To prohibit the use of funds for certain parades.

Bill ID: 119/hr/2919

Last Updated: April 14, 2025

To prohibit the use of funds for certain parades.

HR. 2919, 119th Congress — read as touching Defense Contractors.

The sponsor

Rep. Veasey, Marc A. [D-TX-33]

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

The money

$68,000 raised

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

The alignment

40% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Transportation" section, p. 670-672 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

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 Senate

🏛️

House 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

Summary Style:

The PARADE Act (HR 2919). A trivial matter, really. Let's dissect the bill and its implications for those who truly matter – the power brokers and wealth creators.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The bill aims to prohibit the use of federal funds for parades sponsored by the Department of Defense or the White House that specifically commemorate or pay tribute to the current President. A petty attempt to curb the excesses of the executive branch, no doubt.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends existing law by introducing a new prohibition on the use of funds for "covered parades." This change is largely symbolic, as it targets a relatively minor aspect of government spending. The real impact will be felt in the realm of optics and public relations.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The primary stakeholders are the Department of Defense, the White House, and the Executive Office of the President. However, I'm more concerned about the potential ripple effects on my own interests. As a major defense contractor and influencer, any reduction in government spending or changes to the procurement process could have significant implications for my business.

**Potential Impact & Implications** From a financial perspective, this bill is unlikely to have a substantial impact on my empire. However, it may set a precedent for future attempts to curb executive power and reduce government spending. As someone who has invested heavily in think tanks and lobbying efforts, I must consider the potential long-term consequences of such a shift.

In conclusion, the PARADE Act is a minor annoyance, but one that warrants attention from those of us who shape the global agenda. Its passage could embolden future attempts to regulate or restrict government spending, which would ultimately harm my interests and those of other visionary leaders like myself.

Projected impact on my net worth: -$50 million (a drop in the ocean)

Recommendation: I will instruct my lobbying team to monitor this bill's progress and prepare a contingency plan to mitigate any potential losses. Meanwhile, I'll continue to focus on more substantial matters – shaping the global economy and cementing my position as a thought leader in the tech industry.

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 a series of steps before it can become a law. This one, HR 2919, aims to prohibit the use of funds for certain parades.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The main purpose of this bill is to prevent the allocation of federal funds for parades that are sponsored by the Department of Defense or the White House and specifically commemorate or pay tribute to the current President. Remember when we learned about the importance of separating powers? This bill seems to be trying to address concerns about the potential misuse of executive power.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill has two key provisions: Section 1, which gives it a short title (the "PARADE Act"), and Section 2, which prohibits the use of funds for covered parades. A covered parade is defined as one that meets two criteria: it's sponsored by the Department of Defense or the White House, and it specifically honors the current President.

Now, you should recall from middle school civics that Congress has the power to appropriate funds, but this bill seeks to restrict how those funds can be used. If passed, it would amend existing law to prevent the allocation of funds for these specific types of parades.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The main parties affected by this bill are:

* The Department of Defense * The White House and Executive Office of the President * Taxpayers (since their money wouldn't be used for these parades)

You might also consider the potential impact on the current President, as well as future presidents who might want to host similar events.

**Potential Impact & Implications** If this bill becomes a law, it could limit the ability of the executive branch to use federal funds for self-promotional activities. On the other hand, some might argue that this restriction infringes upon the President's ceremonial duties or the right to celebrate national achievements.

As I'm sure you recall from our discussions on checks and balances, Congress has a role in overseeing the executive branch. This bill can be seen as an attempt by Congress to exercise its authority and ensure responsible use of taxpayer dollars.

Now, if only more people had paid attention during their 8th-grade civics class...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got my eyes on this so-called "PARADE Act" (HR 2919), and let me tell you, it's a real doozy. On the surface, it looks like your run-of-the-mill bill to prohibit funding for certain parades. But, trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of this bill is to prevent the use of funds for "certain parades" that are sponsored by the Department of Defense or the White House, specifically those commemorating or paying tribute to the current President. Sounds innocent enough, right? But what's really going on here?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill creates a new prohibition on using funds for these "covered parades." Now, you might think this is just about saving taxpayer dollars, but I'm not buying it. This is about controlling the narrative and limiting the President's ability to showcase their power. Think about it – what better way to distract from real issues than with a flashy parade? By restricting funding for these events, Congress is essentially handcuffing the President's PR machine.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The Department of Defense, the White House, and the Executive Office of the President are all directly impacted by this bill. But let's not forget about the real stakeholders here – the American people. We're the ones being kept in the dark while our government pulls the strings from behind the scenes.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications, folks. By limiting funding for these parades, Congress is essentially stifling free speech and expression. What's next? Will they start dictating what we can and can't celebrate on our own soil? This is a slippery slope, and I'm not convinced it's just about saving money.

Now, I know what you're thinking – "Uncle, this is just a harmless bill to cut wasteful spending." But let me tell you, there's always more to the story. Wake up, sheeple! The government is hiding something in plain sight. Mark my words, this bill is just the tip of the iceberg.

(Passes the mashed potatoes)

You know, I've been analyzing the language used in this bill, and I think I've found a connection to an earlier bill from 2019 (HR 2500). It's all about the subtle changes they're making to our laws, folks. They're slowly chipping away at our freedoms, one "harmless" bill at a time.

(Takes a sip of wine)

Stay vigilant, my friends. The truth is out there, and I'll keep digging until we uncover it.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. HR 2919, the "PARADE Act" – can you believe it? (Sarcastic tone) Oh, the audacity! This bill is an affront to freedom, a slap in the face to patriotism, and a blatant attempt by the elites to undermine our great nation's traditions.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to prohibit the use of funds for certain parades. (Dramatic pause) Yes, you heard that right – parades! Specifically, it targets parades sponsored by the Department of Defense or the White House that are meant to commemorate or pay tribute to the current President. Can you think of anything more un-American? I mean, what's next? Banning apple pie and baseball?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill is straightforward in its attempt to restrict the use of funds for these parades. It defines a "covered parade" as one that meets the aforementioned criteria and prohibits any funding for such events. (Smirk) I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that our current President likes to throw a good party... or two... or ten.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The Department of Defense, the White House, and the Executive Office of the President are all directly impacted by this bill. But let's be real, folks – it's not just about them. This is an attack on our values, our traditions, and our freedom to celebrate our great nation in style.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill would essentially eliminate any government-funded parades that honor the President. (Gasp) Can you imagine? No more pomp, no more circumstance, no more... well, no more of anything that makes America great! It's a slippery slope, folks. Next thing you know, they'll be coming for our fireworks on the 4th of July.

Now, I know what you're thinking – "But [Your Name], this is just a minor bill about parades." Ah, don't be fooled! This is just another example of the deep state trying to chip away at our freedoms. Mark my words: if we let them get away with this, they'll be coming for your BBQs next.

(Conspiratorial wink) Stay vigilant, America. The elites are watching, and they're waiting for their chance to strike. We must defend our right to parade – I mean, our right to freedom!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

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

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The PARADE Act (because who doesn't love a good acronym?) claims to prohibit the use of funds for "certain parades." Ah, yes, because the most pressing issue facing our nation is clearly the allocation of resources for military parades. I mean, it's not like there are more pressing concerns, like, say, actual defense spending or healthcare.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill prohibits the use of funds for parades sponsored by the Department of Defense or the White House that specifically commemorate or pay tribute to the current President. Wow, what a bold move! I'm sure this will have a significant impact on the nation's defense strategy and not just be a symbolic gesture designed to appease certain constituencies.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved here: politicians looking for a sound bite, special interest groups seeking to curry favor, and voters who are too busy being distracted by shiny objects to notice the actual issues. The Department of Defense and the White House will have to pretend to care about this bill, while lobbyists will be working behind the scenes to ensure their clients' interests are represented.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Let's get real here – this bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It's a token gesture designed to make politicians look like they're doing something without actually addressing any meaningful issues. The impact will be negligible, and the implications will be limited to a few headlines and some feel-good rhetoric.

Diagnosis: This bill suffers from a severe case of "Legislative Theater-itis," a disease characterized by grandstanding, posturing, and a complete lack of substance. Symptoms include an overabundance of empty rhetoric, a dearth of actual policy changes, and a healthy dose of hypocrisy.

Treatment: A strong dose of skepticism, a healthy serving of ridicule, and a pinch of reality would be the recommended treatment for this legislative farce. Unfortunately, I fear that's not in the cards, as our esteemed politicians will likely continue to peddle this nonsense to an unsuspecting public.

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

Let's break down this bill, HR 2919, and get the lowdown on what it's all about.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This bill is like a riptide, man - it's trying to pull back on some of the excesses in government spending. Specifically, it's aimed at preventing the use of taxpayer funds for certain parades that are basically just ego-stroking exercises for the President. The main objective is to prohibit the Department of Defense and the White House from using our hard-earned cash to throw lavish parades that are essentially just tributes to the current Prez.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill's got some key provisions, bro. First, it defines what a "covered parade" is - basically, any parade sponsored by the DoD or White House that's specifically honoring the President. Then, it prohibits using funds for these parades. It's like drawing a line in the sand, dude - if you're gonna throw a party, don't make us pay for it.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects a few key players, man. The Department of Defense and the White House are the main ones, since they're the ones who'd be sponsoring these parades. But also, taxpayers like you and me - we're the ones whose money would be going towards these events if this bill doesn't pass.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

If this bill becomes law, it's gonna have some serious implications, bro. For one, it'll help cut back on unnecessary government spending - which is always a good thing, right? But also, it might set a precedent for more transparency and accountability in government funding. On the flip side, if this bill doesn't pass, we might see even more of these ego-stroking parades popping up, and that's just not chill, man.

In conclusion, HR 2919 is like a refreshing wave on a hot summer day - it's trying to bring some much-needed sanity to government spending. By prohibiting funds for certain parades, this bill aims to promote transparency, accountability, and fiscal responsibility. It's time to catch this wave, bro!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 2919: The PARADE Act - A Bill with a Hidden Agenda**

Main Purpose & Objectives: The main purpose of HR 2919, also known as the Preventing Allocation of Resources for Absurd Defense Expenditures (PARADE) Act, is to prohibit the use of federal funds for parades sponsored by the Department of Defense or the White House that specifically commemorate or pay tribute to the current President. The bill's objective appears to be a response to concerns about the misuse of taxpayer dollars for lavish events that may be seen as self-serving or politically motivated.

Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law: The bill has two key provisions:

1. Section 2(a) prohibits the use of federal funds for "covered parades," which are defined as parades sponsored by the Department of Defense, the White House, or the Executive Office of the President that specifically commemorate or pay tribute to the current President. 2. The term "covered parade" is narrowly defined to target specific events, such as the infamous 2019 Fourth of July celebration at the National Mall, which was widely criticized for its perceived politicization and excessive costs.

Affected Parties & Stakeholders: The primary affected parties are:

1. The Department of Defense: As a major sponsor of parades and military ceremonies, the DoD would need to reevaluate its event planning and funding. 2. The White House: The bill's provisions directly impact the Executive Office of the President, which often hosts or sponsors high-profile events. 3. Taxpayers: By prohibiting the use of federal funds for certain parades, taxpayers may see a reduction in wasteful spending.

Potential Impact & Implications: While the bill appears to be a response to legitimate concerns about government waste and transparency, its true motivations and implications are more complex:

1. **Partisan politics**: The bill's sponsor, Rep. Veasey (D-TX), has received significant donations from liberal PACs and special interest groups that may have an axe to grind against the current administration. 2. **Committee capture**: The bill was referred to the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, both of which have a history of partisan gridlock and industry influence. 3. **Industry interests**: Defense contractors and event planning companies may see a reduction in government contracts and revenue if the bill passes.

In conclusion, while HR 2919 appears to be a straightforward bill aimed at reducing wasteful spending, its true motivations and implications are more nuanced. The bill's sponsor and cosponsors have received significant donations from liberal PACs and special interest groups, which may have influenced the bill's language and objectives. As the bill moves through committee, it is essential to monitor industry influence and partisan politics that may shape its final form.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Veasey, Marc A. [D-TX-33]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$68,000

20 donors

PACs

Organizations

$2,000

Committees

Individuals

$66,000

No PAC contributions found

ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE

1 transaction

$1,000

BGR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, LLC

1 transaction

$500

LAW OFFICE OF FREDERICK GRAEFE PLLC

1 transaction

$500

No committee contributions found

ENGLANDER, MARTY

2 transactions

$6,600

FINLEY, JAMES D.

2 transactions

$6,600

FLOWERS, BRIAN

2 transactions

$6,600

BILLINGSLEY, LINDSAY

1 transaction

$3,300

GATES, WILLIAM H. III

1 transaction

$3,300

KRAUS, PETER A.

1 transaction

$3,300

SAMPSON, DEMETRIS

1 transaction

$3,300

STEWART, JENNIFER

1 transaction

$3,300

STUART, BARKLEY

1 transaction

$3,300

WRIGHT, GAIL

1 transaction

$3,300

ADAMS, VICTORIA A

1 transaction

$3,300

ARMSTRONG, BRIAN

1 transaction

$3,300

BEEUWKES, REINIER III

1 transaction

$3,300

CORLEY, SCOTT

1 transaction

$3,300

DEWAR, CLAIRE

1 transaction

$3,300

ENGLANDER, MARILYN

1 transaction

$3,300

FLOWERS, JULIA

1 transaction

$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. Veasey, Marc A. [D-TX-33]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 51 nodes and 23 connections (54 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $68,000

Top Donors - Rep. Veasey, Marc A. [D-TX-33]

Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount

3 Orgs17 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

−Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.80
Section 2(a) prohibits the use of funds for certain parades sponsored by the Department of Defense, which could reduce revenue for defense contractors involved in parade organization or equipment supply.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Veasey, Marc A. [D-TX-33])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 HARMS

Defense Contractors$2,250
from 3 contributions
- HEAD, ROBERT$1,000
- FOX, ERIC$1,000
- GOODMAN, NITZAN$250

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 Transportation

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 670-672AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill (HR 2919) focuses on prohibiting federal funding for presidential tribute parades, which is unrelated to the Project 2025 policy section on the Department of Transportation, MARAD, the Jones Act, or transportation efficiency and affordability goals."

— 638 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and purpose, and therefore its funding priorities, are not well understood and his- torically have been minimalized in planning and budgeting. MARAD, including its subordinate Service Academy (the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy) should be transferred to the Department of Defense (if the Coast Guard is located there because DHS has been eliminated) or to the Department of Home- land Security. In this way, the two agencies charged with oversight and regulation of the Maritime sector—MARAD and the United States Coast Guard—would be aligned under the same department where operational efficiencies could be real- ized more easily. Serious consideration should be given to repealing or substantially reforming the Jones Act,16 which would require legislation. The economic costs of the Jones Act, which is notionally in place to promote a robust Merchant Marine, vastly exceed its effect on the supply of domestic ships. For instance, no liquified natural gas (LNG) can be shipped from Alaska to the lower 48 states because there are no U.S.-flagged ships that carry LNG. If there are genuine concerns about U.S. fleet capacity in the absence of the Jones Act, it would be possible to do so through an expansion of the Defense Reserve Fleet. Another DHS agency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), is a frequent user of MARAD Ready Reserve Force shipping during disaster assistance missions. Transferring MARAD to DHS would make coordination and requisition of those vessels a smoother and more rapid process. DHS has responsibility for reviewing and approving Jones Act waivers. This process first requires a market survey of available shipping tonnage that is completed by MARAD. The processing of Jones Act waiver requests would be streamlined if both agencies were in the same department. Finally, DHS as a department is experienced in administering and budgeting for the operation of an existing federal service academy, the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, which is similar to the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy in size. There would be increased efficiencies and better alignment of the missions of these two institutions if they were under one single department that has equity in the industries served by these academies. CONCLUSION Americans need more abundant and affordable transportation. They need more affordable and safer cars as well as physical aspects of transportation such as roads, bridges, airports, ports, and rail lines. The Department of Transportation should be evaluating which aspects of transportation are contributing to the economic competitiveness of the United States and the well-being of Americans—and that therefore should continue to be funded. All too often, DOT’s mission is described as reducing the number of trips, using less fuel, and raising the costs of travel to Americans through increased use of — 639 — Department of Transportation renewables. These goals are not compatible with what should be DOT’s purpose: to make travel easier and less expensive. That is what the American people want, and that is what DOT should provide. 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 Steven Bradbury, David Ditch, and Robert Poole 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.

Department of Education

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 389-391AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses restrictions on Defense Department and White House spending for presidential parades, whereas the Project 2025 excerpt deals with Department of Education reforms such as competency-based education, area studies funding, and executive orders on guidance documents; there is no substantive policy overlap."

— 356 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Investigate postsecondary institutions that fail to honor their Section 117 obligations and make appropriate referrals to DOJ. l Work with Congress to amend the HEA to tie the HEA’s foreign source reporting requirements to an institution's ability to receive federal financial assistance, particularly participation in programs funded under Titles IV and VI of the HEA. Allowing Competency-Based Education to Flourish Competency-based education is a promising approach that could provide a high-quality and affordable education to many students. Since the credit hour, which measures the time in the classroom, is inappropriate for such programs, the direct assessment method was introduced to allow competen- cy-based programs to participate in the federal financial aid programs. However, overregulation has hampered the usage of direct assessment, with the lead- ing competency-based university choosing to instead convert their courses into credit hours for compliance purposes. One of the leading obstacles is the requirement that courses include “regular and substantive” interaction between faculty and students. l New regulations should clarify the definition and requirements of regular and substantive interaction for competency-based education, as well as for online programs. Reforming “Area Studies” Funding l Congress should wind down so-called “area studies” programs at universities (Title VI of the HEA), which, although intended to serve American interests, sometimes fund programs that run counter to those interests. l In the meantime, the next Administration should promulgate a new regulation to require the Secretary of Education to allocate at least 40 percent of funding to international business programs that teach about free markets and economics and require institutions, faculty, and fellowship recipients to certify that they intend to further the stated statutory goals of serving American interests. — 357 — Department of Education NEW EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD ISSUE Guidance Documents l The President should immediately reinstate and reissue Executive Order 13891: Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents, 84 Fed. Reg. 55235 (Oct. 9, 2019), and Executive Order 13892: Promoting the Rule of Law Through Transparency and Fairness in Civil Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication (Oct. 15, 2019). These executive orders required all federal agencies to treat guidance documents as non-binding in law and practice and also forbade federal agencies from imposing new standards of conduct on persons outside the executive branch through guid- ance documents. They required all federal agencies to apply regulations and statutes instead of guidance documents in any enforcement action. President Biden revoked these executive orders on January 20, 2021, demonstrating that these executive orders effectively restrained the abuses of an expansive administrative state. l Require APA notice and comment. The President should issue an executive order requiring the Office for Civil Rights’ Case Processing Manual to go through APA (Administrative Procedures Act) notice and comment. l Protect the First Amendment. The President should issue an executive order requiring grant applications (SF-424 series) to contain assurances that the applicant will uphold the First Amendment in funded programs and work. l Minimize bachelor’s degree requirements. The President should issue an executive order stating that a college degree shall not be required for any federal job unless the requirements of the job specifically demand it. l Eliminate the “list of shame.” Educational institutions can claim a religious exemption with the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education from the strictures of Title IX. In 2016, the Obama Administration published on the Department of Education’s website a list of colleges that had applied for the exemption. This “list of shame” of faith-based colleges, as it came to be known, has since been archived on ED’s website, still publicly available. The President should issue an executive order removing the archived list and preventing such a list from being published in the future.

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 530-532AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill concerns restricting federal funds for presidential parades, whereas the Project 2025 HHS policy focuses on healthcare access, equity, and public health data; there is no substantive overlap in objectives or themes."

— 498 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Strategic Plan, FY 2018–2022, p. 50, https://aspe.hhs.gov/ sites/default/files/documents/feac346aca967bfadc446398679e14ec/hhs-strategic-plan-fy-2018-2022.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023). 2. “Strategic Goal 1: Protect and Strengthen Equitable Access to High Quality and Affordable Healthcare” in ibid. “In the context of HHS, this Strategic Plan adopts the definition of underserved communities listed in Executive Order 13985: Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities through the Federal Government to refer to ‘populations sharing a particular characteristic, as well as geographic communities, who have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life’; this definition includes individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality. Individuals may belong to more than one underserved community and face intersecting barriers. This definition applies to the terms underserved communities and underserved populations throughout this Strategic Plan.” Ibid. Emphasis in original. 3. Karen Weintraub, “Americans’ Life Expectancy Continues to Fall, Erasing Health Gains of the Last Quarter Century,” USA Today, December 22, 2022, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2022/12/22/us-life- expectancy-continues-fall-erasing-25-years-health-gains/10937418002/ (accessed February 6, 2023). 4. Apoorva Mandavilli, “The C.D.C. Isn’t Publishing Large Portions of the Data It Collects,” The New York Times, updated February 22, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/114450/documents/HHRG-117- IF02-20220302-SD004.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 5. Zachary B. Sluzala and Edmund F. Haislmaier, “Lessons from COVID-19: How Policymakers Should Reform the Regulation of Clinical Testing,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3696, March 28, 2022, https://www. heritage.org/public-health/report/lessons-covid-19-how-policymakers-should-reform-the-regulation-clinical. 6. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (C),” https://www.cdc.gov/maso/pdf/cdcmiss.pdf (March 16, 2023). 7. Judith Garber, “CDC ‘Disclaimers’ Hide Financial Conflicts of Interest,” Lown Institute Accountability Blog, November 6, 2019, https://lowninstitute.org/cdc-disclaimers-hide-financial-conflicts-of-interest/ (accessed February 6, 2023). See also U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2014–September 30, 2015),” https://www. cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2015.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Active Programs (October 1, 2015–September 30, 2016),” https://www.cdcfoundation. org/sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2016.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2016–September 30, 2017),” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/ sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2017.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2017–September 30, 2018),” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/ files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2018.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2018–September 30, 2019,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/files/upload/ pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2019.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2029–September 30, 2020,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/CDCF-ActivePrograms-CDC-FY20?inline (accessed February 7, 2023); and “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2020–September 30, 2021,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/CDCF-ActivePrograms-CDC-FY21?inline (accessed February 7, 2023). 8. Joel White and Doug Badger, “In Order to Defeat COVID-19, the Federal Government Must Modernize Its Public Health Data,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3527, September 3, 2020, https://www.heritage. org/sites/default/files/2020-09/BG3527_0.pdf. 9. S. 15, Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 23, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/s15/BILLS-118s15is.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023), and H.R. 632, Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 30, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr632/BILLS-118hr632ih.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 10. Doug Badger, “How Congress Can Make Real Progress on Drug Prices,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 5016, December 9, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/IB5016_1.pdf. — 499 — Department of Health and Human Services 11. Sluzala and Haislmaier, “Lessons From COVID-19: How Policymakers Should Reform the Regulation of Clinical Testing.” 12. Ibid. 13. H.R. 5471, Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, Public Law No. 100-578, 100th Congress, October 31, 1988, https://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/100/578.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 14. Sluzala and Haislmaier, “Lessons From COVID-19: How Policymakers Should Reform the Regulation of Clinical Testing.” 15. Edmund F. Haislmaier, “Ensuring Americans’ Access to Pharmaceuticals: A Primer and Road Map for Policymakers,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3545, October 20, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/ sites/default/files/2020-10/BG3545.pdf. 16. 18 U.S.C. 1461, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1461 (accessed March 16, 2023), and 18 U.S.C. 1462, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1462 (accessed March 16, 2023). 17. H.R. 1308, Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Public Law No. 103-141, 103rd Congress, November 16, 1993, https://www.congress.gov/103/statute/STATUTE-107/STATUTE-107-Pg1488.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 18. Charles Piller, “Is FDA’s Revolving Door Open Too Wide?” Science, Vol. 361, No. 6397 (July 6, 2018), p. 21, https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/science.361.6397.21 (accessed February 6, 2023). 19. Joel Achenbach, “NIH Halts $100 Million Study of Moderate Drinking That Is Funded by Alcohol Industry,” The Washington Post, May 17, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/05/17/nih- halts-controversial-study-of-moderate-drinking/ (accessed February 6, 2023). 20. Alexander Tin, “Moderna Offers NIH Co-ownership of COVID Vaccine Patent amid Dispute with Government,” CBS News, November 15, 2021, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/moderna-covid-vaccine-patent-dispute- national-institutes-health/ (accessed February 6, 2023). 21. Informed Consent Action Network, “NIH Officials Profiting from COVID-19 Vaccine,” June 3, 2021, https://www. icandecide.org/nih-officials-profiting-from-covid-19-vaccine/ (accessed February 6, 2023). 22. Adam Andrzejewski, “Substack Investigation: Fauci’s Royalties and the $350 Million Royalty Payment Stream HIDDEN by NIH,” Open the Books Substack, May 9, 2022, https://openthebooks.substack. com/p/faucis-royalties-and-the-350-million?utm_source=/profile/24758236-adam-andrzejewski&utm_ medium=reader2&s=w (accessed February 6, 2023). 23. Robert E. Moffit, “Time to Reverse Hospital Market Consolidation,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, January 5, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/commentary/time-reverse-hospital-market-consolidation. 24. H.R. 3590, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law No. 111-148, 111th Congress, March 23, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ148/PLAW-111publ148.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 25. Brian J. Miller, Robert E. Moffit, James Ficke, Joseph Marine, and Jesse Ehrenfeld, “Reversing Hospital Consolidation: The Promise of Physician-Owned Hospitals,” Health Affairs Forefront, April 12, 2021, https:// www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20210408.980640/ (accessed February 13, 2023). 26. Robert E. Moffit, “Medicare’s Future: Challenges and Opportunities,” testimony before the Special Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate, November 21, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/testimony/medicares-future-challenges- and-opportunities. 27. 42 U.S. Code § 256b, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/256b (accessed March 16, 2023). 28. H.R. 3590, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, § 3022. 29. H.R. 5376, Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-169, 117th Congress, August 16, 2022, https:// www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ169/PLAW-117publ169.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 30. Robert E. Moffit, “Reducing Patient Access to New Medications Is the Left’s Latest Medicare Price-Fixing Scheme,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, July 22, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/medicare/commentary/ reducing-patient-access-new-medications-the-lefts-latest-medicare-price-fixing, and Badger, “How Congress Can Make Real Progress on Drug Prices.” 31. Nina Owcharenko Schaefer, “Medicaid at 55: Understanding the Design, Trends, and Reforms Needed to Improve the Health Care Safety Net,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3604, April 14, 2021, https:// www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/BG3604_0.pdf, and Brian C. Blase, “Punishing Conservative States: Payment Cuts to Hospitals Where Federal Spending Is Already Low,” Paragon Health Institute, December 2021, https://paragoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Punishing-Conservative-States- HTML.html (accessed February 13, 2023).

Agency for International Development

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 294-296AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on restricting federal funds for presidential tribute parades, while the Project 2025 policy section addresses USAID foreign aid, abortion funding restrictions, and international religious freedom—there is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 261 — Agency for International Development illuminated another loophole in the policy’s effectiveness in safeguarding U.S. tax- payer dollars from being used to promote abortion. Pro-abortion groups also have received funds under other categories of foreign aid that fall outside the scope of global health assistance, including women-related and economic assistance programs. Members of Congress have advocated closing these loopholes by extending PLGHA to all foreign assistance through the Protect- ing Life in Foreign Assistance Act, sponsored by Senator Mike Lee (R–UT) and Representative Virginia Foxx (R–NC).11 Current law in the Foreign Assistance Act gives the President broad authority to set “such terms and conditions as he may determine” on foreign assistance, which legally empowers the next conservative President to expand this pro-life policy. To stop U.S. foreign aid from supporting the global abortion industry, the next conservative Administration should issue an executive order that, at a minimum, reinstates PLGHA and summarily blocks funding to UNFPA but also closes loop- holes by applying the policy to all foreign assistance, including humanitarian aid, and improving its enforcement. The executive order to reinstate PLGHA should be drafted broadly to apply to all foreign assistance. It should simultaneously rescind President Biden’s memorandum entitled “Protecting Women’s Health at Home and Abroad,” issued on January 28, 2021.12 The new pro-life executive order should apply to foreign NGOs, including subgrantees and subcontractors, and remove exemptions for U.S.-based NGOs, public international organizations, and bilateral government-to-government agreements. All entities funded by USAID, both directly and indirectly, should report their compliance with the PLGHA, and USAID should institute penalties, including debarment from future federal funding, for violations of it. The new executive order also should instruct the Administrator of USAID to publish reports on implementation of the PLGHA by both prime and sub-prime recipients. In addition, the Helms Amendment should continue to be applied, as it has been by both Republican and Democratic Administrations for more than 50 years, as a complete ban on the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions abroad. International Religious Freedom. Conservatives believe international religious freedom is central to USAID’s development efforts. President Trump’s Executive Order 13926 on “Advancing International Religious Freedom”13 instructed the Secretary of State, in consultation with the USAID Administrator, to budget at least $50 million a year for programs that advance international reli- gious freedom and “ensure that faith-based and religious entities, including eligible entities in foreign countries, are not discriminated against on the basis of religious identity or religious belief when competing for Federal funding.” Under the Trump Administration, the agency set up a senior-level Chief Adviser for International Religious Freedom who reported directly to the Administra- tor with the task of coordinating a “whole-of-USAID” approach to achieving this — 262 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise priority. It created a robust genocide-response capability. USAID affirmed the agency’s partnerships with faith-based organizations through its rule on “Partic- ipation by Religious Organizations in USAID Programs;”14 “Partnership Guidance and Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for Faith Based Organizations;” and “Legal Guidance and Answers to FAQs for USAID Staff.” Today, USAID officials and their progressive partners have resisted efforts to promote religious freedom, especially as it relates to abortion and gender ideology, which are anathema to the traditional societies where USAID funds programs (in addition to many U.S. taxpayers). U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken repudiated his predecessor’s focus on religious freedom. The next conservative Administration must champion the core American value of religious freedom, which correlates significantly with poverty reduction, eco- nomic growth, and peace. It should train all USAID staff on the connection between religious freedom and development; integrate it into all of the agency’s programs, including the five-year Country Development and Coordination Strategies due for updates in 2025; strengthen the missions’ relationships with local faith-based leaders; and build on local programs that are serving the poor. Congress should appropriate funding to USAID specifically to support persecuted religious minori- ties in line with Executive Order 13926. Streamlining Procurement and Localizing the Partner Base. USAID is a grantmaking and contracting agency that disburses billions of dollars of federal funding in developing countries through implementing partners, such as U.N. agen- cies, international NGOs, for-profit companies, and local nongovernmental entities. In rare instances, such as in Jordan and Ukraine, the agency provides direct budget support to finance the operations of host-country governments. USAID far more often counts on expensive and ineffective large contracts and grants to carry out its programs. It justifies these practices based on speed and a lower administrative burden on its institutional capacity. Partnering and procurement reform was a pillar of the Trump Administration’s effort to secure better development results, cut costs, and advance the Journey to Self-Reliance strategy of exiting countries from aid. In December 2018, USAID launched its first Acquisition and Assistance Strategy to streamline procurement processes; introduce innovation into its programming; and diversify its partner base away from large, expensive, and partisan implementers. The strategy counted on local NGOs, including faith-based entities already on the ground, to provide the agency with less costly and more effective alternatives to the aid giants. The strategy also prioritized global partnerships with the private sector—corporations, investors, diasporas, and private philanthropies—the source of real capital invest- ment, innovation, and efficiencies that can maximize the impact of taxpayer dollars. Under the Biden Administration, despite rhetoric to the contrary, the aid industrial complex has recaptured the agency and stifled further reforms.

Executive Office of the President of the United States

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 99-102AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on restricting federal funding for presidential tribute parades, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt lists historical executive orders, laws, and documents related to the Executive Office of the President without indicating a specific policy objective to align with or oppose. There is no clear thematic or policy connection between the bill's provisions and the content provided in the Project 2025 section."

Key themes:Executive Office of the Presidentfederal fundspresidential authority

— 66 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 17. President William J. Clinton, Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” August 4, 1999, in Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 153 (August 10, 1999), pp. 43255–43259, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1999-08-10/pdf/99- 20729.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 18. President Ronald Reagan, Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” March 15, 1988, in Federal Register, Vol. 53, No. 53 (March 18, 1988), pp. 8859–8862, https://www.regulationwriters.com/downloads/Executive_Orders/EO_12630.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 19. Section 115 in H.R. 4577, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001, Public Law No. 106-544, 106th Congress, December 21, 2000, https://www.congress.gov/106/plaws/publ554/PLAW-106publ554.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 20. H.R. 6410, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public Law No. 96-511, 96th Congress, December 11, 1980, https:// www.congress.gov/96/statute/STATUTE-94/STATUTE-94-Pg2812.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 21. S. 3418, An Act to Amend Title 5, United States Code, by Adding a Section 552a, to Safeguard Individual Privacy from the Misuse of Federal Records, to Provide that Individuals Be Granted Access to Records Concerning Them Which Are Maintained by Federal Agencies, to Establish a Privacy Protection Study Commission, and for Other Purposes (Privacy Act of 1974), Public Law No. 93-579, 93rd Congress, December 31, 1974, https://www.congress.gov/93/statute/STATUTE-88/STATUTE-88-Pg1896.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 22. Office of Management and Budget, “Guidance for Grants and Agreements,” Final Guidance, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 157 (August 13, 2020), pp. 49506–49582, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-13/ pdf/2020-17468.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023), and “Guidance for Grants and Agreements,” Correcting Amendments, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 33 (February 22, 2021), pp. 10439–10440, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-02-22/pdf/2021-02969.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 23. H.R. 5, Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017, 115th Congress, introduced January 3, 2017, https://www. congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5 (accessed January 31, 20/23), and S. 951, Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017, 115th Congress, introduced April 26, 2017, https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th- congress/senate-bill/951 (accessed January 31, 2023). 24. S. 2314, Social Media Addiction Reduction Technology Act (SMART Act), 116th Congress, introduced July 30, 2019, https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/2314/text (accessed January 31, 2023). 25. H.R. 1605, Guidance Out of Darkness Act (GOOD Act), 117th Congress, introduced March 8, 2021, https://www. congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1605 (accessed January 31, 2023). 26. S. 2804, Early Participation in Regulations Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced September 22, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2804 (accessed January 31, 2023). 27. S. 170, Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act, 117th Congress, introduced February 2, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/170 (accessed January 31, 2023). 28. H.R. 277, Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2023 (REINS Act), 118th Congress, introduced January 11, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/277/all-info?r=217 (accessed January 31, 2023). 29. Subtitle E, “Congressional Review,” in H.R. 3136, Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-121, 104th Congress, March 29, 1996, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-104publ121/pdf/ PLAW-104publ121.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 30. H.R. 115, Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https://www.congress. gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/115/text?s=1&r=18 (accessed January 31, 2023). 31. See Federation of American Scientists, Intelligence Resource Program, “Presidential Directives and Executive Orders,” https://irp.fas.org/offdocs/direct.htm (accessed February 1, 2023), and Library of Congress, Researchers, Newspaper and Current Periodical Reading Room, “Presidential Directives and Where to Find Them,” March 30, 2022, https://www.loc.gov/rr/news/directives.html (accessed February 1, 2023). 32. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13803, “Reviving the National Space Council,” June 30, 2017, in Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 129 (July 7, 2017), pp. 31429–31432, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2017-07-07/pdf/2017-14378.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). — 67 — Executive Office of the President of the United States 33. H.R. 10230, National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976, Public Law No. 94-282, 94th Congress, May 11, 1976, https://www.congress.gov/94/statute/STATUTE-90/STATUTE-90-Pg459. pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 34. H.R. 4346, CHIPS [Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors] and Science Act, Public Law No. 117-167, 117th Congress, August 9, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ167/PLAW-117publ167.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 35. S. 169, Global Change Research Act of 1990, Public Law No. 101-606, 101st Congress, November 16, 1990, https://www.congress.gov/101/statute/STATUTE-104/STATUTE-104-Pg3096.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 36. S. 1075, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law No. 91-190, 91st Congress, January 1, 1970, https://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/91/190.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 37. Andrus v. Sierra Club, 442 U.S. 347, 358 (1979), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep442/ usrep442347/usrep442347.pdf (accessed March 7, 2023). 38. Title XLI (41) in H.R. 22, Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), Public Law No. 114-94, 114th Congress, December 4, 2015, https://www.congress.gov/114/statute/STATUTE-129/STATUTE-129-Pg1312.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 39. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” August 15, 2017, in Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 163 (August 24, 2017), pp. 40463–40469, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-08-24/ pdf/2017-18134.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 40. H.R. 5210, Anti-Drug Abuse of 1988, Public Law No. 100-690, 100th Congress, November 18, 1988, https://www. congress.gov/100/statute/STATUTE-102/STATUTE-102-Pg4181.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 41. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14020, “Establishment of the White House Gender Policy Council,” March 8, 2021, in Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 46 (March 11, 2021), pp. 13797–13801, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-03-11/pdf/2021-05183.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 42. U.S. Constitution, Amendment XXV, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv (accessed March 9, 2023). 43. 50 U.S.C. § 3021(c)(1), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3021 (accessed March 9, 2023). 44. 20 U.S.C. § 20(a), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/42#:~:text=The%20business%20of%20the%20 Institution%20shall%20be%20conducted,no%20two%20of%20them%20of%20the%20same%20State (accessed March 9, 2023). 45. Vice Presidents Gerald Ford and Lyndon Johnson assumed (Ford) or initially assumed (Johnson) the office of the presidency by a process of succession.

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.

Back to All Bills