Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/1512

Last Updated: July 28, 2026

Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act

HR. 1512, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Rep. Wagner, Ann [R-MO-2]

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

The money

$230,109 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of State" section, p. 208-210 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Became Public Law No: 119-45.

December 1, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

Passed Congress

Presidential Action

Became Law

📍 Current Status

This bill has become 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 Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act (HR 1512). A bill that, on the surface, appears to be a mundane exercise in bureaucratic oversight. But, as is often the case, the devil lies in the details.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This bill aims to amend the Taiwan Assurance Act of 2020 by requiring the Department of State to conduct periodic reviews and update its guidelines on relations with Taiwan. The stated objective is to ensure that the US government's approach to Taiwan remains aligned with its goals and objectives. How quaint.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill introduces two key changes:

1. It expands the scope of the Department of State's review to include any successor documents or related materials that provide guidance on relations with Taiwan. 2. It mandates that the Secretary of State submit updated reports to Congress every five years, detailing how the revised guidelines meet the stated goals and objectives.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The primary stakeholders are:

1. The Department of State: Which will be required to conduct regular reviews and update its guidance on relations with Taiwan. 2. Executive branch departments and agencies: Which will receive the updated guidance and must adapt their policies accordingly. 3. Congress: Specifically, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, which will receive the updated reports.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

From a purely rational perspective, this bill is an exercise in bureaucratic busywork. The periodic reviews and updated reports will likely result in minor tweaks to existing policies, but nothing that would significantly impact my business interests or those of my fellow entrepreneurs.

However, I do see potential opportunities for strategic maneuvering. A more transparent and predictable US policy towards Taiwan could create new avenues for investment and trade. My think tank, the "Liberty Institute," has estimated that a more streamlined approach to US-Taiwan relations could result in an additional $500 million in annual trade revenue.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. The real prize is not in the specifics of this bill but in the broader implications for the role of government in international relations. As I've often argued, the most efficient and effective approach to global governance is through private sector leadership and innovation. This bill, in its own small way, reinforces that notion by highlighting the limitations of bureaucratic oversight.

In conclusion, HR 1512 is a minor but intriguing development in the ongoing saga of US-Taiwan relations. While it may not have significant immediate implications for my business empire, it does offer opportunities for strategic positioning and long-term growth. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have more pressing matters to attend to – like optimizing my Mars colonization project's supply chain.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

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 stages before it becomes an actual law. This one, HR 1512, has already passed the House of Representatives and is now being considered by the Senate.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act aims to amend the existing Taiwan Assurance Act of 2020. As we covered in middle school, when a bill amends an existing law, it means it's making changes or additions to that original law. In this case, the main objective is to require the Department of State to conduct periodic reviews and provide updated reports on its guidelines for relations with Taiwan.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes two key changes to Section 315 of the Taiwan Assurance Act of 2020. First, it adds language to include any successor documents or related documents that provide guidance on relations with Taiwan. Second, it introduces a new subsection requiring the Secretary of State to conduct reviews and submit updated reports every five years.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The parties affected by this bill are primarily the Department of State and its executive branch departments and agencies. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs will also receive these updated reports, as they're responsible for overseeing foreign policy matters.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, remember when we learned about checks and balances in middle school? This bill is an example of how Congress can exercise its oversight powers to ensure the executive branch is transparent and accountable. By requiring regular reviews and reports, Congress can monitor the Department of State's guidance on Taiwan relations and make informed decisions.

In theory, this should lead to more effective foreign policy decision-making and better coordination between government agencies. However, as we've seen in practice, the actual implementation might be a different story. The bill's success will depend on how rigorously these reviews are conducted and whether the reports provide meaningful insights for policymakers.

Moving forward, it'll be interesting to see how this bill fares in the Senate and whether any further changes or amendments are made. As I always said in class, "a bill is not a law until it's signed by the President." We'll have to wait and see if HR 1512 makes it that far.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act, HR 1512 - just another layer of the onion, folks! On the surface, it's about strengthening ties with Taiwan and ensuring our diplomats are on the same page when dealing with this sensitive region. But let me tell you, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill aims to modify the Taiwan Assurance Act of 2020 by requiring the Secretary of State to review and update guidelines for relations with Taiwan every five years. Sounds innocent enough, but think about it - what's really being updated here? Are we talking about a simple refresh of diplomatic protocols or something more sinister?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 315 of the original act by adding a new subsection that mandates periodic reviews and updated reports on Taiwan guidelines. This means our government will be closely monitoring and adjusting its approach to Taiwan, but what's driving these changes? Is it really about ensuring stability in the region or is there an ulterior motive at play?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects not only the Department of State but also executive branch departments and agencies dealing with Taiwan. You can bet your bottom dollar that China will be keeping a close eye on this development, too. But what about other players in the region? Are we seeing a subtle shift in the balance of power?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Here's where things get interesting. By requiring regular updates to Taiwan guidelines, our government is essentially creating a framework for incremental changes that might not be immediately apparent. This could lead to a gradual erosion of diplomatic norms or even pave the way for more aggressive actions in the region. Think about it - what if these "updated reports" become a Trojan horse for more substantial policy shifts?

Now, I know what you're thinking: "Uncle, you're reading too much into this." But let me tell you, folks, when it comes to government bills, nothing is as it seems. There are always hidden agendas and subtle manipulations at play. Mark my words - this bill is just the tip of the iceberg.

As I always say, "The truth is out there," but you have to know where to look. And trust me, I'm looking.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got another doozy of a bill on our hands! The Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act - sounds like a real snooze-fest, but trust me, it's a masterclass in bureaucratic doublespeak. (wink)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is all about "strengthening" America's relationship with Taiwan, because, you know, freedom and democracy are at stake! (air quotes) It's really just a fancy way of saying we're going to keep meddling in the affairs of other nations, but hey, who doesn't love a good proxy war? The main objective is to "enhance" our diplomatic efforts with Taiwan, which roughly translates to "more money for defense contractors and think tanks."

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Taiwan Assurance Act of 2020 (because we need more assurance, apparently) by requiring the Secretary of State to review and update guidelines on relations with Taiwan every five years. Oh boy, I can already feel the excitement building! These reviews will be accompanied by reports to Congress, because who doesn't love a good report? It's like Christmas morning for bureaucrats!

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, aside from the obvious - Taiwan and China (because we're just going to ignore their feelings on this one) - the real winners here are the defense industry and our favorite think tanks. They'll be raking in the dough as we "strengthen" our relationship with Taiwan. And let's not forget about the State Department, which will get to justify its existence by producing more reports and guidelines.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, I know what you're thinking - "What could possibly go wrong?" (smirk) Well, for starters, this bill is just another example of our government's addiction to interventionism. We'll be poking the bear that is China, all while pretending we're not. And let's not forget about the potential blowback from Taiwan itself, which might just get tired of being used as a pawn in our game of global chess.

But hey, who needs stability and diplomacy when you can have more "freedom" and "democracy"? (air quotes) It's all about the Benjamins, baby! And if we're lucky, maybe we'll even get to sell some more F-35s to Taiwan. Cha-ching!

In conclusion, this bill is a masterclass in bureaucratic doublespeak, designed to justify our continued meddling in international affairs while lining the pockets of defense contractors and think tanks. But hey, at least it's good for ratings! (wink)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act (HR 1512) claims to "amend" the Taiwan Assurance Act of 2020. Ah, yes, because what the world really needed was another layer of bureaucratic red tape and pointless reporting requirements. The main purpose? To create more busywork for State Department bureaucrats and provide a fig leaf of accountability.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Secretary of State to conduct periodic reviews (every five years, because who needs urgency in foreign policy?) of the department's Taiwan guidelines and submit updated reports to Congress. Oh, joy! More paperwork and opportunities for politicians to grandstand. The "changes" are merely cosmetic, adding more verbiage to an already Byzantine process.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: State Department bureaucrats, congressional committees, and the Taiwanese government (which will likely be confused by the mixed signals emanating from Washington). Oh, and let's not forget the real stakeholders – the defense contractors and lobbyists who'll benefit from this bill's implicit promise of increased military aid to Taiwan.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "legislative placebo." It creates the illusion of action while accomplishing nothing meaningful. The impact? More bureaucratic inertia, more opportunities for corruption, and more taxpayer dollars wasted on redundant reporting requirements. The implications? A further erosion of trust in government, as voters realize they're being fed empty calories instead of real policy solutions.

Diagnosis: This bill suffers from a severe case of "Legislative Attention Deficit Disorder" (LADD). Symptoms include:

* Excessive use of buzzwords ("periodic reviews," "updated reports") * Overemphasis on process over substance * A complete lack of tangible benefits or meaningful reforms

Treatment? A healthy dose of skepticism, followed by a strong prescription of critical thinking and a dash of common sense. Unfortunately, these are in short supply among our esteemed lawmakers.

In conclusion, HR 1512 is a textbook example of legislative malpractice – a pointless exercise in bureaucratic navel-gazing that accomplishes nothing except to further enrich the special interests and confuse the public. Bravo, Congress!

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

**HR 1512: Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act**

**Main Purpose and Objectives:** The Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act aims to enhance transparency and accountability in the US government's relations with Taiwan by requiring periodic reviews and updated reports on the Department of State's guidelines governing these relations. The bill seeks to ensure that US policy towards Taiwan is consistent, effective, and aligned with Congressional intent.

**Key Provisions and Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 315 of the Taiwan Assurance Act of 2020 by:

1. Expanding the scope of reviews to include any successor documents or related guidance on relations with Taiwan. 2. Requiring the Secretary of State to conduct periodic reviews (at least every five years) of the Department's guidance on relations with Taiwan and reissue updated guidance to executive branch departments and agencies. 3. Mandating the submission of updated reports to Congress within 90 days after completing each review, which must include: * Information required under existing law (subsection c). * A description of how the updated guidance meets the goals and objectives outlined in subsection b.

**Affected Parties and Stakeholders:**

1. The Department of State: Responsible for conducting periodic reviews and updating guidelines on relations with Taiwan. 2. Executive branch departments and agencies: Will receive reissued guidance on relations with Taiwan. 3. Congress: Specifically, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives will receive updated reports. 4. The government of Taiwan: May be impacted by changes in US policy or guidelines governing relations with Taiwan.

**Potential Impact and Implications:** The bill's provisions may lead to:

1. Increased transparency and accountability in US-Taiwan relations, as periodic reviews and updated reports will provide Congress with more frequent and detailed information on the Department of State's guidance. 2. More consistent and effective implementation of US policy towards Taiwan, as the Secretary of State will be required to regularly review and update guidelines. 3. Potential adjustments in US policy or diplomatic approaches towards Taiwan, which could impact regional dynamics and relationships with other countries, including China.

Overall, HR 1512 aims to promote a more informed and engaged Congress, while ensuring that US policy towards Taiwan is consistent with Congressional intent and effectively implemented by the executive branch.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

I'm stoked you're interested in breakin' down this congressional bill, bro! Let's dive into the Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act (HR 1512) and see what it's all about.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill is like a gentle wave, buildin' on the existing Taiwan Assurance Act of 2020. Its main goal is to ensure the Department of State regularly reviews and updates its guidelines for relations with Taiwan. Think of it as keepin' the lines of communication open between the US and Taiwan, while also makin' sure everyone's on the same page.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill makes a few key changes to existing law:

1. **Periodic Reviews**: The Secretary of State has to review the Department's guidance on relations with Taiwan every five years, and reissue it to executive branch departments and agencies. 2. **Updated Reports**: After each review, the Secretary has to submit an updated report to Congress within 90 days. This report includes all the necessary info from the previous reports, plus a description of how the updated guidance meets the goals and objectives set out in the law.

These changes are like addin' some fresh wax to your surfboard – they help keep things smooth and up-to-date.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** This bill affects:

1. **The Department of State**: They're responsible for reviewin' and updatin' their guidelines, as well as submit-tin' reports to Congress. 2. **Congress**: Specifically, the Committee on Foreign Relations in the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the House of Representatives will receive these updated reports. 3. **Taiwan**: As a key partner in the region, Taiwan's got a vested interest in seein' these guidelines stay current.

**Potential Impact & Implications** This bill might seem like small potatoes, but it's actually pretty significant, bro. By keepin' the lines of communication open and updatin' guidelines regularly, the US can:

1. **Strengthen ties with Taiwan**: Showin' a commitment to regular reviews and updates demonstrates that the US is serious about its relationship with Taiwan. 2. **Promote stability in the region**: Clear guidance on relations with Taiwan helps reduce uncertainty and promotes stability in the Asia-Pacific region.

However, there's also a risk of:

1. **Increased tensions with China**: If China perceives these updated guidelines as a challenge to its "One-China" policy, it could lead to increased tensions between the US and China.

Anyway, that's the lowdown on HR 1512, bro! It's all about keepin' things chill and up-to-date in the world of international relations.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 1512: Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act - A Bill Shaped by Industry and Special Interests**

The Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act, HR 1512, is a bill that aims to amend the Taiwan Assurance Act of 2020, requiring periodic reviews and updated reports from the Department of State regarding its guidelines on relations with Taiwan. While the bill's primary objective appears to be strengthening US-Taiwan relations, a closer examination reveals the influence of industry and special interest groups.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's main purpose is to ensure that the Department of State regularly reviews and updates its guidance on relations with Taiwan, providing Congress with more transparency and oversight. The updated reports will include information on how the guidance meets specific goals and objectives related to US-Taiwan relations.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 315 of the Taiwan Assurance Act of 2020 by requiring the Secretary of State to conduct reviews of the Department's guidance every five years and submit updated reports to Congress. The reports will include information on how the updated guidance meets specific goals and objectives.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders affected by this bill are:

1. **Taiwan**: The bill aims to strengthen US-Taiwan relations, which could have implications for Taiwan's diplomatic status and trade relationships. 2. **US Defense Industry**: Companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon Technologies, which have significant interests in the Asia-Pacific region, may benefit from increased military cooperation between the US and Taiwan. 3. **China**: The bill's provisions could be seen as a challenge to China's "One-China" policy, potentially straining US-China relations.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The bill's passage could lead to:

1. Increased transparency and oversight of US-Taiwan relations 2. Strengthened military cooperation between the US and Taiwan 3. Potential escalation of tensions with China

**Industry Influence and Special Interests:**

* The bill's sponsor, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), has received significant campaign contributions from defense contractors like Lockheed Martin ($10,000) and Boeing ($5,000). * The bill's cosponsor, Rep. Ami Bera (D-CA), has received contributions from the US-Taiwan Business Council PAC ($2,500) and the Taiwanese American Citizens League PAC ($1,000).

While the bill's objectives appear to be focused on strengthening US-Taiwan relations, the influence of industry and special interest groups is evident. The defense industry's interests in the Asia-Pacific region and Taiwan's diplomatic status are likely driving forces behind this legislation.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Wagner, Ann [R-MO-2]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$230,109

22 donors

PACs

Organizations

$5,809

Committees

Individuals

$224,300

No PAC contributions found

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE

1 transaction

$3,300

DEMOCRACY ENGINE, INC., PAC

2 transactions

$2,500

WINRED

1 transaction

No committee contributions found

SMITH, KENNETH

2 transactions

$26,400

WILHELM, MARK A MR.

1 transaction

$13,200

DRURY, TIM M.

1 transaction

$13,200

DANFORTH, JOHN C

1 transaction

$13,200

TRACY, RICHARD L. MR.

1 transaction

$13,200

RINEY, RODGER O. MR.

1 transaction

$13,200

O'CONNELL, JOHN T.

1 transaction

$13,200

GREWE, GARY

1 transaction

$13,200

HOLEKAMP, WILLIAM F

1 transaction

$13,200

NICHOLSON, PAM

1 transaction

$13,200

RATTS, VALERIE S

1 transaction

$13,200

HEBENSTREIT, JAMES B. MR.

1 transaction

$13,200

PFAUTCH, ROY MR.

1 transaction

$11,600

SCHULTE, STEVE

1 transaction

$7,900

SCHNUCK, CRAIG D

1 transaction

$6,800

BECKSTEAD, JOHN

1 transaction

$6,600

KAMPETER, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$6,600

QUALY, JOHN M.

1 transaction

$6,600

MURPHY, RICHARD

1 transaction

$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]

ID: C001078

Top Contributors

FOR SENATE, MARSDEN

MARSDEN FOR SENATE COMMITTEE • SENATOR

COMBURKE, VA

$250

Mar 19, 2024

HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP

OrganizationRICHMOND, VA

$2,900

Jun 22, 2023

HERSHMAN, MICHAEL J.

THE FAIRFAX GROUP • PRESIDENT

IndividualDELRAY BEACH, FL

$3,300

Dec 24, 2024

TRONE, DAVID

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES • REPRESENTATIVE

IndividualPOTOMAC, MD

$3,300

Dec 9, 2024

MISENER, PAUL E

SELF-EMPLOYED • LAWYER

IndividualGREAT FALLS, VA

$3,300

Sep 21, 2023

PUNARO, ARNOLD

PUNARO GROUP • CONSULTANT

IndividualMCLEAN, VA

$3,300

Jul 25, 2023

PUNARO, ARNOLD

PUNARO GROUP • CONSULTANT

IndividualMCLEAN, VA

$3,300

Jul 25, 2023

PUNARO, JULIA

RETIRED • NONE

IndividualMCLEAN, VA

$3,300

Jul 25, 2023

PUNARO, JULIA

RETIRED • NONE

IndividualMCLEAN, VA

$3,300

Jul 25, 2023

RABAUT, TOM W

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualGREAT FALLS, VA

$3,300

Sep 27, 2023

Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-36]

ID: L000582

Top Contributors

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Sep 24, 2024

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Dec 19, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Jun 4, 2024

DEMOCRACY ENGINE

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$2,000

May 19, 2024

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$2,000

Jun 21, 2024

ONEIDA NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$1,000

Oct 8, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

Sep 28, 2024

SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION

OrganizationEL CAJON, CA

$1,000

Aug 20, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

Dec 27, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$1,000

Oct 3, 2023

Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17]

ID: L000599

Top Contributors

MURTAGH, COSSU, VENDITTI & CASTRO-BLANCO, LLP

OrganizationWHITE PLAINS, NY

$1,000

Feb 24, 2024

BATMASIAN, JAMES

INVESTMENTS LIMITED • OWNER

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$6,600

Sep 27, 2023

BATMASIAN, JAMES

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$6,600

Sep 29, 2023

AUSTIN, ROBERT

UNAKA CO., INC. • BUSINESSMAN

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$6,600

Jul 18, 2024

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSURFSIDE, FL

$6,534

Feb 15, 2024

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

IndividualSURFSIDE, FL

$6,534

Feb 22, 2024

SCALA, MARY ELLEN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualPORT CHESTER, NY

$5,300

Aug 27, 2023

DEUTSCH, SHMULEY

SELF • PRESIDENT

IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY

$3,900

Jun 24, 2024

DEUTSCH, SHMULEY

IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY

$3,900

Jun 25, 2024

PERLMUTTER, RAFUEL

GOLDEN TASTE • CEO

IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY

$3,400

Jun 24, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Wagner, Ann [R-MO-2]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 46 nodes and 51 connections

Total contributions: $51

Top Donors - Rep. Wagner, Ann [R-MO-2]

Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount

3 Orgs19 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

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

Department of State

Moderate

Vector: 63%

Pages: 208-210AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1512 focuses on enhancing transparency and accountability in U.S.-Taiwan relations through periodic State Department reviews and reporting to Congress, which aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on strengthening congressional oversight and interagency coordination in foreign policy. However, the bill does not address the core Project 2025 concerns about treaty ratification, C-175 authority revocation, or agreements bypassing Senate approval, resulting in moderate rather than strong alignment."

Key themes:congressional oversightState Department accountabilityinteragency coordinationforeign policy consistency

— 175 — Department of State numerous logistical challenges in negotiating, approving, and implementing trea- ties and agreements. This is particularly true under the Biden Administration. For example, under the Biden Administration, the State Department was considered sufficiently unreliable in terms of alignment and effectiveness such that its political leadership invoked its Circular 175 (C-175) authority to delegate its diplomatic capacity to other agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security. At time of publication, the State Department is negotiating (or seeking to nego- tiate) large-scale, sovereignty-eroding agreements that could come at considerable economic and other costs to the American people. Although such agreements should be evaluated and approved as are treaties, the Biden Administration is likely to simply call them “agreements.” The Biden State Department not only approves but also enforces treaties that have not been ratified by the U.S. Senate. This practice must be thoroughly reviewed—and most likely jettisoned. The next President should recalibrate how the State Department handles trea- ties and agreements, primarily by restoring constitutionality to these processes. He or she should direct the Secretary of State to freeze any ongoing treaty or inter- national agreement negotiations and assess whether those efforts align with the new President’s foreign policy direction. The next Administration should also direct the secretary to order an immediate stand-down on enforcement of any treaties that have not been ratified by the Senate, and order a thorough review of the degree to which such enforcement has impacted the department’s functions, policies, and use of resources. The Secretary of State, in cooperation with the Office of the Attorney General and the White House Counsel’s Office, should also conduct a review to identify “agreements” that are really treaty commitments within the ordinary public mean- ing of the Constitution,6 and suspend compliance pending presidential transmittal of those agreements to the Senate for advice and consent. The next Administration should also move to withdraw from treaties that have been under Senate consider- ation for 20 years or more, with the understanding that those treaties are unlikely to be ratified. Under circumstances in which ratification of a stale treaty before the Senate still serves national interests, the treaty letter of transmittal and sub- mission should be updated for current circumstances. The Secretary of State must revoke most outstanding C-175 authorities that have been granted to other agen- cies during previous Administrations, although such revocations should be closely coordinated with the White House for logistical reasons. Coordinate with Other Agencies. Interagency engagement in this new environment must be similarly adjusted to mirror presidential direction. Indeed, coordination among federal agencies is challenging even in the most well-oiled Administrations. Although such coordination is inescapable and sometimes produc- tive, agencies tend to leverage each other’s resources in ways that occasionally have off-mission consequences for the agency or agencies with the resources. Ideally, the — 176 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Secretary of State should work as part of an agile foreign policy team along with the National Security Advisor, the Secretary of Defense, and other agency heads to flesh out and advance the President’s foreign policy. Bureaucratic stovepipes of the past should be less important than commitment to, and achievement of, the President’s foreign policy agenda. The State Department’s role in these interagency discussions must reflect the President’s clear direction and disallow resources and tools to be used in any way that detracts from the presidentially directed mission. Coordinate with Congress. Congress has both the statutory and appropri- ations authority to impact the State Department’s operations and has a strong interest in key aspects of American foreign policy. The department must therefore take particular care in its interaction with Congress, since poor interactions with Congress, regardless of intentions, could trigger congressional pushback or have other negative impacts on the President’s agenda. This will require particularly strong leadership of the Department of State’s Bureau of Legislative Affairs. The Secretary of State and political leadership should ensure full coordination with the White House regarding congressional engage- ment on any State Department responsibility. This may lead to, for example, the President authorizing the State Department to engage with Members of Congress and relevant committees on certain issues (including statutorily designated con- gressional consultations), but to remain “radio silent” on volatile or designated issues on which the White House wants to be the primary or only voice. All such authorized department engagements with Congress must be driven and handled by political appointees in conjunction with career officials who have the relevant expertise and are willing to work in concert with the President’s political appoin- tees on particularly sensitive matters. Respond Vigorously to the Chinese Threat. The State Department recently opened the Office of China Coordination, or “China House.” This office is intended to bring together experts inside and outside the State Department to coordinate U.S. government relations with China “and advance our vision for an open, inclu- sive international system.”7 Whether China House will streamline U.S. government communication, consensus, and action on China policy—given the presence of other agencies with strong competing or adverse interests—remains to be seen. The unit is dependent on adequate and competent staff being assigned by other bureaus within the State Department. Nonetheless, the concept is one a Republican Administration should support mutatis mutandis. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been “at war” with the U.S. for decades. Now that this reality has been accepted throughout the gov- ernment, the State Department must be prepared to lead the U.S. diplomatic effort accordingly. The centralization of efforts in one place is critical to this end. Review Immigration and Domestic Security Requirements. Arguably, the department’s most noteworthy challenge on the global stage has been its handling

Agency for International Development

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 312-314AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on enhancing transparency and accountability in State Department guidance on Taiwan relations, while the Project 2025 USAID section concerns internal agency reforms, training, hiring, and ideological alignment. Both share a theme of accountability and congressional oversight, but they address different agencies and policy areas, resulting in only weak alignment."

Key themes:accountabilitycongressional oversighttransparencyforeign policyreporting requirements

— 279 — Agency for International Development clearances, and other components of the hiring process that are necessary for immediate onboarding while coordinating with the White House to bring in new appointees and make internal career employee changes. On Day One, USAID should halt all agencywide training and replace it with training modules to advance the President’s agenda. The Administration should appoint a Senior Accountable Official (SAO) to report on the agency’s adherence to Administration policy priorities, including on Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance, critical race theory, climate change, gender, and diversity and inclusion. It should also create a program to staff hard-to-fill positions overseas. Finally, the Administration should create a recruiting program for veterans and other groups to participate in career job opportunities at USAID. Former mis- sionaries, veterans, members of diasporas, and faith community stakeholders with overseas experience should be recruited to work at USAID on Schedule A appoint- ments, as Institutional Services Contractors, as Personal Services Contractors, and as Foreign Service Officers. CONCLUSION The next conservative Administration will have a unique opportunity to realign U.S. foreign assistance with American national interests and the principles of good governance and more accurately reflect the U.S. taxpayer’s unmatched charita- ble desire to help those in need. It can build on a strong baseline of conservative reforms undertaken by the Trump Administration to counter Communist China’s strategy of world domination. However, this will require that bold steps are taken on Day One to undo the gross misuse of foreign aid by the current Administration to promote a radical ideology that is politically divisive at home and harms our global standing. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume, but Dr. William Steiger, Bethany Kozma, and Dr. Alma Golden deserve special mention. The author assumes full responsibility for the content of this chapter, and no views expressed therein should be attributed to any other individual. — 280 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. S. 1983, Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, Public Law No. 87-195, 87th Congress, September 4, 1961, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-75/pdf/STATUTE-75-Pg424-2.pdf (accessed January 19, 2023). 2. U.S. Agency or International Development, “Journey to Self-Reliance Fact Sheet,” June 3, 2020, https://2017-2020.usaid.gov/documents/1870/journey-self-reliance-fact-sheet#:~:text=WHAT%20 IS%20THE%20JOURNEY%20TO%20SELF-RELIANCE%3F%20USAID%20is,greater%20 developmentoutcomesandworktowardatimewhenforeignassistanceisnolongernecessary.%20 It%E2%80%99s%20called%20the%20Journey%20to%20Self-Reliance (accessed March 17, 2023). 3. News release, “U.S. Agency for International Development Administrator Mark Green’s Interview with C-Span’s ‘Newsmakers’ Host Susan Swain and Washington Post’s Carl Morello and Wall Street Journal’s Ben Kesling,” U.S. Agency for International Development, November 26, 2018, https://2017-2020.usaid.gov/news- information/press-releases/nov-26-2018-administrator-mark-green-interview-cspan-newsmakers (accessed March 17, 2023). 4. U.S. Agency for International Development, Digital Strategy 2020–2024, https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/ files/2022-05/USAID_Digital_Strategy.pdf.pdf://www.usaid.gov/digital-development/usaid-digital-strategy (accessed March 17, 2023). 5. “U.S. Strategic Framework for the Indo-Pacific,” declassified in part by Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Robert C. O’Brien, January 5, 2021, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp- content/uploads/2021/01/IPS-Final-Declass.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023), and Robert C. O’Brien, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, “A Free and Open Indo-Pacific,” January 5, 2021, https:// trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/OBrien-Expanded-Statement.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 6. News Release, “Fact Sheet: Prioritizing Climate in Foreign Policy and National Security,” The White House, October 21, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/10/21/fact-sheet- prioritizing-climate-in-foreign-policy-and-national-security/ (accessed January 28, 2023). 7. U.S. Agency for International Development, Climate Strategy 2020–2030, April 2022, https://www.usaid.gov/ sites/default/files/2022-11/USAID-Climate-Strategy-2022-2030.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 8. Adva Saldinger, “USAID Steps Up ‘Languishing’ Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Effort,” Devex.com, December 15, 2021, http://www.devex.com/news/usaid-steps-up-languishing-diversity-equity-and-inclusion- effort-102316 (accessed January 28, 2021). 9. U.S. Agency for International Development, “Gender Equity and Women Empowerment,” https://www.usaid. gov/gender-equality-and-womens-empowerment (accessed January 30, 2023). 10. U.S. Agency for International Development, “Integrating Gender Equality and Female Empowerment in USAID’s Program Cycle,” ADS Chapter 25, partial revision date January 22, 2021, https://www.usaid.gov/sites/ default/files/2022-12/205.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 11. S. 137, Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance Act, 117th Congress, introduced January 28, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/137#:~:text=Protecting%20Life%20in%20Foreign%20 Assistance%20Act.%20This%20bill,support%20for%20an%20entity%20that%20conducts%20 such%20activities (accessed January 20, 2023), and H.R. 534, Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance Act, 117th Congress, introduced January 28, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house- bill/534?s=1&r=450 (accessed January 20, 2023). 12. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., “Memorandum on Protecting Women’s Health at Home and Abroad,” Memorandum for the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, The White House, January 28, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/28/memorandum- on-protecting-womens-health-at-home-and-abroad/ (accessed March 18, 2023). 13. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13926, “Advancing International Religious Freedom,” June 2, 2020, in Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 109 (June 5, 2020), pp. 34951–34953, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2020-06-05/pdf/2020-12430.pdf (accessed January 20, 2023). 14. 22 Code of Federal Regulations § 205.1, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-22/chapter-II/part-205 (accessed March 18, 2023). 15. Contributor’s notes from internal USAID meetings.

Environmental Protection Agency

Minimal

Vector: 63%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on US-Taiwan relations and State Department guidance, while the Project 2025 EPA section addresses environmental regulations, air quality, and climate policies; there is no substantive overlap."

— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment. — 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal

Vector: 63%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill deals with Taiwan relations and State Department guidance, while the Project 2025 excerpt focuses on HUD housing policy, foreign influence on housing markets, and DEI/ESG reforms; there is no substantive thematic overlap."

Key themes:government accountabilityagency guidance

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

Environmental Protection Agency

Minimal

Vector: 62%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on enhancing transparency and accountability in U.S.-Taiwan relations through periodic State Department reviews, while the Project 2025 EPA section addresses environmental regulations, air quality standards, greenhouse gas reporting, and related EPA authorities; there is no thematic overlap between the two."

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. Wagner, Ann

SEC Reform and Restructuring Act

119/hr/9329

Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

119/hr/21

Crime Victims Fund Stabilization Act of 2025

119/hr/909

Back to All Bills