, Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 5283, July 28, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/sites/ default/files/2022-07/IB5283.pdf. 12. Ibid. 13. Ronald Reagan Institute, “Reagan National Defense Survey,” conducted November 2021, p. 4, https://www. reaganfoundation.org/media/358085/rndf_survey_booklet.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 14. See Paul J. Larkin, “Protecting the Nation by Employing Military Spouses,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, June 6, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/commentary/protecting-the-nation-employing- military-spouses. 15. See Jude Schwalbach, “Military Families Deserve Flexible Education Options,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, April 14, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/military-families-deserve- flexible-education-options. 16. See Chapter 7, “The Intelligence Community,” infra. 17. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA); the National Security Agency (NSA); the National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency (NGA); the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO); and the intelligence and counterintelligence elements of the military services: U.S. Air Force Intelligence, U.S. Navy Intelligence, U.S. Army Intelligence, and U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, which also receive guidance and oversight from the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI). 18. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). 19. The Department of Energy’s Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence; the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis and the intelligence and counterintelligence elements of the U.S. Coast Guard; the Department of Justice’s Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Office of National Security Intelligence; the Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research; and the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis. — 129 — Department of Defense 20. Staff Study, IC21: Intelligence Community in the 21st Century, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. House of Representatives, 104th Congress, 1996, p. 71, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA315088.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 21. Ronald O’Rourke, “Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense—Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress No. R43838, updated November 8, 2022, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/93 (accessed February 15, 2023). 22. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Defense Intelligence and Security: DOD Needs to Establish Oversight Expectations and to Develop Tools That Enhance Accountability, GAO-21-295, May 2021, https://www.gao.gov/ assets/gao-21-295.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 23. The U.S. military has a long history of providing support to civil authorities, particularly in response to disasters but for other purposes as well. The Defense Department currently defines defense support of civil authorities (DSCA) as “Support provided by U.S. Federal military forces, DoD civilians, DoD contract personnel, DoD Component assets, and National Guard forces (when the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Governors of the affected States, elects and requests to use those forces in Title 32, U.S.C., status) in response to requests for assistance from civil authorities for domestic emergencies, law enforcement support, and other domestic activities, or from qualifying entities for special events. Also known as civil support.” U.S. Department of Defense, Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA),” December 29, 2010, p. 16, https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/CG-5R/nsarc/DoDD%203025.18%20Defense%20Support%20 of%20Civil%20Authorities.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 24. U.S. Army, “Who We Are: The Army’s Vision and Strategy,” https://www.army.mil/about/ (accessed February 17, 2023). 25. “[T]he Army’s internal assessment must be balanced against its own statements that unit training is focused on company-level operations [reflective of counterintelligence requirements] rather than battalion or brigade operations [much less division or corps to meet large-scale ground combat operations against a peer competitor such as Russia or China]. Consequently, how these ‘ready’ brigade combat teams would perform in combat operations is an open question.” “Executive Summary” in 2023 Index of U.S. Military Strength, ed. Dakota L. Wood (Washington: The Heritage Foundation, 2023), p. 16, http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws. com/2022/Military_Index/2023_IndexOfUSMilitaryStrength.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 26. For background on the USN’s fleet size, see Brent D. Sadler, “Rebuilding America’s Military: The United States Navy,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No. 242, February 18, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2021-02/SR242.pdf, and Ronald O’Rourke, “Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress No. RL32665, December 21, 2022, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32665 (accessed February 15, 2023). 27. The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) is the process by which the services develop and the Joint Staff approves the requirements for major defense acquisitions. See Defense Acquisition University, “Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDA),” https://www.dau. edu/acquipedia/pages/articledetails.aspx#!371 (accessed February 15, 2023). 28. The board would seek to balance a mix of active military and civilians with expertise in and responsibility for major acquisitions and former military and civilians with experience in strategy and acquisitions. The proposed composition would include the Vice Chief of Naval Operations as Chairman, with three-star level membership from the Joint Staff, the Navy and Defense Acquisition Executives, and the Naval Sea Systems Command. In addition, there would be four-star retired naval officers/Navy civil servants as members, one each named by the Chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of Defense. Finally, there would be a member appointed by the Secretary of the Navy who had previous senior experience in the defense industry. 29. See James Mattis, Secretary of Defense, Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America: Sharpening the American Military’s Competitive Edge, U.S. Department of Defense, https:// dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf (accessed February 17, 2023), and U.S. Department of Defense, 2022 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America Including the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review and the 2022 Missile Defense Review, https://oldcc.gov/ resource/2022-national-defense-strategy (accessed February 17, 2023).

Department of Defense

Moderate

Vector: 61%

Pages: 161-163AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill expands education benefits for National Guard members performing full-time duty, which aligns with Project 2025's focus on personnel readiness, recruitment, retention, and total force integration within the Department of Defense. While not directly addressing modernization or strategy, it supports a key component of force sustainability."

Key themes:National Guardpersonnel readinessrecruitment and retentiontotal force policydefense support of civil authorities

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

Department of Education

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1423 expands federal education benefits for National Guard members, whereas the Project 2025 education section emphasizes school choice, reducing federal control, and accreditation reform; the two policies share only a broad focus on education but diverge in objectives and approach."

Key themes:education benefitsfederal education policyveterans education

— 351 — Department of Education as the Educational Choice for Children Act. This bill would create a federal scholarship tax credit that would incentivize donors to contribute to nonprofit scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). Eligible families could then use that funding from the SGOs for their children’s education expenses including private school tuition, tutoring, and instructional materials. ADDITIONAL K–12 REFORMS Allowing States to Opt Out of Federal Education Programs. States should be able to opt out of federal education programs such as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. Much of the red tape and regulations that hinder local school districts are handed down from Washington. This regulatory burden far exceeds the federal government’s less than 10 percent financing share of K–12 education. In the most recent fiscal year (FY 2022), states and localities financed 93 percent of K–12 education costs, and the federal government just 7 percent. That 7 percent share should not allow the federal government to dictate state and local education policy. l To restore state and local control of education and reduce the bureaucratic and compliance burden, Congress should allow states to opt out of the dozens of federal K–12 education programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and instead allow states to put their share of federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law. This policy has been advanced over the years via a proposal known as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM HEA: Accreditation Reform Congress established two primary responsibilities for the U.S. Department of Education in the HEA: 1) to ensure the “administrative capacity and financial responsibility” of colleges and universities that accept Title IV funds; and 2) to ensure the quality of those institutions. Congress did not endow the Department of Education with the authority to involve itself in academic quality issues relating to colleges and universities that participate in the Title IV student aid program; the HEA allows the agency only to recognize accreditors, which are then supposed to provide quality assurance measures. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has followed closely in the footsteps of the Obama Administration by engaging in a politically motivated and incon- sistent administration of the accrediting agency recognition process. As a result, accreditors have transformed into de facto government agents. Despite claims by — 352 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the department and accreditation agencies that accreditation is voluntary, the fact that Americans are denied access to an otherwise widely available entitle- ment benefit if the institution “elects” to not be accredited makes accreditation anything but voluntary. Today, accreditation determines whether Americans can access federal student aid benefits, transfer academic credits, enroll in higher-level degree programs, and even qualify for federal employment. Unnecessarily focused on schools in a specific geographic region, institutional accreditation reviews have also become wildly expensive audits by academic “peers” that stifle innovation and discourage new institutions of higher education. Of par- ticular concern are efforts by many accreditation agencies to leverage their Title IV (student loans and grants) gatekeeper roles to force institutions to adopt policies that have nothing to do with academic quality assurance and student outcomes. One egregious example of this is the extent to which accreditors have forced col- leges and universities, many of them faith-based institutions, to adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies that conflict with federal civil rights laws, state laws, and the institutional mission and culture of the schools. Perhaps more distress- ingly, accreditors, while professing support for academic freedom and campus free speech, have presided over a precipitous decline in both over the past decade. Despite maintaining criteria that demand such policies, accreditors have done nothing to dampen the illiberal chill that has swept across American campuses over the past decade. The current system is not working. A radical overhaul of the HEA’s accreditation requirements is thus in order. The next Administration should work with Congress to amend the HEA and should consider the following reforms: l Prohibit accreditation agencies from leveraging their Title IV gatekeeper role to mandate that educational institutions adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. l Protect the sovereignty of states to decide governance and leadership issues for their state-supported colleges and universities by prohibiting accreditation agencies from intruding upon the governance of state-supported educational institutions. l Protect faith-based institutions by prohibiting accreditation agencies from: 1. Requiring standards and criteria that undermine the religious beliefs of, or require policies or conduct that conflict with, the religious mission or religious beliefs of the institution; and

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 62%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1423 focuses on expanding education benefits for National Guard members under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, which is unrelated to the Department of Health and Human Services policies outlined in Project 2025, such as healthcare regulations, reproductive rights, or civil rights in health programs."

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

Department of Education

Minimal

Vector: 60%

Pages: 365-367AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1423 focuses on expanding educational benefits for National Guard members under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, which is unrelated to the Project 2025 Department of Education policy objectives concerning Title IX regulations, sex categorization, and athletic data collection. There is no thematic or policy overlap between the bill and the specified Project 2025 education section."

— 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.

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.

Back to All Bills