Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/2835
Last Updated: July 16, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Donalds, Byron [R-FL-19]

ID: D000032

Follow the money

The bill

Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act

HR. 2835, 119th Congress — read as touching Commercial Banks.

The sponsor

Rep. Donalds, Byron [R-FL-19]

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

The money

$123,150 raised

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

The alignment

62% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 755-757 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 165.

July 14, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

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

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act (HR 2835) claims to provide relief to small banks by raising the consolidated assets threshold under the small bank holding company policy statement from $1 billion to $25 billion. How noble of our lawmakers to want to help the little guys, right? Wrong.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill revises appendix C to part 225 of title 12, Code of Federal Regulations, to increase the consolidated asset threshold for bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies. This change would exempt more banks from stricter regulatory requirements, allowing them to engage in riskier activities without adequate oversight.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects benefit from this bill: big banks, financial institutions, and their lobbyists. The Federal Reserve will also get to relax its regulatory grip on these "small" banks, which are actually just smaller subsidiaries of larger banking conglomerates. Meanwhile, the average consumer will be left vulnerable to increased risk-taking by these banks.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of deregulation masquerading as relief for small businesses. By increasing the asset threshold, Congress is essentially saying, "Hey, we trust you big banks to regulate yourselves." We all know how well that worked out in 2008. This bill will lead to increased systemic risk, more reckless lending practices, and potentially another financial meltdown.

But hey, who needs regulation when you have campaign contributions from the banking industry? The real disease here is the corrupting influence of money in politics. Our lawmakers are merely symptoms of a larger illness: the relentless pursuit of power and wealth at the expense of the public interest.

In conclusion, HR 2835 is a masterclass in legislative doublespeak, designed to benefit the powerful at the expense of the vulnerable. It's a bad bill that will have disastrous consequences for our financial system. But hey, what do I know? I'm just a cynical analyst who actually reads the fine print.

Related Topics

Banking & Financial ServicesSmall Business & Entrepreneurship
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Donalds, Byron [R-FL-19]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$123,150
21 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$750
Committees
$0
Individuals
$122,400

No PAC contributions found

1
SHANNON GREEN COLLECTION
1 transaction
$500
2
NAPLES SMART, LLC
1 transaction
$250

No committee contributions found

1
TENEV, VLADIMIR
2 transactions
$10,000
2
COX, JOE B
1 transaction
$6,600
3
STALLINGS, KYLE
1 transaction
$6,600
4
ZALIK, DAVID
1 transaction
$6,600
5
ZALIK, HELEN
1 transaction
$6,600
6
BAUM, DAVID
1 transaction
$6,600
7
WALDRIP, EMORY
1 transaction
$6,600
8
MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE
1 transaction
$6,600
9
MANDELBLATT, ERIC
1 transaction
$6,600
10
REHNERT, GEOFFREY
1 transaction
$6,600
11
CRISWELL, HARRY E III
1 transaction
$6,600
12
JOHNSON, CHARLES B
1 transaction
$6,600
13
VOCCOLA, FREDERICK J
1 transaction
$6,600
14
WILSON, DONALD R JR
1 transaction
$6,600
15
SACKS, DAVID
1 transaction
$6,600
16
ADAMS, CAROL
1 transaction
$5,000
17
BAPPERT, CORY
1 transaction
$5,000
18
FUENTE, CARLOS
1 transaction
$5,000
19
BHATT, BAIJU
1 transaction
$5,000

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 6 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Haridopolos, Mike [R-FL-8]

ID: H001099

Top Contributors

10

1
JARNES, LARRY
NORTHBORO BUILDERS INCBUILDER
IndividualMELBOURNE, FL
$9,900
May 20, 2024
2
FARINELLA, NICK
SELF-EMPLOYEDREALTOR
IndividualMELBOURNE, FL
$3,518
May 6, 2024
3
HILL, KEVIN
RE/MAX ALTERNATIVEREALTOR
IndividualINDIAN HARBOUR BEA, FL
$3,518
May 6, 2024
4
MOLLEN, JACK
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualMELBOURNE, FL
$3,518
May 17, 2024
5
SHOULDERS, KATHY
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualINDIAN HARBOUR BEA, FL
$3,518
May 21, 2024
6
SHOULDERS, WILLIAM
HANDEX CONSULTING REMEDIATIONEXECUTIVE
IndividualINDIAN HARBOUR BEA, FL
$3,518
Apr 30, 2024
7
BERRY, JAMES
DELTA AIR LINESPILOT
IndividualMELBOURNE, FL
$3,435
Sep 10, 2024
8
DANDRIDGE, STEPHANIE
SOTHEBYSREALTOR
IndividualINDIALANTIC, FL
$3,435
Sep 19, 2024
9
FLACHS, BRUCE
PRESCIENT NATIONALINSURANCE
IndividualVERO BEACH, FL
$3,435
Sep 4, 2024
10
MARUMOTO, ALAN K.
UNIVERSITY CENTER IMAGINGPHYSICIAN
IndividualINDIALANTIC, FL
$3,435
Sep 13, 2024

Rep. Lucas, Frank D. [R-OK-3]

ID: L000491

Top Contributors

10

1
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Jun 17, 2024
2
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Jun 17, 2024
3
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Jun 5, 2023
4
GATES, WILLIAM
BREAKTHROUGH ENERGYPHILANTHROPIST
IndividualREDMOND, WA
$3,300
Oct 19, 2023
5
NATION, CHEROKEE
INDIAN TRIBEINDIAN TRIBE
IndividualTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Dec 26, 2023
6
LOVE, GREG
LOVE'S TRAVEL STOPSCO-CEO
IndividualOKLAHOMA CITY, OK
$3,300
Mar 5, 2024
7
LOVE, GREG
LOVE'S TRAVEL STOPSCO-CEO
IndividualOKLAHOMA CITY, OK
$3,300
Mar 5, 2024
8
PILLMORE, BRIAN
SELFBUSINESS OWNER
IndividualYUKON, OK
$3,300
Mar 4, 2024
9
HILLIARY, MEGAN
HILLIARY CUSTOM HOMESDESIGNER
IndividualLAWTON, OK
$3,300
Aug 1, 2023
10
WILMES, JEFF
WILMES CHEVROLETAUTO SALES
IndividualALTUS, OK
$3,300
Aug 3, 2023

Rep. Downing, Troy [R-MT-2]

ID: D000634

Top Contributors

10

1
REPUBLICAN MAINSTREET PARTNERSHIP PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$5,000
Sep 18, 2024
2
BILLION, JOSEPH C
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualBOZEMAN, MT
$13,200
Dec 31, 2023
3
BILLION, PEDER J
BILLION DODGE CHRYSLER JEEP RAMOWNER
IndividualBOZEMAN, MT
$13,200
Dec 31, 2023
4
DURRETT, STEVEN
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualBILLINGS, MT
$13,200
May 1, 2024
5
BARNARD, MARY
HOMEMAKERHOMEMAKER
IndividualBOZEMAN, MT
$6,600
Aug 1, 2024
6
BARNARD, TIMOTHY
BARNARD CONST. CO.CHAIRMAN
IndividualBOZEMAN, MT
$6,600
Aug 1, 2024
7
GREGORY, JOSEPH R.
IndividualPINEY FLATS, TN
$6,600
Jul 15, 2024
8
PLANTE, THOMAS
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualHENDERSONVILLE, TN
$6,600
Sep 10, 2024
9
MENHOLT, DENNY
MENHOLT AUTO GROUPAUTO DEALER
IndividualBILLINGS, MT
$6,600
Aug 12, 2024
10
GALT, SHARRIE
IndividualMARTINSDALE, MT
$6,600
Nov 1, 2024

Rep. Barr, Andy [R-KY-6]

ID: B001282

Top Contributors

10

1
TED J. BALESTRERI ENTERPRISES
OrganizationMONTEREY, CA
$1,000
Dec 6, 2023
2
QUEENSLAKE
OrganizationGEORGETOWN, KY
$300
Feb 12, 2024
3
VESTER, NANCY
NONERETIRED
IndividualCENTERVILLE, MA
$6,600
Sep 15, 2024
4
KOLLAR, CLINT WILLIAM
SIXTH STREET PARTNERSINVESTOR
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$6,600
Mar 22, 2023
5
FIELD, CHESTER JACK
NONERETIRED
IndividualSUMMERTON, SC
$6,600
Jun 4, 2024
6
FISHER, KENNETH
FISHER INVESTMENTSEXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN
IndividualPLANO, TX
$6,600
May 21, 2024
7
FISHER, SHERRILYN
PLANO 6500 LLCMEMBER
IndividualPLANO, TX
$6,600
May 21, 2024
8
BROWN, CHRIS
MINDSETPARTNER
IndividualCHEVY CHASE, MD
$5,600
Mar 7, 2023
9
DARWISH, SAM
SINGULARITY INVESTMENTS LLCCEO
IndividualMCKINNEY, TX
$5,000
Oct 28, 2024
10
CORRELL, JESS T.
FIRST SOUTHERN BANKBANKER
IndividualSTANFORD, KY
$5,000
May 7, 2024

Rep. De La Cruz, Monica [R-TX-15]

ID: D000594

Top Contributors

10

1
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationDURANT, OK
$3,300
Aug 29, 2024
2
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,300
Aug 29, 2024
3
ALABAMA- COUSHATTA TRIBE
OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX
$1,000
Oct 16, 2024
4
ADKINS, JAMES
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualHUNTINGTON, WV
$6,600
Oct 24, 2024
5
MOUSSEAU, RAYMOND
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualCROSWELL, MI
$6,600
Jun 2, 2024
6
DILAMANI, EDWARD
AGCBUSINESSMAN
IndividualGREAT NECK, NY
$6,600
Jul 8, 2024
7
EMIG, SUELLEN
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualFREEDOM, PA
$6,600
Sep 29, 2024
8
STEWART, FORREST
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualDESOTO, IL
$6,534
Feb 13, 2024
9
SPECHT, VIVIAN
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualLYMAN, NE
$5,940
Aug 7, 2024
10
CERDA, JULIO
S TEXAS INFRASTRUCTURE GROUPPARTNER
IndividualMISSION, TX
$5,000
Oct 25, 2024

Rep. Sessions, Pete [R-TX-17]

ID: S000250

Top Contributors

10

1
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$5,000
May 16, 2024
2
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$5,000
Sep 12, 2023
3
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Jun 17, 2024
4
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
May 24, 2023
5
ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE
OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX
$1,000
Sep 30, 2024
6
HOWARD, RONALD VANCE
BANKERS LIFEMANAGEMENT
IndividualHUNTSVILLE, TX
$5,000
Mar 13, 2023
7
HOWARD, KAREN
ELEMENTS MASSAGEMANAGEMENT
IndividualHUNTSVILLE, TX
$5,000
Mar 13, 2023
8
SINGH, PRITPAL
BETA SOFT SYSTEMSMANAGEMENT
IndividualFREMONT, CA
$5,000
Jun 23, 2023
9
KAUR, MANJIT
SINGH SEMICONDUCTORS & SYSTEMSMANAGEMENT
IndividualFREMONT, CA
$5,000
Jun 23, 2023
10
BEHRINGER, TODD
THE BEHRINGER GROUP, LLCCONSTRUCTION
IndividualWOODWAY, TX
$3,400
Sep 1, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Donalds, Byron [R-FL-19]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 73 nodes and 37 connections (49 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $191,936

Top Donors - Rep. Donalds, Byron [R-FL-19]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs19 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • +Commercial Banksconfidence 0.95

    Section 2 raises the consolidated assets threshold for small bank holding companies from $3B to $25B, providing regulatory relief and reducing compliance burden for banks under that threshold.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Donalds, Byron [R-FL-19])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

  • from 3 contributions
    • HENRY, STEFFANIE$100
    • BOUSTEAD, HEATHER MS$55

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.

Introduction

Moderate61.8%
Pages: 755-757

— 722 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise The Bank does not support small businesses. Most of the Bank’s funding goes to large corporations such as Boeing—a recipient of 68 percent of EXIM’s loan guarantees and 30 percent of EXIM’s overall activities.22 Over the years, 10 large domestic corporations have received roughly 65 percent of the Bank’s total assistance (it is closer to 70 percent today). More than 99.9 percent of U.S. small businesses receive no benefits from EXIM and are often placed at a competitive disadvantage by the subsidies doled out to larger competitors. In fact, the Bank’s support for small businesses has declined from $2.3 billion in FY 201923 to “more than $2.0 billion” in FY 202024 to only $1.6 billion in FY 2021.25 This decline occurred amid a pandemic that hit small businesses especially hard, and it con- tinues today. The Bank is not a good deal for taxpayers. The Bank’s accounting practices are deficient, and the Bank miscalculates its budget savings. While it claims that its operations will save taxpayers $14 billion over the next decade, the Congres- sional Budget Office has found that EXIM programs will actually cost taxpayers $2 billion.26 Numerous audits done by the Bank’s internal inspector general also show that the Bank’s risk analyses, default assumptions, internal reporting procedures, and financial reporting practices are not reliable enough to ensure the safe stewardship of taxpayer funds and responsible management of EXIM’s vast portfolio.27 FAILING TO MEET THE CHINA CHALLENGE These days, to get whatever expansion of government one wants or to jus- tify a new government activity, one has only to declare that more government intervention is needed to help fight China. President Trump used this argument to secure reauthorization of EXIM in 2019. Today, President Biden argues that the Bank could be a powerful weapon in the government’s geoeconomic arsenal against China. The rationale is that this will prevent China from dominating the global market with its subsidies and will boost American jobs and manufacturing. The prob- lem is that cynics who support such policies make no effort to adopt a serious strategic plan to achieve this goal. For instance, how can EXIM help us to fight China while state-owned Chinese companies like China Air have been some of the companies most subsidized by EXIM?28 Furthermore, it has now been four years since Congress instructed EXIM to focus on China, but there has been no funda- mental change in the way EXIM operates or the companies to which it extends taxpayer-backed financing: Deals related to the aircraft industry still dominate the Bank’s portfolio. In addition, there is no evidence that EXIM has altered its intense focus on competing with other governments’ ECAs. If the Bank were serious about com- peting against China, it would be targeting the low-income markets where China

Introduction

Moderate61.8%
Pages: 755-757

— 722 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise The Bank does not support small businesses. Most of the Bank’s funding goes to large corporations such as Boeing—a recipient of 68 percent of EXIM’s loan guarantees and 30 percent of EXIM’s overall activities.22 Over the years, 10 large domestic corporations have received roughly 65 percent of the Bank’s total assistance (it is closer to 70 percent today). More than 99.9 percent of U.S. small businesses receive no benefits from EXIM and are often placed at a competitive disadvantage by the subsidies doled out to larger competitors. In fact, the Bank’s support for small businesses has declined from $2.3 billion in FY 201923 to “more than $2.0 billion” in FY 202024 to only $1.6 billion in FY 2021.25 This decline occurred amid a pandemic that hit small businesses especially hard, and it con- tinues today. The Bank is not a good deal for taxpayers. The Bank’s accounting practices are deficient, and the Bank miscalculates its budget savings. While it claims that its operations will save taxpayers $14 billion over the next decade, the Congres- sional Budget Office has found that EXIM programs will actually cost taxpayers $2 billion.26 Numerous audits done by the Bank’s internal inspector general also show that the Bank’s risk analyses, default assumptions, internal reporting procedures, and financial reporting practices are not reliable enough to ensure the safe stewardship of taxpayer funds and responsible management of EXIM’s vast portfolio.27 FAILING TO MEET THE CHINA CHALLENGE These days, to get whatever expansion of government one wants or to jus- tify a new government activity, one has only to declare that more government intervention is needed to help fight China. President Trump used this argument to secure reauthorization of EXIM in 2019. Today, President Biden argues that the Bank could be a powerful weapon in the government’s geoeconomic arsenal against China. The rationale is that this will prevent China from dominating the global market with its subsidies and will boost American jobs and manufacturing. The prob- lem is that cynics who support such policies make no effort to adopt a serious strategic plan to achieve this goal. For instance, how can EXIM help us to fight China while state-owned Chinese companies like China Air have been some of the companies most subsidized by EXIM?28 Furthermore, it has now been four years since Congress instructed EXIM to focus on China, but there has been no funda- mental change in the way EXIM operates or the companies to which it extends taxpayer-backed financing: Deals related to the aircraft industry still dominate the Bank’s portfolio. In addition, there is no evidence that EXIM has altered its intense focus on competing with other governments’ ECAs. If the Bank were serious about com- peting against China, it would be targeting the low-income markets where China — 723 — Export-Import Bank has been making its most important investments. Instead, its obsession with other ECAs has caused EXIM to direct the vast majority of its funding to large foreign companies in higher-income nations. Data available on the OECD website show that the level of ECA financing in high-income countries in 2019 was more than double the amount in low-income countries.29 The same was true for previous years. In other words, EXIM and the ECAs of the OECD are competing in markets where commercial lending is abundant—a trend that continues today. The failure to deliver on its congressionally imposed obligation—however mis- guided that obligation may be—is also noticeable in the fact that EXIM’s China and Transformation Exports Program (CTEP) extended only $141.3 million in financing in FY 2022—a fraction of the $27 billion it is supposed to deliver by the end of 2026.30 The Bank’s efforts have also included a misplaced focus on emerging technologies such as quantum computing and artificial intelligence, which do not need EXIM financing because their foreign sales attract commercial financing without government support. The lack of demand for EXIM products could also be reflected in the Bank’s authorization of $5.2 billion in loan guarantees and sup- port in FY 2022,31 down from its FY 2012 peak of “over $35.7 billion” during the Obama Administration.32 This lack of activity also extends to the semiconductor industry, which has been picked as a focal point for a governmentwide industrial policy effort to counter China’s ambition to dominate that industry. Ironically, at the same time that some want to become more like China to fight China, China’s leaders are realizing that their heavy-handed semiconductor subsidies are weakening the Chinese economy. According to Bloomberg News: Top [Chinese] officials are discussing ways to move away from costly subsidies that have so far borne little fruit and encouraged both graft and American sanctions, people familiar with the matter said. While some continue to push for incentives of as much as 1 trillion yuan ($US145 billion), other policymakers have lost their taste for an investment-led approach that’s not yielded the results anticipated, the people said.33 This development is not surprising to those who understand basic economics. The goal of using EXIM as a weapon against China was a bad idea in the first place. Even if it were a good idea, for it to succeed would have required that EXIM stop serving the clients it has been serving for decades. That has not happened, and it will not happen. CONCLUSION The Export–Import Bank should be abolished because it wastes taxpayer money, adversely affects American businesses, and does not promote economic growth

Introduction

Moderate61.1%
Pages: 770-772

— 737 — Federal Reserve by ensuring that cash earns a positive (inflation-adjusted) rate of return, it can pre- vent households and businesses from holding inefficiently small money balances. Further benefits of free banking include dramatic reduction of economic cycles, an end to indirect financing of federal spending, removal of the “lender of last resort” permanent bailout function of central banks, and promotion of currency competition.26 This allows Americans many more ways to protect their savings. Because free banking implies that financial services and banking would be gov- erned by general business laws against, for example, fraud or misrepresentation, crony regulatory burdens that hurt customers would be dramatically eased, and innovation would be encouraged. Potential downsides of free banking stem from its greatest benefit: It has mas- sive political hurdles to clear. Economic theory predicts and economic history confirms that free banking is both stable and productive, but it is radically different from the system we have now. Transitioning to free banking would require polit- ical authorities, including Congress and the President, to coordinate on multiple reforms simultaneously. Getting any of them wrong could imbalance an otherwise functional system. Ironically, it is the very strength of a true free banking system that makes transitioning to one so difficult. Commodity-Backed Money. For most of U.S. history, the dollar was defined in terms of both gold and silver. The problem was that when the legal price differed from the market price, the artificially undervalued currency would disappear from circulation. There were times, for instance, when this mechanism put the U.S. on a de facto silver standard. However, as a result, inflation was limited. Given this track record, restoring a gold standard retains some appeal among monetary reformers who do not wish to go so far as abolishing the Federal Reserve. Both the 2012 and 2016 GOP platforms urged the establishment of a commis- sion to consider the feasibility of a return to the gold standard,27 and in October 2022, Representative Alexander Mooney (R–WV) introduced a bill to restore the gold standard.28 In economic effect, commodity-backing the dollar differs from free banking in that the government (via the Fed) maintains both regulatory and bailout functions. However, manipulation of money and credit is limited because new dollars are not costless to the federal government: They must be backed by some hard asset like gold. Compared to free banking, then, the benefits of commodity-backed money are reduced, but transition disruptions are also smaller. The process of commodity backing is very straightforward: Treasury could set the price of a dollar at today’s market price of $2,000 per ounce of gold. This means that each Federal Reserve note could be redeemed at the Federal Reserve and exchanged for 1/2000 ounce of gold—about $80, for example, for a gold coin the weight of a dime. Private bank liabilities would be redeemable upon their issuers. Banks could send those traded-in dollars to the Treasury for gold to replenish their

Showing 3 of 4 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills