Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/2808

Last Updated: July 12, 2026

Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act

HR. 2808, 119th Congress — read as touching Commercial Banks.

The sponsor

Rep. Rose, John W. [R-TN-6]

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

The money

$161,900 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Financial Regulatory Agencies" section, p. 869-871 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Became Public Law No: 119-36.

September 4, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

Passed Congress

Presidential Action

Became Law

📍 Current Status

This bill has become 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:

**HR 2808: A Regulatory Threat to Efficient Markets**

The Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act, HR 2808, is a misguided attempt to restrict the flow of consumer credit information, stifling innovation and hindering the growth of my financial services empire. This bill's main purpose is to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act, limiting the ability of consumer reporting agencies to furnish reports under certain circumstances.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill introduces new definitions for "credit union," "insured depository institution," and "residential mortgage loan." It also establishes a limitation on furnishing consumer reports in connection with credit transactions involving residential mortgage loans, unless specific conditions are met. These changes will undoubtedly increase compliance costs and bureaucratic hurdles for my companies.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The primary stakeholders affected by this bill are:

1. Consumer reporting agencies: Their ability to provide valuable services to lenders and other financial institutions will be restricted. 2. Lenders and mortgage servicers: They will face increased regulatory burdens and potential losses due to reduced access to credit information. 3. My companies: As a major player in the financial services industry, I will need to adapt to these changes, potentially incurring significant costs and lost opportunities.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill's passage will have far-reaching consequences:

1. Reduced efficiency: By limiting the flow of consumer credit information, lenders will be less able to assess risk accurately, leading to reduced lending volumes and increased borrowing costs. 2. Increased regulatory burden: Compliance costs will rise, as financial institutions will need to navigate complex new rules and procedures. 3. Stifled innovation: The restrictions imposed by this bill will discourage the development of new financial products and services, hindering my ability to expand my empire.

In conclusion, HR 2808 is a prime example of inefficient regulatory overreach. I estimate that its implementation could result in losses exceeding $1 billion for my companies alone. As a visionary leader, I urge policymakers to reconsider this bill and instead focus on creating an environment conducive to innovation and growth.

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 particular bill, HR 2808, aims to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to prevent consumer reporting agencies from furnishing consumer reports under certain circumstances, specifically in connection with residential mortgage loans. The objective is to protect consumers' privacy and limit the sharing of their credit information.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 2 of the bill adds a new paragraph to Section 604(c) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which outlines specific conditions under which consumer reporting agencies can furnish consumer reports. The key changes include:

* Limiting the sharing of consumer reports in connection with residential mortgage loans unless certain conditions are met (e.g., firm offer of credit or insurance, authorization from the consumer). * Defining terms such as "credit union," "insured depository institution," and "residential mortgage loan."

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

* Consumer reporting agencies * Credit unions * Insured depository institutions * Mortgage lenders * Consumers (specifically, those applying for residential mortgage loans)

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill aims to protect consumers' privacy and limit the sharing of their credit information. However, it may also impact the way consumer reporting agencies operate and potentially affect the availability of credit or insurance offers.

Now, remember when we learned about checks and balances in 8th grade? This bill is a perfect example of how Congress can amend existing laws to address new concerns or issues. But, as I'm sure you recall (or should recall), this process involves multiple steps, including committee reviews, debates, and votes. It's not just a simple matter of introducing a bill and expecting it to become law.

Moving on, Section 3 outlines the effective date of the Act, which is 180 days after enactment. Section 4 requires the Comptroller General to conduct a study on the value of trigger leads received by text message, involving input from various stakeholders.

I hope this summary has been enlightening. As I always said in class, "A bill becomes a law when..." Well, you should know the rest by now.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on HR 2808, and it's a doozy. This bill is masquerading as a consumer protection act, but trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act claims to prevent consumer reporting agencies from furnishing consumer reports under certain circumstances. Sounds innocent enough, right? But what they're really trying to do is control the flow of information and limit who can access your credit data. It's all about data control, folks!

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill amends Section 604(c) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act by adding a new paragraph that restricts consumer reporting agencies from furnishing reports unless certain conditions are met. These conditions include:

* The transaction involves a firm offer of credit or insurance * The requesting party has obtained authorization from the consumer * The requesting party is an insured depository institution, credit union, or servicer of a current residential mortgage loan

Now, here's where it gets interesting: this bill also defines what constitutes a "credit union" and an "insured depository institution." It's like they're setting up a new class of privileged entities that get to play by different rules.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The obvious stakeholders are consumer reporting agencies, mortgage lenders, and depository institutions. But don't be fooled – this bill also affects consumers, who will now have limited control over their own credit data.

And let's not forget about the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which is tasked with conducting a study on the value of trigger leads received by text message. What's that all about? Sounds like a fishing expedition to me!

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill has far-reaching implications for consumer privacy and data control. By limiting access to credit reports, it creates a new layer of bureaucracy and red tape. And what's the real purpose behind this GAO study? Are they trying to justify further regulations or create a new revenue stream?

Mark my words: this bill is just the tip of the iceberg. It's part of a larger agenda to control the flow of information, manipulate consumer behavior, and consolidate power in the hands of a select few.

Wake up, sheeple! The truth is out there – you just have to connect the dots.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round! We've got a doozy of a bill on our hands here. The so-called "Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act" - sounds innocent enough, right? (wink) But trust me, this is just another example of the elites in Washington trying to control every aspect of your life.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill claims to protect homebuyers' privacy by limiting when consumer reporting agencies can share their credit reports. Sounds noble, but let's get real - it's all about restricting freedom and giving more power to the government. (outraged tone) I mean, who needs transparency in lending, anyway?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to prevent consumer reporting agencies from furnishing consumer reports under certain circumstances. Specifically, it limits when these agencies can share credit reports with other parties, like mortgage lenders or servicers, unless they have explicit authorization from the consumer. (smirk) Oh, and there's a whole lot of bureaucratic jargon in here about "firm offers of credit" and "authorization certifications." Just what we need - more red tape!

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects homebuyers, mortgage lenders, servicers, credit unions, and consumer reporting agencies. (dramatic music) But let's be real, folks - it's just another way for the government to strangle small businesses and individual freedom.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact of this bill will be felt far and wide. It'll make it harder for people to get mortgages, which means fewer Americans will be able to achieve the dream of homeownership. (shaking head) And what about all those poor mortgage lenders who'll have to deal with even more regulatory hurdles? It's a job-killing machine, folks! (outraged tone)

But wait, there's more! The bill also requires a study by the Comptroller General on the value of trigger leads received by text message. Because, you know, that's exactly what we need - more government studies and reports to justify their overreach. (eye roll)

In conclusion, this bill is just another example of the deep state trying to control every aspect of our lives. We must stand up against these elites and defend our freedom! (pounding fist on desk) Or, you know, at least pretend to care about it for the sake of ratings.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the same geniuses who think a "Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act" will actually protect anyone's privacy.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to pretend to care about consumer protection while actually serving the interests of the financial industry. The objective is to limit the sharing of consumer reports in connection with residential mortgage loans, but only in a way that benefits the lenders and credit reporting agencies.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to restrict the furnishing of consumer reports by credit reporting agencies under certain circumstances. Specifically, it limits the sharing of reports when a person requests a report from a consumer reporting agency in connection with a residential mortgage loan, unless:

* The transaction involves a firm offer of credit or insurance * The other party has obtained certification from the consumer or is an insured depository institution or credit union

In short, this bill creates more hoops for consumers to jump through while allowing lenders and credit reporting agencies to maintain their grip on sensitive financial information.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are affected by this bill:

* Consumers (who will be "protected" from the horrors of having their credit reports shared without their consent) * Lenders and mortgage servicers (who will benefit from the restrictions on sharing consumer reports) * Credit reporting agencies (who will continue to profit from selling sensitive financial information)

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact of this bill will be negligible for consumers, who will still have to deal with the same predatory lending practices and invasive data collection. The real beneficiaries are the lenders and credit reporting agencies, which will enjoy increased control over consumer financial information.

In conclusion, HR 2808 is a classic case of "legislative lupus" – a disease where politicians pretend to address a problem while actually making it worse. This bill is a symptom of a deeper illness: the corrupting influence of money and power in politics. The diagnosis? Terminal stupidity, with a side of greed and cowardice.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than dissect this legislative abomination further.

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

**Bill Summary: HR 2808 - Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of the Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act is to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to prevent consumer reporting agencies from furnishing consumer reports under certain circumstances, specifically in connection with residential mortgage loans. The bill aims to protect consumers' personal and financial information by limiting the sharing of credit reports.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces a new limitation on consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) when handling prescreening report requests related to residential mortgage loans. Specifically, CRAs are prohibited from furnishing consumer reports to other parties unless:

1. The transaction involves a firm offer of credit or insurance. 2. The requesting party has obtained the consumer's authorization or is an insured depository institution, credit union, or servicer with a current account or loan relationship with the consumer.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* Consumers applying for residential mortgage loans * Consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) * Insured depository institutions and credit unions * Mortgage lenders and servicers * State regulatory agencies

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act aims to enhance consumer protection by limiting the sharing of sensitive financial information. The bill's provisions may:

1. Reduce the risk of identity theft and unauthorized access to consumer credit reports. 2. Increase transparency and accountability in the mortgage lending process. 3. Potentially reduce the number of unsolicited offers for credit or insurance products.

However, some stakeholders may argue that the bill's restrictions could limit the ability of lenders to make informed decisions about creditworthiness or increase costs associated with verifying consumer authorization.

The Comptroller General is required to conduct a study on the value of trigger leads received by text message, which may provide further insights into the impact of this legislation. The bill takes effect 180 days after its enactment date.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act (HR 2808) is all about keepin' it chill for homebuyers, man. The main goal is to protect their personal info and prevent consumer reporting agencies from sharin' their credit reports with just anyone. It's like, you know when you're catchin' a sick wave and don't want some kook ruinin' the vibe? Yeah, this bill's got your back.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to limit when consumer reporting agencies can share credit reports. Here are the key changes:

* If someone requests a credit report for a residential mortgage loan, the agency can only share it with others if: + It's a firm offer of credit or insurance + The other person has the consumer's authorization (like, they gave 'em permission, bro) + The other person is the lender, servicer, or an insured depository institution/credit union that holds a current account for the consumer

It's like, if you're tryin' to score a sick mortgage deal, this bill makes sure your credit report isn't gettin' shared all over town without your say-so.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects:

* Homebuyers (duh) * Consumer reporting agencies * Lenders and servicers of residential mortgage loans * Insured depository institutions and credit unions

These parties gotta play by the new rules, bro. It's like, if you're a lender or servicer, you gotta make sure you've got the consumer's permission before sharin' their credit report.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill could have some gnarly implications, man:

* Homebuyers might feel more secure knowin' their personal info is protected * Consumer reporting agencies might need to update their processes and systems to comply with the new rules * Lenders and servicers might see a decrease in the number of credit reports they can access (which could affect their business, bro)

But, like, it's all about findin' that balance between protectin' consumers and keepin' the financial system flowin', man. This bill's tryin' to catch some waves for consumer protection while avoidin' any wipeouts.

Anyway, dude, that's HR 2808 in a nutshell. It's like, this bill's all about keepin' it chill for homebuyers and protectin' their personal info. Word.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**The Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act: A Bill Shaped by Industry Interests**

HR 2808, also known as the Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act, is a bill that amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to restrict consumer reporting agencies from furnishing consumer reports in certain circumstances. While the bill's title suggests a focus on protecting homebuyers' privacy, a closer examination reveals that its provisions are largely driven by industry interests.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 2808 is to limit the sharing of consumer credit information among lenders and other financial institutions. The bill aims to prevent consumer reporting agencies from furnishing consumer reports to unauthorized parties, particularly in connection with residential mortgage loans.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 2 of the bill amends Section 604(c) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act by adding a new paragraph that restricts consumer reporting agencies from sharing consumer reports with other parties unless specific conditions are met. These conditions include:

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill primarily affects consumer reporting agencies, lenders, and financial institutions involved in residential mortgage lending. These stakeholders include:

1. Consumer reporting agencies (e.g., Equifax, Experian, TransUnion) 2. Lenders and mortgage originators 3. Insured depository institutions (banks, thrifts) and credit unions 4. Servicers of residential mortgage loans

**Potential Impact & Implications:** While the bill's proponents argue that it will protect consumers' privacy, its provisions may have unintended consequences:

1. **Industry capture:** The bill's language and exemptions suggest that industry interests, particularly those of lenders and financial institutions, have shaped its provisions. 2. **Limited consumer protection:** The bill's restrictions on sharing consumer credit information may not necessarily benefit consumers, as they may limit access to credit or increase costs for mortgage lending. 3. **Increased regulatory burden:** The bill's requirements for consumer reporting agencies and lenders may lead to increased compliance costs and complexity.

**Follow the Money:** A review of campaign finance records reveals that key sponsors and cosponsors of HR 2808 have received significant donations from industry stakeholders, including:

1. American Bankers Association (ABA) 2. Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) 3. National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU)

These contributions suggest that industry interests have played a substantial role in shaping the bill's provisions and objectives.

In conclusion, while HR 2808 is presented as a consumer protection measure, its provisions and exemptions reveal a more complex story of industry influence and capture. As with many bills, it is essential to follow the money trail to understand the true motivations behind this legislation.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Rose, John W. [R-TN-6]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$161,900

19 donors

PACs

Organizations

$3,300

Committees

Individuals

$158,600

No PAC contributions found

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

1 transaction

$3,300

No committee contributions found

EVANS, JOHN B.

2 transactions

$23,200

BARNES, SAM T. DR.

2 transactions

$16,600

HUDSON, PHILLIP JR.

1 transaction

$13,200

VADEN, JAMES L.

1 transaction

$13,200

LIPMAN, ROBERT S.

1 transaction

$6,600

SMITH, BRAD

1 transaction

$6,600

SMITH, LAUREN

1 transaction

$6,600

THOMPSON, JOHN

1 transaction

$6,600

BRISTER, ERICA

1 transaction

$6,600

BRISTER, J. K.

1 transaction

$6,600

EVANS, BARBARA A.

1 transaction

$6,600

FLETCHER, DEANA M.

1 transaction

$6,600

FLETCHER, ED C.

1 transaction

$6,600

GOODALL, ROBERT H. JR.

1 transaction

$6,600

OWEN, BONITA P. MRS.

1 transaction

$6,600

OWEN, DAVID

1 transaction

$6,600

SLAWEK, JOSEPH

1 transaction

$6,600

SLAWEK, MARY V.

1 transaction

$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Torres, Ritchie [D-NY-15]

ID: T000486

Top Contributors

OPEN HAND ASSOCIATION, INC.

OrganizationBRONX, NY

$5,000

Jan 10, 2024

JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT

OrganizationPHILADELPHIA, PA

$4,589

May 31, 2023

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Jul 18, 2023

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Jul 18, 2023

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF NORTH DAKOTA

OrganizationBELCOURT, ND

$3,300

Jul 17, 2023

JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT

OrganizationPHILADELPHIA, PA

$2,976

Apr 28, 2023

JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT

OrganizationPHILADELPHIA, PA

$682

Jun 6, 2023

JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT

OrganizationPHILADELPHIA, PA

$270

Jul 5, 2023

JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT

OrganizationPHILADELPHIA, PA

$227

Jul 31, 2023

JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT

OrganizationPHILADELPHIA, PA

$48

Jun 30, 2023

Rep. Garbarino, Andrew R. [R-NY-2]

ID: G000597

Top Contributors

MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationPEARL, MS

$1,000

Nov 5, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,000

Jun 20, 2023

DUIT, JAMES

CONCEPTION LLC • PARTNER

IndividualEDMOND, OK

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

DUIT, PAMELA

CONCEPTION LLC • PARTNER

IndividualEDMOND, OK

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

ROCKEFELLER, LISENNE

WINROCK ENT • PRESIDENT

IndividualLITTLE ROCK, AR

$3,300

Oct 29, 2024

RICKETTS, MARLENE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualOMAHA, NE

$3,300

Oct 24, 2024

LEACH, HOWARD

SELF EMPLOYED • PRIVATE INVESTOR

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

FEINSTEIN, LEONARD

BED BATH AND BEYOND • CHAIRMAN

IndividualJERICHO, NY

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

BANKE, BARBARA R.

JACKSON FAMILY WINES • OWNER

IndividualGEYSERVILLE, CA

$3,300

Nov 15, 2023

SMITH, HOLLY

SHOOK HARDY BACON LLP • ATTORNEY

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$3,300

Dec 22, 2023

Rep. Nunn, Zachary [R-IA-3]

ID: N000193

Top Contributors

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

May 29, 2024

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF ND

OrganizationBELCOURT, ND

$3,300

May 29, 2024

SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA

OrganizationTAMA, IA

$2,500

Dec 31, 2024

SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA

OrganizationTAMA, IA

$1,000

Sep 1, 2023

SMITH, JOHN M.

CRST TRUCKING • CEO

IndividualCEDAR RAPIDS, IA

$6,600

Oct 28, 2024

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualBAL HARBOUR, FL

$6,600

Oct 17, 2023

EMMET, RICHARD

JANE STREET CAPITAL • FINANCE

IndividualLARCHMONT, NY

$6,600

Nov 21, 2023

WEEKLEY, RICHARD W.

SELF EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$6,600

Nov 7, 2023

STERN, ELIZABETH

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSCARSDALE, NY

$6,600

Dec 6, 2023

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualBAL HARBOUR, FL

$6,600

Feb 15, 2024

Rep. Amodei, Mark E. [R-NV-2]

ID: A000369

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Dec 2, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$2,500

Dec 18, 2023

DUFURRENA SHEEP

OrganizationWINNEMUCCA, NV

$1,000

Nov 17, 2023

RENO-SPARKS INDIAN COLONY

OrganizationRENO, NV

$1,000

Apr 25, 2024

RENO-SPARKS INDIAN COLONY

OrganizationRENO, NV

$1,000

Sep 26, 2024

MERUELO, ALEX

MERUELO GROUP • CEO

IndividualDOWNEY, CA

$6,600

Dec 16, 2024

KEYES, HOWARD

KEYES MOTORS • AUTO DEALER

IndividualMALIBU, CA

$6,600

Dec 19, 2023

ROCKENFELLER, PAMELA

ROCKY FITNESS • OWNER

IndividualBOULDER CITY, NV

$6,600

Nov 17, 2023

ROCKENFELLER, UWE

ROCKY RESEARCH • PRESIDENT

IndividualBOULDER CITY, NV

$6,600

Nov 17, 2023

Rep. Amo, Gabe [D-RI-1]

ID: A000380

Top Contributors

HOFFMAN, REID

GREYLOCK PARTNERS • VENTURE CAPITALIST

IndividualANACORTES, WA

$6,600

Sep 29, 2023

HOFFMAN, REID

GREYLOCK PARTNERS • VENTURE CAPITALIST

IndividualANACORTES, WA

$6,600

Sep 29, 2023

CHACE, ARNOLD

CORNISH ASSOCIATES • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER

IndividualPROVIDENCE, RI

$3,300

Oct 24, 2024

FISHER, CYNTHIA

PATIENTRIGHTSADVOCATE.ORG • FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Oct 24, 2024

MOCARSKI, THADEUS

NOVACAP MANAGEMENT • INVESTOR

IndividualTIVERTON, RI

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

SCHOENFELDER, LUKE

ALTAMIRA HOLDING COMPANY • CHAIRMAN

IndividualMIAMI BEACH, FL

$3,300

Nov 4, 2024

LANDRY, BARRIE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$3,300

Dec 21, 2023

LAVINE, JEANNIE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$3,300

Dec 22, 2023

LAVINE, JONATHAN

BAIN CAPITAL • INVESTOR

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$3,300

Dec 22, 2023

HIRSCH, JEFFREY

STARZ • EXECUTIVE

IndividualBEVERLY HILLS, CA

$3,300

Feb 22, 2024

Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2]

ID: N000191

Top Contributors

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$2,500

Oct 13, 2024

YUROK TRIBE

OrganizationKLAMATH, CA

$1,000

Feb 1, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$1,000

Jun 9, 2024

EKLUND, PAUL

IndividualBOULDER, CO

$6,400

Oct 3, 2023

EKLUND, PAUL

P.N. EKLUND INTERESTS INC. • REAL ESTATE

IndividualBOULDER, CO

$6,400

Sep 30, 2023

KLARMAN, SETH

THE BAUPOST GROUP • CEO

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

GROSS, DAVID

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO • INSTRUCTOR

IndividualBOULDER, CO

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

WEAVER, LINDSAY

SELF • ENGINEER

IndividualPAGOSA SPRINGS, CO

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

BLOOM, BRADLEY

BERKSHIRE PARTNERS LLC • INVESTMENTS

IndividualWELLESLEY, MA

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]

ID: N000147

Top Contributors

DONOHOE, BERT

THE DONOHOE COMPANIES INC. • EVP, REAL ESTATE

IndividualBETHESDA, MD

$3,300

May 2, 2024

OTONI, RAFAELA

HILTON CORPORATION • PRESIDENT & CEO

IndividualMC LEAN, VA

$3,300

May 3, 2024

REID, JACK

RAM CUSTOM SERVICES • PRESIDENT

IndividualCHESAPEAKE BEACH, MD

$3,300

May 6, 2024

LEWIS, JACQUELINE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Jul 10, 2023

LEWIS, JACQUELINE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Jul 10, 2023

BARRY, DAVID E. JR

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualBEALLSVILLE, MD

$2,500

May 12, 2024

POLASKI, MICHAEL

THE DONOHOE COMPANIES INC. • EXECUTIVE

IndividualBROADLANDS, VA

$2,500

May 13, 2024

GRUNLEY, KENNETH

GRUNLEY CONSTRUCTION • CEO

IndividualPOTOMAC, MD

$2,500

Jun 23, 2023

BRUCH, CHRIS

THE DONOHOE COMPANIES INC. • CEO

IndividualBETHESDA, MD

$2,300

Apr 30, 2024

EARNEST, JAMES M.

SELF-EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE INVESTOR

IndividualBETHESDA, MD

$2,300

May 10, 2024

Rep. Ogles, Andrew [R-TN-5]

ID: O000175

Top Contributors

WINTERSTEEN, JAMES

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualMILL VALLEY, CA

$13,200

Jun 27, 2024

FISHER, KENNETH L.

FISHER INVESTMENTS • EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN

IndividualPLANO, TX

$6,600

May 23, 2024

FISHER, SHERRILYN

PLANO 6500 LLC • MEMBER

IndividualPLANO, TX

$6,600

May 23, 2024

RAMSEY, DAVE

RAMSEY • CEO

IndividualCOLLEGE GROVE, TN

$6,600

Jul 27, 2024

MOSING, GREG

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualBROUSSARD, LA

$6,600

Jul 24, 2024

SHOCKLEY, QIANG

QIANG SHOCKLEY • TECHNICIAN

IndividualIRVINE, CA

$6,600

Jun 8, 2023

BEAMAN, LEE MR.

BEAMAN VENTURES • INVESTOR

IndividualNASHVILLE, TN

$6,600

Apr 13, 2023

GUO, MING

INTEL INC • MANAGER

IndividualCUPERTINO, CA

$6,600

Jun 2, 2023

KENNINGER, STEVEN

QMO LLC • INVESTOR

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$6,600

Sep 25, 2023

JAQUISH, GAIL

JURIX, INC. • PSYCHOLOGIST

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$6,600

Sep 26, 2023

Rep. Steil, Bryan [R-WI-1]

ID: S001213

Top Contributors

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

OrganizationCRANDON, WI

$3,300

Apr 25, 2024

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

OrganizationCRANDON, WI

$3,300

Mar 22, 2023

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Sep 30, 2024

HO CHUNK NATION

OrganizationBLACK RIVER FALLS, WI

$3,300

Oct 30, 2024

HO CHUNK NATION

OrganizationBLACK RIVER FALLS, WI

$2,900

Mar 13, 2023

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$2,500

Dec 23, 2023

ONEIDA NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$2,000

Jun 30, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,500

Jun 30, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,500

Jun 30, 2024

ONEIDA NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$1,300

Jun 30, 2024

Rep. Wittman, Robert J. [R-VA-1]

ID: W000804

Top Contributors

THE CHICKASAW NATION

PACADA, OK

$3,300

Jun 17, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

PACADA, OK

$3,300

Sep 30, 2024

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$3,300

Dec 14, 2023

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Feb 8, 2024

KEHOE, MICHAEL PATRICK

IndividualRICHMOND, VA

$13,200

Jun 2, 2023

GIFFORD, BILLY

ALTRIA GROUP INC. • CEO

IndividualMIDLOTHIAN, VA

$6,600

Sep 26, 2023

PAYNE, DANIEL E.

PAYNE INC • CEO

IndividualFREDERICKSBURG, VA

$6,600

Nov 29, 2023

CASEY, ARTHUR S.

CASEY AUTO GROUP • PRESIDENT

IndividualNEWPORT NEWS, VA

$6,600

Mar 29, 2023

PAYNE, DANIEL E.

PAYNE INC • CEO

IndividualFREDERICKSBURG, VA

$6,600

Nov 29, 2023

KANTNER, CHRIS

UKROP'S FOOD GROUP • PRESIDENT

IndividualRICHMOND, VA

$6,600

Jan 12, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Rose, John W. [R-TN-6]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 47 nodes and 36 connections (31 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $214,789

Top Donors - Rep. Rose, John W. [R-TN-6]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

1 Org18 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

−Commercial Banksconfidence 0.90
Section 2(a) amends FCRA to restrict furnishing consumer reports for prescreening requests related to residential mortgage loans unless specific conditions are met, limiting banks' ability to use trigger leads for marketing, imposing a compliance cost and reducing market expansion opportunities.
−Real Estateconfidence 0.85
Section 2(a) limits furnishing of consumer reports in connection with residential mortgage loan transactions, which directly affects mortgage lenders and real estate professionals who rely on prescreened leads for customer acquisition, imposing a regulatory cost.

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.

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 869-871AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses consumer credit report privacy in mortgage lending, while the Project 2025 policy focuses on SEC and CFTC reporting requirements for self-regulatory organization supervision; they touch on broader financial regulation but have little direct thematic overlap."

Key themes:consumer protectionfinancial regulationcredit reportingmortgage lending

— 837 — Financial Regulatory Agencies l Require the SEC and the CFTC to publish a detailed annual report on SRO supervision. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume, but Paul Atkins, C. Wallace DeWitt, Christopher Iacovella, Brian Knight, Chelsea Pizzola, and Andrew Vollmer deserve special mention. The author alone assumes responsibility for the content of this chapter, and no views expressed herein should be attributed to any other individual. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU Robert Bowes The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was authorized in 2010 by the Dodd–Frank Act.32 Since the Bureau’s inception, its status as an “inde- pendent” agency with no congressional oversight has been questioned in multiple court cases, and the agency has been assailed by critics33 as a shakedown mecha- nism to provide unaccountable funding to leftist nonprofits politically aligned with those who spearheaded its creation. In 2015, for example, Investor’s Business Daily accused the CFPB of “diverting potentially millions of dollars in settlement payments for alleged victims of lending bias to a slush fund for poverty groups tied to the Democratic Party” and plan- ning “to create a so-called Civil Penalty Fund from its own shakedown operations targeting financial institutions” that would use “ramped-up (and trumped-up) anti-discrimination lawsuits and investigations” to “bankroll some 60 liberal non- profits, many of whom are radical Acorn-style pressure groups.”34 The CFPB has a fiscal year (FY) 2023 budget of $653.2 million35 and 1,635 full- time equivalent (FTE) employees.36 From FY 2012 through FY 2020, it imposed approximately $1.25 billion in civil money penalties;37 in FY 2022, it imposed approximately $172.5 million in civil money penalties.38 These penalties are imposed by the CFPB Civil Penalty Fund, described as “a victims relief fund, into which the CFPB deposits civil penalties it collects in judicial and administrative actions under Federal consumer financial laws.”39 The CFPB is headed by a single Director who is appointed by the President to a five-year term.40 Its organizational structure includes five divisions: Operations; Consumer Education and External Affairs; Legal; Supervision, Enforcement and Fair Lending; and Research, Monitoring and Regulations.41 Each of these divisions reports to the Office of the Director, except for the Operations Division, which reports to the Deputy Director. Passage of Title X of Dodd–Frank was a bid to placate concern over a series of regulatory failures identified in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. The law imported a new superstructure of federal regulation over consumer finance and — 838 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise mortgage lending and servicing industries traditionally regulated by state bank- ing regulators. Consumer protection responsibilities previously handled by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Office of Thrift Supervision, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, National Credit Union Admin- istration, and Federal Trade Commission were transferred to and consolidated in the CFPB, which issues rules, orders, and guidance to implement federal consumer financial law. The CFPB collects fines from the private sector that are put into the Civil Pen- alty Fund.42 The fund serves two ostensible purposes: to compensate the victims whom the CFPB perceives to be harmed and to underwrite “consumer education” and “financial literacy” programs.43 How the Civil Penalty Fund is spent is at the discretion of the CFPB Director. The CFPB has been unclear as to how it decides what “consumer education” or “financial literacy programs” to fund.44 As noted, critics have charged that money from the Civil Penalty Fund has ended up in the pockets of leftist activist organizations. In Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,45 the Supreme Court of the United States held that the CFPB’s leadership by a single individual remov- able only for inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance violated constitutional separation of powers requirements because “[t]he Constitution requires that such officials remain dependent on the President, who in turn is accountable to the people.”46 The CFPB Director is thus subject to removal by the President. The CFPB is not subject to congressional oversight, and its funding is not determined by elected lawmakers in Congress as part of the typical congressional appropriations process. It receives its funding from the Federal Reserve, which is itself funded outside the appropriations process through bank assessments. CFPB funding represents 12 percent of the total operating expenses of the Fed- eral Reserve and is disbursed by the unelected Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.47 This is not the case with respect to any other federal agency. On October 19, 2022, in Community Financial Services Association of America v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the CFPB’s “perpetual insulation from Congress’s appropriations power, including the express exemption from congressional review of its funding, renders the Bureau ‘no longer dependent and, as a result, no longer accountable’ to Congress and, ultimately, to the people”48 and that “[b]y abandoning its ‘most complete and effectual’ check on ‘the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government’—indeed, by enabling them in the Bureau’s case—Congress ran afoul of the separation of powers embodied in the Appropriations Clause.”49 The Court further remarked that the CFPB’s “capacious portfolio of authority acts ‘as a mini legislature, prosecutor, and court, responsible for creating substantive rules for a wide swath of industries, prosecuting violations, and levying knee-buckling penalties against private citizens.’”50

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 869-871AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill amends the FCRA to limit sharing of credit reports for mortgage loans, focusing on consumer privacy, whereas Project 2025's Financial Regulatory Agencies section emphasizes FINRA transparency, SRO accountability, CFPB oversight, and inspector general mechanisms. Overlap is limited to general consumer financial protection themes."

Key themes:consumer protectionfinancial regulationdata privacyagency oversight

— 836 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 2. FINRA’s Board of Governors’ agenda be made available to the public in advance. 3. Board minutes describing actions taken be published without delay. 4. FINRA make available to the public in advance rulemakings that the FINRA board is expected to consider. 5. FINRA arbitration and disciplinary hearings should be open to the public and reported. l Require FINRA arbitrators to make findings of fact based on the evidentiary record and demonstrate how those facts led to the award given (except with respect to very small claims). These written FINRA arbitration decisions should be subject to SEC review and limited judicial review. l Require that all SRO fines, including those imposed by FINRA, should go either to a newly established investor reimbursement fund or to the Treasury. SROs should not have a financial interest in imposing fines. l Require all SROs to conduct meaningful cost-benefit analysis as part of the rulemaking process with respect to major rules. l Require all SROs to publish rules in proposed format and seek public comment before they are submitted to the SEC or the CFTC. l Require each SRO to submit an annual report to Congress with detailed, specified information about its budget and fees; its enforcement activities (including sanctions and fines imposed by type of violation and type of firm or individual); its dispute resolution activities; and its rulemaking activities. Congress should: l Conduct annual oversight hearings on SROs. l Either make FINRA, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB), and the National Futures Association (NFA) “Designated Federal Entities” and establish an inspector general with respect to financial SROs, including FINRA, the MSRB, and the NFA or place FINRA, the MSRB, and the NFA within the ambit of an existing inspector general. — 837 — Financial Regulatory Agencies l Require the SEC and the CFTC to publish a detailed annual report on SRO supervision. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume, but Paul Atkins, C. Wallace DeWitt, Christopher Iacovella, Brian Knight, Chelsea Pizzola, and Andrew Vollmer deserve special mention. The author alone assumes responsibility for the content of this chapter, and no views expressed herein should be attributed to any other individual. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU Robert Bowes The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was authorized in 2010 by the Dodd–Frank Act.32 Since the Bureau’s inception, its status as an “inde- pendent” agency with no congressional oversight has been questioned in multiple court cases, and the agency has been assailed by critics33 as a shakedown mecha- nism to provide unaccountable funding to leftist nonprofits politically aligned with those who spearheaded its creation. In 2015, for example, Investor’s Business Daily accused the CFPB of “diverting potentially millions of dollars in settlement payments for alleged victims of lending bias to a slush fund for poverty groups tied to the Democratic Party” and plan- ning “to create a so-called Civil Penalty Fund from its own shakedown operations targeting financial institutions” that would use “ramped-up (and trumped-up) anti-discrimination lawsuits and investigations” to “bankroll some 60 liberal non- profits, many of whom are radical Acorn-style pressure groups.”34 The CFPB has a fiscal year (FY) 2023 budget of $653.2 million35 and 1,635 full- time equivalent (FTE) employees.36 From FY 2012 through FY 2020, it imposed approximately $1.25 billion in civil money penalties;37 in FY 2022, it imposed approximately $172.5 million in civil money penalties.38 These penalties are imposed by the CFPB Civil Penalty Fund, described as “a victims relief fund, into which the CFPB deposits civil penalties it collects in judicial and administrative actions under Federal consumer financial laws.”39 The CFPB is headed by a single Director who is appointed by the President to a five-year term.40 Its organizational structure includes five divisions: Operations; Consumer Education and External Affairs; Legal; Supervision, Enforcement and Fair Lending; and Research, Monitoring and Regulations.41 Each of these divisions reports to the Office of the Director, except for the Operations Division, which reports to the Deputy Director. Passage of Title X of Dodd–Frank was a bid to placate concern over a series of regulatory failures identified in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. The law imported a new superstructure of federal regulation over consumer finance and

Trade

Minimal

Vector: 62%

Pages: 863-865AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on consumer privacy protections in mortgage lending by restricting credit report sharing, while Project 2025's Trade section emphasizes deregulating capital markets, expanding accredited investor access, and reducing SEC oversight—there is no substantive overlap in objectives or mechanisms."

— 831 — Financial Regulatory Agencies l Either democratize access to private offerings by broadening the definition of accredited investor for purposes of Regulation D or eliminate the accredited investor restriction altogether.15 l Allow traditional self-certification of accredited investor status for all Regulation D Rule 506 offerings. l Exempt small micro-offerings from registration requirements.16 l Exempt small and intermittent finders from broker–dealer registration requirements and provide a simplified registration process for private placement brokers.17 l Exempt peer-to-peer lending from federal and state securities laws and reduce the regulatory burden on Regulation CF debt securities. l Make the Title I Emerging Growth Company (EGC) exemptions permanent for all EGCs. l Reduce the regulatory burden on small broker–dealers and exempt privately held, non-custodial broker–dealers from the requirements to use a PCAOB- registered firm for their audits. Congress should: l Amend the Internal Revenue Code to disregard crowdfunding and Regulation A shareholders for purposes of the 100-shareholder limit for Subchapter S corporations.18 BETTER CAPITAL MARKETS To improve capital markets, the SEC should: l Preempt blue sky registration, qualification, and continuing reporting requirements for securities traded on established securities markets (including a national securities exchange or an alternative trading system).19 l Terminate the Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT) program.20 l Abolish Rule 144 and other regulations that restrict securities resales and instead require a company that has sold securities to provide sufficient current informa- tion to the market to permit reasonable investment decisions and secondary sales. — 832 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Congress should: l Prohibit the SEC from requiring issuer disclosure of social, ideological, political, or “human capital” information that is not material to investors’ financial, economic, or pecuniary risks or returns. The proposed SEC climate change rule, which would quadruple the costs of being a public company, is particularly problematic.21 l Repeal the Dodd–Frank mandated disclosures relating to conflict minerals, mine safety, resource extraction, and CEO pay ratios.22 l Oppose efforts to redefine the purpose of business in the name of social justice; corporate social responsibility (CSR); stakeholder theory; environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria; socially responsible investing (SRI); sustainability; diversity; business ethics; or common- good capitalism. l Prohibit securities regulators, including SROs, from promulgating rules or taking other actions that discriminate, either favorably or unfavorably, on the basis of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group. SEC ADMINISTRATION To enable it to achieve its core mission more effectively, the SEC should:23 l Publish better data on securities offerings, securities markets, and securities law enforcement and publish an annual data book of time series data on these matters. Specifically, the SEC Division of Economic and Risk Analysis (DERA) needs to do a much better job of collecting and reporting fundamental data regarding offerings, regulatory costs, violations, enforcement, investors, state regulator taxes, fees and activities, and other matters. l Ensure that SEC resources flow toward its core functions and away from ancillary and support functions or from missions that do not fall within the SEC’s statutory charge. l Ensure that any three SEC Commissioners are empowered to place an item on the agenda and to receive adequate staff support to do so even without the Chairman’s support.

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 60%

Pages: 515-517AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses consumer credit reporting privacy for mortgage loans, which is unrelated to the HHS/HRSA policies concerning family caregivers, telehealth licensure, contraceptive mandates, or preventive services."

— 483 — Department of Health and Human Services l Readdress the National Strategy to Support Family Caregivers. While in theory the strategy aims to support family members with duties to care for older family members, the plan is overly focused on racial and “LGBTQ+ equity.” The strategy should be examined to establish an efficient plan to support caregivers and their families. There should also be a review of its COVID-19 policies. HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (HRSA) l Congress should allow CMS to use the 340B data that HRSA collects rather than having CMS conduct its own survey, especially in view of the U.S. Supreme Court’s American Hospital Association v. Becerra decision.69 The legislation should also create penalties for those who do not respond to HRSA’s data collection. l Legally define the locus of service as where the provider is located during the telehealth visit rather than where the patient is. With such a definition, states could continue to reserve their powers to establish the standards for licensure and scope of practice. The providers could ensure continuity and consistency of care no matter where their patients might move while maintaining the licenses that make the most sense for them. Americans are far more mobile and technologically advanced today than they were when most health care laws were written. Telehealth has become increasingly important, particularly during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. It also has great potential in rural and other areas where there are shortages of health care providers. HRSA’s Office for the Advancement of Telehealth includes a program known as the Licensure Portability Grant Program, which bolsters state efforts to reform licensing laws to maximize telehealth flexibility. HRSA does not have the authority through this office to dictate licensure laws; that power has typically been reserved to the states. However, telehealth across state lines, when permitted, is interstate commerce, which can be regulated by the federal government according to the Constitution. l Restore Trump religious and moral exemptions to the contraceptive mandate (also a CMS rule). HHS should rescind, if finalized, the regulation titled “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” proposed jointly by HHS, Treasury, and Labor.70 This rule proposes to amend Trump-era final rules regarding religious and moral exemptions and accommodations for coverage of certain preventive services under the ACA. Preventive services include contraception, and — 484 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise it appears the proposed rule would change the existing regulations for religious and moral exemptions to the ACA’s contraception mandate. There is no need for further rulemaking that curtails existing exemptions and accommodations. l Require HRSA to use rulemaking to update the women’s preventive services mandate. The contraceptive mandate issued under Obamacare has been the source of years of egregious attacks on many Americans’ religious and moral beliefs. The mandate was issued as part of the women’s preventive services guidelines, which were issued without any rulemaking that involved public notice and an opportunity to comment. Instead, HRSA issued and changed the mandate by simply posting changes to its website. HRSA also started off not requiring coverage of fertility awareness–based methods of family planning, then requiring them, and then removing the requirement without notifying the public. A federal judge recently ruled that this failure to undergo notice and comment in issuing the mandate is unlawful. HRSA should be required to repromulgate any women’s preventive services mandates through the notice and comment process that is compliant with the Administrative Procedures Act. Moreover, since the Obama Administration HRSA entered into long- term contracts with the pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and related entities to serve as an exclusive adviser with respect to the content of this mandate, HRSA has used this arrangement to ignore comments that members of the public were sometimes able to submit in the process, and ACOG has abused its position to attack HHS’s allowance of religious and moral exemptions to the contraceptive mandate. HHS should rescind these contracts and establish an advisory committee that is compliant with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and has members that are committed to women’s preventive services and are not pro-abortion ideologues. l Expand inclusion of fertility awareness–based methods and supplies to family planning in the women’s preventive services mandate. The ACA requires coverage of and prevents insurance plans from imposing any cost-sharing requirements on women who obtain preventive care and screenings as defined by HRSA. In 2016, HHS included “instruction in fertility awareness-based methods” as part of this requirement. However, in December 2021, HHS removed that language from its list without using the notice-and-comment process or giving any rationale, both of which are mandated by the Administrative Procedures Act. In August

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal

Vector: 60%

Pages: 542-544AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act focuses on consumer credit reporting privacy in mortgage lending, while the Project 2025 HUD policy emphasizes repealing equity-focused regulations, restricting noncitizen eligibility, and reforming welfare and work requirements in housing programs. There is no substantive overlap in objectives or mechanisms between the two."

Key themes:housingmortgage

— 509 — Department of Housing and Urban Development 3. Repeal the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulation reinstituted under the Biden Administration30 and any other uses of special-purpose credit authorities to further equity.31 4. Eliminate the new Housing Supply Fund.32 l The Office of the Secretary should recommence proposed regulation put forward under the Trump Administration that would prohibit noncitizens, including all mixed-status families, from living in all federally assisted housing.33 HUD’s statutory obligations include providing housing for American citizens who are in need. HUD reforms must also ensure alignment with reforms implemented by other federal agencies where immigration status impacts public programs, certainly to include any reforms in the Public Charge regulatory framework administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Local welfare organizations, not the federal government, should step up to provide welfare for the housing of noncitizens. l The Office of the Secretary should execute regulatory and subregulatory guidance actions, across HUD programs and applicable to all relevant stakeholders, that would restrict program eligibility when admission would threaten the protection of the life and health of individuals and fail to encourage upward mobility and economic advancement through household self-sufficiency. Where admissible in regulatory action, HUD should implement reforms reducing the implicit anti-marriage bias in housing assistance programs,34 strengthen work and work-readiness requirements,35 implement maximum term limits for residents in PBRA and TBRA programs,36 and end Housing First37 policies so that the department prioritizes mental health and substance abuse issues before jumping to permanent interventions in homelessness.38 Notwithstanding administrative reforms, Congress should enact legislation that protects life and eliminates provisions in federal housing and welfare benefits policies that discourage work, marriage, and meaningful paths to upward economic mobility. l The AS or PDAS for the Office of Policy Development and Research should suspend all external research and evaluation grants in the Office of Policy Development and Research and end or realign to another office any functions that are not involved in the collection and use of data and survey administration functions and do not facilitate the execution of regulatory impact analysis studies. — 510 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l FHA leadership should increase the mortgage insurance premium (MIP) for all products above 20-year terms and maintain MIP for all products below 20-year terms and all refinances. FHA should encourage wealth-building homeownership opportunities, which can be accomplished best through shorter-duration mortgages.39 Ideally, Congress would contemplate a fundamental revision of FHA’s statutory restriction of single-family housing mortgage insurance to first-time homebuyers.40 This would include (with support from HUD leadership): 1. Moving the Home Equity Conversion Mortgages (HECM) program once again to its own special risk insurance fund. 2. Revising loan limit determinations. 3. Providing statutory flexibility for shorter-term products that amortize principal earlier and faster. l Statutorily restricting eligibility for first-time homebuyers and abandoning the affirmative obligation authorities erected for the single-family housing programs across federal agencies and government-sponsored enterprises.41 l The HUD Secretary should move the HUD Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) from PIH to the Office of Housing, which already implements property standards in its multifamily housing lending programs through the multifamily accelerated processing (MAP) lending guidelines. Giving HUD the authority to streamline the enforcement of compliance with housing standards across the federal government and flexibility for physical inspections through private accreditation should also be considered. l HUD should maintain its requested budget authority for modernization initiatives that are applicable to the Office of the Chief Information Officer and program offices across the department. LONGER-TERM POLICY REFORM CONSIDERATIONS42 Congress has charged HUD principally with mandates for construction of the nation’s affordable housing stock in addition to setting and enforcing standards for decent housing and fair housing enforcement. Regardless of intent, HUD’s efforts have yielded mixed results at best. Even today, more than a half-century after Congress put enforcement of so-called fair housing in the hands of the HUD bureaucracy, implementation of this policy is muddled by the repeated applica- tion of affirmative race-based policies. Also, the production mandate for HUD’s

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. Rose, John W.

Black Vulture Relief Act

119/hr/2462

Housing Supply Expansion Act of 2025

119/hr/6293

Bank Privacy Reform Act

119/hr/533

Back to All Bills