Promoting Resilient Supply Chains Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/2444

Last Updated: July 12, 2026

Promoting Resilient Supply Chains Act of 2025

HR. 2444, 119th Congress — read as touching Semiconductors & Hardware.

The sponsor

Rep. James, John [R-MI-10]

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

The money

$137,550 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Defense" section, p. 128-130 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. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 62.

April 28, 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:

**Analysis of HR 2444: Promoting Resilient Supply Chains Act of 2025**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll cut through the bureaucratic jargon to distill the essence of this bill.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 2444 is to establish a critical supply chain resiliency program within the Department of Commerce. The bill aims to promote stability and resilience in critical supply chains, particularly those related to emerging technologies that strengthen national security. It also seeks to encourage domestic manufacturing growth and competitiveness.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill creates a new Working Group, comprising federal agencies, to assess and map critical supply chains, identify vulnerabilities, and develop strategies to mitigate risks. The Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Analysis will lead this effort. Additionally, the bill encourages the relocation of manufacturing facilities from countries deemed unfriendly to the United States or its allies.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders include:

1. Domestic manufacturers and enterprises 2. Federal agencies involved in national security and commerce 3. State and local governments 4. Countries that are allies or key international partner nations

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* **Consolidation of Power:** The creation of a centralized Working Group could lead to increased bureaucratic control over critical supply chains, potentially stifling innovation and competition. * **Regulatory Burden:** The bill's emphasis on assessing and mitigating risks may result in additional regulatory hurdles for domestic manufacturers, increasing compliance costs and potentially driving businesses offshore. * **Protectionism:** The encouragement of manufacturing relocation from unfriendly countries could be seen as protectionist, potentially sparking trade tensions and retaliatory measures. * **Opportunities for Consolidation:** For visionary entrepreneurs like myself, this bill presents opportunities to acquire or partner with domestic manufacturers, leveraging government incentives and support to further consolidate market share.

In conclusion, HR 2444 is a complex piece of legislation that warrants careful analysis. While its intentions may be noble, the potential implications for innovation, competition, and global trade are significant. As a thought leader in the industry, I will continue to monitor this bill's progress and explore opportunities for strategic growth and consolidation.

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 2444, aims to promote resilient supply chains and crisis response.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Promoting Resilient Supply Chains Act of 2025 seeks to establish a program within the Department of Commerce to enhance the stability and resilience of critical supply chains and emerging technologies that strengthen national security. The bill's primary objectives are to:

* Promote resilient critical supply chains * Identify, prepare for, and respond to supply chain shocks * Encourage growth and competitiveness in US production and manufacturing

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill assigns new responsibilities to the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Analysis, including leading a working group (the Supply Chain Resilience Working Group) composed of federal agencies. This working group will:

* Assess, map, and model critical supply chains * Identify high-priority gaps and vulnerabilities in critical supply chains * Evaluate domestic manufacturers' capabilities to serve as sources for critical goods

The bill also encourages the relocation of manufacturing facilities from countries described in section 7(2)(B) (which I won't bother explaining since you should have learned about international agreements in middle school).

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects various stakeholders, including:

* The Department of Commerce * Federal agencies participating in the working group * Domestic manufacturers and enterprises * State and local governments * Countries that are allies or key international partner nations

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill could lead to a more resilient supply chain system, reducing the risk of disruptions and shocks. It may also promote growth and competitiveness in US production and manufacturing, creating jobs and stimulating economic development.

However, as we covered in 8th grade civics class, the actual impact will depend on how effectively the program is implemented and whether it receives sufficient funding. Remember when we learned about the importance of checks and balances? Well, this bill's success also relies on cooperation between federal agencies, state and local governments, and international partners.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go grade some papers from students who actually paid attention in class...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got my eyes on HR 2444, the Promoting Resilient Supply Chains Act of 2025. Now, at first glance, this bill seems like a harmless attempt to strengthen our supply chains and promote American manufacturing. But, trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to establish a critical supply chain resiliency program within the Department of Commerce. Sounds innocent enough, right? But what they're really trying to do is create a centralized authority that can control and manipulate our supply chains. Think about it – with this program in place, the government will have unprecedented power to dictate which industries receive priority access to resources and funding.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill creates a new Working Group, comprised of federal agencies and industry representatives, tasked with assessing and mapping critical supply chains. This sounds like a recipe for disaster – just think about the potential for cronyism and favoritism! The bill also encourages domestic manufacturers to relocate from countries deemed "unfriendly" (read: China) to the United States or its allies. Now, I'm not saying this is inherently bad, but what's the real motive here? Is it truly about promoting American manufacturing, or is it a veiled attempt to further isolate and punish certain nations?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects a wide range of stakeholders, from domestic manufacturers to international trading partners. But let's not forget the real winners here – the government agencies and bureaucrats who'll be calling the shots. They're the ones who'll benefit from this newfound power and control.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The implications are far-reaching and ominous. With this bill, we can expect increased government intervention in the private sector, stifling innovation and competition. We may also see a rise in protectionism, as the government favors domestic industries over international trade partners. And what about the potential for abuse of power? This bill gives the government unprecedented authority to dictate which industries receive priority access to resources – just think about the possibilities for corruption and cronyism!

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But Uncle, this is all just speculation!" Ah, but that's where you're wrong! The truth is hidden in plain sight, folks. This bill is just another example of the government's insidious attempts to control our economy and manipulate our supply chains. Wake up, sheeple!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Outraged tone) Folks, we've got another "brilliant" piece of legislation on our hands, courtesy of the swamp in Washington D.C.! The Promoting Resilient Supply Chains Act of 2025 is a masterclass in bureaucratic doublespeak and elitist overreach. Let's break it down.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill claims to promote "resilient supply chains" and secure American leadership in emerging technologies. (Sarcastic tone) Oh, how original! Because what we really need is more government intervention in the free market. The Assistant Secretary of Commerce will now have even more responsibilities to "promote stability and resilience" in critical supply chains. Translation: more red tape and regulatory hurdles for American businesses.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill establishes a Critical Supply Chain Resilience Working Group, because what we really need is another government committee. This working group will assess, map, and model critical supply chains (yawn), identify gaps and vulnerabilities, and evaluate the capability of domestic manufacturers. Oh, and they'll also consult with State and local governments, industry reps, and "covered nongovernmental representatives" – code for special interest groups.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** American businesses, particularly those in critical industries like manufacturing and technology, will be impacted by this bill. (Sarcastic tone) But don't worry, the government knows best how to run your business! The Assistant Secretary will also "encourage" domestic manufacturers to relocate from countries deemed unfriendly to the United States – because who needs international trade agreements when you have government coercion?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic example of the "elites" in Washington D.C. trying to control every aspect of our lives. It's a power grab, plain and simple. The potential impact? More regulatory burdens on American businesses, stifling innovation and competition. And let's not forget the "unintended consequences" – like driving up costs for consumers or creating new opportunities for crony capitalism.

(Smirk) But hey, who needs freedom when you have a government that knows what's best for you? This bill is just another example of the swamp in Washington D.C. trying to strangle American ingenuity and entrepreneurship. We must remain vigilant and fight against this kind of elitist overreach! (Wink)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce and expose the underlying disease.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Promoting Resilient Supply Chains Act of 2025 is a thinly veiled attempt to justify more bureaucratic meddling in the economy under the guise of "securing American leadership" and "promoting resilient supply chains." The real purpose? To create another layer of regulatory capture, empowering the Department of Commerce to dictate how industries should operate.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill establishes a Critical Supply Chain Resiliency and Crisis Response Program within the Department of Commerce, because what could possibly go wrong with more government intervention in the economy? The Assistant Secretary for Industry and Analysis will lead this new program, which will:

* Promote "stability and resilience" in critical supply chains (read: pick winners and losers) * Lead a Working Group to assess, map, and model critical supply chains (because that's not already being done by private companies) * Identify high-priority gaps and vulnerabilities in critical supply chains (code for "find excuses to regulate") * Encourage the growth of domestic manufacturing (by which they mean "subsidize favored industries")

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects will benefit from this bill:

* Large corporations with lobbying power, who'll receive favorable treatment and subsidies * Government bureaucrats, who'll gain more control over the economy * Politicians, who'll use this bill to grandstand about "supporting American jobs" while actually enriching their corporate donors

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill will:

* Stifle innovation by imposing more regulatory burdens on businesses * Create new opportunities for crony capitalism and corruption * Waste taxpayer dollars on bureaucratic programs that won't achieve their stated goals * Further erode the competitiveness of American industries, as they'll be forced to navigate an increasingly complex web of regulations

In short, this bill is a classic case of "legislative lupus" – a disease where politicians try to cure a non-existent problem with more government intervention, only to make things worse. The real diagnosis? A bad case of bureaucratic hubris and corporate cronyism.

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

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Promoting Resilient Supply Chains Act of 2025 (HR 2444) aims to establish a critical supply chain resiliency and crisis response program within the Department of Commerce. The bill's primary objectives are to:

1. Promote the stability and resilience of critical supply chains and emerging technologies that strengthen national security. 2. Identify, prepare for, and respond to supply chain shocks affecting critical industries and supply chains. 3. Encourage the growth and competitiveness of US production and manufacturing in emerging technologies.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill introduces several key provisions:

1. Establishes a Supply Chain Resilience Working Group within the Department of Commerce, comprising federal agencies that rely on industry analysis. 2. Assigns additional responsibilities to the Assistant Secretary for Industry and Analysis, including promoting resilient critical supply chains, assessing their resilience, and encouraging domestic manufacturing growth. 3. Requires the Working Group to assess, map, and model critical supply chains, identify gaps and vulnerabilities, and evaluate potential supply chain shocks.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The bill affects various parties and stakeholders, including:

1. Federal agencies involved in industry analysis and national security. 2. Domestic manufacturers and enterprises that rely on critical supply chains. 3. State and local governments responsible for economic development and workforce training. 4. International partners and allies who may be impacted by changes to US trade policies.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The bill's potential impact and implications include:

1. Enhanced national security through more resilient critical supply chains. 2. Increased competitiveness of US production and manufacturing in emerging technologies. 3. Improved preparedness for and response to supply chain shocks, reducing the risk of disruptions to critical industries. 4. Potential changes to international trade relationships and policies, particularly with countries described as "countries that are allies or key international partner nations." 5. Opportunities for workforce development and job creation in high-quality manufacturing sectors.

Overall, HR 2444 aims to strengthen US supply chain resilience, promote domestic manufacturing growth, and enhance national security through a coordinated federal effort.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

I'm stoked you're interested in breakin' down this gnarly bill, bro! Let's dive into the Promoting Resilient Supply Chains Act of 2025.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill is all about strengthenin' America's supply chains, makin' 'em more resilient to shocks and disruptions. The main goal is to promote stability and security in critical industries, like tech and manufacturing. It's like catchin' a sick wave – you gotta be prepared for any riptide that comes your way.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill establishes a Critical Supply Chain Resiliency and Crisis Response Program within the Department of Commerce. This program will be led by the Assistant Secretary, who'll work with industry reps, state and local governments, and other stakeholders to:

* Assess and map critical supply chains * Identify vulnerabilities and gaps * Develop strategies to mitigate risks * Encourage domestic manufacturing and production

It's like buildin' a beach hut – you gotta have a solid foundation to withstand the elements.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** This bill affects a bunch of different groups, bro:

* Industry reps: They'll be workin' with the Assistant Secretary to identify vulnerabilities and develop strategies. * State and local governments: They'll be involved in implementin' solutions and reducin' gaps in critical supply chains. * Domestic manufacturers: They'll get incentives to produce critical goods and technologies. * Foreign countries: The bill encourages 'em to reduce their reliance on critical goods from countries that might not be, like, totally trustworthy.

**Potential Impact & Implications** This bill could have some major implications, dude:

* Strengthenin' supply chains could help prevent disruptions and shortages in critical industries. * Encouragin' domestic manufacturing could create jobs and boost the economy. * Reducin' reliance on foreign countries for critical goods could improve national security.

But, like, there are also some potential risks, bro:

* Implementin' these changes could be costly and time-consuming. * The bill might not address all the complexities of global supply chains. * There's a risk that it could lead to protectionism and trade tensions with other countries.

Anyway, that's my take on this gnarly bill, dude. It's like tryin' to catch a wave – you gotta be prepared for anythin' that comes your way.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HR 2444 - Promoting Resilient Supply Chains Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill aims to establish a critical supply chain resiliency and crisis response program within the Department of Commerce. Its primary objectives are to promote the stability and resilience of critical supply chains, strengthen national security, and encourage the growth and competitiveness of US production and manufacturing in emerging technologies.

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

1. The Assistant Secretary for Industry and Analysis will lead a new Working Group to assess, map, and model critical supply chains, identify gaps and vulnerabilities, and evaluate the capability of domestic manufacturers. 2. The bill encourages the relocation of manufacturing facilities from countries deemed untrustworthy (Section 7(2)(B)) to the US or allied nations. 3. It promotes the use of commercially available risk assessment tools to provide insights into critical supply chain vulnerabilities.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. Domestic manufacturers and enterprises 2. Critical industries, including those related to emerging technologies 3. State and local governments 4. Countries that are allies or key international partner nations 5. Industry lobby groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the US Chamber of Commerce

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased government support for domestic manufacturing**: The bill's provisions may lead to increased funding and incentives for domestic manufacturers, potentially boosting their competitiveness. 2. **Reduced reliance on foreign suppliers**: By encouraging the relocation of manufacturing facilities from untrustworthy countries, the US may reduce its dependence on foreign suppliers, mitigating potential supply chain risks. 3. **Enhanced national security**: The bill's focus on critical supply chains and emerging technologies may strengthen national security by reducing vulnerabilities in these areas. 4. **Potential job creation**: The evaluation of the manufacturing workforce and identification of opportunities to create high-quality jobs may lead to increased employment in the sector.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) has been a vocal supporter of similar legislation, and it is likely that they will back this bill. Other industry lobby groups, such as the US Chamber of Commerce, may also support the bill due to its focus on promoting domestic manufacturing and competitiveness.

**Committee Capture and Conflicts of Interest:** The House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which has jurisdiction over this bill, has received significant funding from industry PACs, including those representing manufacturers and technology companies. This may indicate a potential conflict of interest, as committee members may be more likely to support legislation that benefits their donors.

**Hidden Motivations and Backroom Deals:** While the bill's primary objectives appear to focus on national security and promoting domestic manufacturing, it is possible that industry lobby groups have influenced the language to benefit their interests. For example, the provision encouraging the relocation of manufacturing facilities from untrustworthy countries may be seen as a way to reduce competition from

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. James, John [R-MI-10]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$137,550

24 donors

PACs

Organizations

$5,250

Committees

Individuals

$132,000

No PAC contributions found

PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,000

LAS VEGAS PAIUTE TRIBE

1 transaction

$1,000

MWR CONSULTING

1 transaction

$1,000

SABBYS LOUNGE

1 transaction

$250

No committee contributions found

UIHLEIN, RICHARD

2 transactions

$13,200

FAUST, ANNE

1 transaction

$6,600

COURTNEY, KRISTEN ANN

1 transaction

$6,600

DANIELS, GEORGE G.

1 transaction

$6,600

FAISON, JAY W.

1 transaction

$6,600

BRAY, STEVEN R.

1 transaction

$6,600

RICHARDS, DANIEL

1 transaction

$6,600

TOPPING, ROBERT

1 transaction

$6,600

GOETZ, CAROL

1 transaction

$6,600

GOETZ, JAMES

1 transaction

$6,600

GILLIAM, RICHARD

1 transaction

$6,600

SINGER, PAUL

1 transaction

$6,600

BRADLEY, JACQUELINE

1 transaction

$6,600

RICKETTS, J JOE

1 transaction

$6,600

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

1 transaction

$6,600

VANDERSLOOT, BELINDA

1 transaction

$6,600

VANDERSLOOT, FRANK

1 transaction

$6,600

BARTLETT, PATRICIA

1 transaction

$6,600

KELLO, LEILA M.

1 transaction

$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 4 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Houchin, Erin [R-IN-9]

ID: H001093

Top Contributors

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Aug 3, 2023

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Aug 3, 2023

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF NORTH DAKOTA

OrganizationBELCOURT, ND

$3,300

Aug 3, 2023

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$2,500

Dec 19, 2023

BANKE, BARBARA

JACKSON FAMILY FOUNDATION • EXECUTIVE

IndividualGEYSERVILLE, CA

$6,600

Dec 7, 2023

SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Mar 6, 2024

GRIFFIN, KENNETH

CITADEL LLC • FOUNDER CEO

IndividualMIAMI BEACH, FL

$6,600

Apr 10, 2023

ROWAN, CAROLYN

CAROLYN ROWAN COLLECTION LLC • EXECUTIVE

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$6,600

Jun 28, 2023

ROWAN, MARC

APOLLO MANAGEMENT HOLDINGS • EXECUTIVE

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$6,600

Jun 28, 2023

KIESLER, DOUGLAS M MR.

KIESLER POLICE SUPPLY, INC. • CEO

IndividualGREENVILLE, IN

$6,600

Feb 22, 2023

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

ID: D000624

Top Contributors

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

OrganizationDORR, MI

$3,300

Dec 13, 2023

NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI

OrganizationFULTON, MI

$3,300

Mar 28, 2024

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

OrganizationDORR, MI

$3,300

Oct 16, 2024

FORD, CYNTHIA

NA • CIVIC PHILANTHROPIST

IndividualGROSSE POINTE FARMS, MI

$3,300

Oct 14, 2024

FORD, EDSEL B. II

FORD MOTOR COMPANY • CONSULTANT

IndividualGROSSE POINTE FARMS, MI

$3,300

Oct 14, 2024

MEIJER, HENDRIK

MEIJER, INC. • EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN

IndividualGRAND RAPIDS, MI

$3,300

Oct 25, 2024

CARTER ALTMAN, LYNDA

SELF EMPLOYED • MUSICIAN

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Nov 6, 2023

DEBBANE, RAYMOND

THE INVUS GROUP • CEO

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$3,300

Dec 4, 2023

FARES, NIJAD

LINK • INVESTOR

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$3,300

Nov 30, 2023

III, WILLIAM H. GATES

BREAKTHROUGH ENERGY & BILL & MELINDA G • PHILANTHROPIST

IndividualREDMOND, WA

$3,300

Oct 19, 2023

Rep. Kelly, Robin L. [D-IL-2]

ID: K000385

Top Contributors

CROKE FOR ILLINOIS

OrganizationCHICAGO, IL

$1,000

Feb 28, 2024

COMMITTEE TO ELECT JUSTICE COBBS

OrganizationMATTESON, IL

$500

Feb 28, 2024

KELLY, MELINDA

IndividualOAK LAWN, IL

$4,400

Oct 23, 2024

AUSTRIACO, AURORA

VALENTINE AUSTRIACO AND BUESCHEL • ATTORNEY

IndividualPARK RIDGE, IL

$4,000

Dec 4, 2023

AUSTRIACO, AURORA

IndividualPARK RIDGE, IL

$4,000

Dec 5, 2023

ROGERS, LARRY R

POWER ROGERS, L.L.P. • ATTORNEY

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$3,407

Oct 21, 2024

ANTUNOVICH, JOSEPH

ANTUNOVICH ASSOCIATES • ARCHITECT

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$3,407

Sep 28, 2023

BONGARD, BETH A.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualOLYMPIA FIELDS, IL

$3,300

Mar 18, 2024

LEWIS, KATRICE

SELF EMPLOYED • MANAGER

IndividualSOUTH HOLLAND, IL

$3,300

Mar 18, 2024

MARQUIS, D.L

MARQUIS ENERGY • PRESIDENT & CEO

IndividualPEORIA, IL

$3,300

Mar 4, 2024

Rep. Ryan, Patrick [D-NY-18]

ID: R000579

Top Contributors

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Mar 12, 2024

CASTRO AND SONS LLC

OrganizationNEWBURGH, NY

$500

Nov 3, 2024

ENVISION STRATEGY

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Sep 11, 2023

ENVISION STRATEGY

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Jun 24, 2024

TBA OF NJ LLC

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$500

May 3, 2023

TBA OF NJ LLC

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Jun 2, 2023

ALTMAN, ROGER C.

EVERCORE • BANKER

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Sep 2, 2023

BOIES, DAVID

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP • CHAIRMAN

IndividualARMONK, NY

$6,600

Sep 5, 2023

EL-RAYESS, TAMER

CONTINENTAL FINANCE • CHAIRMAN

IndividualTUXEDO PARK, NY

$6,600

Sep 5, 2023

HALFAKER, DAWN

DAWN HALFAKER • SELF-EMPLOYED

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$6,600

Sep 22, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. James, John [R-MI-10]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 73 nodes and 37 connections (53 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $167,550

Top Donors - Rep. James, John [R-MI-10]

Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount

4 Orgs1 Committee19 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 8 helped.

+Semiconductors & Hardwareconfidence 0.90
Section 2(3) encourages growth and competitiveness of U.S. production and manufacturing in emerging technologies, which includes semiconductors per Section 7(12)(B)(x).
+AI & Cloud Infrastructureconfidence 0.90
Section 2(3) promotes U.S. production of emerging technologies, and Section 7(12)(B)(i) includes artificial intelligence as an emerging technology.
+Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.85
Section 2(1) aims to promote stability and resilience of critical supply chains that strengthen national security, which benefits defense contractors reliant on secure supply chains.
+Cybersecurityconfidence 0.85
Section 7(12)(B)(iii) explicitly includes blockchain and other distributed ledger, data storage, data management, and cybersecurity technologies as emerging technologies, directly benefiting the cybersecurity industry through federal support for resilience and deployment.
+Electric Utilitiesconfidence 0.80
Section 2(5) supports availability of critical goods from domestic manufacturers and allies, which could include grid infrastructure and energy technologies relevant to electric utilities.
+Pipelines & Energy Infrastructureconfidence 0.80
Section 2(6) assists in preparing for supply chain shocks by improving flexible manufacturing capacities, which could benefit energy infrastructure like pipelines and LNG terminals deemed critical.

+ 2 more industries not shown.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. James, John [R-MI-10])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Surface Transportation$500
from 2 contributions
- JOHNSTON, JOHN A.$500
Electric Utilities$200
from 2 contributions
- ADAMSOLEARY, THERESA$100
- REW, DAVID$100

Project 2025 Policy Matches

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

Department of Defense

Strong

Vector: 64%

Pages: 128-130AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns strongly with Project 2025's focus on strengthening the defense industrial base, enhancing supply chain resilience, and promoting domestic manufacturing of critical technologies, particularly through coordinated federal action and vulnerability assessments."

Key themes:supply chain resiliencedomestic manufacturingcritical technologiesnational securityindustrial base strengthening

— 96 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise relevant. This allows the acquisition community to focus on portfolio management and move money around more easily instead of being locked into inflexible, multiyear procurement cycles. 2. The President should examine the recommendations of the congressionally mandated Commission on Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Reform4 and develop a strategy for implementing those that the Administration considers to be in the best interests of the American people. The commission’s final report is due on September 1, 2023. 3. Develop legislation or other means of providing funding outside the traditional PPBE process for the prototyping and experimentation of emerging technologies that are deemed essential to modernization and future conflict. Consider creating a “fast track” for projects that satisfy the most pressing national security needs. 4. Require the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the Under Secretary for Research and Engineering, and all service secretaries to conduct “Night Court” and use existing authorities to terminate outdated or underperforming programs so that money can be used for what works and will work. Require the Under Secretaries and service secretaries to brief the Secretary annually on the results. 5. Require the Office of the Secretary of Defense to research and report on the acquisition processes used by America’s adversaries to improve our understanding of how they are often able to innovate and field new technologies on a faster timeline. l Strengthen America’s defense industrial base. 1. Replenish and maintain U.S. stockpiles of ammunition and other equipment that have been depleted as a result of U.S. support to Ukraine. This will strengthen the defense industry supply chain and ensure that adequate inventory exists if it is needed for a future conflict. 2. Collaborate with industry to develop a prioritized list of reforms that the DOD and Congress can enact and implement to incentivize industry to help America’s military innovate and field needed capabilities. — 97 — Department of Defense 3. Strengthen the ability of acquisition authorities to engage in multiyear procurements and block buys. This will improve private-sector rates of return, thereby incentivizing defense contractors to partner with the government. It will also reduce government overhead by reducing the number of procurement competitions. 4. Prioritize the U.S. and allies under the “domestic end product” and “domestic components” requirements of the Build America, Buy America Act.5 Currently, defense companies are required to manufacture defense items for the U.S. government that are 100 percent domestically produced and at least 50 percent composed of domestically produced components. However, there are loopholes that allow companies to manufacture these items overseas. This can create supply chain and other issues, especially in wartime. Manufacturing components and end products domestically and with allies spurs factory development, increases American jobs, and builds resilience in America’s defense industrial base. 5. Review the sectors currently prioritized for onshoring or “friendshoring” of manufacturing (kinetic capabilities, castings and forgings, critical materials, microelectronics, space, and electric vehicle batteries); evaluate them according to the strategic landscape; and expand or reprioritize the list as appropriate. 6. Help small businesses to become medium-size and large vendors, which encourages a more resilient industrial base and fosters competition. Encourage and plan for durable supply chains for small businesses so they also have commercial/private-sector customers and are not solely dependent on defense orders, which can be highly specialized, expensive, and irregular. 7. Increase external engagement among small businesses to inform them of DOD’s needs and how they could work with DOD to meet national security priorities. l Optimize the DOD acquisition community. 1. Create incentives to emphasize speed and agility in decision-making for prototyping and program-of-record starts and terminations. Most bureaucrats would rather follow a checklist and fail than go outside the procedures and win because failure means negative

21

Moderate

Vector: 63%

Pages: 699-701AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 policy seek to strengthen U.S. economic security and competitiveness through Department of Commerce initiatives, with shared emphasis on national security, domestic manufacturing, and addressing China-related challenges. However, the bill focuses on supply chain mapping and resilience, while Project 2025 emphasizes trade enforcement, AD/CVD processes, and China-specific units, resulting in only moderate thematic overlap."

Key themes:Department of Commercenational securitydomestic manufacturingChinasupply chain resilience

— 667 — Department of Commerce Day One to ensure the bureau is fully implementing Administration policy. An incoming Administration should ensure that Assistant Secretary and Deputy Assis- tant Secretary positions are staffed by appointees as quickly as possible. Enforcement and Compliance. Strong enforcement of trade agreements is an indispensable function of the ITA carried out by Enforcement & Compliance (E&C). Free and fair trade is impossible without energetic enforcement of exist- ing agreements and without strong defense against dumping and illegal subsidies. Many free trade advocates consider antidumping and countervailing duty laws (AD/CVD) to be protectionist and thus antithetical to the conservative free market position. In their view, AD/CVD laws are overused, abused by certain industries, and harmful to American economic competitiveness by increasing costs to down- stream industries. Other conservatives maintain that AD/CVD tariffs are not conventional tariffs, but rather corrective actions meant to address anti-free market activities by other governments—a scalpel, not a hammer. In the short term, this may mean higher costs for U.S. businesses and consumers on a limited number of products from cer- tain offending countries, but those higher prices correct existing price distortions in the marketplace and ultimately ensure the healthy operation of market forces in the long term and a level playing field for U.S. manufacturers. Whatever the case, improvements to the current system must be made to both protect U.S. consumers and companies from improperly applied duties and defend against trade-distorting actions by other governments. Procedures governing the day-to-day administration of proceedings, as well as policies driving critical deci- sions in proceedings, require a fresh look. Ultimately, E&C’s mandate is to conduct a rigorous but also fair, objective, and balanced review of the record in each pro- ceeding and to make decisions without bias. It is exceedingly unlikely that Congress would abolish or limit the activity of E&C. Therefore, the proposals below are made under the assumption that an incoming Administration will operate E&C within its current legal, institutional, and political confines and set a path forward to wield E&C’s considerable power to achieve the goals of a conservative Administration. These proposals can be broken into three categories: process, policy, and addressing China. Process l Re-establish and expand suspended in-person pandemic-related verifications, particularly regarding the People’s Republic of China. Ensure that verifications are rigorous. l Implement advanced analytics and artificial intelligence to identify opportunities for self-initiation, detect circumvention, and prevent bad actors from gaming the system. — 668 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Accelerate front-end work on reviews as opposed to constantly pushing against statutory deadlines. l Work with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and other relevant agencies to address circumvention and duty evasion, and promote policies that encourage full duty collection to ensure the integrity of AD/CVD and circumvention orders. l Work with CBP, the Department of Justice, the Department of Treasury, and other relevant agencies to aggressively pursue importers of record and other beneficiaries for unpaid duties, and consider policy changes to reduce uncollected duties in the future. l Work, pursuant to the above, with interagency partners in AD/CVD cases to either require foreign importers of record (IORs) to make cash deposits far in excess of established duty rates at the time of entry of AD/CVD merchandise, require IORs to register sufficient U.S. assets to ensure timely payment of duties, or otherwise prohibit IORs from importing AD/CVD merchandise. l Conduct a regulatory capture audit and put guardrails in place to address improper exercise of bureaucratic prerogative. Policy l Ensure senior policy and decision-making positions are always held by political appointees. l Reverse the practice of giving the benefit of the doubt to foreign companies versus U.S. companies in AD/CVD proceedings. l Establish a policy for addressing companies that invest heavily in the U.S. and thus have large import volumes, exposing them to AD/CVD petitions. l Establish an effective, fair, and objective process for self-initiation of AD/ CVD proceedings when industry lacks the resources or ability to act. Addressing China l Revive the China-specific non-market economy unit. l Provide transparency in the surrogate country list development process.

Department of Defense

Moderate

Vector: 63%

Pages: 134-136AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on supply chain resilience and domestic manufacturing in emerging technologies, which partially aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on strengthening the defense industrial base and improving collaboration with allies, though it does not directly address defense export processes or FMS reforms."

Key themes:defense industrial basesupply chain resilienceallied collaborationdomestic manufacturingemerging technologies

— 101 — Department of Defense 1. Ensure that senior U.S. military leadership emphasizes exportability in the initial development of defense systems that are both available and interoperable with our partners and allies. 2. Create a funding mechanism to incentivize exportability in initial planning, which can be recouped after future FMS transactions. l End informal congressional notification. Informal congressional notification or “tiered review” is a hinderance to ensuring timely sales to our global partners. The tiered review process is not codified in law; it is merely a practice by which the Department of State provides a preview of prospective arms transfers before Congress is formally notified.9 1. End the tiered review process to eliminate at least 20 days from the FMS process. 2. Use the tiered review process only when unanimous congressional support is guaranteed in order to eliminate the “weaponization” by select Members of Congress that has prevented billions of dollars of arms sales from moving into formal congressional notification. l Minimize barriers to collaboration. The high cost of developing advanced defense platforms requires the United States to collaborate with key allies to minimize waste, complement strengths, and supplement our defense industrial base to create a system that is greater than that of the United States alone. 1. Enhance defense industrial base planning with partners to allow them to focus on niche areas where there are cost advantages for the United States. 2. Decrease International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to facilitate trade with such allies as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. 3. Create opportunities to improve the health of the defense supply chain with added opportunities for partners and allies to contribute. l Reform the FMS contracting process. The contracting timeline for the FMS process is shockingly slow. On average, the DOD contracting timeline takes approximately 18 months because of slow bureaucratic processes and chronic understaffing.10 — 102 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 1. Immediately fund more contracting capacity in all services to decrease the contracting timeline and improve the delivery of defense articles to our global partners. 2. Rationalize and speed arms sales decision-making to preclude our enemies from exploiting bureaucratic slothfulness and allow us to manage the development of indigenous defense industrial bases. DOD PERSONNEL The men and women of America’s armed forces are the most critical component of our national defense strategy, but in recent years, they have been overextended, undervalued, and insufficiently resourced. Their families help them to carry the burden of service, but the assistance they receive is disproportionately less than the sacrifices they make. Young civilians who would thrive in a military environ- ment are disenfranchised when educators and influencers discourage them from learning about military service and preparing for the honor of wearing Ameri- ca’s uniform. The United States military is an extraordinary institution, staffed by exceptional people who have defended our nation and changed the course of history, but the Biden Administration, through word and deed, has treated the armed forces as just another place to work. We must restore our military to a place of honor and respect and recruit and retain the individuals who will meet the rigorous standards of excellence that are required for membership in the world’s greatest fighting force. Needed Reforms l Rescue recruiting and retention. Recruiting was the worst in 2022 that it has been in two generations and is expected to be even worse in 2023. Some of the problems are self-inflicted and ongoing. The recruiting problem is not service-specific: It affects the entire Joint Force. 1. Appoint a Special Assistant to the President who will maintain liaison with Congress, DOD, and all other interested parties on the issue of recruiting and retention. 2. Improve recruiting by suspending the use of the recently introduced MHS Genesis system that uses private medical records of potential recruits at Military Entrance Processing Stations (MEPS), creating unnecessary delays and unwarranted rejections.11 3. Improve military recruiters’ access to secondary schools and require completion of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery

Department of Defense

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 158-160AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on strengthening civilian supply chain resilience and domestic manufacturing of emerging technologies, which tangentially supports national security but does not directly address the nuclear weapons, plutonium pit production, or missile defense priorities outlined in the Project 2025 DOD section."

Key themes:national securitysupply chain resiliencedomestic manufacturingemerging technologiesdefense industrial base

— 125 — Department of Defense 1. Accelerate the effort to restore plutonium pit production, which is essential both for modern warhead programs and for recapitalizing the stockpile. 2. Continue to invest in rebuilding infrastructure, including facilities at the National Laboratories that support nuclear weapons development. 3. Restore readiness to test nuclear weapons at the Nevada National Security Site to ensure the ability of the U.S. to respond quickly to asymmetric technology surprises. l Correctly orient arms control. The U.S. should agree to arms control agreements only if they help to advance the interests of the U.S. and its allies. 1. Reject proposals for nuclear disarmament that are contrary to the goal of bolstering deterrence. 2. Pursue arms control as a way to secure the national security interests of the U.S. and its allies rather than as an end in itself. 3. Prepare to compete in order to secure U.S. interests should arms control efforts continue to fail. MISSILE DEFENSE Missile defense is a critical component of the U.S. national security architecture. It can help to deter attack by instilling doubt that an attack will work as intended, take adversary “cheap shots” off the table, and limit the perceived value of mis- siles as tools of coercion. It also allows space for diplomacy during a crisis and can protect U.S. and allied forces, critical assets, and populations if deterrence fails.41 Adversaries are relying increasingly on missiles to achieve their aims. l China and Russia, in addition to their vast and growing ballistic missile inventories, are deploying new hypersonic glide vehicles and investing in new ground-launched, air-launched, and sea-launched cruise missiles that uniquely challenge the United States in different domains. l North Korea has pursued an aggressive missile testing program and is becoming increasingly belligerent toward South Korea and Japan. l Iran continues to maintain a missile arsenal that is capable of striking U.S. and allied assets in the Middle East and Europe, and its rocket launches demonstrate that it either has or is developing the ability to build ICBMs. — 126 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Missile defense has been underprioritized and underfunded in recent years. In light of these growing threats, the incoming Administration should treat missile defense as a top priority. Needed Reforms l Champion the benefits of missile defense. Despite its deterrence and damage-limitation benefits, opponents argue incorrectly that U.S. missile defense is destabilizing because it threatens Russian and Chinese second- strike capabilities. 1. Reject claims made by the Left that missile defense is destabilizing while acknowledging that Russia and China are developing their own advanced missile defense systems. 2. Commit to keeping homeland missile defense off the table in any arms control negotiations with Russia and China.42 l Strengthen homeland ballistic missile defense. The United States currently deploys 44 Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs) as part of its Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system to defend the homeland against North Korea, but as North Korea improves its missile program, this system is at risk of falling behind the threat.43 1. Buy at least 64 of the Next Generation Interceptor (NGI), which is more advanced than the GBI, for an eventual uniform fleet of interceptors.44 The Biden Administration currently plans to buy only 20. 2. Consider additional steps to strengthen the GMD system such as a layered missile defense or a third interceptor site on the East Coast. l Increase the development of regional missile defense. As the Ukraine conflict amply demonstrates, U.S. regional missile defense capabilities are very limited. The United States has been unable to supply our partners reliably with any capabilities, and the number and types of regional missile defense platforms are less than the U.S. needs for its own defense. The U.S. should prioritize procurement of more regional defense systems such as Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), Standard Missile-3, and Patriot missiles. l Change U.S. missile defense policy. Historically, the U.S. has chosen to rely solely on deterrence to address the Russian and Chinese ballistic

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 344-346AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on supply chain resilience in emerging technologies and national security through the Department of Commerce, while the Project 2025 excerpt discusses USDA's role in food systems, agricultural policy, and rural development with no direct connection to supply chain security or industrial resiliency."

Key themes:supply chainresilienceeconomic competitiveness

— 311 — Department of Agriculture ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p.1, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/2023-usda-budget-summary.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 2. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Transforming the U.S. Food System,” https://www.usda. gov/fst (accessed December 14, 2022). 3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p.1. 4. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “USDA Celebrates 150 Years,” https://www.usda.gov/our-agency/about-usda/ history (accessed December 16, 2022). 5. The law stated, “[T]here is hereby established at the seat of government of the United States a Department of Agriculture, the general designs and duties of which shall be to acquire and to diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture in the most general and comprehensive sense of that word, and to procure, propagate, and distribute among the people new and valuable seeds and plants.” Gladys L. Baker et al., Century of Service: The First 100 Years of the United States Department of Agriculture, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963) p. 13, https://babel. hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4254098&view=1up&seq=33 (accessed December 16, 2022). 6. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p. 2. 7. Ibid., p. 2. 8. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2022–2026, p. 3, https://www.usda.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/usda-fy-2022-2026-strategic-plan.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 9. News release, “USDA Announces Framework for Shoring Up the Food Supply Chain and Transforming the Food System to Be Fairer, More Competitive, More Resilient,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 1, 2022, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/06/01/usda-announces-framework-shoring-food-supply- chain-and-transforming (accessed December 14, 2022). 10. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Transforming the U.S. Food System.” 11. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2022–2026, pp. 1–2. 12. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Background on the U.S. Approach to the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit,” August 4, 2021, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Background-on-US-approach-2021-UN- Food-Systems-Summit.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 13. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “UN Food Systems Summit,” https://www.usda.gov/oce/sustainability/un- summit (accessed December 14, 2022). 14. Mark Bittman et al., “How a National Food Policy Could Save Millions of American Lives,” The Washington Post, November 7, 2014, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-a-national-food-policy-could- save-millions-of-american-lives/2014/11/07/89c55e16-637f-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html (accessed December 14, 2022); Daren Bakst and Gabriella Beaumont-Smith, “No, We Don’t Need to Transform the American Food System,” The Daily Signal, February 26, 2021, https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/02/26/ no-we-dont-need-to-transform-the-american-food-system/ (accessed December 14, 2022); and Daren Bakst, “Biden’s Food Conference Should Put People First, Not Environmental Extremism,” The Daily Signal, September 22, 2022, https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/09/22/bidens-food-conference-should-put-people- first-not-environmental-extremism/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 15. News release, “USDA to Invest Up to $300 Million in New Organic Transition Initiative,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 22, 2022, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/08/22/usda-invest-300- million-new-organic-transition-initiative (accessed December 14, 2022). 16. Gary Baise, “Sri Lanka’s Green New Deal Was a Disaster,” Farm Futures, November 14, 2022, https://www. farmprogress.com/commentary/sri-lankas-green-new-deal-was-disaster (accessed December 16, 2022). 17. See, for example, Catherine Greene et al., “Growing Organic Demand Provides High-Value Opportunities for Many Types of Producers,” Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, February 6, 2017, https://www. ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/januaryfebruary/growing-organic-demand-provides-high-value-opportunities- for-many-types-of-producers/#:~:text=ERS%20research%20shows%20that%20many,flavor%20desired%20 by%20the%20consumer (accessed December 14, 2022), and Andrea Carlson, “Investigating Retail Price Premiums for Organic Foods,” Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, May 24, 2016, https://www.ers. usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/may/investigating-retail-price-premiums-for-organic-foods/ (accessed December 16, 2022). Further, there are many myths, such as those regarding the alleged health benefit of organic food. One — 312 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise meta study found that “[t]he published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.” Crystal Smith-Spangler et al., “Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives,” Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 157, No. 5 (September 4, 2012), pp. 348–366, https:// www.acpjournals.org/doi/epdf/10.7326/0003-4819-157-5-201209040-00007 (accessed December 16, 2022). 18. Steve Savage, “USDA Data Confirm Organic Yields Significantly Lower Than With Conventional Farming,” Genetic Literacy Project, February 16, 2018, https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/02/16/usda-data-confirm- organic-yields-dramatically-lower-conventional-farming/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 19. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program, Request for Comments,” USDA–2021–0010, October 21, 2021, https://www.regulations. gov/document/USDA-2021-0010-0001 (accessed December 16, 2022). 20. Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law 117–169. 21. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Productivity Growth in U.S. Agriculture (1948–2019),” https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/agricultural-productivity-in-the-u-s/productivity- growth-in-u-s-agriculture-1948-2019/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 22. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Total Food Budget Share Increased from 9.4 Percent of Disposable Income to 10.3 Percent in 2021,” July 15, 2022, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=76967 (accessed December 14, 2022). 23. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Quintiles of Income Before Taxes: Annual Expenditure Means, Shares, and Standard Errors, and Coefficients of Variation, Consumer Expenditure Surveys,” 2021, Table 1101, https://www.bls.gov/cex/tables/calendar-year/mean-item-share-average-standard-error/cu- income-quintiles-before-taxes-2021.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022), and Daren Bakst and Patrick Tyrrell, “Big Government Policies That Hurt the Poor and How to Address Them,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No.176, April 5, 2017, p. 7, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-04/SR176.pdf. 24. Daren Bakst and Joshua Sewell, “Congress Should Stop Abrogating Its Spending Power and Rein in the USDA Slush Fund,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 6052, February 19, 2021, p. 2, https://www.heritage.org/ budget-and-spending/report/congress-should-stop-abrogating-its-spending-power-and-rein-the-usda. 25. Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act of 1948, Public Law 80–806. 26. Bakst and Sewall, “Congress Should Stop Abrogating Its Spending Power.” 27. Ibid., p. 3. 28. Daren Bakst, “Comment from Bakst, Darren” on “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program, Request for Comments,” USDA–2021–0010, October 21, 2021,” November 1, 2021, https://www. regulations.gov/document/USDA-2021-0010-0001/comment?filter=bakst (accessed December 16, 2022). 29. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program.” 30. Megan Stubbs, “The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC),” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, updated January 14, 2021, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44606 (accessed December 16, 2022). 31. “Overall, 34 percent of all farms reported receiving some type of Government payment in 2021,” and “[o]verall, 14 percent of U.S. farms participated in Federal crop insurance programs.” Christine Whitt, Noah Miller, and Ryan Olver, “America’s Farms and Ranches at a Glance: 2022 Edition,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, pp. 24 and 26, https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/105388/eib-247. pdf?v=527.4 (accessed March 18, 2023). This data, which apparently does not cover crop insurance, included payments beyond just commodity payments, such as conservation payments. 32. Randy Schnepf, “Farm Safety-Net Payments Under the 2014 Farm Bill: Comparison by Program Crop,” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, August 11, 2017, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44914.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 33. Although livestock and specialty crop producers do receive some subsidies, former American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman captured the subsidy issue well. He “dismisse[d] outright the claim that farmers couldn’t survive without subsidy money. ‘Why does the livestock industry survive without subsidies?’ he ask[ed]. ‘Why does the specialty crop [fruit and vegetable] industry survive?’” Tamar Haspel, “Why Do Taxpayers Subsidize Rich Farmers?” The Washington Post, March 15, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost. com/lifestyle/food/why-do-taxpayers-subsidize-rich-farmers/2018/03/15/50e89906-27b6-11e8-b79d- f3d931db7f68_story.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. James, John

Securing America’s Critical Minerals Supply Act

119/hr/3617

App Store Accountability Act

119/hr/3149

Reforming Education for Veterans Act

119/hr/1527

Back to All Bills