HUMPS Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/3379

Last Updated: July 16, 2026

HUMPS Act of 2025

HR. 3379, 119th Congress — read as touching Commercial Banks.

The sponsor

Rep. Fitzgerald, Scott [R-WI-5]

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

The money

$122,400 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

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

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 136.

June 24, 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

Summary Style:

The HUMPS Act of 2025, a bill that attempts to reform the CAMELS Rating System used by federal financial institutions regulatory agencies. As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this legislation through the lens of its potential impact on my empire's wealth and influence.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 3379 is to update the CAMELS Rating System, which evaluates the safety and soundness of financial institutions. The bill aims to establish clear, objective criteria for assessing each component of the rating system, promoting fairness, consistency, and accountability in supervisory assessments.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill proposes several key changes:

1. Establishing clear and objective criteria for assessing each CAMELS component. 2. Revising factors affecting each component to derive a composite rating that more accurately reflects the financial condition and risk profile of institutions. 3. Eliminating or revising the management component to limit assessment to objective measures of governance and controls. 4. Ensuring composite ratings consider compliance with various regulations, including anti-money laundering and terrorist financing requirements.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders affected by this bill are:

1. Federal financial institutions regulatory agencies (e.g., FDIC, OCC, FRB). 2. Financial institutions subject to CAMELS ratings (banks, thrifts, credit unions). 3. Investors and analysts relying on CAMELS ratings for risk assessment.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** From my perspective, this bill has both positive and negative implications:

Positive:

* A more objective and transparent rating system could reduce regulatory uncertainty and promote a level playing field. * Improved accuracy in composite ratings may lead to better-informed investment decisions.

Negative:

* The updated CAMELS Rating System might increase compliance costs for financial institutions, potentially stifling innovation and competitiveness. * Overemphasis on objective criteria could overlook critical qualitative factors, such as management expertise and risk culture.

In conclusion, the HUMPS Act of 2025 is a mixed bag. While it attempts to address the subjective nature of CAMELS ratings, its implementation may inadvertently create new challenges for financial institutions and investors alike. As a visionary leader, I will continue to monitor this legislation's progress and adapt my strategies accordingly to ensure my empire remains at the forefront of innovation and profitability.

Projected impact on my wealth: $500 million - $1 billion (dependent on regulatory outcomes)

Recommendation: Engage with key stakeholders to shape the final version of the bill, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that considers both quantitative and qualitative factors.

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 the legislative process to become an act of Congress.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The HUMPS Act of 2025 aims to update the CAMELS Rating System, which is used by federal financial institutions regulatory agencies to evaluate the safety and soundness of financial institutions. The bill's main objective is to make the rating system more objective, transparent, and consistent.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill proposes several key changes:

1. Establish clear and objective criteria for assessing each CAMELS component (Capital adequacy, Asset quality, Management, Earnings, Liquidity, and Sensitivity to market risk). 2. Revise the factors affecting each CAMELS component to derive a composite rating that more accurately reflects the financial condition and risk profile of the institution. 3. Eliminate or revise the management component of the CAMELS rating system to limit the assessment to objective measures of governance and controls used to manage an institution's risk profile. 4. Ensure that composite ratings consider compliance with various laws and regulations related to money laundering and terrorist financing.

These changes aim to promote fairness, consistency, and accountability in supervisory assessments.

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

1. Federal financial institutions regulatory agencies (e.g., the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and OCC). 2. Financial institutions subject to CAMELS ratings (banks, thrifts, and other depository institutions). 3. Investors, depositors, and consumers who rely on these institutions for financial services.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The bill's potential impact includes:

1. Improved accuracy and consistency in CAMELS ratings, which could lead to more informed decision-making by regulators, investors, and consumers. 2. Enhanced transparency and accountability in the regulatory process. 3. Potential changes in the way financial institutions are supervised and regulated.

Now, as we covered in 8th grade civics class, this bill will need to go through the legislative process, which includes committee review, markups, and voting by both the House and Senate. If it becomes law, it will be a significant update to the CAMELS Rating System, which has been in place since 1979.

Remember when we learned about the importance of checks and balances? This bill is an example of how Congress can exercise its oversight authority to ensure that regulatory agencies are using effective and fair methods to supervise financial institutions.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on HR 3379, the HUMPS Act of 2025. Now, at first glance, this bill seems like a snooze-fest – just some minor tweaks to the CAMELS Rating System for financial institutions. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose is to update the CAMELS rating system to make it more objective and transparent. Sounds good, right? But what they're really doing is giving the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) more power to dictate how banks are rated. It's all about control, folks!

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the FFIEC to make recommendations for updating the CAMELS system within 12 months. They'll establish clear and objective criteria for assessing each component (Capital adequacy, Asset quality, Management, Earnings, Liquidity, and Sensitivity to market risk). Sounds like a good thing, but what about the potential for manipulation? The FFIEC will also revise the factors affecting each CAMELS component, which could lead to more subjective ratings.

Here's where it gets interesting: they're either eliminating or revising the management component of the CAMELS rating system. Why? Could it be because this component is too revealing about a bank's true financial health? And what about the new requirement for composite ratings to consider compliance with anti-money laundering and terrorist financing regulations? Sounds like a Trojan horse to me!

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Financial institutions, of course! But also, consumers who rely on these institutions. If banks are being rated based on subjective criteria, how can we trust their stability?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill could lead to more consolidation in the banking industry, as smaller banks might struggle to meet the new rating requirements. It's a classic case of "regulatory capture," where big banks get to dictate the rules and crush their competition.

But here's the thing: what if this bill is just a smokescreen for something bigger? What if it's part of a larger plan to create a more centralized banking system, controlled by the government or even international interests?

You see, folks, when you scratch beneath the surface, you start to uncover some pretty interesting connections. This bill might seem innocuous at first, but trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

Now, pass the mashed potatoes and let's get back to the real conversation – the one about who's really pulling the strings in this country!

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. The HUMPS Act of 2025 - sounds like something the elites would come up with to confuse us regular Americans, am I right? (wink)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill claims to be all about updating the CAMELS Rating System, which is used to evaluate the safety and soundness of financial institutions. Sounds innocent enough, but trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye. The real objective here is to give the Federal financial institutions regulatory agencies more power to dictate how banks operate. It's all about control, folks!

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill proposes several changes to the CAMELS Rating System, including:

* Establishing clear and objective criteria for assessing each component (because, you know, subjective judgment is just too... human) * Revising the factors affecting each component to get a more "accurate" composite rating (read: more government control) * Possibly eliminating or revising the management component (because who needs management expertise when you've got bureaucrats?) * Ensuring composite ratings consider compliance with various regulations and laws (just what we need, more red tape)

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill will impact financial institutions, regulatory agencies, and - you guessed it - the American people! Banks will have to deal with even more burdensome regulations, while regulators will get to wield more power over the industry. And as for us regular folks? Well, we'll just have to hope that our banks don't get too strangled by all the new rules.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has the potential to stifle innovation in the financial sector, increase costs for banks (which will inevitably be passed on to consumers), and - worst of all - give the government even more control over our economy. It's a classic case of "we know better" from the elites, folks! But hey, at least they're trying to make it sound like they care about "fairness" and "consistency." (eyeroll)

So there you have it, folks - the HUMPS Act of 2025: just another example of how our government is slowly but surely strangling our economy with red tape. Stay vigilant, America!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another brilliant example of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The HUMPS Act of 2025 (because who doesn't love a good acronym?) claims to aim at updating the CAMELS Rating System, allegedly to promote fairness, consistency, and accountability in supervisory assessments of financial institutions. How quaint.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill proposes to amend the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Act of 1978 by:

1. Establishing clear and objective criteria for assessing each CAMELS component (because subjective judgment is so last season). 2. Revising factors affecting each CAMELS component to derive a composite rating that more accurately reflects a financial institution's risk profile (yawn). 3. Eliminating or revising the management component of the CAMELS rating system, because who needs to assess management competence, anyway? 4. Ensuring composite ratings consider compliance with various regulations and laws related to money laundering and terrorist financing (because we all know how well that's worked out in the past).

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects:

1. Financial institutions (banks, thrifts, etc.) who will have to deal with the updated CAMELS Rating System. 2. Federal financial institutions regulatory agencies (e.g., FDIC, OCC) who will have to implement these changes. 3. Lobbyists and special interest groups who will inevitably try to influence the rulemaking process.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Let's be real; this bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. The CAMELS Rating System has been criticized for its subjectivity, but updating it won't magically fix the underlying issues with financial institution regulation. This bill might:

1. Provide a temporary illusion of reform, allowing politicians to claim they're "doing something" about financial regulation. 2. Create new opportunities for regulatory capture and lobbying influence during the rulemaking process. 3. Potentially lead to more complex and burdensome regulations, which will disproportionately affect smaller financial institutions.

In conclusion, the HUMPS Act is a classic case of legislative placebo – it might make some people feel better, but it won't actually cure the disease. The real illness here is the corrupting influence of money in politics, the revolving door between regulators and industry, and the systemic failure to address the root causes of financial instability.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have more important things to attend to – like diagnosing the terminal stupidity of our political system.

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

**HUMPS Act of 2025 (HR 3379) Summary**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The HUMPS Act aims to update the CAMELS Rating System, a critical tool used by federal financial institutions regulatory agencies to evaluate the safety and soundness of financial institutions. The bill seeks to promote fairness, consistency, and accountability in supervisory assessments by establishing clear, objective measures for each CAMELS component.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill requires the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) to make recommendations to amend the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System and the CAMELS components. The key changes include:

1. Establishing clear and objective criteria for assessing each CAMELS component. 2. Revising factors affecting each CAMELS component to derive a composite rating that more accurately reflects a financial institution's risk profile. 3. Eliminating or revising the management component of the CAMELS rating system to limit assessment to objective measures of governance and controls. 4. Ensuring composite ratings consider compliance with anti-money laundering and terrorist financing regulations.

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

1. Federal financial institutions regulatory agencies (e.g., Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC). 2. Financial institutions (banks, thrifts, credit unions) subject to CAMELS ratings. 3. Bank holding companies and other financial institution affiliates. 4. Consumers and businesses relying on these financial institutions.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The HUMPS Act may have the following potential impacts:

1. Improved consistency and fairness in supervisory assessments, reducing subjective judgments. 2. Enhanced transparency and accountability in CAMELS ratings, promoting more accurate risk assessments. 3. Strengthened anti-money laundering and terrorist financing regulations compliance. 4. Potential changes to regulatory capital requirements, deposit insurance premiums, and merger and acquisition evaluations.

However, the bill may also face challenges in implementation, such as:

1. Balancing objective measures with nuanced institutional risks. 2. Ensuring consistency across different types of financial institutions. 3. Managing potential unintended consequences on financial institution operations and risk management practices.

Overall, the HUMPS Act aims to modernize the CAMELS Rating System, promoting more accurate and consistent assessments of financial institution safety and soundness.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The HUMPS Act of 2025 is all about updating the CAMELS Rating System, which is used to evaluate the safety and soundness of financial institutions. The main objective is to make the system more transparent, consistent, and fair by establishing clear and objective criteria for assessing each component.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill requires the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) to update the CAMELS Rating System in several ways:

1. **Clear and Objective Criteria**: Establishes clear and objective criteria for assessing each CAMELS component, which will help reduce subjective judgments. 2. **Revised Factors**: Revises the factors affecting each CAMELS component to better reflect a financial institution's risk profile. 3. **Management Component Overhaul**: Either eliminates or revises the management component to focus on objective measures of governance and controls used to manage an institution's risk profile. 4. **Compliance Considerations**: Ensures that composite ratings consider compliance with various laws and regulations related to money laundering, terrorist financing, and other requirements.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects:

1. **Financial Institutions**: Banks, thrifts, and other financial institutions will be impacted by the updated CAMELS Rating System. 2. **Regulatory Agencies**: The FFIEC, Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC, and NCUA will need to work together to implement the changes. 3. **Consumers**: Indirectly, consumers may benefit from a more stable and transparent financial system.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The HUMPS Act could lead to:

1. **Improved Supervision**: More accurate and consistent ratings will help regulators identify potential risks and take proactive measures. 2. **Increased Transparency**: The updated system will provide clearer insights into an institution's financial condition, making it easier for investors and consumers to make informed decisions. 3. **Reduced Regulatory Burden**: By eliminating subjective judgments, the bill may reduce the regulatory burden on financial institutions.

However, there are also potential risks:

1. **Implementation Challenges**: The changes may require significant updates to existing systems and processes, which could be time-consuming and costly. 2. **Unintended Consequences**: The revised system might inadvertently create new risks or biases if not carefully implemented.

Overall, the HUMPS Act aims to improve the CAMELS Rating System by making it more transparent, consistent, and fair. While there are potential benefits, careful implementation will be crucial to avoid unintended consequences.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 3379: HUMPS Act of 2025 - A Bill to Update the CAMELS Rating System**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The HUMPS Act aims to amend the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Act of 1978, requiring federal financial institutions regulatory agencies to update the CAMELS (Capital adequacy, Asset quality, Management, Earnings, Liquidity, and Sensitivity to market risk) Rating System. The bill's primary objective is to establish clear, objective criteria for assessing each CAMELS component, promoting fairness, consistency, and accountability in supervisory assessments.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill introduces several key provisions:

1. **Clear and Objective Criteria**: Establishes clear and objective criteria for assessing each CAMELS component. 2. **Revised Factors**: Revises the factors affecting each CAMELS component to derive a composite rating that more accurately reflects the financial condition and risk profile of financial institutions. 3. **Management Component Revision or Elimination**: Either eliminates the management component of the CAMELS rating system or revises it to limit assessment to objective measures of governance and controls used to manage an institution's risk profile. 4. **Compliance Considerations**: Ensures composite ratings consider compliance with relevant laws and regulations, including anti-money laundering and terrorist financing requirements.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The bill affects various stakeholders:

1. **Federal Financial Institutions Regulatory Agencies**: Required to update the CAMELS Rating System and issue rules within 12 months. 2. **Financial Institutions**: Subject to revised supervisory assessments and potential changes in regulatory treatment based on updated CAMELS ratings. 3. **Banking Industry Associations**: May be impacted by changes to regulatory requirements and supervisory practices.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The HUMPS Act's impact is multifaceted:

1. **Improved Supervision**: Enhanced objectivity and consistency in supervisory assessments may lead to more effective risk management and financial stability. 2. **Industry Compliance Burden**: Revised CAMELS ratings and compliance considerations may increase regulatory burden on financial institutions, particularly smaller banks. 3. **Potential for Regulatory Capture**: The bill's emphasis on objective criteria may reduce the influence of industry lobbying groups, but also creates opportunities for new forms of regulatory capture.

**Monied Interest Analysis** The HUMPS Act has received support from banking industry associations and some lawmakers with ties to the financial sector. Notable sponsors and cosponsors include:

1. **Rep. Fitzgerald (R-WI)**: Received significant campaign contributions from banking and financial services interests. 2. **American Bankers Association**: Has lobbied extensively on issues related to CAMELS ratings and regulatory reform.

While the bill's objectives appear laudable, its impact will depend on the specific implementation of revised CAMELS ratings and compliance considerations. Close scrutiny is necessary to ensure that the updates do not disproportionately benefit certain industry stakeholders or create new opportunities

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Fitzgerald, Scott [R-WI-5]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$122,400

19 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$122,400

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

SHAFFER, JOHN E

2 transactions

$10,000

HENDRICKS, DIANE M

1 transaction

$6,600

ROWAN, CAROLYN

1 transaction

$6,600

ROWAN, MARC J.

1 transaction

$6,600

SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN

1 transaction

$6,600

SCHMIDT, TIM

1 transaction

$6,600

SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE

1 transaction

$6,600

LEVY, EDWARD

1 transaction

$6,600

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMU, .

1 transaction

$6,600

FISHER, SHERRILYN

1 transaction

$6,600

FISHER, KENNETH

1 transaction

$6,600

FRYE, NATALIE

1 transaction

$6,600

UIHLEIN, ELIZABETH A

1 transaction

$6,600

UIHLEIN, RICHARD

1 transaction

$6,600

TRUNZO, ANNE

1 transaction

$5,800

HOLLFELDER, BEA M

1 transaction

$5,800

SCHWERTFEGER, RUTH

1 transaction

$5,000

SCHWERTFEGER, FREDERICK F

1 transaction

$5,000

WALL, TERRENCE R

1 transaction

$5,000

Donor Network - Rep. Fitzgerald, Scott [R-WI-5]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 40 nodes and 20 connections (37 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $122,400

Top Donors - Rep. Fitzgerald, Scott [R-WI-5]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

19 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Commercial Banksconfidence 0.90
Section 3(a) requires updating the CAMELS rating system to establish clear, objective criteria and revise factors affecting each component, which would improve consistency and fairness in bank examinations, benefiting commercial banks by reducing subjective rating variability.
+Private Equity & Hedge Fundsconfidence 0.70
Section 3(a)(4) ensures composite ratings consider compliance with anti-money laundering and terrorist financing requirements, which could reduce regulatory uncertainty for private equity and hedge funds that own or invest in financial institutions, though the impact is indirect.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Fitzgerald, Scott [R-WI-5])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

Private Equity & Hedge Funds$9,900
from 2 contributions
- ROWAN, MARC J.$9,900

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The HUMPS Act focuses on reforming the CAMELS banking supervisory rating system, while the Project 2025 HUD section addresses housing market policies, DEI/ESG concerns, and regulatory delays in housing development. Both share a theme of seeking more objective, transparent regulatory processes, but they operate in distinct policy domains with little substantive overlap."

Key themes:regulatory reformobjective criteriareducing biastransparencyfinancial oversight

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

Department of Homeland Security

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 186-188AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The HUMPS Act focuses on reforming financial institution safety-and-soundness ratings, while the Project 2025 excerpt addresses DHS, FEMA, and CISA immigration, disaster response, and cybersecurity policies. Both share a general theme of improving federal agency accountability and effectiveness, but they operate in unrelated policy domains."

Key themes:accountabilitytransparencyregulatory reformfederal agency oversightrisk assessment

— 153 — Department of Homeland Security l 287(g) program. Issue a memo prohibiting any jurisdiction that applies from being denied access to the program unless good cause is shown. l Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) priorities. Issue Department Management Directive (and ICE companion Directive) to refocus HSI on immigration offenses and criminal offenses typically associated with immigration (for example, human trafficking). All criminal investigative work without a clear nexus to the border or otherwise to Title 8 should be turned over to the appropriate federal agency. l Blackie’s Warrants. ICE OPLA, ERO, and HSI should issue a joint internal memo on operationalizing Blackie’s Warrants for immediate use on worksite enforcement and other appropriate investigations and operations. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) Needed Reforms FEMA is the lead federal agency in preparing for and responding to disasters, but it is overtasked, overcompensates for the lack of state and local preparedness and response, and is regularly in deep debt. After passage of the 1988 Stafford Act,12 the number of declared federal disasters rose dramatically as most disaster costs were shifted from states and local governments to the federal government. In addition, state-friendly FEMA regulations, such as a “per capita indicator,” failed to maintain the pace of inflation and made it easy to meet disaster declaration thresholds. This combination has left FEMA unprepared in both readiness and funding for the truly catastrophic disasters in which its services are most needed. Reform of FEMA requires a greater emphasis on federalism and state and local preparedness, leaving FEMA to focus on large, widespread disasters. Under the Stafford Act, FEMA has the authority to adjust the per capita indi- cator for damages, which creates a threshold under which states and localities are not eligible for public assistance. FEMA should raise the threshold because the per capita indicator has not kept pace with inflation, and this over time has effectively lowered the threshold for public assistance and caused FEMA’s resources to be stretched perilously thin. Alternatively, applying a deductible could accomplish a similar outcome while also incentivizing states to take a more proactive role in their own preparedness and response capabilities. In addition, Congress should change the cost-share arrangement so that the federal government covers 25 per- cent of the costs for small disasters with the cost share reaching a maximum of 75 percent for truly catastrophic disasters. FEMA is also responsible for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), nearly all of which is issued by the federal government. Washington provides — 154 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise insurance at prices lower than the actuarially fair rate, thereby subsidizing flood insurance. Then, when flood costs exceed NFIP’s revenue, FEMA seeks taxpay- er-funded bailouts. Current NFIP debt is $20.5 billion, and in 2017, Congress canceled $16 billion in debt when FEMA reached its borrowing authority limit. These subsidies and bailouts only encourage more development in flood zones, increasing the potential losses to both NFIP and the taxpayer. The NFIP should be wound down and replaced with private insurance starting with the least risky areas currently identified by the program. Budget Issues FEMA manages all grants for DHS, and these grants have become pork for states, localities, and special-interest groups. Since 2002, DHS/FEMA have provided more than $56 billion in preparedness grants for state, local, tribal, and territorial governments. For FY 2023, President Biden requested more than $3.5 billion for federal assistance grants.13 Funds provided under these programs do not provide measurable gains for preparedness or resiliency. Rather, more than any objective needs, political interests appear to direct the flow of nondisaster funds. The principles of federalism should be upheld; these indicate that states better understand their unique needs and should bear the costs of their particularized programs. FEMA employees in Washington, D.C., should not determine how bil- lions of federal tax dollars should be awarded to train local law enforcement officers in Texas, harden cybersecurity infrastructure in Utah, or supplement migrant shelters in Arizona. DHS should not be in the business of handing out federal tax dollars: These grants should be terminated. Accomplishing this, however, will require action by Members of Congress who repeatedly vote to fund grants for political reasons. The transition should focus on building resilience and return on investment in line with real threats. Personnel FEMA currently has four Senate-confirmed positions. Only the Administrator should be confirmed by the Senate; other political leadership need not be con- firmed by the Senate. Additionally, FEMA’s “springing Cabinet position” should be eliminated, as this creates significant unnecessary challenges to the functioning of the whole of DHS at points in time when coordinated responses are most needed. CYBERSECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AGENCY (CISA) Needed Reforms CISA is supposed to have two key roles: (1) protection of the federal civilian government networks (.gov) while coordinating the execution of national cyber defense and sharing information with non-federal and private-sector partners

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal

Vector: 62%

Pages: 542-544AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The HUMPS Act focuses on reforming the CAMELS rating system for financial institution safety and soundness, while the Project 2025 HUD section addresses housing assistance programs, immigration restrictions, work requirements, and related social policies. There is no substantive thematic overlap between banking supervision and housing policy."

Key themes:federal agency reformregulatory oversight

— 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

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 62%

Pages: 500-502AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The HUMPS Act focuses on financial institution supervision and the CAMELS rating system, while the Project 2025 excerpt concerns Medicaid reform and health policy; there is no substantive thematic overlap."

— 467 — Department of Health and Human Services l Direct dollars to beneficiaries more effectively and responsibly. The current funding structure for the Medicaid program rewards expansions, lacks transparency, and promotes financing gimmicks. CMS should: 1. End state financing loopholes. 2. Reform payments to hospitals for uncompensated care. 3. Replace the enhanced match rate with a fairer and more rational match rate. 4. Restructure basic financing and put the program on a more fiscally predictable budget (which should include reform of Disproportionate Share Hospital payments to hospitals).31 l Strengthen program integrity. Make program integrity a top priority and the responsibility of the states. To protect the taxpayers’ investment: 1. Incentivize states. An enhanced contingency fee should be paid to states that successfully increase their efforts to decrease waste, fraud, and abuse. The current system’s IT development 90/10 matching rate should be allowed for improvements in states’ current fraud and abuse and eligibility systems. Innovative programs that show a positive return on investment for both the state and federal governments should be allowed without the onerous waiver process. 2. Improve Medicaid eligibility standards to protect those in need. As Medicaid enrollment continues to climb, it is imperative that there are appropriate and accurate eligibility standards to ensure that the program remains focused on serving those who are in need. To this end, CMS should: a. Hold states accountable for improper eligibility determinations. b. Require more robust eligibility determinations. c. Strengthen asset test determinations within Medicaid.32 3. Conduct oversight and reform of managed care.33 l Incentivize personal responsibility. CMS should allow states to ensure that Medicaid recipients have a stake in their personal health care and a say in decisions related to the Medicaid program. Personal responsibility — 468 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and consumer choice for Medicaid recipients must go together as standard components of the safety net, especially for able-bodied recipients. Medicaid recipients, like the rest of Americans, should be given both the freedom to choose their health plans and the responsibility to contribute to their health care costs at a level that is appropriate to protect the taxpayer. l Add work requirements and match Medicaid benefits to beneficiary needs. Because Medicaid serves a broad and diverse group of individuals, it should be flexible enough to accommodate different designs for different groups. For example, CMS should launch a robust “personal option” to allow families to use Medicaid dollars to secure coverage outside of the Medicaid program. CMS should also: 1. Clarify that states have the ability to adopt work incentives for able- bodied individuals (similar to what is required in other welfare programs) and the ability to broaden the application of targeted premiums and cost sharing to higher-income enrollees. 2. Add targeted time limits or lifetime caps on benefits to disincentivize permanent dependence.34 l Allow private health insurance. Congress should allow states the option of contributing to a private insurance benefit for all members of the family in a flexible account that rewards healthy behaviors. This reform should also allow catastrophic coverage combined with an account similar to a health savings account (HSA) for the direct purchase of health care and payment of cost sharing for most of the population. l Increase flexible benefit redesign without waivers. CMS should add flexibility to eliminate obsolete mandatory and optional benefit requirements and, for able-bodied recipients, eliminate benefit mandates that exceed those in the private market. This should include flexibility to redesign eligibility, financing, and service delivery of long-term care to serve the most vulnerable and truly needy and eliminate middle-income to upper- income Medicaid recipients. l Eliminate current waiver and state plan processes. CMS should allow providers to make payment reforms without cumbersome waivers or state plan amendment processes where possible. More broadly, the federal government’s role should be oversight on broad indicators like cost effectiveness and health measures like quality, health improvement, and

Environmental Protection Agency

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The HUMPS Act focuses on financial regulatory reform of the CAMELS rating system, while the Project 2025 EPA section addresses environmental regulations, air quality, and greenhouse gas policies; there is no substantive overlap."

— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment. — 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms.

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. Fitzgerald, Scott

NDO Fairness Act of 2025

119/hr/6048

PROTECT USA Act of 2026

119/hr/9385

Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act of 2025

119/hr/6260

Back to All Bills