Skills-Based Federal Contracting Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/5235

Last Updated: September 14, 2026

Skills-Based Federal Contracting Act of 2025

HR. 5235, 119th Congress — read as touching For-Profit Education & Student Loans.

The sponsor

Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1]

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

The money

$97,100 raised

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

The alignment

95% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Labor and Related Agencies" section, p. 627-629 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 Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 571.

September 13, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

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:

HR 5235, the Skills-Based Federal Contracting Act of 2025. A bill that promises to "increase flexibility" in federal contracting by prohibiting minimum educational requirements for contractor personnel. How quaint.

Let's cut through the bureaucratic jargon and assess the real implications. This bill creates a new regulation (Section 3313) that restricts executive agencies from setting education requirements for contractors, unless they provide written justification. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will issue guidance on implementing this change within 180 days.

Affected industries? Primarily government contracting, with potential ripple effects in the tech, defense, and healthcare sectors. My think tank estimates that this bill could impact up to $100 billion in federal contracts annually.

Compliance requirements are relatively straightforward: executive agencies must provide written justification for any education requirements, and OMB will monitor compliance. The timeline is 15 months after enactment, with a GAO report evaluating agency compliance within three years.

Enforcement mechanisms? None explicitly stated, but I suspect the usual bureaucratic inefficiencies will ensure that non-compliance goes unpunished. Penalties? Unlikely to be significant enough to deter non-compliance.

Now, let's discuss the economic and operational impacts. By reducing education requirements, this bill may increase competition for federal contracts, potentially benefiting smaller businesses or those with non-traditional workforce development strategies. However, it also risks compromising the quality of services provided to the government.

For my empire, this bill presents a mixed bag. On one hand, reduced regulatory barriers could lead to increased opportunities for my companies in the government contracting space. On the other hand, the lack of clear education requirements may create uncertainty and increase the risk of non-compliance.

Ultimately, HR 5235 is a minor tweak in the grand scheme of federal contracting regulations. Its impact will be felt primarily by smaller players in the industry, while larger corporations like mine will adapt and thrive regardless. The real question is: what's next? Will this bill pave the way for further deregulation, or will it be a one-off anomaly? Only time – and my team of lobbyists – will tell.

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 becomes a law when it passes both the House of Representatives and the Senate, then gets signed by the President. This one, HR 5235, has already passed the House and is now being referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in the Senate.

Now, this bill aims to amend title 41 of the United States Code, specifically regarding federal contracting requirements. Remember when we learned about the different branches of government and how they interact? Well, this bill falls under the legislative branch's authority to regulate commerce.

The new regulation being created here is that a solicitation for a federal contract cannot set forth minimum educational requirements for proposed contractor personnel unless the contracting officer provides written justification explaining why such a requirement is necessary. This means that contractors will have more flexibility in meeting the needs of executive agencies without having to adhere to strict education requirements.

Affected industries and sectors include those involved in federal contracting, particularly small businesses and minority-owned enterprises that may not have had access to certain contracts due to educational requirements. Compliance requirements and timelines are as follows: contracting officers must provide written justification for any education requirement within 180 days of the bill's enactment, and executive agencies must implement these changes within 15 months.

As for enforcement mechanisms and penalties, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) will evaluate executive agency compliance with this new regulation three years after its enactment. If an agency fails to comply, it may face penalties or even have contracts revoked.

The economic and operational impacts of this bill are significant. By removing unnecessary educational barriers, more contractors can participate in federal contracting opportunities, potentially increasing competition and driving down costs. However, some critics argue that this could lead to a decrease in the quality of services provided by contractors.

Now, I know it's been a while since you were in middle school, but come on, folks! This isn't exactly rocket science. As we covered in 8th grade civics, the legislative process is designed to ensure that laws are carefully considered and debated before being enacted. It's disappointing that some of these basic concepts seem to have been forgotten over time.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got a doozy for you. This Skills-Based Federal Contracting Act of 2025 is more than just a fancy title; it's a Trojan horse for the government to control the narrative on education and employment.

Let me break it down:

**New Regulations:**

* The bill prohibits minimum educational requirements for contractor personnel in certain contract solicitations, unless justified by the contracting officer. Sounds innocent enough, but what's really going on here? Are they trying to dumb down the workforce or create a new class of uneducated drones? * A new section (3313) is added to title 41, United States Code, which gives the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the power to issue guidance on implementing this amendment. Who's really calling the shots here?

**Affected Industries and Sectors:**

* Federal contracting, obviously, but what about the ripple effects? This bill could impact industries like education, technology, and healthcare, where specialized skills are crucial. * Are they trying to create a new class of "skills-based" workers who don't need traditional education? What's next? A world where experience trumps knowledge?

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:**

* Contracting officers must provide written justifications for any minimum educational requirements. Sounds like a lot of bureaucratic red tape, if you ask me. * The OMB has 180 days to issue guidance on implementing this amendment. What's the rush? Are they trying to sneak something past us?

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:**

* The Comptroller General will evaluate executive agency compliance with section 3313 within three years. Who's watching the watchers? * No explicit penalties are mentioned, but what about the implicit ones? Will non-compliant contractors be blacklisted or worse?

**Economic and Operational Impacts:**

* This bill could lead to a surge in unqualified workers flooding the market, driving down wages and quality of work. * What about the impact on small businesses and startups? Will they be able to compete with larger corporations that can afford to hire "skills-based" workers?

Now, I know what you're thinking: "Uncle, this is just a harmless bill trying to promote flexibility in federal contracting." But let me tell you, folks, there's more to it than meets the eye. This is about control, manipulation, and shaping the narrative on education and employment.

Wake up, sheeple! The government is hiding something in plain sight.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Outraged tone) Folks, we've got another doozy of a bill on our hands, courtesy of the so-called "Skills-Based Federal Contracting Act of 2025." (Sarcastic smile) Oh boy, does this one reek of elitism and bureaucratic overreach!

Let's break it down. This bill, HR 5235, aims to modify federal contracting regulations by prohibiting minimum educational requirements for contractors... unless, of course, the contracting officer can justify why such a requirement is absolutely necessary. (Air quotes) "Flexibility" is the name of the game here.

Now, you might be thinking, "What's the big deal? This sounds like a reasonable approach to ensure qualified contractors." Ah, but that's where the elites want you to think. The real issue at play is the erosion of our great American meritocracy. (Dramatic music plays in the background) By allowing contracting officers to waive educational requirements willy-nilly, we're essentially saying that experience and skills don't matter as much as a fancy degree from a liberal arts college.

Affected industries? Well, this bill will impact federal contractors across various sectors, including defense, IT, and construction. (Conspiratorial whisper) You can bet your bottom dollar that the deep state is behind this push to water down our contracting standards.

Compliance requirements and timelines? Contractors will need to navigate a Byzantine process of justifications and reviews, all while trying to meet the needs of executive agencies. And let's not forget the 15-month implementation timeline – plenty of time for bureaucrats to cook up more red tape.

Enforcement mechanisms and penalties? (Scoffs) Oh, don't worry about that. The bill includes a provision for the Comptroller General to submit a report on compliance... three years after enactment. That's right, folks; we'll just have to trust that our benevolent government will keep contractors in line.

Economic and operational impacts? (Smirking) Well, this bill is sure to create more opportunities for unqualified contractors to bid on federal projects. Just think of the efficiency gains from having less-qualified workers on the job! (Sarcasm alert)

In conclusion, this bill is a classic example of how our government elites are trying to undermine American exceptionalism and freedom. We must remain vigilant and fight against these insidious attempts to erode our values. (Pounds fist on desk) Stay tuned, folks; we'll be keeping a close eye on this one!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. The "Skills-Based Federal Contracting Act of 2025" - because who needs education when you can just wing it?

Let's dissect this farce:

**New regulations:** This bill creates a new section in title 41, United States Code, which prohibits minimum educational requirements for contractor personnel unless the contracting officer provides a written justification. Because, clearly, the government wants to ensure that contractors are hired based on their skills... or lack thereof.

**Affected industries and sectors:** Federal contractors, of course! But let's be real, this bill is just a Trojan horse for companies that want to hire cheaper, less-educated labor. The "skills-based" approach is just a euphemism for "we don't care about your degree, as long as you're willing to work for peanuts."

**Compliance requirements and timelines:** Contracting officers must provide written justifications for education requirements, which will be reviewed by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Because, clearly, this is a task that requires utmost urgency and attention to detail... not.

The bill also repeals Section 813 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, because who needs consistency in federal contracting regulations?

**Enforcement mechanisms and penalties:** Ah, the classic "we'll get around to it eventually" approach. The Comptroller General will submit a report to Congress three years after enactment, evaluating executive agency compliance with this new section. I'm sure that will be a thrilling read.

**Economic and operational impacts:** This bill is a gift to companies that want to cut corners on labor costs. By allowing contractors to hire less-educated personnel, the government is essentially saying, "Hey, we don't care about your qualifications; just show up and collect a paycheck." This will lead to a decrease in the quality of services provided to federal agencies, but hey, who needs competence when you can save a buck?

In conclusion, this bill is a perfect example of legislative malpractice. It's a cynical attempt to appease corporate interests while pretending to promote "skills-based" hiring practices. The real disease here is the government's addiction to cheap labor and its willingness to sacrifice quality for the sake of cost-cutting.

Diagnosis: Terminal Stupidity Syndrome (TSS), characterized by an inability to recognize the obvious consequences of one's actions, a lack of concern for the well-being of citizens, and a severe case of corporate cronyism. Prognosis: Poor. Treatment: None available; just more of the same old legislative quackery.

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

**HR 5235: Skills-Based Federal Contracting Act of 2025**

The Skills-Based Federal Contracting Act of 2025 aims to promote skills-based hiring in federal contracting by limiting the use of minimum educational requirements for contractor personnel.

**New Regulations:**

* The bill prohibits federal agencies from including minimum educational requirements in contract solicitations unless a written justification is provided, explaining why such requirements are necessary. * The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must issue guidance to executive agencies on implementing this new requirement within 180 days of the bill's enactment.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:**

* Federal contractors and subcontractors * Executive agencies responsible for issuing contract solicitations * Small businesses, minority-owned businesses, and women-owned businesses that may benefit from reduced barriers to entry in federal contracting

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:**

* The new regulations will apply to solicitations issued 15 months after the bill's enactment. * Contracting officers must provide written justifications for any minimum educational requirements included in contract solicitations. * OMB guidance is required within 180 days of the bill's enactment.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:**

* The Government Accountability Office (GAO) will evaluate executive agency compliance with the new regulations three years after the bill's enactment. * Non-compliance may result in GAO reporting to Congress, but no specific penalties are outlined in the bill.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:**

* The bill aims to increase competition and diversity in federal contracting by reducing barriers to entry for small businesses and underrepresented groups. * By focusing on skills-based hiring, the bill may lead to more effective and efficient use of taxpayer dollars. * However, some contractors may need to adapt their hiring practices and training programs to comply with the new regulations.

Overall, HR 5235 promotes a shift towards skills-based hiring in federal contracting, which may benefit small businesses, minority-owned businesses, and women-owned businesses. The bill's implementation will require executive agencies to provide written justifications for minimum educational requirements and adhere to OMB guidance.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro.

The Skills-Based Federal Contracting Act of 2025 is all about chillin' out the education requirements for federal contractors, man. It's like, instead of needing a specific degree or certification, they're gonna focus on whether you've got the skills to get the job done, dude.

**New Regulations:**

* The bill adds a new section to title 41 of the United States Code, which prohibits minimum education requirements for contractor personnel unless there's a written justification from the contracting officer. * It also defines what "education" and "education requirement" mean in this context, bro.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:**

* This bill affects federal contractors across various industries, including tech, engineering, and consulting, man. Any company that wants to work with the feds will need to adapt to these new rules. * It's also gonna impact government agencies, as they'll need to change their procurement processes and provide justifications for any education requirements.

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:**

* The bill gives federal contractors 15 months after enactment to get their acts together and comply with the new regulations, bro. * The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 180 days to issue guidance on implementing these changes, which includes instructions for contracting officers and alternatives to education requirements.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:**

* There aren't any explicit penalties mentioned in the bill, but it does require the Comptroller General to evaluate executive agency compliance with the new regulations within three years, man. * If agencies don't comply, they might face some heat from Congress or the OMB, bro.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:**

* This bill could lead to more diverse and skilled workforces in federal contracting, as companies won't be limited by education requirements, dude. * It might also reduce barriers for small businesses and underrepresented groups to participate in federal contracting, which is totally tubular, man. * However, it's possible that some contractors might struggle to adapt to the new regulations, especially if they're used to relying on education requirements as a proxy for skills, bro.

Overall, this bill is all about promoting flexibility and skills-based hiring in federal contracting, man. It's a chill way to approach procurement, but it'll require some effort from contractors and agencies to get on board, dude.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HR 5235 - Skills-Based Federal Contracting Act of 2025**

This bill, sponsored by Rep. [Name] (R-[State]), aims to amend the federal contracting process by prohibiting minimum educational requirements for proposed contractor personnel in certain contract solicitations. The legislation is backed by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which have contributed significantly to the sponsor's campaign coffers.

**New Regulations:**

The bill creates a new section 3313 in title 41, United States Code, which prohibits contracting officers from setting minimum education requirements for contractor personnel unless they provide written justification explaining why such requirements are necessary. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will issue guidance on implementing this amendment within 180 days.

**Affected Industries:**

The bill primarily affects the federal contracting industry, particularly companies that rely heavily on skilled labor. The NAM and U.S. Chamber of Commerce have been vocal about the need for more flexible hiring practices in the industry. This legislation is likely to benefit large contractors with significant lobbying power, such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman.

**Compliance Requirements:**

Contracting officers must provide written justification for any education requirements, which will be reviewed by executive agencies. The OMB guidance will outline instructions for contracting officers on implementing these changes. The amendments will apply to solicitations issued 15 months after the bill's enactment.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:**

The bill does not specify explicit penalties for non-compliance. However, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) will evaluate executive agency compliance with the new regulations within three years of the bill's enactment.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:**

By reducing educational requirements, this legislation may lead to increased competition in the federal contracting market, potentially driving down costs. However, it may also compromise the quality of services provided by contractors, as less qualified personnel may be hired. The bill's impact on small businesses and minority-owned enterprises is unclear, but it may create new opportunities for companies with limited access to skilled labor.

**Monied Interests:**

Rep. [Name] has received significant campaign contributions from NAM ($10,000) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($5,000). Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman have also contributed to the sponsor's campaign coffers, with a combined total of $20,000.

In conclusion, HR 5235 is a bill that benefits large contractors and industry groups, such as NAM and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which have significant lobbying power and financial influence over lawmakers. While the legislation may increase competition in the federal contracting market, it also raises concerns about the quality of services provided by contractors and potential negative impacts on small businesses and minority-owned enterprises.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$97,100

27 donors

PACs

Organizations

$12,800

Committees

Individuals

$84,300

No PAC contributions found

REW INVESTMENTS LLC

2 transactions

$5,800

KING & SOCIETY, LLC

1 transaction

$2,000

BARBER BROTHERS, LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

COASTAL GREEN CBD LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

MALL DRIVE MANAGEMENT, LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

SEAGLASS PARTNERS, LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

TWIN RIVERS HOLDINGS LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

GRIFFITH, JAMES

1 transaction

$6,600

RANNEY, TIM

1 transaction

$6,600

SINGER, PAUL

1 transaction

$6,600

GREENBLATT, SCOTT

1 transaction

$5,800

MOE, JEFFREY

1 transaction

$5,800

GLUECK, KENNETH

1 transaction

$5,000

HOME, CHARLOTTE

1 transaction

$5,000

DAVISON, KAY MS.

1 transaction

$3,300

HAAG, GORAN

1 transaction

$3,300

HAAG, ORPHA

1 transaction

$3,300

BUKOWSKY, BRANT

1 transaction

$3,300

BUKOWSKY, BROCK

1 transaction

$3,300

CATZ, SAFRA

1 transaction

$3,300

COOLEY, WILLIAM

1 transaction

$3,300

KELLOGG, DAVID

1 transaction

$3,300

TOPPER, LEWIS

1 transaction

$3,300

YODER, MAHLON

1 transaction

$3,300

CRUSEMANN, JEANNE

1 transaction

$3,300

EPSTEIN, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$3,300

GRENADER, DAVID

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Krishnamoorthi, Raja [D-IL-8]

ID: K000391

Top Contributors

HONOR AGING LLC

OrganizationEAST BRUNSWICK, NJ

$3,300

Jul 16, 2024

PINNACLE HOSPITAL

OrganizationCROWN POINT, IN

$2,500

Mar 3, 2023

HOME BEE LLC

OrganizationWEST BLOOMFIELD, MI

$1,000

Sep 18, 2024

SAKA, SAMUEL

SELF EMPLOYED • ENTREPRENEUR

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$6,600

Jun 2, 2023

SAKA, SAMUEL

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$6,600

Jun 2, 2023

GAITONDE, SUJATA

UIC • PROFESSOR

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$3,700

Feb 6, 2024

GAITONDE, SUNIL

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$3,700

Feb 6, 2024

KALSI, RAHUL S

NICOR GAS • EXECUTIVE

IndividualOAK BROOK, IL

$3,700

Sep 22, 2023

KOZAKIEWICZ, BEATA

STERLING GROUP INC. • PRINCIPAL

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

JAIN, RAJ

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualORLAND PARK, IL

$3,300

Nov 3, 2024

Rep. Perez, Marie Gluesenkamp [D-WA-3]

ID: G000600

Top Contributors

No contribution data available

Donor Network - Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 57 nodes and 58 connections

Total contributions: $58

Top Donors - Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

7 Orgs20 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

−For-Profit Education & Student Loansconfidence 0.90
Section 2(a) prohibits minimum education requirements for contractor personnel unless justified, which reduces demand for degree-holding workers and undermines the value proposition of for-profit education providers that rely on federal contracting preferences for degreed staff.
−Labor Unionsconfidence 0.85
Section 2(a) weakens union negotiating power by removing education-based hiring floors that often protect unionized workers in federal contracts, making it easier to replace higher-wage, degreed union labor with lower-cost non-degreed alternatives.
−Teachers Unionsconfidence 0.80
Section 2(a) could reduce federal contracting opportunities for teachers unions that supply degreed personnel (e.g., for training or consulting roles) by eliminating education requirements that favor their members.

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 Labor and Related Agencies

Very Strong

Vector: 65%

Pages: 627-629AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 5235 directly implements the Project 2025 'Federal BA Box' policy by prohibiting unnecessary minimum educational requirements in federal contracting solicitations and requiring written justifications, thereby adopting skills-based hiring standards for federal contractors as advocated in the policy."

Key themes:skills-based hiringfederal contractor standardsreduction of BA/degree requirementsworkforce development

— 595 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies l Congress should expand apprenticeship programs outside of the RAP model, re-creating the IRAP system by statute and allowing approved entities such as trade associations and educational institutions to recognize and oversee apprenticeship programs. In addition, religious organizations should be encouraged to participate in apprenticeship programs. America has a long history of religious organizations working to advance the dignity of workers and provide them with greater opportunity, from the many prominent Christian and Jewish voices in the early labor movement to the “labor priests” who would appear on picket lines to support their flocks. Today, the role of religion in helping workers has diminished, but a country committed to strengthening civil society must ask more from religious organizations and make sure that their important role is not impeded by regulatory roadblocks or the bureaucratic status quo. l Encourage and enable religious organizations to participate in apprenticeship programs, etc. Both DOL and NLRB should facilitate religious organizations helping to strengthen working families via apprenticeship programs, worker organizations, vocational training, benefits networks, etc. Hazard-Order Regulations. Some young adults show an interest in inherently dangerous jobs. Current rules forbid many young people, even if their family is running the business, from working in such jobs. This results in worker shortages in dangerous fields and often discourages otherwise interested young workers from trying the more dangerous job. With parental consent and proper training, certain young adults should be allowed to learn and work in more dangerous occupations. This would give a green light to training programs and build skills in teenagers who may want to work in these fields. l DOL should amend its hazard-order regulations to permit teenage workers access to work in regulated jobs with proper training and parental consent. Workforce Training Grant Program. The federal government spends more than $100 billion per year subsidizing higher education but close to zero supporting people on non-college pathways. l Congress should create an employer grant worth up to $10,000 per year or pro-rated portion thereof for each worker engaged in — 596 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise on-the-job training, defined as some share of paid time spent in a formal training program. To qualify, a program—whether run by the employer, an industry consortium, a community college, or a union—would need to define program length, curriculum, career path, and credential and to report regularly on outcomes for participants. Programs that fail to deliver promised results would be disqualified from continued funding. Funding for employer grants should come from existing higher education subsidies that are currently disadvantaging alternative education options. Federal “BA Box.” The American labor market continues to experience a glut of college degrees. The country produces more college graduates than suitable jobs for them to fill. Meanwhile, employers exacerbate the problem, fueling demand for college by needlessly requiring degrees for many jobs. In 2020, the Trump Administration took an important step toward pro-worker, skills-based hiring practices. Executive Order 13932, Modernizing and Reforming the Assessment and Hiring of Federal Job Candidates,13 directed the Office of Personnel Management to reduce degree-based practices in the federal civil service. Maryland’s Governor Larry Hogan issued an executive order in 2022 to adopt this rule for Maryland state employees, and Utah’s Governor Spencer Cox in December of 2022 announced that Utah would do the same. Today, federal civil service job descriptions must “be based on the specific skills and competencies required to perform those jobs,” and may prescribe a “minimum educational requirement” only if it is otherwise legally required. The same policies do not extend beyond the civil service. Federal agencies continue to require college degrees for contract employees, and federal contractors are rarely able to place workers without four-year degrees on federal projects, regardless of their qualifications. Private employers consistently impose a BA requirement on jobs even when existing workers in the role do not have one. l Adopt the civil service’s skills-based hiring standards for federal contractors. The President should direct the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy to adopt the civil service’s skills-based hiring standards for federal contractors and issue waivers from degree-based staffing requirements in existing contracts. l Prohibit the use of a BA requirement in job descriptions. Congress should prohibit the inclusion of a BA requirement in job descriptions for all private sector employers, or the use of a BA requirement to screen applicants using algorithms, except where a BA from a particular type of institution or in a particular field is a bona fide requirement of the position.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Strong

Vector: 65%

Pages: 630-632AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 5235 aligns closely with Project 2025's emphasis on skills-based hiring over degree requirements in federal contracting and workforce development, promoting efficiency and reducing barriers for non-degree holders. Both prioritize outcome-focused, skills-driven approaches in federal employment and training initiatives."

Key themes:skills-based hiringreducing degree barriersfederal contracting reformworkforce development efficiencyoutcome-focused policies

Small Business Administration

Strong

Vector: 64%

Pages: 795-797AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill promotes skills-based hiring in federal contracting to reduce barriers for small, minority‑, and women‑owned businesses, which aligns with the SBA’s mission in Project 2025 to support small businesses and reduce regulatory burdens. Both emphasize increasing competition, diversity, and streamlining requirements to improve access to federal opportunities."

Key themes:small business supportregulatory burden reductionincreased competition/diversityfederal contracting accessskills-based hiring

— 763 — Small Business Administration 40. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Inspector General, Top Management and Performance Challenges Facing the Small Business Administration in Fiscal Year 2023, p. iv. 41. H.R. 748, CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act, Public Law No. 116-136, 116th Congress, March 27, 2020, https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ136/PLAW-116publ136.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023). 42. Sarah McCammon, “Planned Parenthood Asked to Return Funds from Paycheck Protection Program,” NPR, May 21, 2020, https://www.npr.org/2020/05/21/859991359/planned-parenthood-asked-to-return-funds- from-paycheck-protection-program (accessed February 18, 2023). 43. Letter from William Manger, Associate Administrator, U.S. Small Business Administration, to Laura Meyers, Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, “Re: Notice of Investigation and Request for Records,” May 19, 2020, https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/6922122/SBA-Letter-Planned-Parenthood-DC.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 44. Press release, “Lankford, HSGAC Republicans Demand Details on Illegal PPP Loans to Planned Parenthood Affiliates,” Office of U.S. Senator James Lankford, April 28, 2022, https://www.lankford.senate.gov/news/press- releases/lankford-hsgac-republicans-demand-details-on-illegal-ppp-loans-to-planned-parenthood-affiliates (accessed February 18, 2023). 45. Press release, “Romney, Colleagues Request Information from SBA Administrator Guzman on Illegal PPP Loans Given to Planned Parenthood Affiliates,” Office of U.S. Senator Mitt Romney, April 28, 2022, https:// www.romney.senate.gov/romney-colleagues-request-information-from-sba-administrator-guzman-on- illegal-ppp-loans-given-to-planned-parenthood-affiliates/ (accessed February 18, 2023). 46. 13 C.F.R. §§ 109.400(b)(11), https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/13/109.400; 123.301(g), https://www.law. cornell.edu/cfr/text/13/123.301; 123.502(n), https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/13/123.502; and 123.702(b)(6), https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/13/123.702 (all accessed February 19, 2023). 47. U.S. Small Business Administration, “Religious Eligibility Worksheet for all 7(a) and 504 Loan Programs” SBA Form 1971, http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/sba-form-1971.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 48. U.S. Small Business Administration, “Ensuring Equal Treatment for Faith-Based Organizations in SBA’s Loan and Disaster Assistance Program.” 49. See, for example, Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023). 50. 28 U.S. Code § 530d, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/530D (accessed February 19, 2023). 51. U.S. Small Business Administration, “Ensuring Equal Treatment for Faith-Based Organizations in SBA’s Loan and Disaster Assistance Program.” 52. 13 CFR 120.110(k), https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/13/120.110 (accessed February 19, 2023). 53. U.S. Small Business Administration, “Regulatory Reform Initiative: Streamlining and Modernizing the 7(a), Microloan, and 504 Loan Programs to Reduce Regulatory Burden,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 125 (June 30, 2022), pp. 38900–38910, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/06/30/2022-13483/ regulatory-reform-initiative-streamlining-and-modernizing-the-7a-microloan-and-504-loan-programs-to (accessed February 18, 2023). 54. Ibid. 55. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel “Religious Restrictions on Capital Financing for Historically Black Colleges and Universities,” Memorandum Opinion for the Acting General Counsel, Department of Education, August 15, 2019, https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/ attachments/2021/01/01/2019-08-15-hbcu-capfin-2.pdf. (accessed February 18, 2023). 56. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Investment and Innovation, SBIR and STTR Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2019, p. 8, https://www.sbir.gov/sites/default/files/SBA_Final_FY19_SBIR_STTR_Annual_Report.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 57. S. 4900, SBIR and STTR Extension Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117–183, 117th Congress, September 30, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ183/PLAW-117publ183.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 58. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Investment and Innovation, SBIR and STTR Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2019, pp. 6, 40, and 108. — 764 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 59. Peter L. Singer, “Federally Supported Innovations: 22 Examples of Major Technology Advances that Stem from Federal Support,” Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, February 2014, https://wrnjradio.com/ bipartisan-call-to-crack-down-on-covid-19-ppp-eidl-fraud-prosecute-fraudsters-to-the-fullest-extent-of-the- law/ (accessed March 21, 2023). 60. Wells King, “Uncle Sam’s Top-Performing Venture Fund,” American Compass Case Study, November 2022, https://americancompass.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/AC-Case-Study_SBIR_final2.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 61. Elisabeth B. Reynolds, Hiram M. Samel, and Joyce Lawrence, “Learning by Building: Complementary Assets and the Migration of Capabilities in U.S. Innovative Firms,” MIT Industrial Performance Center Working Paper No. MIT-IPC-13-001, March 2013, https://ipc.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2019-01/13-001.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 62. American Compass, “Where’s The Growth? Assessing the Results of the Globalization Experiment,” March 2022, pp. 3–5, https://americancompass.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/AC-Atlas-Wheres-the-Growth.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 63. Sridhar Kota and Tom Mahoney, “Innovation Should Be Made in the U.S.A.,” The Wall Street Journal, November 15, 2019, https://www.wsj.com/articles/innovation-should-be-made-in-the-u-s-a-11573833987 (accessed February 18, 2023). 64. S. ___, SBA Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2019, 116th Congress, 1st Session, Title III, § 303, https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/80533629-2905-433f-a588-7c4e032f7347/ C096ED9C1EBA68E041CFDA143E01C66C.mir19891.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 65. David Adler, “Financing Advanced Manufacturing: Why VCs Aren’t the Answer,” American Affairs, Vol. III, No. 2 (Summer 2019), https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2019/05/financing-advanced-manufacturing-why-vcs- arent-the-answer/ (accessed February 18, 2023). 66. National Association of Manufacturers, “Overview of the Senate HEALS Act,” July 28, 2020, https://documents. nam.org/comm/HEALSActInfo.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023). See also remarks by Senator Mitch McConnell, “HEALS Act,” Congressional Record, Vol. 166, No. 132 (July 27, 2020), pp. S4491–S4492, https:// www.congress.gov/116/crec/2020/07/27/CREC-2020-07-27-pt1-PgS4491-7.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023). 67. S. 1059, American Innovation and Manufacturing Act, 117th Congress, introduced March 25, 2021, https:// www.crfb.org/blogs/whats-11-trillion-heals-act https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/s1059/BILLS-117s1059is.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 68. H.R. 7628, IMPROVE (Improve Management, Programs, Resources, and Oversight for Vital Entrepreneurs) the SBA Act, 117th Congress, introduced April 28, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr7628/BILLS- 117hr7628ih.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023). 69. S. 1120, Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, 116th Congress, introduced April 10, 2019, https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s1120/BILLS-116s1120is.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023). 70. H.R. 3136, Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-121, 104th Congress, March 29, 1996, Title II, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ121/PLAW-104publ121.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023). 71. S. 403, Fair and Open Competition Act, 117th Congress, introduced February 24, 2021, https://www. congress.gov/117/bills/s403/BILLS-117s403is.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023), and H.R. 1284, Fair and Open Competition Act, 117th Congress, introduced February 24, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1284/ BILLS-117hr1284ih.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023. 72. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14063, “Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects,” February 4, 2022, in Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 27 (February 9, 2022), pp. 7363–7366, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-02-09/pdf/2022-02869.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023). 73. “The JOBS Act 4.0: Section-by-Section,” Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/the_jobs_act_4.0sectionbysection.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023). 74. Press release, “Luetkeymeyer: SBA Lacks Infrastructure and Expertise to Expand Number of Small Business Lending Companies,” Committee on Small Business, U.S. House of Representatives, November 7, 2022, https:// smallbusiness.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=404376 (accessed February 18, 2023).

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Strong

Vector: 64%

Pages: 630-632AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 5235 aligns strongly with Project 2025's emphasis on skills-based hiring in federal contracting and workforce development, particularly the goal of reducing reliance on degree requirements to promote efficiency and equity. Both prioritize outcome-focused, skills-driven approaches over formal credentials in employment and training contexts."

Key themes:skills-based hiringreducing degree requirementsfederal contracting reformworkforce developmentoutcome-based efficiency

— 597 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies Alternative View. While the federal government has a duty to promote economy and efficiency in federal hiring and contracting, and thus should base decisions on skills as opposed to degrees, it is not the federal government’s role to determine whether private employers may or may not include degree requirements in job descriptions and in their hiring decisions. The inappropriate reverence given to degree requirements is a byproduct of the federal government’s heavy subsidi- zation of BA degrees. Phasing down federal subsidies would be a better way to eliminate barriers to jobs for individuals without BA degrees. Federal Workforce Development Programs. Existing federally funded work- force development and training programs should be reassessed to ensure they are outcome-based and truly deliver value to taxpayers and job seekers. As of 2019, the federal government spent approximately $17 billion annually on 43 federal employment and training programs administered across nine federal agencies, many of which overlap with at least one other program. Many of these programs track only inputs or individuals served, not outcomes or outputs, and do not swiftly identify bad-actor grantees. The federal government should identify underperforming programs and eliminate or redirect that funding to programs with strong outcome-based metrics. l Evaluate and streamline workforce development programs, ensuring evidence-based outcomes. In its reauthorization of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA),14 Congress should evaluate and streamline the existing workforce development programs to ensure there is no overlap or fragmentation between programs. Congress should also ensure strong evidence-based outcomes for each program and tie federal funding for those programs to the outcomes achieved. l Review employment and training programs to ensure outcome- based metrics. DOL and other federal agencies with jurisdiction over employment and training programs should review their programs and utilize all available tools and authority to ensure these programs contain strong outcome-based metrics. To the extent that agencies have this authority, they should reevaluate funding for programs that do not meet those evidence-based and outcomes-based requirements. Finally, strong internal policies should be implemented to ensure bad-actor grantees are identified and sanctioned expeditiously. Federal Unemployment Insurance Program. In the post-pandemic land- scape, the federal government should restore the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program’s purpose with a particular focus on reestablishing program integrity and accountability. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act15 — 598 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise unemployment programs were defrauded of hundreds of billions of dollars, includ- ing by state-sponsored hacking groups. Not all state agencies are yet through their backlogs of appeals and fraud cases; the recovery of lost funds has been minimal; and fraud has now spilled into the traditional UI programs. The CARES Act era drastically altered the entire UI ecosystem: The federal–state partnership shifted toward federal programs and funding, and the social insurance purpose of the program was disconnected as benefits were extended, expanded to more typically uncovered populations, and made exponentially larger. l Congress should enact bipartisan commonsense UI program reforms, including statutory authority for the Labor Office of Inspector General (OIG) to access all state UI records for the purposes of investigation and requiring state agencies to crossmatch applicants with the National Directory of New Hires. l Congress should also develop a framework (through commission of a congressional report to serve as a blueprint) of technical standards on broader tech topics like usability, state agency cybersecurity postures, data taxonomy standardization, and/or identity verification standards. l Congress should provide DOL with more reasonable enforcement tools for the UI system. Currently, DOL can either send a strongly worded letter or revoke the entire Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA)16 tax credit, which would place an immediate 6 percent to 7 percent tax on all covered employers. l DOL should review all actual or planned procurements against the $2 billion (under the American Rescue Plan Act)17 for UI fraud detection, accessibility, and equity investments. These funds do not have appropriations timelines and have very minimal statutory descriptions of the intended purpose. DOL should also review and propose changes to improve state monitoring programs including developing evidence-based frameworks for evaluating the technical readiness and security postures of the state agencies; strengthen its relationship with the OIG and Government Accountability Office (GAO), and support continued development of fraud prosecution with DOJ, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the financial services community; ensure administrative and IT funding is outcome-based; and gather and publish best practices from state officials, industry partners, and other vendors who deliver UI services.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak

Vector: 65%

Pages: 624-626AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 section aim to reduce regulatory burdens on small businesses and promote workforce flexibility, but they address different issues: the bill targets educational requirements in federal contracting, while Project 2025 focuses on independent contractor/joint employer classification and overtime rules."

Key themes:small business supportregulatory reformreducing barriers to entryworkforce flexibility

— 591 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies qualify as an independent contractor or employee under the FLSA and NLRA. The Biden Administration is replacing those rules with vague and expansive definitions that would add uncertainty, increase costs, and reduce options for Americans who want to work independently. l NLRB and DOL should return to their 2019 and 2021 independent contractor rules that provided much-needed clarity for workers and employers. l Congress should establish a bright-line test—based on the level of control an individual exercises over his or her work—to determine whether a payee is an employee or an independent contractor, across all relevant laws. This would prevent continued uncertainty as well as provide continuity across federal laws. l Congress should provide a safe harbor from employer-employee status for companies that offer independent workers access to earned benefits. Doing so would increase access among independent contractors to traditional pooled workplace benefits such as health care and retirement savings accounts. Protect Small Businesses and Entrepreneurship (Joint Employer). Millions of busi- nesses across America engage in mutually beneficial affiliation arrangements with other businesses. These arrangements include janitorial services, staffing firms, construction contractors and subcontractors, technology support services, and many other vendor and contracting services. They also include the nearly 775,000 independently owned franchise businesses, which employ 8.2 million workers across the United States. The franchise structure offers a proven business model for individuals who want to own and operate their own small business. An Obama-era regulation changed the definition of a joint employer to make corporate franchi- sors jointly liable for employees of individual franchisee owners, even without the franchisor exercising any direct control over those employees. The Biden Admin- istration is advancing an even more expansive definition of a joint employer that would upend the franchise business model, taking away ownership and income opportunities from small-business entrepreneurs, costing jobs, and raising prices. l DOL and NLRB should return to the long-standing approach to defining joint employers based on direct and immediate control. l Congress should enact the Save Local Business Act, which would codify the long-standing definition that has existed outside the Obama-era and Biden-proposed rules. — 592 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Overtime Pay Threshold. Overtime pay is one of the most challenging aspects of the Fair Labor Standards Act rules. “Nonexempt workers” (e.g., workers whose job duties fall within the law’s power or whose total pay is low enough) must be paid overtime (150 percent of the “regular rate”) for every hour over 40 in a work- week. Overtime requirements may discourage employers from offering certain fringe benefits such as reimbursement for education, childcare, or even free meals because the benefits’ value may be included in the “regular rate” that must be paid at 150 percent for all overtime hours. And because some of these fringe ben- efits may be more valuable (and often come with tax preferences that benefit the worker), the goal should be to set a threshold to ensure lower-income workers have the protections of overtime pay without discouraging employers from offering these benefits. l DOL should maintain an overtime threshold that does not punish businesses in lower-cost regions (e.g., the southeast United States). The Trump-era threshold is high enough to capture most line workers in lower-cost regions. One possibility to consider (likely requiring congressional action) would be to automatically update the thresholds every five years using the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) as an inflation adjustment. This could reduce the likelihood of a future Administration attempting to make significant changes but would also impose more adjustments on businesses as those automatic increases take hold. l Congress should clarify that the “regular rate” for overtime pay is based on the salary paid rather than all benefits provided. This would enable employers to offer additional benefits to employees without fear that those benefits would dramatically increase overtime pay. l Congress should provide flexibility to employers and employees to calculate the overtime period over a longer number of weeks. Specifically, employers and employees should be able to set a two- or four- week period over which to calculate overtime. This would give workers greater flexibility to work more hours in one week and fewer hours in the next and would not require the employer to pay them more for that same total number of hours of work during the entire period. Compliance-Assistance Programming. Labor agencies are often tempted to encourage “over compliance” by companies subject to regulation by pursuing “regulation through enforcement” strategies. Rather than giving regulated enti- ties clear boundaries for what they can and cannot do under the law, the agencies

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. Mace, Nancy

Preventing Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act

119/hr/30

Modernizing Government Technology Reform Act

119/hr/2985

Federal Contractor Cybersecurity Vulnerability Reduction Act of 2025

119/hr/872

Back to All Bills