Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/2270
Last Updated: July 17, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Messmer, Mark [R-IN-8]

ID: M001233

Follow the money

The bill

Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act

HR. 2270, 119th Congress — read as touching Labor Unions.

The sponsor

Rep. Messmer, Mark [R-IN-8]

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

The money

$52,844 raised

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

The alignment

95% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Labor and Related Agencies" section, p. 624-626 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on H.R. 2270 is postponed.

January 12, 2026

Introduced

📍 Current Status

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

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the esteemed members of Congress who clearly have nothing better to do than concoct more ways to screw over working-class Americans.

Let's dissect this farce, shall we? The "Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act" (because who doesn't love a title that sounds like it was written by a committee of tone-deaf bureaucrats?) claims to be about helping employers provide child and dependent care services to their employees. How noble. Except, of course, it's not.

What this bill actually does is exclude these "benefits" from overtime compensation calculations. Translation: employers get to pretend they're being generous while simultaneously screwing over their employees by denying them fair pay for their work. It's a classic case of "we care about your family, but not enough to actually pay you what you're worth."

The affected industries? Any company that can afford to offer these "benefits" in the first place – i.e., large corporations with deep pockets and a vested interest in keeping labor costs down. The compliance requirements are laughable: just insert some boilerplate language into your employee handbook, and voilà! You're now an "empowering employer."

Enforcement mechanisms? Ha! Don't make me laugh. This bill relies on the honor system – because we all know how well that works in the corporate world. Penalties for non-compliance? Oh, I'm sure they'll be draconian... said no one ever.

The economic and operational impacts? Well, let's just say this bill is a gift to employers who want to keep their labor costs low while pretending to care about their employees' well-being. It's a masterclass in corporate welfare, courtesy of your friendly neighborhood politicians.

In short, HR 2270 is a legislative disease that needs to be diagnosed and treated – with a healthy dose of skepticism and contempt for the politicians who peddle this nonsense. The real illness here? Corporate greed, enabled by spineless lawmakers who are more interested in lining their own pockets than actually helping working Americans.

Diagnosis: Terminal stupidity, with a side of corruption and cowardice. Prognosis: bleak.

Related Topics

Labor & Employment Policy
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Messmer, Mark [R-IN-8]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$52,844
1 donors
PACs
$52,844
Organizations
$0
Committees
$0
Individuals
$0
1
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
30 transactions
$52,844

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

No individual contributions found

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 8 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Moolenaar, John R. [R-MI-2]

ID: M001194

Top Contributors

10

1
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI
$3,300
Aug 30, 2023
2
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Aug 30, 2023
3
POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS
OrganizationDOWAGIAC, MI
$3,300
Aug 30, 2023
4
SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE TRIBAL OPERATIONS
OrganizationMOUNT PLEASANT, MI
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023
5
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS
OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023
6
NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI
OrganizationFULTON, MI
$3,300
Mar 12, 2024
7
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$3,300
Jun 20, 2024
8
SAULT STE. MARIE TRIBE CHIPPEWA INDIANS
OrganizationSAULT SAINTE MARIE, MI
$2,900
Dec 19, 2023
9
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$2,500
Mar 4, 2024
10
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS
OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA
$2,500
Sep 30, 2024

Rep. Hinson, Ashley [R-IA-2]

ID: H001091

Top Contributors

0

No contribution data available

Rep. Harder, Josh [D-CA-9]

ID: H001090

Top Contributors

10

1
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Jun 26, 2023
2
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Jun 18, 2024
3
CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$1,000
Sep 30, 2023
4
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$1,000
Oct 31, 2024
5
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$1,000
Nov 7, 2024
6
MIRANDA, LAUREL
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualATHERTON, CA
$6,600
Feb 7, 2023
7
ELSON, DAVID
UNITED STAFFING ASSOCIATES • CEO
IndividualLAS VEGAS, NV
$6,600
Aug 16, 2023
8
GOODMAN, COREY
VENBIO PARTNERS LLC • LIFE SCIENCES VENTURE CAPITAL MANAGING
IndividualMARSHALL, CA
$6,600
Aug 29, 2023
9
SCHMIDT, ERIC
HILLSPIRE LLC • MANAGER
IndividualPALO ALTO, CA
$6,600
Aug 16, 2023
10
BROWN, SHELLEY
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualLOS ALTOS HILLS, CA
$6,600
Aug 19, 2023

Rep. Thompson, Glenn [R-PA-15]

ID: T000467

Top Contributors

10

1
BUTLER MACHINE
OrganizationTULELAKE, CA
$3,300
Oct 15, 2024
2
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationDURANT, OK
$3,300
Oct 15, 2024
3
BUTLER MACHINE
OrganizationTULELAKE, CA
$3,300
Nov 13, 2024
4
CORTINA HULLING & SHELLING GROUP
OrganizationWILLIAMS, CA
$3,300
Nov 13, 2024
5
AG VENTURES
OrganizationELIZABETHTOWN, PA
$2,500
May 1, 2023
6
ROESLEIN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, LLC
OrganizationST. LOUIS, MO
$2,000
May 18, 2023
7
RANCH 440
OrganizationMECCA, CA
$1,500
May 22, 2023
8
KOHL REAL ESTATE
OrganizationKITTANNING, PA
$1,000
Mar 11, 2024
9
DWIGHT STANSEL FARM & NURSERY
OrganizationWELLBORN, FL
$1,000
May 30, 2023
10
HIGHLINE GRAIN GROWERS INC
OrganizationDAVENPORT, WA
$1,000
Jun 13, 2023

Rep. Stefanik, Elise M. [R-NY-21]

ID: S001196

Top Contributors

10

1
MAGGIE'S LIST- EAMARKS
PACTAMPA, FL
$50
Oct 23, 2024
2
ONEIDA INDIAN NATION
OrganizationONEIDA, NY
$6,600
Mar 29, 2023
3
ONEIDA INDIAN NATION
OrganizationONEIDA, NY
$3,300
Mar 31, 2023
4
SAN MANUAL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$2,000
Dec 31, 2023
5
FISHER, CYNTHIA A. MS.
PATIENTRIGHTSADVOCATE.ORG • FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN
IndividualPALM BEACH, FL
$6,600
Oct 10, 2023
6
BERK, MICHAEL
TA ASSOCIATES • INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT
IndividualWEST NEWTON, MA
$6,600
Dec 27, 2023
7
CUTLER, ROBERT
C3 • CEO
IndividualLEAWOOD, KS
$6,600
Dec 27, 2023
8
DAVIS, ANN L.
N/A • HOMEMAKER
IndividualATLANTA, GA
$6,600
Dec 30, 2023
9
KRAFT, DANIEL
THE KRAFT GROUP • INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT
IndividualFOXBORO, MA
$6,600
Dec 31, 2023
10
FITZPATRICK, MARY
NONE • COMMUNITY VOLUNTEER
IndividualOSPREY, FL
$6,600
Sep 21, 2023

Rep. Fine, Randy [R-FL-6]

ID: F000484

Top Contributors

0

No contribution data available

Rep. Harris, Mark [R-NC-8]

ID: H001102

Top Contributors

10

1
CARSTEN, KATHERINE M
NO EMPLOYER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualWAXHAW, NC
$10,000
Feb 14, 2024
2
HORNE, CHRIS
HORNE HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING • PRINICPAL
IndividualCHARLOTTE, NC
$6,600
Nov 3, 2023
3
DIMICCO, DANIEL
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualWAXHAW, NC
$6,600
Jan 17, 2024
4
GREENBLATT, SCOTT
VETERANS GUARDIAN • OWNER
IndividualPINEHURST, NC
$6,600
May 17, 2024
5
HENDLEY, JOHN NANCE
BREWER-HENSLEY OIL COMPANY • EXECUTIVE
IndividualMONROE, NC
$6,600
Jun 7, 2024
6
BUTLER, DONALD R
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualMOORESVILLE, NC
$6,600
Sep 13, 2023
7
CHERRY, LINDA
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualCHARLOTTE, NC
$6,600
Sep 13, 2023
8
GOLDING, ERNEST G
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualADVANCE, NC
$6,600
Sep 13, 2023
9
KIDD, VICKIE
SELF • REAL ESTATE
IndividualMOORESVILLE, NC
$6,600
Sep 12, 2023
10
LAMB, JOHN R
AMERICAN AIRLINES • PILOT
IndividualMOORESVILLE, NC
$6,600
Sep 21, 2023

Rep. Onder, Robert F. [R-MO-3]

ID: O000177

Top Contributors

10

1
O'BRIEN, FRANK
O'BRIEN INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS • OWNER
IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO
$13,200
Mar 31, 2024
2
ONDER, JAMES G
ONDERLAW, LLC • ATTORNEY
IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO
$13,200
Mar 26, 2024
3
BURNS, ROBERT
PATRIOT MACHINE • VICE PRESIDENT
IndividualCHESTERFIELD, MO
$13,200
Sep 5, 2024
4
POGUE, RICHARD W.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualWRIGHT CITY, MO
$13,200
Jun 20, 2024
5
SCHULTE, STEVE
HENGES INTERIORS • OWNER
IndividualWELDON SPRING, MO
$13,200
May 8, 2024
6
MUELLER, DOUGLAS
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualO FALLON, MO
$10,000
Mar 6, 2024
7
OBRIEN, JOHN
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualLAKE ST LOUIS, MO
$10,000
Mar 11, 2024
8
SMITH, MENLO
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualCHESTERFIELD, MO
$7,500
Mar 21, 2024
9
STOFFA, ROBERT
WINDBER HOSPITAL • PHYSICIAN
IndividualLIGONIER, PA
$6,870
Mar 28, 2024
10
KOVAC, AMY
BAIN CO • BUSINESS CONSULTANT
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$6,818
Mar 30, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Messmer, Mark [R-IN-8]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 19 nodes and 42 connections (90 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $86,894

Top Donors - Rep. Messmer, Mark [R-IN-8]

Showing top 1 donor by contribution amount

1 PAC

Industry Impact

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

  • −Labor Unionsconfidence 0.90

    Section 2(a) amends FLSA to exclude child/dependent care payments from overtime rate calculation, reducing overtime pay for workers, which labor unions oppose as it diminishes worker compensation.

  • −Teachers Unionsconfidence 0.85

    Same provision reduces overtime compensation for school employees (e.g., paraprofessionals, custodians) who may receive child care benefits, negatively impacting members of teachers unions.

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 Labor and Related Agencies

Very Strong
Vector: 65%
Pages: 624-626AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 2270 directly implements the Project 2025 recommendation to clarify that the 'regular rate' for overtime pay is based on salary rather than all benefits, by excluding employer-provided child and dependent care services from overtime calculations."

Key themes:overtime pay calculationregular rate definitionemployer-provided childcare benefitsfringe benefit exclusionFLSA amendment

— 592 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Overtime Pay Threshold. Overtime pay is one of the most challenging aspects of the Fair Labor Standards Act rules. “Nonexempt workers” (e.g., workers whose job duties fall within the law’s power or whose total pay is low enough) must be paid overtime (150 percent of the “regular rate”) for every hour over 40 in a work- week. Overtime requirements may discourage employers from offering certain fringe benefits such as reimbursement for education, childcare, or even free meals because the benefits’ value may be included in the “regular rate” that must be paid at 150 percent for all overtime hours. And because some of these fringe ben- efits may be more valuable (and often come with tax preferences that benefit the worker), the goal should be to set a threshold to ensure lower-income workers have the protections of overtime pay without discouraging employers from offering these benefits. l DOL should maintain an overtime threshold that does not punish businesses in lower-cost regions (e.g., the southeast United States). The Trump-era threshold is high enough to capture most line workers in lower-cost regions. One possibility to consider (likely requiring congressional action) would be to automatically update the thresholds every five years using the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) as an inflation adjustment. This could reduce the likelihood of a future Administration attempting to make significant changes but would also impose more adjustments on businesses as those automatic increases take hold. l Congress should clarify that the “regular rate” for overtime pay is based on the salary paid rather than all benefits provided. This would enable employers to offer additional benefits to employees without fear that those benefits would dramatically increase overtime pay. l Congress should provide flexibility to employers and employees to calculate the overtime period over a longer number of weeks. Specifically, employers and employees should be able to set a two- or four- week period over which to calculate overtime. This would give workers greater flexibility to work more hours in one week and fewer hours in the next and would not require the employer to pay them more for that same total number of hours of work during the entire period. Compliance-Assistance Programming. Labor agencies are often tempted to encourage “over compliance” by companies subject to regulation by pursuing “regulation through enforcement” strategies. Rather than giving regulated enti- ties clear boundaries for what they can and cannot do under the law, the agencies — 593 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies rely on the vagueness of the law to bring enforcement activity against businesses that fail to meet an inspector or agency head’s personal standard. This is not fair to regulated parties and results in disfavored companies bearing the brunt of the agencies’ enforcement efforts even though their behavior may be within the main- stream of employer behavior. l Labor agencies should provide compliance assistance to help businesses and workers better understand the agencies’ position on their own rules and should do so in a way that makes it easier to follow those rules. This frees people to focus on their work rather than slogging through an ever-growing body of laws, rules, and guidance documents generated by the agencies. Clear and Restrictive Rules on Guidance Documents. Federal agencies not only issue regulations to fill in gaps left by legislation, but also supplement those reg- ulations with “guidance” documents that occupy a unique and often confusing area between law and “helpful advice.” Unfortunately, wielded by overzealous enforcement agents, such guidance, some of it even hidden from public view, morphs into binding law used against unsuspecting employers. Guidance can be a tricky thing and can be used for good or bad. It should be used to make compli- cated regulations easier to understand, so that businesses can do their actual jobs and focus on providing jobs to American workers and value to consumers (really, compliance assistance). But guidance is often used to create new rules overnight without following legal requirements—like giving the public an opportunity to provide valuable input. This wrongful use of guidance hurts workers and those who employ them. In October 2019, President Trump signed an executive order ending this abusive practice and created a new, fairer system for American busi- nesses and their employees. In response, DOL published its PRO Good Guidance rule,10 which expressly limits its use of guidance in enforcement actions and gives the public the opportunity to submit comments to influence the department’s deci- sions on creating, revising, and even rescinding guidance. Under this rule, agencies cannot treat guidance as legally binding and must make all guidance documents readily accessible on their searchable online databases. This rule was immediately rescinded by the Biden Administration. l DOL should reinstitute the PRO Good Guidance rule via notice and comment. l Congress should amend the Administrative Procedure Act11 to explicitly limit the use of guidance documents.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Very Strong
Vector: 64%
Pages: 624-626AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 2270 directly implements the Project 2025 recommendation to clarify that the 'regular rate' for overtime pay should be based on salary rather than all benefits, by excluding employer-provided child and dependent care services from overtime calculations."

Key themes:overtime payregular ratebenefit exclusionchild/dependent careemployer flexibility

— 591 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies qualify as an independent contractor or employee under the FLSA and NLRA. The Biden Administration is replacing those rules with vague and expansive definitions that would add uncertainty, increase costs, and reduce options for Americans who want to work independently. l NLRB and DOL should return to their 2019 and 2021 independent contractor rules that provided much-needed clarity for workers and employers. l Congress should establish a bright-line test—based on the level of control an individual exercises over his or her work—to determine whether a payee is an employee or an independent contractor, across all relevant laws. This would prevent continued uncertainty as well as provide continuity across federal laws. l Congress should provide a safe harbor from employer-employee status for companies that offer independent workers access to earned benefits. Doing so would increase access among independent contractors to traditional pooled workplace benefits such as health care and retirement savings accounts. Protect Small Businesses and Entrepreneurship (Joint Employer). Millions of busi- nesses across America engage in mutually beneficial affiliation arrangements with other businesses. These arrangements include janitorial services, staffing firms, construction contractors and subcontractors, technology support services, and many other vendor and contracting services. They also include the nearly 775,000 independently owned franchise businesses, which employ 8.2 million workers across the United States. The franchise structure offers a proven business model for individuals who want to own and operate their own small business. An Obama-era regulation changed the definition of a joint employer to make corporate franchi- sors jointly liable for employees of individual franchisee owners, even without the franchisor exercising any direct control over those employees. The Biden Admin- istration is advancing an even more expansive definition of a joint employer that would upend the franchise business model, taking away ownership and income opportunities from small-business entrepreneurs, costing jobs, and raising prices. l DOL and NLRB should return to the long-standing approach to defining joint employers based on direct and immediate control. l Congress should enact the Save Local Business Act, which would codify the long-standing definition that has existed outside the Obama-era and Biden-proposed rules. — 592 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Overtime Pay Threshold. Overtime pay is one of the most challenging aspects of the Fair Labor Standards Act rules. “Nonexempt workers” (e.g., workers whose job duties fall within the law’s power or whose total pay is low enough) must be paid overtime (150 percent of the “regular rate”) for every hour over 40 in a work- week. Overtime requirements may discourage employers from offering certain fringe benefits such as reimbursement for education, childcare, or even free meals because the benefits’ value may be included in the “regular rate” that must be paid at 150 percent for all overtime hours. And because some of these fringe ben- efits may be more valuable (and often come with tax preferences that benefit the worker), the goal should be to set a threshold to ensure lower-income workers have the protections of overtime pay without discouraging employers from offering these benefits. l DOL should maintain an overtime threshold that does not punish businesses in lower-cost regions (e.g., the southeast United States). The Trump-era threshold is high enough to capture most line workers in lower-cost regions. One possibility to consider (likely requiring congressional action) would be to automatically update the thresholds every five years using the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) as an inflation adjustment. This could reduce the likelihood of a future Administration attempting to make significant changes but would also impose more adjustments on businesses as those automatic increases take hold. l Congress should clarify that the “regular rate” for overtime pay is based on the salary paid rather than all benefits provided. This would enable employers to offer additional benefits to employees without fear that those benefits would dramatically increase overtime pay. l Congress should provide flexibility to employers and employees to calculate the overtime period over a longer number of weeks. Specifically, employers and employees should be able to set a two- or four- week period over which to calculate overtime. This would give workers greater flexibility to work more hours in one week and fewer hours in the next and would not require the employer to pay them more for that same total number of hours of work during the entire period. Compliance-Assistance Programming. Labor agencies are often tempted to encourage “over compliance” by companies subject to regulation by pursuing “regulation through enforcement” strategies. Rather than giving regulated enti- ties clear boundaries for what they can and cannot do under the law, the agencies

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak
Vector: 62%
Pages: 618-620AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 2270 focuses on adjusting overtime pay calculations to exclude employer-provided child and elder care benefits, which aligns tangentially with Project 2025's pro-family workplace goals but does not directly address sex discrimination enforcement, pro-life benefits mandates, or religious employer protections as outlined in the specified policy section."

Key themes:pro-family policiesworkplace benefitsemployer flexibility

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

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.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills