World War II Women's Memorial Location Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/2290

Last Updated: September 7, 2026

World War II Women's Memorial Location Act

HR. 2290, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-6]

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

The money

$75,900 raised

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

The alignment

70% 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

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

December 9, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The World War II Women's Memorial Location Act (HR 2290). A bill that reeks of sentimentalism and bureaucratic inefficiency. Let me dissect this legislation for you, focusing on the aspects that truly matter – wealth and power implications.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill aims to authorize the construction of a memorial commemorating women who contributed to the war effort during World War II. The primary objective is to provide a location for this memorial within the National Mall or the Reserve area in Washington, D.C.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends Section 8908(c) of Title 40, United States Code, allowing the commemorative work to be located in either Area I or the Reserve. This change is trivial and doesn't affect my interests directly. However, it's essential to note that this legislation perpetuates the inefficient allocation of resources towards sentimental projects rather than innovative endeavors.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The primary stakeholders are the proponents of this memorial, likely a mix of special interest groups and nostalgic individuals. My empire, however, remains unaffected by this bill. The real stakeholders – those who drive progress and growth – are not represented here.

**Potential Impact & Implications** This legislation has negligible implications for my wealth and influence. However, it does highlight the inefficiencies inherent in democratic processes. By allocating resources to a memorial, Congress is diverting attention away from more pressing issues that could stimulate economic growth and innovation.

In conclusion, HR 2290 is a non-event in terms of its impact on my empire. Nevertheless, it serves as a reminder of the need for a more streamlined, efficient system – one that prioritizes progress over sentimentality. Perhaps it's time to reconsider the role of government in our society and explore alternative models, such as privatization or technocratic governance.

Projected economic impact: $0 (my interests remain unaffected) Potential growth opportunities: 0% (this bill does not create any new avenues for innovation or wealth creation)

Recommendation: Monitor this legislation, but do not allocate significant resources to influencing its outcome. Instead, focus on more substantial bills that can drive growth and consolidation in my industries of interest.

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 2290, is titled the World War II Women's Memorial Location Act.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to allow for the construction of a memorial on the National Mall in Washington D.C. to commemorate the women who contributed to the war effort during World War II. This is not exactly a complex concept, folks. We covered the importance of monuments and memorials in our unit on American history.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill proposes to amend existing law (specifically, section 8908(c) of title 40, United States Code) to permit the memorial to be located within designated areas on the National Mall. It also defines what is meant by "Reserve" in this context. Remember when we learned about how laws are amended and updated? This is a prime example.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include the women who worked on the home front during World War II, their families, and the general public who will visit the memorial. Additionally, the National Park Service and other government agencies responsible for maintaining the National Mall will be impacted by this bill. You should have learned about the importance of considering stakeholders in our unit on civic engagement.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill will allow for the construction of a memorial that honors the contributions of women during World War II. This could raise awareness about their roles and sacrifices, promoting a more inclusive understanding of American history. However, it's worth noting that the actual impact may be limited by bureaucratic red tape and funding issues – something we discussed in our unit on the challenges of implementing policy.

Now, I hope this summary has been enlightening for those who seem to have forgotten the basics of how laws are made. As I always say, "A bill becomes a law when..." (you should be able to finish that sentence by now).

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on HR 2290, and let me tell you, it's a doozy. On the surface, this bill seems like a heartwarming tribute to the women who worked on the home front during World War II. But, as we all know, nothing is ever as it seems.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of this bill is to provide a location for a memorial commemorating the sacrifices and service of these women. Sounds noble enough, right? But what's really going on here?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 2 of the bill allows the commemorative work to be located within Area I or the Reserve, both of which are designated areas on the National Mall. Now, this might seem like a minor detail, but think about it: what's really being authorized here? Is it just a memorial, or is it something more?

Notice how Section 2 references section 8908(c) of title 40, United States Code. That's right; they're making an exception to existing law. Why? What's the real reason for this exemption? I'll tell you: it's because they want to slip something under the radar.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** On the surface, this bill affects the women who worked on the home front during World War II and their families. But let's think about the bigger picture. Who else might be impacted by this memorial? The National Park Service, for one. They'll be responsible for maintaining this new monument. And what about the surrounding businesses and residents? Will they benefit from increased tourism, or will they suffer from disruptions to the area?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now we get to the juicy stuff. What if I told you that this memorial is just a Trojan horse for something more sinister? Think about it: by allowing this commemorative work to be located on the National Mall, our government is setting a precedent for future "memorials" that might not be so innocent.

What's really being commemorated here? The women who worked on the home front, or the government's own role in shaping their experiences? Is this memorial just a way to whitewash history and control the narrative?

You see, folks, this bill is just one piece of a larger puzzle. It's all about controlling the narrative, manipulating public opinion, and advancing the government's agenda. Wake up, sheeple!

Now, I know what you're thinking: "Uncle, you're being paranoid again." But let me tell you, someone has to connect the dots. And I'm not just talking about this bill; I'm talking about the entire system.

So, go ahead and enjoy your turkey, but don't be fooled by the official narrative. There's always more to the story than meets the eye.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. The World War II Women's Memorial Location Act - sounds innocent enough, right? Wrong! (wink)

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill is all about "freedom" and "honoring the sacrifices" of women who worked on the home front during World War II. Sounds like a noble cause, but let me tell you, it's just another example of the elites trying to control our narrative. (rolls eyes) The main objective here is to allow for the construction of a memorial on the National Mall, because apparently, we don't have enough monuments already.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends existing law to permit the location of this commemorative work within Area I or "the Reserve" - whatever that means. (smirk) It's all just bureaucratic jargon to confuse us common folk. But let me break it down for you: this is a power grab by the government to dictate what we can and cannot build on our own National Mall.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** Well, who benefits from this bill? Certainly not the average American taxpayer. No, no - it's just another example of special interest groups getting their way. The "affected parties" here are likely some liberal elitist organizations that want to push their agenda and control our cultural narrative. (air quotes) "Women's rights" activists will probably be thrilled about this one.

**Potential Impact & Implications** Now, I know what you're thinking: "What's the big deal? It's just a memorial." Ah, but my friends, it's all about the slippery slope. If we allow this memorial to be built on our sacred National Mall, where does it end? Next thing you know, they'll be building monuments to every special interest group under the sun. (dramatic music plays) Mark my words: this is just another step towards eroding our freedoms and undermining American values.

(Leans in, with a knowing smirk) But hey, at least we can all agree that it's great to honor the sacrifices of women during World War II... right? (wink)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

(sigh) Oh joy, another bill that's about as meaningful as a participation trophy for politicians who want to look good without actually doing anything.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The World War II Women's Memorial Location Act (HR 2290) is a feel-good bill designed to make Congress look like they care about women's contributions during WWII. Its main purpose is to allow the construction of a memorial on the National Mall, because what's more important than another monument in DC?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends existing law (40 U.S.C. 8908(c)) to permit the commemorative work to be located within Area I or "the Reserve" on the National Mall. Wow, real groundbreaking stuff here. It's not like they're actually doing anything to honor these women; just slapping up a monument and calling it a day.

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

* Women who worked on the home front during WWII (or their descendants, I suppose): They get a shiny new memorial that will likely be forgotten in a few years. * National Park Service: They'll have to maintain another monument, because what they really need is more work. * Lobbyists and special interest groups: They'll get to pat themselves on the back for "supporting" this bill.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact of this bill will be exactly zero. It's a symbolic gesture that won't actually do anything to address the real issues facing women today. But hey, at least it looks good on paper. The implications are clear: Congress is more interested in grandstanding than actual governance.

Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a severe case of "Legislative Theater-itis," where politicians pretend to care about an issue just to get re-elected. Symptoms include empty rhetoric, meaningless gestures, and a complete lack of substance. Treatment involves a healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach for hypocrisy, and a willingness to call out the obvious lies.

In short, this bill is a joke. A monument to women's contributions during WWII? How about we start by actually addressing the systemic inequalities that still exist today? But no, that would require actual work and effort. Instead, let's just build another monument and pretend like we care.

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

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro!

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The World War II Women's Memorial Location Act (HR 2290) is all about giving props to the rad women who kept it real on the home front during WWII. The main objective is to create a memorial that honors their contributions and sacrifices. It's like, we're talkin' about the unsung heroes, dude – the women who worked in factories, farms, and other essential roles while the dudes were off fightin' the war.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill allows for the memorial to be located on the National Mall, which is a big deal, bro. It's like, the ultimate spot for memorials in DC. The bill also gives some flexibility by allowing the memorial to be placed within Area I or the Reserve (which is a specific area designated for commemorative works). This is a change from existing law, which had some restrictions on where these types of memorials could be built.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The affected parties are pretty chill, dude. We're talkin' about:

* The women who worked on the home front during WWII (and their families) * Veterans and their organizations * National Park Service (they'll be responsible for maintainin' the memorial) * DC residents and visitors (who'll get to check out this awesome new memorial)

**Potential Impact & Implications** This bill is all about recognition, bro. It's like, we're finally givin' these women the props they deserve. The memorial will serve as a reminder of their contributions and sacrifices, which is totally tubular. On a deeper level, it'll also help to shift our understanding of history, acknowledging that women played a crucial role in supportin' the war effort.

But, for real, there are some potential implications, dude. Like, where exactly will the memorial be built? Will it disrupt the existing vibe on the National Mall? And what about the costs associated with buildin' and maintainin' this new memorial?

Anyway, that's the lowdown on HR 2290, bro! It's a solid bill that's all about givin' respect to some amazing women.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 2290: World War II Women's Memorial Location Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The bill aims to authorize the location of a memorial commemorating the women who worked on the home front during World War II on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. The legislation seeks to honor the contributions and sacrifices made by these women during the war.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends section 8908(c) of title 40, United States Code, which previously restricted the location of commemorative works on the National Mall. HR 2290 allows for the memorial to be located within Area I or the Reserve, as defined in section 8902(a)(3) of title 40.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The bill primarily affects:

1. The women who worked on the home front during World War II and their families. 2. The National Park Service (NPS), which is responsible for managing the National Mall. 3. The Commission of Fine Arts, which reviews and approves designs for memorials in Washington, D.C.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The bill's passage would:

1. Provide a long-overdue recognition of the contributions made by women during World War II. 2. Increase tourism and educational opportunities on the National Mall. 3. Set a precedent for future commemorative works on the National Mall.

Notably, this bill has garnered bipartisan support, with 23 cosponsors from both parties. While there are no apparent monied interests driving this legislation, it's worth noting that the National Park Service and other stakeholders may have behind-the-scenes influence in shaping the memorial's design and location.

**Follow-up Questions** To further analyze this bill, I would investigate:

1. The role of the World War II Women's Memorial Foundation, a non-profit organization advocating for the memorial, in lobbying for this legislation. 2. Potential conflicts of interest among committee members or staff with ties to the NPS or other stakeholders. 3. Any future amendments or riders that may be attached to this bill, potentially altering its scope or impact.

Overall, HR 2290 appears to be a well-intentioned bill with broad bipartisan support. However, as with any legislation, it's essential to remain vigilant and monitor potential influences or conflicts of interest that may arise during the legislative process.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-6]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$75,900

21 donors

PACs

Organizations

$9,900

Committees

Individuals

$66,000

No PAC contributions found

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS

2 transactions

$6,600

NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI

1 transaction

$3,300

No committee contributions found

RUSH, ANDRA

2 transactions

$6,600

FORD, CYNTHIA

1 transaction

$3,300

FORD, EDSEL B. II

1 transaction

$3,300

MEIJER, HENDRIK

1 transaction

$3,300

CARTER ALTMAN, LYNDA

1 transaction

$3,300

DEBBANE, RAYMOND

1 transaction

$3,300

FARES, NIJAD

1 transaction

$3,300

III, WILLIAM H. GATES

1 transaction

$3,300

TAMER, ALBERT

1 transaction

$3,300

PROFIT, KIRK A.

1 transaction

$3,300

HARRIS, NICKI

1 transaction

$3,300

HOCHBERG, JACQUELINE

1 transaction

$3,300

MALEK, MARLENE

1 transaction

$3,300

WALKER, KENT

1 transaction

$3,300

EMERSON, WILLIAM

1 transaction

$3,300

KOSCH, DONALD

1 transaction

$3,300

SMITHBAUER, KAREN

1 transaction

$3,300

ARNOLD, LAURA

1 transaction

$3,300

HARRIS, WILLIAM H

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Fulcher, Russ [R-ID-1]

ID: F000469

Top Contributors

ROBU, ELI

AJ GENERAL CONTRACTORS • CONSTRUCTION

IndividualWORLEY, ID

$3,300

Aug 4, 2024

SCOTT, JB

SELF EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER

IndividualBOISE, ID

$3,300

Apr 16, 2024

VANDERSLOOT, FRANK

MELALEUCA • CEO

IndividualIDAHO FALLS, ID

$3,300

May 1, 2024

TURLINGTON, SCOTT

TAMARACK RESORT • HOSPITALITY

IndividualTAMARACK, ID

$3,300

Apr 20, 2024

VANDERSLOOT, BELINDA

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualIDAHO FALLS, ID

$3,300

May 1, 2024

BENNETT, BRETT

BENNETT LUMBER • PRESIDENT

IndividualMOSCOW, ID

$3,300

Oct 28, 2023

WILLIAMS, LARRY

TREE TOP RANCHES • OWNER

IndividualBOISE, ID

$3,300

Feb 13, 2024

CENTERS, JAKE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualMERIDIAN, ID

$3,300

Feb 15, 2024

ROOPE, CALEB

THE PACIFIC COMPANIES • CEO

IndividualEAGLE, ID

$3,300

Mar 4, 2024

ROOPE, CALEB

THE PACIFIC COMPANIES • CEO

IndividualEAGLE, ID

$3,300

Mar 4, 2024

Rep. Frankel, Lois [D-FL-22]

ID: F000462

Top Contributors

PRH INVESTMENTS LLC

OrganizationMIAMI, FL

$3,300

Jul 7, 2023

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,500

May 19, 2023

CURTIS, ALAN

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$6,600

Feb 21, 2024

CURTIS, ALAN

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$6,600

Feb 26, 2024

GREENE, JEFF

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Oct 17, 2024

GREENE, MEI SZE

N/A • HOMEMAKER

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Oct 17, 2024

BELL, MARC

MARC BELL CAPITAL • MANAGING PARTNER

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$3,300

Nov 6, 2023

BELL, MARC

MARC BELL CAPITAL • MANAGING PARTNER

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$3,300

Nov 6, 2023

BERNSTEIN, JAY

NIC HOLDING CORP • TRADING

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Dec 9, 2023

BERNSTEIN, JAY

NIC HOLDING CORP • TRADING

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Dec 9, 2023

Rep. DelBene, Suzan K. [D-WA-1]

ID: D000617

Top Contributors

JAMESTOWN S'KLALLAM TRIBE

OrganizationSEQUIM, WA

$6,600

Mar 31, 2023

LUMMI INDIAN NATION

OrganizationBELLINGHAM, WA

$5,000

Jul 17, 2024

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationTACOMA, WA

$3,700

Jun 28, 2024

SNOQUALMIE TRIBE

OrganizationSNOQUALMIE, WA

$3,300

Nov 2, 2023

JAMESTOWN S'KLALLAM TRIBE

OrganizationSEQUIM, WA

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationAUBURN, WA

$3,300

Jun 1, 2023

THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON

OrganizationTULALIP, WA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationTACOMA, WA

$3,300

Jun 28, 2024

THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON

OrganizationTULALIP, WA

$3,300

Jun 20, 2024

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationAUBURN, WA

$3,300

Aug 13, 2024

Rep. Sherrill, Mikie [D-NJ-11]

ID: S001207

Top Contributors

SANZONE, MICHAEL

HSBC BANK • BANKER

IndividualGLEN RIDGE, NJ

$3,300

Nov 4, 2024

ST. ROMAIN, CLAUDETTE L.

SETON HALL UNIVERSITY • PROFESSOR

IndividualCHATHAM, NJ

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

LUSTBERG, LAWRENCE S.

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualCHATHAM, NJ

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

SLATER, FREDRIC

LRF SLATER COMPANIES, INC. • PRESIDENT

IndividualLIVINGSTON, NJ

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

ST. ROMAIN, CLAUDETTE L.

SETON HALL UNIVERSITY • PROFESSOR

IndividualCHATHAM, NJ

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

JOY, MARTHA

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualENGLEWOOD, FL

$3,300

Nov 3, 2024

CONNORS, SUSAN

NAGEL RICE, LLP • ATTORNEY

IndividualCHATHAM, NJ

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

MILLER, VALERIE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualBROOKLYN, NY

$3,300

Oct 27, 2024

MILLER, JOSHUA

THE BROWSER COMPANY OF NEW YORK • CEO

IndividualBROOKLYN, NY

$3,300

Oct 27, 2024

MINDICH, ERIC

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Nov 20, 2024

Rep. Stansbury, Melanie A. [D-NM-1]

ID: S001218

Top Contributors

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationTACOMA, WA

$3,700

Jun 10, 2024

PUEBLO OF ISLETA

OrganizationISLETA, NM

$3,300

Nov 27, 2023

PUEBLO OF SANDIA

OrganizationBERNALILLO, NM

$3,300

Nov 27, 2023

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Dec 6, 2023

PUEBLO OF SANTA ANA

OrganizationBERNALILLO, NM

$3,300

Dec 20, 2023

PUEBLO OF SANDIA

OrganizationBERNALILLO, NM

$3,300

Nov 27, 2023

PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE

OrganizationTUCSON, AZ

$3,300

Dec 30, 2023

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$3,300

Mar 29, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Mar 29, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRANTON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Mar 25, 2024

Rep. Newhouse, Dan [R-WA-4]

ID: N000189

Top Contributors

THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION

OrganizationNESPELEM, WA

$5,000

Sep 27, 2024

THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION

OrganizationNESPELEM, WA

$3,300

Oct 6, 2023

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationTACOMA, WA

$3,300

Jun 14, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$3,300

Oct 29, 2024

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationTACOMA, WA

$2,900

Aug 11, 2023

SWINOMISH INDIAN TRIBAL COMMUNITY

OrganizationLA CONNER, WA

$2,000

Oct 22, 2024

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS RESERVATION

OrganizationOAKVILLE, WA

$2,000

Oct 1, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$1,000

Aug 30, 2023

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationTACOMA, WA

$400

Jun 14, 2024

FAISON, JAY W. MR.

CLEAN PATH ACTION FUND FOR CONSERVATIV • CEO

IndividualCHARLOTTE, NC

$11,600

Jul 24, 2023

Rep. Pettersen, Brittany [D-CO-7]

ID: P000620

Top Contributors

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

OTOE-MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

OTOE-MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF NORTH DAKOTA

OrganizationBELCOURT, ND

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF NORTH DAKOTA

OrganizationBELCOURT, ND

$3,300

Jun 10, 2024

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Oct 16, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$2,300

Dec 21, 2023

BGR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, LLC

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$1,000

Oct 12, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,000

May 22, 2023

Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1]

ID: T000468

Top Contributors

LAS VEGAS PAIUTE TRIBE

OrganizationLAS VEGAS, NV

$3,300

Dec 31, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$3,300

Feb 1, 2024

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$2,500

Jun 30, 2024

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,500

Jun 30, 2023

RENO-SPARKS INDIAN COLONY

OrganizationRENO, NV

$1,000

Jun 11, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$1,000

Sep 8, 2023

NET2LINK, LLC

OrganizationPEMBROKE PINES, FL

$250

Oct 23, 2024

CHANG, RONIE

GOLDEN REAL ESTATE & INVESTMENTS • REALTOR

IndividualLAS VEGAS, NV

$3,300

Nov 2, 2024

PRITZKER, JAY

STATE OF ILLINOIS • GOVERNOR

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

SCHMIDT, ERIC

HILLSPIRE LLC • MANAGER

IndividualPALO ALTO, CA

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

Rep. Brownley, Julia [D-CA-26]

ID: B001285

Top Contributors

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Mar 5, 2024

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Mar 5, 2024

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$2,000

Jun 28, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

Feb 23, 2024

PRISELAC, TOM M.

CEDAR SINAI HEALTH SYSTEMS • EXECUTIVE

IndividualSANTA MONICA, CA

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

BUCHMAN, MICHELLE J.

N/A • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualCARBONDALE, CO

$3,300

Nov 18, 2023

CONROY, ROBERTA

N/A • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualSANTA MONICA, CA

$3,300

Dec 1, 2023

SAVAGE, KEVIN

N/A • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualBEVERLY HILLS, CA

$3,300

Dec 31, 2023

STEVENS, SETH R.

SOUTHERN CA PERMANENTE GROUP • DERMATOLOGIST

IndividualNEWBURY PARK, CA

$3,300

Oct 28, 2023

UNTERMAN, JANET M.

N/A • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA

$3,300

Dec 8, 2023

Rep. Lee, Susie [D-NV-3]

ID: L000590

Top Contributors

EMILY'S LIST

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$250

Feb 13, 2024

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Jun 27, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Jun 27, 2023

TIGUA INDIAN RESERVATION YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO

OrganizationEL PASO, TX

$3,000

Dec 31, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

Jun 5, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

May 9, 2024

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAS VEGAS, NV

$1,500

Jun 30, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$1,000

Dec 28, 2023

RENO SPARKS INDIAN COLONY

OrganizationRENO, NV

$1,000

Jun 21, 2024

BRONZE CAFE

OrganizationLAS VEGAS, NV

$550

Mar 30, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-6]

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. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-6]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs19 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

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

Department of Defense

Moderate

Vector: 55%

Pages: 161-163AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with the Department of Defense's interest in honoring service and preserving military history by authorizing a memorial for WWII home‑front women, though it does not directly address defense policy, funding, or operational matters."

Key themes:veterans recognitionWWII home frontmemorializationmilitary historypatriotic education

— 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.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak

Vector: 53%

Pages: 618-620AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on commemorating WWII women's home-front contributions and does not address sex discrimination enforcement, pro-life workplace accommodations, or religious employer protections outlined in the Project 2025 policy, resulting only a tangential connection through the theme of women."

Key themes:womenhistorical recognition

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

Department of Justice

Minimal

Vector: 55%

Pages: 611-614AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 2290 deals with locating a WWII women's memorial on the National Mall, while the Project 2025 DOJ section addresses immigration enforcement, discrimination settlements, and crime statistics; there is no substantive policy overlap."

Key themes:unrelatedno overlap

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

Department of Defense

Minimal

Vector: 54%

Pages: 161-163AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 2290 focuses on establishing a memorial for WWII home front women on the National Mall, which is unrelated to the Department of Defense policy objectives in Project 2025, such as defense strategy, intelligence community reform, or military readiness. There is no thematic or policy overlap between the bill and the cited DoD sections."

— 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 Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 54%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 2290 focuses on authorizing a memorial location for WWII women on the National Mall, which is unrelated to the Department of Health and Human Services policies in Project 2025 concerning abortion, conscience protection, gender-affirming care, and related healthcare regulations."

Key themes:no overlapunrelated

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

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

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

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Dingell, Debbie

Local Communities & Bird Habitat Stewardship Act of 2026

119/hr/3276

Great Lakes Mass Marking Program Act of 2025

119/hr/1917

Sport Fish Restoration, Recreational Boating Safety, and Wildlife Restoration Act of 2025

119/hr/3858

Back to All Bills