Community First Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/2669
Last Updated: May 4, 2025

Sponsored by

Rep. Bell, Wesley [D-MO-1]

ID: B001324

Follow the money

The bill

Community First Act

HR. 2669, 119th Congress — read as touching Private Prisons & Immigration Detention.

The sponsor

Rep. Bell, Wesley [D-MO-1]

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

The money

$68,750 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Housing and Urban Development" section, p. 548-550 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H1568)

April 9, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

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

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Another bill, another exercise in futility. The Community First Act (HR 2669) is a perfect example of how politicians pretend to care about social justice while actually serving the interests of their corporate donors and special interest groups.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The bill's stated purpose is to reduce the number of individuals incarcerated in local jails, decrease the days spent in jail, and support community-led justice reinvestment. Sounds noble, right? But let's not be naive. The real objective is to funnel more taxpayer money into the pockets of "community-based organizations" and "nonprofits" that will inevitably become bloated bureaucracies.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill establishes a new Justice Department grant program, which will provide funding for eligible partnerships between local governments, nonprofits, and Indian tribes. These grants can be used for various purposes, including reducing cash bail, creating diversion programs, and providing training on indigent defense. Oh, and of course, there's the obligatory mention of "equity disparities" to appease the social justice warriors.

The bill also sets unrealistic targets for reducing incarceration rates, because who needs realistic goals when you're trying to sound good? Grantees must reduce incarceration rates by 5% in the first year, 10% in subsequent years, and a whopping 50% by the end of the grant period. Good luck with that.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The usual suspects will benefit from this bill: community-based organizations, nonprofits, and local governments looking to pad their budgets. The actual people affected by the justice system? Not so much. They'll still be stuck in a broken system, but now with more bureaucratic red tape and "community-led" initiatives that will inevitably fail.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It won't address the root causes of mass incarceration or systemic injustices. Instead, it will create new layers of bureaucracy, waste taxpayer money, and provide a false sense of security for politicians who can claim they're "doing something" about social justice.

In reality, this bill is a symptom of a deeper disease: the inability of our political system to address real problems with meaningful solutions. It's a classic case of "legislative theater," where politicians pretend to care about an issue while actually serving their own interests and those of their donors.

So, let's call this bill what it is: a cynical exercise in vote-buying and special interest pandering. The Community First Act? More like the Community Last Act – as in, the community will be last on the list of priorities for our self-serving politicians.

Related Topics

State & Local Government AffairsCriminal Justice & Law Enforcement
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Bell, Wesley [D-MO-1]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$68,750
18 donors
PACs
$13,950
Organizations
$2,000
Committees
$0
Individuals
$52,800
1
DEMOCRACY ENGINE INC PAC
11 transactions
$12,600
2
SUN POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
1 transaction
$1,000
3
ACTBLUE
2 transactions
$350
1
BLUE ARROW MISSOURI LLC
1 transaction
$1,000
2
NEWTON BARTH LLP
1 transaction
$500
3
ICON DESIGN LLC
1 transaction
$500

No committee contributions found

1
WINN, DAVID
2 transactions
$13,200
2
PFAUTCH, ROY
1 transaction
$6,600
3
SALMON, LESLIE
1 transaction
$3,300
4
FEIRSTEIN, BARRY
1 transaction
$3,300
5
WERNER, LINDA
1 transaction
$3,300
6
RETTNER, MATTHEW
1 transaction
$3,300
7
WULIGER, SANDRA
1 transaction
$3,300
8
MENDELSOHN, GARY
1 transaction
$3,300
9
KIRK, CLAY KENAN
1 transaction
$3,300
10
DACHS, HARVEY
1 transaction
$3,300
11
FARB, DAN
1 transaction
$3,300
12
GOLUB, BEN
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Cleaver, Emanuel [D-MO-5]

ID: C001061

Top Contributors

10

1
BARNES LAW FIRM, LLC
OrganizationKANSAS CITY, MO
$2,500
Jul 21, 2023
2
GRAHAM-ANDEBRHAN LLC
OrganizationKANSAS CITY, MO
$1,125
Jul 7, 2023
3
OBERHELMAN, DIANE
CULLINAN PROPERTIES LTD. • EXECUTIVE
IndividualEDWARDS, IL
$3,300
Nov 20, 2024
4
EMERSON, BILL
ROCKET COMPANIES • PRESIDENT
IndividualBLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI
$3,300
Dec 19, 2023
5
RAYANT, GARRY
SELF EMPLOYED • DENTIST
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Oct 18, 2023
6
RAYANT, GARRY
SELF EMPLOYED • DENTIST
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Oct 18, 2023
7
HALL, DAVID
HALLMARK • EXECUTIVE
IndividualKANSAS CITY, MO
$3,300
Jan 25, 2024
8
HALL, DON JR.
HALLMARK CARDS • EXECUTIVE
IndividualKANSAS CITY, MO
$3,300
Jan 25, 2024
9
LOVIER, HEATHER
ROCKET MORTGAGE • CHIEF CLIENT EXP. OFF.
IndividualROCKWOOD, MI
$3,300
Jun 28, 2024
10
GRAY, JON
BLACKSTONE • PRESIDENT
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
May 15, 2024

Rep. Clarke, Yvette D. [D-NY-9]

ID: C001067

Top Contributors

10

1
US MARSHALS SERVICE
OrganizationNEW YORK, NY
$2,900
Apr 20, 2023
2
ELLIS, GAREY V
INNER FORCE • PHYSICIAN
IndividualEAST STROUDSBURG, PA
$3,300
Oct 29, 2024
3
GIFFORD, BILLY
ALTRIA • CEO
IndividualRICHMOND, VA
$3,300
Oct 18, 2024
4
STEWART, JENNIFER M
STEWART STRATEGIES & SOLUTIONS • GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Mar 31, 2023
5
ANSTED, JEFFREY
AMERICAN BROADBAND & TELECOMMUNICATION • EXECUTIVE
IndividualMAUMEE, OH
$3,300
May 22, 2024
6
CHAIT, ERIC
DOME HOME CARE • DIRECTOR OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
IndividualWOODMERE, NY
$3,300
May 6, 2024
7
GREENFIELD, ELIZABETH
MAXSIP CORPORATION • COO
IndividualWOODMERE, NY
$3,300
May 6, 2024
8
LAVINE, JONATHAN
BAIN CAPITAL • INVESTOR
IndividualBOSTON, MA
$3,300
Apr 6, 2024
9
LAVINE, JONATHAN
BAIN CAPITAL • INVESTOR
IndividualBOSTON, MA
$3,300
Apr 6, 2024
10
MAX, ISRAEL
MAXSIP TEL • TELECOM
IndividualWOODMERE, NY
$3,300
May 6, 2024

Rep. Figures, Shomari [D-AL-2]

ID: F000481

Top Contributors

10

1
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Apr 29, 2024
2
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
May 24, 2024
3
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$2,300
May 24, 2024
4
MALDI MA
OrganizationIRVINGTON, AL
$2,000
Apr 6, 2024
5
HILLWOOD LIQUORS LLC
OrganizationMOBILE, AL
$1,000
Feb 14, 2024
6
SIP & SMOKE LLC
OrganizationMOBILE, AL
$1,000
Feb 14, 2024
7
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$1,000
Feb 28, 2024
8
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$1,000
Aug 15, 2024
9
MAA PETROLEUM LLC
OrganizationIRVINGTON, AL
$500
Feb 14, 2024
10
MOWA BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
OrganizationMOUNT VERNON, AL
$500
Apr 6, 2024

Rep. McIver, LaMonica [D-NJ-10]

ID: M001229

Top Contributors

10

1
FRIENDS OF ANDRE SAYEGH
CITY OF PATERSON • ELECTED OFFICIAL
COMPATERSON, NJ
$250
Jun 28, 2024
2
ELECTION FUND OF CRAIG J. COUGHLIN
OrganizationFORDS, NJ
$1,000
Jun 13, 2024
3
ELECTION FUND OF PATRICK COUNCIL
OrganizationNEWARK, NJ
$250
Jun 12, 2024
4
JACOBS, IRWIN
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualLA JOLLA, CA
$3,300
Nov 21, 2024
5
HANINI, SAMER
SKYE • ARCHITECTURE
IndividualWEST ORANGE, NJ
$3,300
Jun 26, 2024
6
JACOBS, JOSEPH
SELF EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY
IndividualPUNTA GORDA, FL
$3,300
Jun 24, 2024
7
PANEPINTO, JOSEPH
PANEPINTO PROPERTIES • CEO
IndividualJERSEY CITY, NJ
$3,300
Jun 21, 2024
8
GOMES, JOE
EMPIRE PLAZA LLC • OWNER
IndividualLINDEN, NJ
$3,300
Jun 29, 2024
9
ISSA, MARK
ASHTON BUILDING COMPANY LLC • CO-OWNER
IndividualFLORHAM PARK, NJ
$3,300
Jun 29, 2024
10
JORGE, LEE
ASHTON BUILDING COMPANY LLC • CO-OWNER
IndividualFLORHAM PARK, NJ
$3,300
Jun 29, 2024

Rep. Jackson, Jonathan L. [D-IL-1]

ID: J000309

Top Contributors

10

1
DUDA, KENNETH
ARISTA NETWORKS INC. • SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
IndividualMENLO PARK, CA
$6,600
Jun 21, 2024
2
GUPTA, ANUJA
VERANDAH • FOUNDER
IndividualHANOVER PARK, IL
$6,600
Mar 19, 2024
3
BURKLE, RON
THE YUCAIPA COMPANIES, LLC • MANAGING PARTNER
IndividualWEST HOLLYWOOD, CA
$6,600
Apr 16, 2024
4
DUDA, KENNETH
ARISTA NETWORKS INC. • SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
IndividualMENLO PARK, CA
$6,600
Jun 21, 2024
5
KAMANZI, OLIVIER
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualCHICAGO, IL
$5,000
Jun 29, 2024
6
ADAMS, HAYDEN
UNISWAP LABS • FOUNDER AND CEO
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Aug 14, 2024
7
CHU MA, SUM
SELF • RESTURANT OWNER
IndividualCHICAGO, IL
$3,300
Aug 27, 2024
8
DUDA, JENNIFER
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualMENLO PARK, CA
$3,300
Jul 24, 2024
9
GABLE, WILLIE
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualNEW ORLEANS, LA
$3,300
Sep 14, 2024
10
KNOWLING, ROBERT
EAGLES LANDING PARTNERS • EXECUTIVE
IndividualGLENNVILLE, GA
$3,300
May 21, 2024

Rep. Bishop, Sanford D. [D-GA-2]

ID: B000490

Top Contributors

10

1
TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LOUISIANA
OrganizationMANSURA, LA
$3,300
Dec 30, 2023
2
TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LOUISIANA
OrganizationMANSURA, LA
$2,500
Oct 30, 2024
3
MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION
OrganizationOKMULGEE, OK
$1,000
Oct 28, 2024
4
DAVIS, HENRY BART III
SELF-EMPLOYED • FARMER
IndividualDOERUN, GA
$3,300
Oct 21, 2024
5
DAVIS, HENRY BART JR
SELF-EMPLOYED • FARMER
IndividualDOERUN, GA
$3,300
Oct 21, 2024
6
DAVIS, JEDD ADAM
SELF-EMPLOYED • FARMER
IndividualDOERUN, GA
$3,300
Oct 21, 2024
7
DAVIS, PAULA
SELF EMPLOYED • FARMER
IndividualDOERUN, GA
$3,300
Oct 21, 2024
8
REDDING, ROBERT L. JR
THE REDDING FIRM • PRESIDENT
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Oct 21, 2024
9
VECCHIARELLI, DANIEL A
LEPRINO FOODS • VICE CHAIRMAN
IndividualDENVER, CO
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024
10
BARNES, ROY E.
THE BARNES LAW GROUP LLC • ATTORNEY
IndividualMARIETTA, GA
$3,300
Oct 25, 2024

Rep. Thompson, Bennie G. [D-MS-2]

ID: T000193

Top Contributors

10

1
LA, TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE
N/A • N/A
IndividualMARKSVILLE, LA
$5,000
Feb 7, 2024
2
DINKLER, AYAME MS.
CRANE STRATEGIC, LLC • OWNER
IndividualNEW ORLEANS, LA
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024
3
REEVES, JAMES
SELF • ATTORNEY
IndividualBILOXI, MS
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024
4
WISMEIER, MOLLY
RESTAURANT R'EVOLUTION • DIRECTOR OF WINE AND SPIRITS
IndividualNEW ORLEANS, LA
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024
5
STAFFORD, MARK MR.
DRC EMERGENCY SERVICES • CHIEF OF OPERATIONS
IndividualBALA CYNWYD, PA
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024
6
ASHY, ALTON MR.
ADVANCED STRATEGIES • PRESIDENT
IndividualBATON ROUGE, LA
$3,300
Oct 25, 2024
7
LA, TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE
N/A • N/A
IndividualMARKSVILLE, LA
$3,300
Dec 27, 2023
8
INDIANS, AGUA CALIENTE BAND O
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Dec 27, 2023
9
LAMPTON, WILLIAM
ERGON, INC. • VP PUBLIC AFFAIRS & GOVERNMENT RELATIO
IndividualJACKSON, MS
$3,300
Oct 27, 2023
10
WALTON, JAMES
SELF • WALTON ENTERPRISES
IndividualBENTONVILLE, AR
$3,300
Feb 7, 2024

Rep. Thanedar, Shri [D-MI-13]

ID: T000488

Top Contributors

10

1
LEVY, EDWARD C.
EDW C LEVY CO • CHAIRMAN
IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI
$6,600
Jun 30, 2024
2
LEVY, EDWARD C.
EDW C LEVY CO • CHAIRMAN
IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI
$6,600
Jul 1, 2024
3
LEVY, EDWARD C.
EDW C LEVY CO • CHAIRMAN
IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI
$6,600
Jun 30, 2024
4
SARVER, ROBERT
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPARADISE VALLEY, AZ
$6,600
Aug 5, 2024
5
PATEL, DILIP
JAMSAN HOTEL MANAGEMENT • MANAGER
IndividualLEXINGTON, MA
$3,300
Oct 27, 2024
6
SILVERSTON, CHARLES
GIBSON SIR • REAL ESTATE
IndividualCHESTNUT HILL, MA
$3,300
Oct 27, 2024
7
SINGH, GURPREET
SELF EMPLOYED • SELF EMPLOYED
IndividualHUNTS POINT, WA
$3,300
Oct 27, 2024
8
AGARWAL, AVADHESH K
N/A • RETIRED
IndividualROLLING HILLS, CA
$3,300
Aug 10, 2023
9
JADEJA, ASHA
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPALO ALTO, CA
$3,300
Jul 13, 2023
10
RATHI, VASANT
SPECIALTY ENZYMES • OWNER
IndividualYORBA LINDA, CA
$3,300
Aug 10, 2023

Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank" [D-GA-4]

ID: J000288

Top Contributors

0

No contribution data available

Rep. Ivey, Glenn [D-MD-4]

ID: I000058

Top Contributors

10

1
CITIZENS FOR FROSH
OrganizationBETHESDA, MD
$950
Jun 28, 2023
2
MATEYA CONSULTING LLC
OrganizationCLARKSVILLE, MD
$250
Apr 24, 2024
3
CHESLEY, WILLIAM F.
W.F. CHESLEY REAL ESTATE • PRESIDENT & CEO
IndividualCROFTON, MD
$3,300
Dec 17, 2024
4
MILLIKEN, STEPHEN
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Dec 5, 2024
5
ROWE, ROBINSON S. ESQ.
ROWE WEINSTEIN & SOHN PLLC • ATTORNEY
IndividualROCKVILLE, MD
$3,300
Oct 19, 2023
6
SANDBERG, SHERYL
NOT EMPLOYED • PHILANTHROPIST
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Dec 21, 2023
7
MILLIKEN, STEPHEN
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Oct 7, 2023
8
MICHAEL, KENNETH
NAI THE MICHAEL COMPANIES, INC. • CHAIRMAN
IndividualLANHAM, MD
$3,300
Mar 20, 2023
9
PETERS, DOUGLAS
THE PETERS GROUP • SMALL BUSINESS OWNER
IndividualBOWIE, MD
$3,300
Mar 27, 2023
10
PANITCH, IRWIN
DELOITTE TAX • ATTORNEY
IndividualPOTOMAC, MD
$3,300
Mar 6, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Bell, Wesley [D-MO-1]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 50 nodes and 45 connections (63 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $115,375

Top Donors - Rep. Bell, Wesley [D-MO-1]

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

3 PACs3 Orgs12 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • The bill aims to reduce local jail incarceration and days incarcerated, which would decrease demand for jail beds and thus harm private prison operators that profit from incarceration. Sections 2(a)(2) and 3(a)(3) explicitly target reducing jail populations and using financial savings from decreased incarceration to sustain programs.

  • The bill requires consultation with law enforcement agencies (Section 3(a)(1)) and focuses on reducing jail incarceration through pretrial reforms, which may reduce arrests and law enforcement workload, potentially harming surveillance tech vendors that rely on increased policing and incarceration.

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 Housing and Urban Development

Weak
Vector: 65%
Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on criminal justice reform to reduce jail incarceration through community-led grants, while the Project 2025 HUD section concerns housing market reforms, opposition to DEI/CRT initiatives, and housing supply policies. Both mention community involvement and equity considerations, but they operate in distinct policy domains with little direct overlap."

Key themes:community engagementequity considerationsdata-driven strategieslocal government partnershipsreducing disparities

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

Department of Justice

Weak
Vector: 63%
Pages: 599-601AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Community First Act focuses on reducing local jail incarceration through community-led justice reinvestment and grant programs, while the Project 2025 DOJ policy emphasizes enforcing immigration laws, reviewing grant administration for compliance with federal law, and prioritizing lawful actors who support federal law enforcement—particularly regarding immigration enforcement in sanctuary jurisdictions. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address immigration enforcement o"

Key themes:Department of Justice grantsgrant administration oversightstate and local partnerships

— 566 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Consistent with appropriations from Congress, the OJP dispenses approxi- mately $7 billion in various grants. Block grants are given to a state to be awarded pursuant to federal regulations. Some funds to support law enforcement and victims of crime are awarded pursuant to block grants. But most OJP funds are awarded through discretionary grants—specific programs written into the budget by Congress. Although Congress dictates the way in which many grant awards are to be made, federal staff enjoy a tremendous amount of discretion in adding “conditions” and “priority points.” Grants operate with a carrot and a stick. To receive grant funding, a recipient must agree to certain conditions, which in many instances include the President’s priorities. For instance, under an anti–human trafficking grant during the Obama Administration (approximately $110 million in 2020), an awardee had to show a partnership with an LGBTQ organization and always have an interpreter on site. These conditions worked to change culture and overlayed President Obama’s priorities: support for the LGBTQ community and for more of the funding to go to areas with large immigrant populations. During the Trump Administration, a condition added to grants stated that an awardee had to comply with all federal law (stock language), including federal law regarding the exchange of information between federal and local authorities about an individual’s immigration status. This condition prevented law enforcement in “sanctuary cities” from receiving grant awards. While the Trump Administra- tion suffered a series of setbacks from several hostile courts, it obtained from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals a decision upholding the department’s authority to impose these conditions.92 To ensure that taxpayer-funded grants are prioritized and distributed properly, the next conservative Administration should: l Conduct an immediate, comprehensive review of all federal grant disbursals to ensure not only that the programs are being properly administered by the department, but also that the grant funding is being received and used properly by recipients. l Order an overhaul of the DOJ grant application process, to include more rigorous vetting of state, local, and private grant applicants and inclusion of more pre-application criteria to ensure baseline fitness and eligibility for federal grant dollars. This long-overdue enhancement of the grant application and issuance process will ensure that hard-earned taxpayer dollars are going only to lawful actors who support federal law enforcement and demonstrate the ability and willingness to engage in lawful activities. — 567 — Department of Justice Ensuring Proper Enforcement and Administration of Our Immigration Laws. Although its role has changed over the years, most notably following the passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002,93 the Department of Justice plays a crucial role in the enforcement and adjudication of our immigration laws.94 Its leadership and energy, however, have not always reflected the importance placed by Congress on the execution of that crucial mission. With a few notable exceptions, successful fulfillment of the department’s responsibilities with respect to immi- gration was largely neglected until the Trump Administration. The Department of Homeland Security may be the largest federal department with immigration responsibilities, but successful fulfillment of the responsibilities prescribed by the immigration laws is not possible without bold and dedicated action by the Department of Justice. The DOJ and its leadership must intentionally prioritize fulfillment of the department’s immigration-related responsibilities in the next conservative Admin- istration. This will be no small task, as these responsibilities play out across nearly every DOJ office and component. If they hope to fulfill their responsibilities as assigned by Congress and deliver results for the American people, the department and the Attorney General should: l Issue guidance to all U.S. Attorneys emphasizing the importance of prosecuting immigration offenses,95 and immigration-related offenses. The brunt of these offenses is born by districts along the southwestern border with Mexico, but the simple fact remains that immigration and immigration-related offenses are present in every district across the country. Successfully pursuing the priorities outlined in this chapter will require creative use of the various immigration and immigration-related authorities in close partnership with the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, and other appropriate federal entities depending on the situation. l Pursue appropriate steps to assist the Department of Homeland Security in obtaining information about criminal aliens in jurisdictions across the United States, particularly those inside “sanctuary” jurisdictions. l Examine and consider the appropriateness of withdrawing or overturning every immigration decision rendered by Attorney General Garland (and any successor Attorney General during President Biden’s term). The Attorney General should pick up where the Attorneys General under President Trump left off and exercise his or her authority to adjudicate cases and provide guidance in appropriate cases to

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Weak
Vector: 61%
Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Community First Act focuses on reducing jail incarceration through community-led justice reinvestment, while the Project 2025 HUD policy seeks to end Housing First and promote transitional housing for homelessness. Both emphasize addressing underlying issues like mental health and substance abuse and supporting community-driven solutions, but they operate in different policy domains (criminal justice vs. housing/homelessness), resulting only tangential alignment."

Key themes:community-led initiativesaddressing root causes (mental health/substance abdata-driven strategiesequity for marginalized populationsalternatives to punitive approaches

— 516 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 37. HUD should implement administrative changes in regulation and guidance and seek statutory authority to end all Housing First directives of Continuum of Care (CoC) grantees and contract homelessness providers in addition to establishing restrictions on local Housing First policies where HUD grant funds are used. 38. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) was established in the 1990s, and numerous Administrations have devoted enormous resources to the Housing First model, experimenting with various ways to provide federally financed rapid rehousing and permanent housing opportunities. Housing First is a far-left idea premised on the belief that homelessness is primarily circumstantial rather than behavioral. The Housing First answer to homelessness is to give someone a house instead of attempting to understand the underlying causes of homelessness. Federal intervention centered on Housing First has failed to acknowledge that resolving the issue of homelessness is often a matter of resolving mental health and substance abuse challenges. Instead of the permanent supportive housing proffered by Housing First, a conservative Administration should shift to transitional housing with a focus on addressing the underlying issues that cause homelessness in the first place. 39. The Senate Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers (LIFT) Act would address this policy goal. See S. 2797, Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers Act of 2021 (LIFT Homebuyers Act of 2021), 117th Congress, introduced September 22, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/s2797/BILLS-117s2797is.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 40. FHA did not facilitate the widespread use of 30-year mortgages until the 1950s when, interacting with Federal Reserve policies, federal agencies began broader adoption of the mortgages, which, despite lowering the monthly repayment terms, result in slow equity accumulation and wealth-building opportunities. 41. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 fundamentally revised the scope of federal regulation in the nation’s housing finance system, placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the purview of a newly established Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and establishing a Housing Trust Fund (HTF) that is administered in the HUD Office of Community Planning and Development. See H.R. 3221, Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Public Law No. 110-289, 110th Congress, July 30, 2008, https://www.congress. gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 42. Guiding questions: What reforms should be proposed that could be accomplished within five years? What reforms can be done administratively, and what reforms would need legislative authorization? Are there functions that HUD administers that could be achieved more effectively at another department or agency? What big-picture reforms should be proposed that might take more than five years that would reorganize HUD and its programs to meet the objectives in the vision or mission? What would occur in the absence of these public finance subsidies? How much crowd-out do these subsidies create in the market? Would America be a seriously underhoused nation without these subsidies? Who are the policies intended to benefit? What organizational changes must be made? 43. The Faircloth Amendment (Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998) amended the Housing Act of 1937 to maintain public housing units at 1999 levels, preventing housing authorities from maintaining more public housing than they did then. H.R. 4194, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law No. 105-276, 105th Congress, October 21, 1998, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ276/PLAW-105publ276.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). In recent years, the statutory restriction on new construction of public housing units has been circumvented through some narrow uses of preservation programs such as the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, initially authorized in 2012 and reauthorized several times since under higher program unit conversion caps. Congress also provided paths for renewal and continuation of a portion of existing public housing; project/site-based housing stock (refinancing with long-term HAP contract commitments); and Section 8 units through the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (MAHRA). H.R. 2158, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Public Law No. 105-65, 105th Congress, October 27, 1997, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ65/PLAW-105publ65.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 44. As the evolution of HUD rental assistance transitions away from the public housing model toward housing choice vouchers, there should be adequate landlord participation to ensure that the supply of housing units for rent in these programs meets the demand for rent among eligible tenants. This issue has been addressed in various ways, including by a task force instituted at the department during the Trump Administration, but could likely remain a challenge in the administration of the program. — 517 — 16 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR William Perry Pendley The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) oversees, manages, and protects the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and other information about those resources; and honors the nation’s trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities. AGENCY OVERVIEW DOI’s purview encompasses more than 500 million acres of federal lands, including national parks and national wildlife refuges; 700 million acres of sub- surface minerals; 1.7 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS); 23 percent of the nation’s energy; water in 17 western states; and trust responsibilities for 566 Indian tribes and Alaska Natives. DOI’s 2024 budget request totals $18.9 billion, an increase of $2 billion, or 12 percent, more than the 2023 enacted level. The budget also provides an estimated $12.6 billion in permanent funding in 2024. In 2024, DOI will generate receipts of $19.6 billion. A “Home Department” had been considered in 1789 and urged by Presidents over the decades until DOI’s creation in 1849. The variety of its early responsibil- ities—the Indian Bureau, the General Land Office, the Bureau of Pensions, and the Patent Office, among others—earned it various nicknames, including “Great Miscellany,” “hydra-headed monster,” and “Mother of Departments.”1 Its mission became more focused on natural resources with the rise of the conservation move- ment in the early 20th century; however, it kept its historic (since the days of the Founding Fathers) role as overseer of vast working landscapes involving grazing,

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

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

Full Policy Text

Related Bills