Gold Star Family Education Parity Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/2720
Last Updated: February 20, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Kennedy, Timothy M. [D-NY-26]

ID: K000402

Follow the money

The bill

Gold Star Family Education Parity Act

HR. 2720, 119th Congress — read as touching For-Profit Education & Student Loans.

The sponsor

Rep. Kennedy, Timothy M. [D-NY-26]

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

The money

$79,500 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Education" section, p. 383-385 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Subcommittee Hearings Held

June 10, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. The Gold Star Family Education Parity Act (HR 2720) - a title that reeks of sentimental pandering and calculated emotional manipulation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to terminate the Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance program, which provides educational benefits to the families of deceased or disabled veterans. But don't worry, it's not like they're actually cutting off support for these families - oh no, they're just "streamlining" the process by transferring them to a different program (Post-9/11 Educational Assistance). Because what every grieving family needs is more bureaucratic red tape.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Chapter 35 of title 38, United States Code, by adding a new subchapter that terminates the authority for educational assistance under this chapter on August 1, 2029. It also provides a "safety net" by making these individuals eligible for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance - because who needs consistency and predictability in their benefits? The clerical amendment is just a nice touch, ensuring that the table of sections is updated to reflect this brilliant new policy.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are affected: Gold Star families (because who doesn't love a good emotional appeal?), veterans' organizations (who will likely be too busy politicking to notice the fine print), and educational institutions (which will have to deal with the fallout of another bureaucratic mess).

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "robbing Peter to pay Paul." By terminating one program and transferring beneficiaries to another, Congress can claim they're not actually cutting funding - just "reorganizing" it. Meanwhile, families will have to navigate an even more Byzantine system to access the benefits they need. It's like playing a game of bureaucratic musical chairs, except everyone loses.

Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a severe case of "Legislative Lip Service Syndrome," where politicians pay lip service to supporting veterans and their families while actually doing nothing to address the underlying issues. The real disease here is Congressional cowardice - they're too afraid to make actual changes or take tough decisions, so they resort to cosmetic fixes that only serve to further confuse and frustrate those affected.

Prognosis: This bill will likely pass with flying colors, as politicians on both sides of the aisle pat themselves on the back for "supporting our troops" while doing nothing to actually address the systemic problems plaguing veterans' benefits. Meanwhile, Gold Star families will continue to suffer from bureaucratic whiplash, and educational institutions will have to deal with the fallout. Just another day in the never-ending farce that is American politics.

Related Topics

Military & Veterans AffairsEducation & Student Aid
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Kennedy, Timothy M. [D-NY-26]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$79,500
19 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$6,600
Committees
$0
Individuals
$72,900

No PAC contributions found

1
SENECA NATION OF INDIANS
2 transactions
$6,600

No committee contributions found

1
RECHLER, SCOTT H.
2 transactions
$10,000
2
FROMEN, JOHN J. JR
2 transactions
$8,400
3
O'BRIEN, CHRISTOPHER
1 transaction
$5,000
4
LOGOTHETIS, GEORGE
1 transaction
$3,300
5
SIMON, BRIAN W.
1 transaction
$3,300
6
LO, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$3,300
7
YUHNKE, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$3,300
8
BUCHHEIT, GERALD A.
1 transaction
$3,300
9
CIMINELLI, PAUL F.
1 transaction
$3,300
10
CARONE, FRANK
1 transaction
$3,300
11
CARUBBA, JOSEPH
1 transaction
$3,300
12
PERSICO, JENNIFER C.
1 transaction
$3,300
13
OSTROFF, RICHARD L.
1 transaction
$3,300
14
MERINOFF, CHARLES
1 transaction
$3,300
15
COLE, JACQUELINE
1 transaction
$3,300
16
CORRADO, JOHN J.
1 transaction
$3,300
17
KOSTRZEWSKI, MARK B.
1 transaction
$3,300
18
COLE, MARGIE
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9]

ID: C001068

Top Contributors

10

1
SEIU COPE (SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION)
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,000
Nov 5, 2024
2
SEIU COPE (SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION)
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$2,000
Nov 5, 2024
3
KEENEY, MIKE
LEWIS THOMASON • LEWIS THOMASON
IndividualMEMPHIS, TN
$3,300
Feb 6, 2024
4
RITCHEY, JANICE C
IndividualMEMPHIS, TN
$3,300
Jun 30, 2024
5
RITCHEY, KENT
WOLFCHASE TOYOTA • AUTOMOBILE DEALER
IndividualMEMPHIS, TN
$3,300
Jun 30, 2024
6
WALTON, CHRISTY
IndividualBENTONVILLE, AR
$3,300
Jun 30, 2024
7
KEENEY, MICHAEL
LEWIS THOMASON • ATTORNEY
IndividualMEMPHIS, TN
$3,300
May 25, 2023
8
SEGAL, GORDON
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualMEMPHIS, TN
$3,300
Apr 10, 2023
9
SMITH, FREDERICK
FEDEX • CEO
IndividualMEMPHIS, TN
$3,300
Jul 31, 2024
10
BEKTAS, MELIH
SELF EMPLOYED • ENGINEER
IndividualNORTH PROVIDENCE, RI
$3,000
Oct 19, 2023

Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-18]

ID: L000397

Top Contributors

10

1
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Sep 28, 2023
2
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Sep 24, 2023
3
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Sep 28, 2023
4
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Sep 28, 2023
5
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Aug 27, 2023
6
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Aug 27, 2023
7
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Sep 28, 2023
8
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Sep 28, 2023
9
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Sep 24, 2023
10
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,000
Jul 16, 2023

Rep. Mrvan, Frank J. [D-IN-1]

ID: M001214

Top Contributors

10

1
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$1,000
Dec 5, 2023
2
BAKER, BRENDA
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
3
MARCUS, MIRIAM
SELF-EMPLOYED • CONSULTANT
IndividualMUNSTER, IN
$3,300
Dec 23, 2023
4
DOVELLOS, ALEXANDRA
KING MUFFLER & BRAKE • ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR
IndividualSCHERERVILLE, IN
$3,300
Nov 30, 2023
5
SOROS, JONATHON A.
JS CAPITAL LLC • CEO
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Oct 11, 2023
6
WOMER, ROD
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualNEWBURY PARK, CA
$3,300
Dec 6, 2023
7
WOMER, ROD
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualNEWBURY PARK, CA
$3,300
Dec 6, 2023
8
DOVELLOS, MICHAEL C.
ROYAL BRUSH MFG. INC. • DIRECTOR
IndividualMUNSTER, IN
$3,300
Nov 18, 2023
9
CANNEY, LES
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Nov 27, 2023
10
PATRICK, SHARON
PATRICK PARTNERS INC. • CONSULTANT
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Nov 29, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Kennedy, Timothy M. [D-NY-26]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 47 nodes and 31 connections (47 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $105,300

Top Donors - Rep. Kennedy, Timothy M. [D-NY-26]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

1 Org18 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 harmed.

  • Section 2(a) terminates Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance (Chapter 35) effective August 1, 2029, eliminating a federal education benefit program that for-profit colleges and student-loan servicers rely on for enrollment and revenue.

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 Education

Weak
Vector: 62%
Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 2720 focuses on transitioning veterans' dependents from one federal education benefit to another, while the Project 2025 excerpt emphasizes school choice, state opt-out of federal programs, and accreditation reform; there is only a tangential connection through general federal education assistance."

Key themes:education assistancefederal education programsbenefits transition

— 351 — Department of Education as the Educational Choice for Children Act. This bill would create a federal scholarship tax credit that would incentivize donors to contribute to nonprofit scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). Eligible families could then use that funding from the SGOs for their children’s education expenses including private school tuition, tutoring, and instructional materials. ADDITIONAL K–12 REFORMS Allowing States to Opt Out of Federal Education Programs. States should be able to opt out of federal education programs such as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. Much of the red tape and regulations that hinder local school districts are handed down from Washington. This regulatory burden far exceeds the federal government’s less than 10 percent financing share of K–12 education. In the most recent fiscal year (FY 2022), states and localities financed 93 percent of K–12 education costs, and the federal government just 7 percent. That 7 percent share should not allow the federal government to dictate state and local education policy. l To restore state and local control of education and reduce the bureaucratic and compliance burden, Congress should allow states to opt out of the dozens of federal K–12 education programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and instead allow states to put their share of federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law. This policy has been advanced over the years via a proposal known as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM HEA: Accreditation Reform Congress established two primary responsibilities for the U.S. Department of Education in the HEA: 1) to ensure the “administrative capacity and financial responsibility” of colleges and universities that accept Title IV funds; and 2) to ensure the quality of those institutions. Congress did not endow the Department of Education with the authority to involve itself in academic quality issues relating to colleges and universities that participate in the Title IV student aid program; the HEA allows the agency only to recognize accreditors, which are then supposed to provide quality assurance measures. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has followed closely in the footsteps of the Obama Administration by engaging in a politically motivated and incon- sistent administration of the accrediting agency recognition process. As a result, accreditors have transformed into de facto government agents. Despite claims by — 352 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the department and accreditation agencies that accreditation is voluntary, the fact that Americans are denied access to an otherwise widely available entitle- ment benefit if the institution “elects” to not be accredited makes accreditation anything but voluntary. Today, accreditation determines whether Americans can access federal student aid benefits, transfer academic credits, enroll in higher-level degree programs, and even qualify for federal employment. Unnecessarily focused on schools in a specific geographic region, institutional accreditation reviews have also become wildly expensive audits by academic “peers” that stifle innovation and discourage new institutions of higher education. Of par- ticular concern are efforts by many accreditation agencies to leverage their Title IV (student loans and grants) gatekeeper roles to force institutions to adopt policies that have nothing to do with academic quality assurance and student outcomes. One egregious example of this is the extent to which accreditors have forced col- leges and universities, many of them faith-based institutions, to adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies that conflict with federal civil rights laws, state laws, and the institutional mission and culture of the schools. Perhaps more distress- ingly, accreditors, while professing support for academic freedom and campus free speech, have presided over a precipitous decline in both over the past decade. Despite maintaining criteria that demand such policies, accreditors have done nothing to dampen the illiberal chill that has swept across American campuses over the past decade. The current system is not working. A radical overhaul of the HEA’s accreditation requirements is thus in order. The next Administration should work with Congress to amend the HEA and should consider the following reforms: l Prohibit accreditation agencies from leveraging their Title IV gatekeeper role to mandate that educational institutions adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. l Protect the sovereignty of states to decide governance and leadership issues for their state-supported colleges and universities by prohibiting accreditation agencies from intruding upon the governance of state-supported educational institutions. l Protect faith-based institutions by prohibiting accreditation agencies from: 1. Requiring standards and criteria that undermine the religious beliefs of, or require policies or conduct that conflict with, the religious mission or religious beliefs of the institution; and

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal
Vector: 62%
Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 2720 focuses on terminating and transitioning educational benefits for Gold Star families under VA programs, while the Project 2025 HHS section addresses healthcare regulations, abortion policy, civil rights in health programs, and related social services—there is no substantive thematic or policy overlap between the two."

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

Department of Education

Minimal
Vector: 62%
Pages: 368-370AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 2720 focuses on transitioning educational benefits for Gold Star families from one VA program to another, while the Project 2025 policy addresses K-12 special education regulations, school meal programs, and student loan repayment—there is no substantive overlap in subject matter or objectives."

— 336 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise on civil rights, the next conservative Administration should take sweeping action to assure that the purpose of the Civil Rights Act is not inverted through a disparate impact standard to provide a pretext for theoretically endless federal meddling. Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities; Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities (Equity in IDEA) l Effective January 18, 2017, the department issued final regulations under Part B of IDEA that require states to consider race and ethnicity in the identification, placement, and discipline of students with disabilities. The new Administration should rescind this regulation. Students should never be denied access to special education services because of their race or ethnicity, but this is happening in school districts across the country thanks to the Obama Administration’s Equity in IDEA regulation. This was not the intent of the regulation, but it is an inevitable byproduct of its flawed assumptions. The Obama Administration looked at the racial statistics on special education assignment and made two assumptions: that African American students were dis- proportionately overrepresented, and that this overrepresentation constituted a harm that required federal pressure to ameliorate. School districts deemed to overrepresent minority students in special education assignment, or in discipline amongst special education students, are tagged by their state education agencies as engaging in “significant disproportionality,” and are required to reallocate 15 percent of their IDEA Part B money into coordinated early intervening services that are intended to address the “root causes of dispro- portionality.” In practice, this can mean raiding special education funding to pay for CRT-inspired “equity” consultants and professional development. This is especially problematic given that both of the assumptions behind Equity in IDEA are flawed. Special education services provide extra assistance to students; they do not harm them. And according to the most rigorous research on the subject, conducted by Penn State’s Paul Morgan, black students are actually underrep- resented in special education once adequate statistical controls are made. That means that this regulation effectively further depresses the provision of valuable services to an already underserved group. l The next Administration should immediately commence rulemaking to rescind the Equity in IDEA regulation. No replacement regulation is required. l The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) should prepare a digest of the best research on this subject and share — 337 — Department of Education it directly with state superintendents and state special education leaders across the country, who have been led by this regulation to believe a false problem diagnosis. Every effort should be made to dissuade states from continuing to operate on the assumption that overrepresentation requires state intervention after the federal pressure is rescinded. Provide School Meals to Children in Need; Do Not Use Federal Meals to Support Radical Ideology In May 2022, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) tried to advance a radical political agenda using the federal school meal program. Nearly a century ago, federal lawmakers adopted the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP) and other services that provide meals for K–12 students to give children from low-income families access to food while at school. Since the 1940s, federal lawmakers have greatly expanded these meal programs, creating an entitlement for nearly all students, regardless of family income levels, and have turned the meal programs into some of the most wasteful federal pro- grams in Washington. Now, the USDA is threatening to withhold federal taxpayer spending for these meals from schools that do not implement Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 so that the term “sex” is replaced with “sexual orientation and gender identity” (SOGI). l The next Administration should prohibit the USDA or any other federal agency from withholding services from federal or state agencies—including but not limited to K–12 schools—that choose not to replace “sex” with “SOGI” in that agency’s administration of Title IX. The Administration will have significant support for this policy change among state officials and Members of Congress. Twenty-two state attorneys general filed a lawsuit after the USDA’s announcement that the agency intended to withhold spending from schools that do not replace sex with SOGI. Members of Congress also introduced legislation in 2022 that would prohibit the agency from carrying out its intentions regarding Title IX. Phase Out Existing Income-Driven Repayment Plans While income-driven repayment (IDR) of student loans is a superior approach relative to fixed payment plans, the number of IDR plans has proliferated beyond reason. And recent IDR plans are so generous that they require no or only token repayment from many students. l The Secretary should phase out all existing IDR plans by making new loans (including consolidation loans) ineligible and should implement

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