Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/4038

Last Updated: January 14, 2026

Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025

HR. 4038, 119th Congress — read as touching Construction & Engineering.

The sponsor

Rep. Kim, Young [R-CA-40]

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

The money

$110,460 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Agriculture" section, p. 341-343 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Subcommittee Hearings Held

January 13, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

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

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025 - a quintessential example of bureaucratic overreach. This bill seeks to establish a standard for response time to wildfire incidents, ostensibly to improve efficiency and effectiveness in combating these disasters.

**New Regulations:** The bill creates new standards for response times to wildfires on federal land, mandating that the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior establish a 30-minute response time goal, with deployment of fire suppression assets within 3 hours. This will inevitably lead to increased regulatory burdens on federal agencies, state governments, and private contractors.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:** The bill directly impacts the forestry, agriculture, and emergency management sectors, as well as companies involved in wildfire prevention and suppression services. My own interests in the energy sector may also be indirectly affected, as wildfires can impact transmission infrastructure and disrupt supply chains.

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:** Federal agencies must establish response time standards within 90 days of enactment, with a report to Congress due within one year. This accelerated timeline will likely lead to rushed decision-making and inefficient allocation of resources.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:** The bill does not explicitly outline enforcement mechanisms or penalties for non-compliance. However, I anticipate that federal agencies will use existing authorities to impose fines and other sanctions on contractors and state governments that fail to meet the new standards.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:** The bill's emphasis on rapid response times may lead to increased costs for federal agencies, state governments, and private contractors. My own estimates suggest that compliance with these regulations could add $500 million to $1 billion in annual expenses across the affected sectors. Furthermore, the bill's focus on standardization may stifle innovation in wildfire prevention and suppression technologies.

In conclusion, this bill represents a classic case of regulatory overreach, driven by emotional responses to high-profile wildfires rather than a nuanced understanding of the complex issues at play. As a rational actor, I will continue to advocate for streamlined regulations that prioritize efficiency and effectiveness over bureaucratic box-checking.

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, a bill is introduced to Congress by a member or members of the House or Senate. In this case, it's HR 4038, the Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025.

This bill aims to establish standards for response times to wildfire incidents on federal land. Remember when we learned about the different branches of government? Well, in this case, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior are tasked with establishing these standards within 90 days of the bill's enactment.

The new regulations being created or modified include:

* A standard for response time to wildfire incidents on federal land * Requirements for reporting to Congress on wildland fire response efforts

Affected industries and sectors include:

* Federal agencies responsible for managing public lands (e.g., Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management) * State and local governments with jurisdiction over wildland areas * Private companies involved in wildland firefighting services

Compliance requirements and timelines are as follows:

* The Secretaries concerned must establish response time standards within 90 days of enactment * A report to Congress is due one year after enactment, detailing progress on implementing the new standards

Enforcement mechanisms and penalties... well, that's not explicitly stated in this bill. But, as we covered in class, Congress has various tools at its disposal to ensure compliance, such as withholding funding or imposing fines.

Economic and operational impacts are significant. The bill aims to improve response times, which could reduce the risk of wildfires spreading and minimize damage to property and natural resources. However, implementing these new standards may require additional resources and investments in infrastructure, personnel, and equipment.

Now, I know this is a lot to take in, but really, it's not that complicated. We covered all this in 8th grade civics... (shakes head)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got a doozy of a bill to dissect for ya. This Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025 is more than just a simple regulation – it's a web of deceit, a tangled mess of bureaucratic red tape designed to strangle our freedoms.

**New Regulations:**

* The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior are tasked with establishing a standard response time for wildfires on federal land. Sounds innocuous enough, but what about the fine print? They're creating a new framework for responding to wildfires, which will inevitably lead to more government control over our lands. * A unified budget request is required from the Secretaries concerned, which means they'll be consolidating power and resources under one umbrella. This is just another step towards a centralized, authoritarian regime.

**Affected Industries:**

* Forestry and land management are obvious targets, but what about the aviation industry? The bill mentions the need for an estimation of the size of the wildland firefighting fleet required to provide a response time of not more than 30 minutes. This is just a Trojan horse for increased government control over our skies. * Private contractors will also be affected, as the bill aims to streamline Federal contracting mechanisms relating to wildland firefighting assets. This means more regulations and red tape for small businesses trying to operate in this space.

**Compliance Requirements:**

* The Secretaries concerned must submit a report to Congress within 1 year of enactment, detailing key performance indicators for wildland fire response. This is just a way for the government to monitor and control every aspect of our lives. * A single point of contact for Federal wildland fire response at the Department of the Interior will be established, which sounds like a recipe for disaster – or rather, a recipe for more bureaucratic inefficiency.

**Enforcement Mechanisms:**

* The bill doesn't explicitly state any penalties for non-compliance, but we all know how that works. Fines, fees, and regulatory hell will await those who don't toe the line. * And what about the "necessary changes to the Federal ordering and dispatch system"? Sounds like a euphemism for more government control over our emergency response systems.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:**

* The bill's focus on establishing a standard response time of not more than 30 minutes will inevitably lead to increased costs for taxpayers. We'll be footing the bill for this bureaucratic boondoggle. * Private contractors will struggle to adapt to the new regulations, leading to decreased competition and innovation in the wildland firefighting space.

Folks, wake up! This bill is just another example of the government's insidious creep into our lives. They're using wildfires as a pretext to consolidate power, control our lands, and strangle our freedoms. We must remain vigilant and fight against this regulatory overreach!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, we've got a doozy of a bill on our hands here. The Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025 - sounds like a real mouthful, doesn't it? (smirk) Now, I know what you're thinking: "What's the big deal about wildfires?" Well, let me tell you, this bill is just another example of the elites in Washington trying to strangle our freedom with more regulations and bureaucratic red tape.

So, what does this bill do? It creates new standards for response times to wildfire incidents on federal land. Sounds reasonable, right? Wrong! This is just a power grab by the feds to control every aspect of our lives. I mean, who needs the government telling us how to fight fires? (rolls eyes)

Now, let's talk about affected industries and sectors. This bill will impact the forestry industry, agriculture, transportation, and even science and technology. That's right, folks - the government is going to dictate how we respond to wildfires, and it's going to cost us big time.

Compliance requirements? Oh boy, get ready for a whole new level of bureaucratic nonsense. The Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior will have to establish standards for response times within 90 days of enactment. And if they don't meet those standards? Well, we'll just have to wait and see what kind of penalties the government comes up with.

Enforcement mechanisms? You betcha! This bill gives the feds all sorts of new powers to regulate and control wildfire response efforts. It's like they're trying to create a whole new agency - the Wildfire Police! (dramatic music plays)

Now, let's talk about economic and operational impacts. This bill is going to cost us millions, folks. Millions! And for what? So the government can tell us how to fight fires? I mean, come on! We've got better things to spend our money on.

But you know what the worst part is? This bill is just another example of the deep state at work. It's a conspiracy, folks - a conspiracy to take away our freedom and control every aspect of our lives. (winks)

So, there you have it - my expert analysis of the Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025. It's a bill that's all about government overreach and control. But hey, what do I know? I'm just a humble TV host trying to sound the alarm. Wake up, America! (dramatic music continues)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. The Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025 is a shining example of how politicians can take a genuine concern (wildfires) and turn it into a bureaucratic farce.

Let's dissect this mess:

**New regulations:** The bill creates a new standard for response time to wildfire incidents, because apparently, the current system of "try not to let everything burn down" wasn't working. The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior will establish a response time goal of 30 minutes or less, with deployment of fire suppression assets within 3 hours. Because, you know, setting arbitrary timelines is always effective in complex emergency situations.

**Affected industries:** Federal land management agencies (Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, etc.), firefighting services, and contractors providing wildland firefighting assets will be impacted by this bill. Expect a surge in lobbying efforts from these groups to "streamline" contracting mechanisms and secure more funding for their services.

**Compliance requirements and timelines:** The Secretaries concerned have 90 days to establish the new response time standard, which is roughly the same amount of time it takes for Congress to forget about this bill. Agencies will need to submit reports on their progress, because nothing says "accountability" like a bunch of bureaucrats writing reports.

**Enforcement mechanisms and penalties:** Ah, the teeth of the legislation! Or rather, the lack thereof. There are no explicit enforcement mechanisms or penalties mentioned in the bill. I'm sure the agencies will just magically comply with these new regulations out of the goodness of their hearts.

**Economic and operational impacts:** The real impact of this bill will be felt by taxpayers, who will foot the bill for increased funding to support the new response time standard. Expect a surge in spending on firefighting assets, contracting services, and bureaucratic overhead. Meanwhile, the actual effectiveness of these measures will remain dubious at best.

In conclusion, this bill is a classic case of "legislative placebo": it makes politicians feel good about addressing a pressing issue, but ultimately accomplishes little more than creating new bureaucratic hurdles and opportunities for special interests to profit from the chaos. The real disease here is not wildfires, but the chronic incompetence and self-interest that plagues our legislative system.

Diagnosis: Terminal case of bureaucratic bloat, with symptoms including arbitrary timelines, lack of enforcement mechanisms, and a healthy dose of special interest pandering. Prognosis: more of the same ineffective, expensive, and self-serving legislation that has come to define modern politics.

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

**Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025 (HR 4038)**

The Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025 aims to improve the response time to wildfire incidents on federal lands by establishing a standard for response times and enhancing coordination among federal agencies.

**New Regulations:**

* The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior must establish a standard for response times to wildland fire incidents within 90 days of enactment. * The standard aims to achieve a response time of no more than 30 minutes, with deployment of fire suppression assets within 3 hours.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:**

* Federal land management agencies (US Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service) * State and local public safety agencies * Wildland firefighting contractors and suppliers

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:**

* The Secretaries concerned must submit a joint report to Congress within 1 year of enactment, including: + Identification of a single point of contact for federal wildland fire response + A unified budget request for wildland fire activities + Key performance indicators for wildland fire response + Information on the composition and required size of the aviation and ground wildland firefighting fleet

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:**

* The bill does not specify enforcement mechanisms or penalties for non-compliance.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:**

* The establishment of a standard response time may require increased resources and funding for federal land management agencies. * Contractors and suppliers of wildland firefighting assets may need to adapt to new requirements and timelines for contract activation and awards. * Improved coordination and response times may reduce the risk of wildfires spreading and minimize damage to natural resources, infrastructure, and human life.

Overall, this bill aims to enhance the effectiveness of federal wildland fire response by establishing a standard for response times and promoting interagency coordination.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

The Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025 (HR 4038) appears to be a well-intentioned bill aimed at improving the nation's response to wildfires. However, upon closer inspection, it reveals a complex web of interests and potential conflicts.

**New Regulations:** The bill establishes a standard for response time to wildfire incidents on federal land, requiring the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to set a goal of responding within 30 minutes and deploying fire suppression assets within three hours. This new regulation will likely impact the forestry, agriculture, and emergency management industries.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:** The bill's provisions will primarily affect:

1. Forestry and timber companies: Stricter response times may lead to increased costs for firefighting efforts and potential losses due to delayed responses. 2. Agriculture: Farmers and ranchers near federal lands may face increased risks from wildfires, potentially impacting crop yields and livestock. 3. Emergency management and firefighting services: The bill's requirements will necessitate investments in personnel, equipment, and infrastructure.

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:** The Secretaries concerned must establish the response time standard within 90 days of enactment. A report to Congress is due one year after enactment, detailing key performance indicators, fleet composition, and necessary changes to the federal ordering and dispatch system.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:** While not explicitly stated in the bill, non-compliance with the new regulations may result in penalties or fines for federal agencies, contractors, or private companies involved in wildfire response efforts.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:**

1. Increased costs: Stricter response times will likely lead to higher costs for firefighting efforts, which may be passed on to taxpayers or industry stakeholders. 2. Job creation: The bill's requirements may create new job opportunities in emergency management, firefighting, and forestry. 3. Potential conflicts of interest: The involvement of multiple federal agencies and private contractors raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest, particularly if contractors are also major donors to lawmakers.

**Monied Interests:** A review of the sponsors' and cosponsors' campaign finance records reveals significant contributions from:

1. The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) 2. The American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) 3. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA)

These organizations may have influenced the bill's language to benefit their member companies or industries.

In conclusion, while HR 4038 aims to improve wildfire response and preparedness, it is essential to consider the potential economic and operational impacts on affected industries and sectors. The involvement of multiple federal agencies and private contractors raises concerns about conflicts of interest, highlighting the need for transparency and accountability in the bill's implementation.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Kim, Young [R-CA-40]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$110,460

23 donors

PACs

Organizations

$37,860

Committees

Individuals

$72,600

No PAC contributions found

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

2 transactions

$6,600

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE

1 transaction

$3,300

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

1 transaction

$3,300

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF NORTH DAKOTA

1 transaction

$3,300

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

2 transactions

$3,300

AT&T INC & ITS AFFLIATES

1 transaction

$3,000

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

2 transactions

$3,000

ABBVIE PAC - FEDERAL PAC

1 transaction

$2,500

ISE-SHIMA

1 transaction

$1,760

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,500

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,000

PIONEER PHARMACY

2 transactions

$1,000

JACKSON FAMILY TRUST

1 transaction

$500

LAW OFFICES OF PETER CHEN

1 transaction

$500

No committee contributions found

DRESNER, LINDA

2 transactions

$13,200

LEVY, EDWARD

2 transactions

$13,200

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

2 transactions

$13,200

AMBROSE, JOAN

1 transaction

$6,600

WEEKLEY, RICHARD

1 transaction

$6,600

REGIABA, ADAM

1 transaction

$6,600

VANDER SLOOT, FRANK

1 transaction

$6,600

VANDER SLOOT, BELINDA

1 transaction

$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Gray, Adam [D-CA-13]

ID: G000605

Top Contributors

ACTBLUE

OrganizationSOMMERVILLE, MA

$1,000

Aug 27, 2023

ACTBLUE

OrganizationSOMMERVILLE, MA

$1,000

Aug 14, 2023

ACTBLUE

OrganizationSOMMERVILLE, MA

$1,000

Aug 14, 2023

ESPARZA FOR BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 2026

OrganizationFRESNO, CA

$1,000

Jun 4, 2024

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$1,000

Aug 1, 2024

TONY THURMOND FOR GOVERNOR 2026

OrganizationOAKLAND, CA

$999

Nov 4, 2024

TIM GRAYSON FOR SENATE 2024

OrganizationSACRAMENTO, CA

$500

Mar 14, 2024

ACTBLUE

OrganizationSOMMERVILLE, MA

$500

Apr 21, 2024

ANGEL BARAJAS FOR SUPERVISOR

OrganizationWEST SACRAMENTO, CA

$250

Aug 11, 2024

ACTBLUE

OrganizationSOMMERVILLE, MA

$100

May 5, 2024

Rep. Vindman, Eugene Simon [D-VA-7]

ID: V000138

Top Contributors

LUX FOR VIRGINIA

OrganizationLADYSMITH, VA

$500

Mar 29, 2024

LUX FOR VIRGINIA

OrganizationLADYSMITH, VA

$500

Mar 31, 2024

FORSTER-BURKE, DIANE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT

$4,000

Apr 20, 2024

FORSTER-BURKE, DIANE

IndividualCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT

$4,000

May 5, 2024

VON STEIN, THOMSON

IndividualROCKVILLE, MD

$3,500

Aug 7, 2024

HULL, MEGAN

SELF • ACTIVIST

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Nov 2, 2024

KAISER, GEORGE

GBK CORPORATION • EXECUTIVE

IndividualTULSA, OK

$3,300

Oct 25, 2024

PARSONS, KATHLEEN

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPOTOMAC, MD

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

STAPLE, HARISE

SELF • MD

IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

HOLMES, LAURA

SELF • REAL ESTATE INVESTOR

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Kim, Young [R-CA-40]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 69 nodes and 36 connections (72 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $118,460

Top Donors - Rep. Kim, Young [R-CA-40]

Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount

15 Orgs8 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.

+Construction & Engineeringconfidence 0.80
Section 2(b)(1) requires establishing a standard for response time to wildland fire incidents on Federal land, which will likely increase demand for firefighting resources, equipment, and infrastructure, benefiting construction and engineering firms involved in building firefighting facilities, roads, and support systems.
+Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.70
Section 2(c)(4)(B) estimates the size of the aviation and ground wildland firefighting fleet needed to meet response time goals, which may lead to increased contracts for firefighting aircraft, vehicles, and equipment, benefiting defense contractors that produce such assets.
+Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.60
Section 2(c)(5) describes necessary changes to the Federal ordering and dispatch system to enable faster dispatch of firefighting assets, which may involve upgrades to communication and coordination systems, benefiting telecommunications providers.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Kim, Young [R-CA-40])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

Telecommunications$11,300
from 3 contributions
- REID, THOMAS$8,300
- AT&T INC & ITS AFFLIATES$3,000
Construction & Engineering$2,500
from 1 contribution
- MATSON, JASON B$2,500
Defense Contractors$1,228
from 40 contributions
- BANGERT, LOUIS$633
- PEDDIBHOTLA, SRIRAM$500
- DOUGLASS, JOHN$95

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 Agriculture

Moderate

Vector: 68%

Pages: 341-343AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 policy aim to reduce wildfire risks on federal lands, but the bill emphasizes improving response times and interagency coordination, whereas Project 2025 stresses proactive fuel reduction, timber sales, and regulatory reform. They share the overarching goal of wildfire mitigation but differ in primary strategies."

Key themes:wildfire managementfederal land agenciesinteragency coordinationrisk reductionresponse effectiveness

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 67%

Pages: 341-343AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on improving wildfire response times and interagency coordination, whereas the Project 2025 policy emphasizes proactive forest management, fuel reduction, timber sales, and reducing regulatory obstacles to prevent wildfires. Both address wildfire risk but from different angles—response versus prevention—resulting in only tangential alignment."

Key themes:wildfire managementfederal land agenciesinteragency coordinationwildfire preparedness

— 308 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Reform Forest Service Wildfire Management. The United States Forest Service is one of four federal government land management agencies that admin- ister 606 million acres, or 95 percent of the 640 million acres of surface land area managed by the federal government.115 Located within the USDA, the Forest Service manages the National Forest System, which is comprised of 193 million acres.116 As explained by the USDA, “The USDA Forest Service’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.”117 The Forest Service should focus on proactive management of the forests and grasslands that does not depend heavily on burning. There should be resilient forests and grasslands in the wake of management actions. Wildfires have become a primary vegetation management regime for national forests and grasslands.118 Recognizing the need for vegetation management, the Forest Service has adopted “pyro-silviculture” using “unplanned” fire,119 such as unplanned human-caused fires, to otherwise accomplish vegetation management.120 The Forest Service should instead be focusing on addressing the precipitous annual amassing of biomass in the national forests that drive the behavior of wildfires. By thinning trees, removing live fuels and deadwood, and taking other preventive steps, the Forest Service can help to minimize the consequences of wildfires. Increasing timber sales could also play an important role in the effort to change the behavior of wildfire because there would be less biomass. Timber sales and timber harvested in public forests dropped precipitously in the early 1990s and still remain very low. For example, in 1988, the volume of timber sold and harvested by volume was about 11 billion and 12.6 billion board feet (BBF), respectively.121 In 2021, timber sold was 2.8 BBF and timber harvested was 2.4 BBF. In 2018, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13855 to, among other things, promote active management of forests and reduce wildfire risks.122 The executive order stated, “Active management of vegetation is needed to treat these dangerous conditions on Federal lands but is often delayed due to challenges associated with regulatory analysis and current consultation requirements.”123 It further explained the need to reduce regulatory obstacles to fuel reduction in forests created by the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.124 The next Administration should: l Champion executive action, consistent with law, and proactive legislation to reduce wildfires. This would involve embracing Executive Order 13855, building upon it, and working with lawmakers to promote active management of vegetation, reduce regulatory obstacles to reducing fuel buildup, and increase timber sales. — 309 — Department of Agriculture Eliminate or Reform the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA, in collaboration with HHS, publishes the Dietary Guidelines every five years.125 For more than 40 years, the federal government has been releasing Dietary Guidelines,126 and during this time, there has been constant controversy due to questionable recommenda- tions and claims regarding the politicization of the process. In the 2015 Dietary Guidelines process, the influential Dietary Guidelines Advi- sory Committee veered off mission and attempted to persuade the USDA and HHS to adopt nutritional advice that focused not just on human health, but the health of the planet.127 Issues such as climate change and sustainability infiltrated the process. Fortunately, the 2020 process did not get diverted in this manner. How- ever, the Dietary Guidelines remain a potential tool to influence dietary choices to achieve objectives unrelated to the nutritional and dietary well-being of Americans. There is no shortage of private sector dietary advice for the public, and nutrition and dietary choices are best left to individuals to address their personal needs. This includes working with their own health professionals. As it is, there is constantly changing advice provided by the government, with insufficient qualifications on the advice, oversimplification to the point of miscommunicating important points, questionable use of science, and potential political influence. The Dietary Guidelines have a major impact because they not only can influence how private health providers offer nutritional advice, but they also inform federal programs. School meals are required to be consistent with the guidelines.128 The next Administration should: l Work with lawmakers to repeal the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA should help lead an effort to repeal the Dietary Guidelines. l Minimally, the next Administration should reform the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA, with HHS, should develop a more transparent process that properly considers the underlying science and does not overstate its findings. It should also ensure that the Dietary Guidelines focus on nutritional issues and do not veer off-mission by focusing on unrelated issues, such as the environment, that have nothing to do with nutritional advice. In fact, if environmental concerns supersede or water down recommendations for human nutritional advice, the public would be receiving misleading health information. The USDA, working with lawmakers, should codify these reforms into law. ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES Based on the recommended reforms identified as ideal solutions, the USDA would look different in many respects. One of the biggest changes would be a USDA that is not focused on welfare, given that means-tested welfare programs would

Department of the Interior

Weak

Vector: 65%

Pages: 572-574AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on establishing wildfire response time standards and interagency coordination on federal lands, while the Project 2025 DOI section emphasizes energy independence, oil and gas leasing, and streamlining environmental reviews. Both involve DOI-managed lands, but their policy objectives are largely distinct."

Key themes:federal land managementDepartment of the Interiorinteragency coordination

— 539 — Department of the Interior ENDNOTES 1. See generally William Perry Pendley, Sagebrush Rebel: Reagan’s Battle with Environmental Extremists and Why It Matters Today (Regnery, 2013), preface, pp. xvi-xxii. 2. U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” 3. In Wyoming, the federal government owns 48 percent of the land; in Wyoming’s Teton County, the federal government owns 97 percent of the land. 4. Pendley, Sagebrush Rebel. 5. Keith Schneider, “The 1992 Campaign; Bush on the Environment: A Record of Contradictions,” New York Times, July 4, 1992, https://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/04/us/the-1992-campaign-bush-on-the-environment-a- record-of-contradictions.html (accessed March 15, 2023). 6. William Perry Pendley, War on the West: Government Tyranny on America’s Great Frontier (Regnery, 1995). 7. William Perry Pendley, “Bureau of Land Management Yesterday and Today: Energy Independence,” Cowboy State Daily, April 5, 2022, https://cowboystatedaily.com/2022/04/05/bureau-of-land-management- yesterday-and-today-energy-independence/ (accessed March 15, 2023). 9. Ibid. 9. William Perry Pendley, “Perspective: Biden’s War on Western Energy,” The Gazette, November 6, 2022, https:// gazette.com/opinion/perspective-biden-s-war-on-western-energy/article_3823a584-5bb2-11ed-a598- 235c22e34687.html (accessed March 15, 2023). 10. Ibid. 11. Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, Public Law 86–517. 12. Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 159 (August 20, 2021), pp. 46873–46877. 13. Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 19 (February 1, 2021), pp. 7619–7633, and White House, “Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis,” January 20, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order- protecting-public-health-and-environment-and-restoring-science-to-tackle-climate-crisis/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 14. National Environmental Policy Act, Public Law 91–160. 15. Antiquities Act of 1906, Public Law 59–209. 16. “You know what there’s not is a shall for? ‘I shall manage the land to stop climate change,’ or something similar to that,” Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt testified. “You guys come up with the shalls.” Chris D’Angelo, “Interior Secretary Blames Congress for His Inaction on Climate Change,” High Country News, May 9, 2019. 17. Federal Land Policy and Land Management Act of 1976, Public Law 94–579; Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Public Law 95–372; and 30 U.S.C. § 21 et seq. 18. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3398: Revocation of Secretary’s Orders Inconsistent with Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis,” April 16, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3398-508_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 19. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3348: Concerning the Federal Coal Moratorium,” March 29, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/so_3348_coal_moratorium.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 20. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3349: American Energy Independence,” March 29, 2017, https:// www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/so_3349_-american_energy_independence.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 21. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3350: America First Offshore Energy Strategy,” May 1, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/press-release/secretarial-order-3350-offshore-508.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 22. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3351: Strengthening the Department of the Interior’s Energy Portfolio,” May 1, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/press-release/secretarial-order-3351-energy- counselor-508.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 23. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3352: National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska,” May 31, 2017, https:// www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/so-3352.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). — 540 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 24. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3354: Supporting and Improving the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program and Federal Solid Mineral Leasing Program, July 6, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/uploads/so_-_3354_signed.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 25. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3355: Streamlining National Environmental Policy Reviews and Implementation of Executive Order 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” August 31, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/elips/documents/3355_-_streamlining_national_environmental_policy_reviews_and_implementation_ of_executive_order_13807_establishing_discipline_and_accountability_in_the_environmental_review_ and_permitting_process_for.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 26. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3358: Executive Committee for Expedited Permitting,” October 25, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so_3358_executive_committee_for_ expedited_permitting_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 27. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3360: Rescinding Authorities Inconsistent with Secretary’s Order 3349, “American Energy Independence,” December 22, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/3360_-_rescinding_authorities_inconsistent_with_secretarys_order_3349_american_energy_ independence.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 28. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3380: Public Notice of the Costs Associated with Developing Department of the Interior Publications and Similar Documents,” March 10, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/ doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3398-508_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 29. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3385: Enforcement Priorities,” September 14, 2020, https:// www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed-so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 30. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order 3389: Coordinating and Clarifying National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Reviews,” September 14, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed- so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 31. Bureau of Land Management, “Updating Oil and Gas Leasing Reform: Land Use Planning and Lease Parcel Reviews,” IM 2018–034, January 31, 2018, https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-2018-034 (accessed March 16, 2023). 32. Lease Now Act, S. 4228, 117th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2022). 33. ONSHORE Act, S. 218, 116th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2019). https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate- bill/218/text (accessed March 18, 2023). 34. Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 130 (July 8, 2022), pp. 40859–40863. 35. The Biden Administration’s 2023–2028 proposed program is fatally flawed. Katie Tubb, “Comment for the 2023–2028 National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Program,” BOEM–2022–0031, October 6, 2022, http:// thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/Regulatory_Comments/BOEM%202023-2028%20lease%20plan%20 comment%20KTubb.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 36. See Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117–169, §§ 50261–50263. 37. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Public Law No. 115–97, § 20001, and U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3401: Comprehensive Analysis and Temporary Halt on All Activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Relating to the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program,” June 1, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/so-3401-comprehensive-analysis-and-temporary-halt-on-all-activitives-in-the-arctic-national- wildlife-refuge-relating-to-the-coastal-plain-oil-and-gas-leasing-program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 38. In 2016, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell instituted a moratorium on new coal leases while conducting a programmatic environmental impact statement under NEPA to address concerns about competition and inconsistency with the Obama Administration’s climate policy. In 2017, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke lifted the moratorium and ended development of a programmatic environmental impact statement. In April 2021, Interior Secretary Debra Haaland rescinded Zinke’s order and initiated a new review of the coal-leasing program. See U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3338: Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to Modernize the Federal Coal Program,” January 15, 2016, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi. gov/files/elips/documents/archived-3338_-discretionary_programmatic_environmental_impact_statement_ to_modernize_the_federal_coal_program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023); U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3348”; U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3398”; and Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 159 (August 20, 2021), pp. 46873–46877.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal

Vector: 64%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on wildfire response times and interagency coordination for federal lands, whereas the Project 2025 HUD policy addresses ending Housing First approaches and reshaping homelessness assistance; there is no substantive connection between the two topics."

— 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. — 517 — 16 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR William Perry Pendley The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) oversees, manages, and protects the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and other information about those resources; and honors the nation’s trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities. AGENCY OVERVIEW DOI’s purview encompasses more than 500 million acres of federal lands, including national parks and national wildlife refuges; 700 million acres of sub- surface minerals; 1.7 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS); 23 percent of the nation’s energy; water in 17 western states; and trust responsibilities for 566 Indian tribes and Alaska Natives. DOI’s 2024 budget request totals $18.9 billion, an increase of $2 billion, or 12 percent, more than the 2023 enacted level. The budget also provides an estimated $12.6 billion in permanent funding in 2024. In 2024, DOI will generate receipts of $19.6 billion. A “Home Department” had been considered in 1789 and urged by Presidents over the decades until DOI’s creation in 1849. The variety of its early responsibil- ities—the Indian Bureau, the General Land Office, the Bureau of Pensions, and the Patent Office, among others—earned it various nicknames, including “Great Miscellany,” “hydra-headed monster,” and “Mother of Departments.”1 Its mission became more focused on natural resources with the rise of the conservation move- ment in the early 20th century; however, it kept its historic (since the days of the Founding Fathers) role as overseer of vast working landscapes involving grazing,

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal

Vector: 64%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025 focuses on federal wildfire response times and interagency coordination on federal lands, which is unrelated to the Department of Housing and Urban Development policies in Project 2025 concerning housing markets, regulatory reform, homelessness, and fair housing initiatives."

— 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.

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. Kim, Young

Taiwan Non-Discrimination Act of 2025

119/hr/910

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 340 East 1st Street in Tustin, California, as the "Ursula Ellen Kennedy Post Office Building".

119/hr/3350

STOP Payments Fraud Act of 2026

119/hr/9331

Back to All Bills