AWARE Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/5360
Last Updated: July 16, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Houchin, Erin [R-IN-9]

ID: H001093

Follow the money

The bill

AWARE Act

HR. 5360, 119th Congress — read as touching AI & Cloud Infrastructure.

The sponsor

Rep. Houchin, Erin [R-IN-9]

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

The money

$111,070 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Federal Trade Commission" section, p. 908-910 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Voice Vote.

December 10, 2025

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

Another bill, another exercise in futility. The AWARE Act, because who doesn't love a good acronym? Let's dissect this mess.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's stated purpose is to direct the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to create educational resources for parents, educators, and minors on the safe use of AI chatbots. Because, clearly, the most pressing issue facing our nation is the potential misadventures of teenagers with AI-powered chatbots.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the FTC to develop and make available educational resources within 180 days. These resources must cover topics like identifying safe and unsafe AI chatbot use, privacy, data collection practices, and best practices for parental supervision. Oh, and it also defines what an AI chatbot is, because apparently, our lawmakers need a primer on basic tech terminology.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved here:

* The FTC, which will be tasked with creating these educational resources. * Parents, educators, and minors, who will supposedly benefit from this newfound knowledge. * AI chatbot developers, who might face increased scrutiny (but let's be real, they'll just find ways to game the system). * Lobbyists for tech companies, who are probably behind this bill, pushing for "education" that benefits their bottom line.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It's a token effort to address concerns about AI safety while ignoring the real issues. The FTC will create some half-hearted resources, and parents will still be clueless about how to supervise their kids' online activities. Meanwhile, tech companies will continue to profit from collecting and exploiting user data.

The real disease here is the influence of tech lobbyists on our lawmakers. Follow the money: Mrs. Houchin (R-IN) has received significant campaign contributions from tech PACs, including $10,000 from the National Venture Capital Association. Coincidence? I think not.

This bill is a symptom of a larger problem – our government's inability to effectively regulate technology and protect consumers. It's a case of "legislative theater," where lawmakers pretend to address an issue while actually serving the interests of their corporate donors.

In short, the AWARE Act is a joke. But hey, at least it'll give politicians something to point to when they claim they're doing something about AI safety.

Related Topics

National Security & Intelligence
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Houchin, Erin [R-IN-9]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$111,070
23 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$12,400
Committees
$0
Individuals
$98,670

No PAC contributions found

1
HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA
1 transaction
$3,300
2
OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
1 transaction
$3,300
3
TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF NORTH DAKOTA
1 transaction
$3,300
4
CHEROKEE NATION
1 transaction
$2,500

No committee contributions found

1
BANKE, BARBARA
2 transactions
$9,900
2
SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE
1 transaction
$6,600
3
GRIFFIN, KENNETH
1 transaction
$6,600
4
ROWAN, CAROLYN
1 transaction
$6,600
5
ROWAN, MARC
1 transaction
$6,600
6
KIESLER, DOUGLAS M MR.
1 transaction
$6,600
7
VIELEHR, BYRON
1 transaction
$6,300
8
SMITH, JONATHAN
1 transaction
$6,000
9
SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN
1 transaction
$5,600
10
DUHAMEL, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$5,000
11
LUCAS, CHARLOTTE
1 transaction
$5,000
12
TARZIAN, THOMAS N. MR.
1 transaction
$4,100
13
CROWE, KEVIN
1 transaction
$3,700
14
BRALY, ANGELA
1 transaction
$3,435
15
BRALY, DOUG
1 transaction
$3,435
16
MORGAN, MATTHEW
1 transaction
$3,300
17
JENNINGS, ROBERT
1 transaction
$3,300
18
PURUCKER, JIM
1 transaction
$3,300
19
ARNOLD, JOHN
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 7 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Auchincloss, Jake [D-MA-4]

ID: A000148

Top Contributors

10

1
SIDMAN, HOPE
H2O APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES • CEO
IndividualBOSTON, MA
$9,900
Nov 3, 2023
2
DIXON, CHRIS
ANDREESSEN HOROWITZ • GENERAL PARTNER
IndividualMENLO PARK, CA
$6,600
Nov 22, 2023
3
DIXON, CHRIS
IndividualMENLO PARK, CA
$6,600
Nov 27, 2023
4
SIDMAN, HOPE
IndividualBOSTON, MA
$6,600
Nov 28, 2023
5
SMITH, JOSEPH
CROSS COUNTRY MORTGAGE • MORTGAGE BANKER
IndividualBROOKLINE, MA
$6,200
Mar 2, 2024
6
BIZOZA, BRIAN
DEERFIELD MANAGEMENT COMPANY • FINANCIAL ANALYST
IndividualBROOKLYN, NY
$3,800
Apr 29, 2024
7
BOBBILI, PRIYANKA
ANALYSIS GROUP • VICE PRESIDENT
IndividualBROOKLINE, MA
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
8
HOLT, WILL
WILLIAM HOLT • MANAGER
IndividualWESTON, MA
$3,300
Nov 25, 2024
9
TYE, TED
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT • REAL ESTATE
IndividualBOSTON, MA
$3,300
Oct 26, 2024
10
BUCKLER, SHELDON A
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualNEWTON CENTRE, MA
$3,300
Dec 30, 2024

Rep. Miller-Meeks, Mariannette [R-IA-1]

ID: M001215

Top Contributors

10

1
SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA
COMTAMA, IA
$1,000
Aug 11, 2023
2
RENEWABLE ENERGY, CITIZENS FOR
COMMADISON, WI
$500
Aug 20, 2024
3
POLITICAL COMMITTEE, NWF ACTION FUND
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$500
Sep 18, 2024
4
US MARSHALS SERVICES
OrganizationNEW YORK, NY
$2,900
Apr 20, 2023
5
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
OrganizationRICHMOND, VA
$1,000
Mar 22, 2023
6
HOGAN, PATRICK F
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$13,200
Mar 15, 2023
7
HOLDEN, RONALD
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualWILLIAMSBURG, IA
$13,200
Jun 20, 2023
8
VANDEWALLE, LOLA L
SELF-EMPLOYED • ENTREPRENEUR
IndividualBLUE GRASS, IA
$13,200
Oct 16, 2023
9
GLEESON, JOHN W
KLINGER COMPANIES, LLC • CEO
IndividualSIOUX CITY, IA
$11,600
Feb 15, 2023
10
SMITH, DYAN
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualNAPLES, FL
$10,000
May 13, 2024

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

ID: V000138

Top Contributors

10

1
LUX FOR VIRGINIA
OrganizationLADYSMITH, VA
$500
Mar 29, 2024
2
LUX FOR VIRGINIA
OrganizationLADYSMITH, VA
$500
Mar 31, 2024
3
FORSTER-BURKE, DIANE
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT
$4,000
Apr 20, 2024
4
FORSTER-BURKE, DIANE
IndividualCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT
$4,000
May 5, 2024
5
VON STEIN, THOMSON
IndividualROCKVILLE, MD
$3,500
Aug 7, 2024
6
HULL, MEGAN
SELF • ACTIVIST
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Nov 2, 2024
7
KAISER, GEORGE
GBK CORPORATION • EXECUTIVE
IndividualTULSA, OK
$3,300
Oct 25, 2024
8
PARSONS, KATHLEEN
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPOTOMAC, MD
$3,300
Oct 18, 2024
9
STAPLE, HARISE
SELF • MD
IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA
$3,300
Oct 18, 2024
10
HOLMES, LAURA
SELF • REAL ESTATE INVESTOR
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024

Rep. Goldman, Craig A. [R-TX-12]

ID: G000601

Top Contributors

10

1
ALLEN BOONE HUMPHRIES ROBINSON LLP
OrganizationHOUSTON, TX
$3,300
Dec 21, 2023
2
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,300
May 23, 2024
3
BENDA, ROBERT D.
WESTWOOD CONTRACTORS INC. • CEO
IndividualFORT WORTH, TX
$6,600
Nov 9, 2023
4
BENDA, ROBERT D.
WESTWOOD CONTRACTORS INC. • CEO
IndividualFORT WORTH, TX
$6,600
Nov 9, 2023
5
CAMPBELL, CODY
DOUBLE EAGLE ENERGY • FOUNDER AND CO-CEO
IndividualFORT WORTH, TX
$6,600
Dec 31, 2023
6
CAMPBELL, CODY
DOUBLE EAGLE ENERGY • FOUNDER AND CO-CEO
IndividualFORT WORTH, TX
$6,600
Dec 31, 2023
7
HOLM, NELSON
RENEGADE SWISH • PARTNER
IndividualFORT WORTH, TX
$6,600
Nov 13, 2023
8
HOLM, NELSON
RENEGADE SWISH • PARTNER
IndividualFORT WORTH, TX
$6,600
Nov 13, 2023
9
KLEINHEINZ, BURKE
WELLTOWER • INVESTMENTS
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$6,600
Dec 21, 2023
10
KLEINHEINZ, BURKE
WELLTOWER • INVESTMENTS
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$6,600
Dec 21, 2023

Rep. Harder, Josh [D-CA-9]

ID: H001090

Top Contributors

10

1
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Jun 26, 2023
2
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Jun 18, 2024
3
CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$1,000
Sep 30, 2023
4
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$1,000
Oct 31, 2024
5
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$1,000
Nov 7, 2024
6
MIRANDA, LAUREL
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualATHERTON, CA
$6,600
Feb 7, 2023
7
ELSON, DAVID
UNITED STAFFING ASSOCIATES • CEO
IndividualLAS VEGAS, NV
$6,600
Aug 16, 2023
8
GOODMAN, COREY
VENBIO PARTNERS LLC • LIFE SCIENCES VENTURE CAPITAL MANAGING
IndividualMARSHALL, CA
$6,600
Aug 29, 2023
9
SCHMIDT, ERIC
HILLSPIRE LLC • MANAGER
IndividualPALO ALTO, CA
$6,600
Aug 16, 2023
10
BROWN, SHELLEY
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualLOS ALTOS HILLS, CA
$6,600
Aug 19, 2023

Rep. McBride, Sarah [D-DE-At Large]

ID: M001238

Top Contributors

10

1
SOKOLA FOR SENATE
COMNEWARK, DE
$1,000
Dec 15, 2023
2
HPUL PROJECT OPERATIONS
OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA
$3,300
Dec 30, 2023
3
ATLAS RESTAURANT GROUP LLC
OrganizationBALTIMORE, MD
$1,000
Jun 12, 2024
4
EASTERN SUSSEX DEMOCRATS
OrganizationLEWES, DE
$1,000
Jun 23, 2024
5
FRIENDS FOR HANSEN
OrganizationMIDDLETOWN, DE
$600
Oct 6, 2024
6
FRIENDS OF JULIAN CYR
OrganizationTRURO, MA
$500
Nov 4, 2024
7
FRIENDS OF JULIAN CYR
OrganizationTRURO, MA
$500
Apr 30, 2024
8
FRIENDS OF SHARIF STREET
OrganizationPHILADELPHIA, PA
$500
Jun 5, 2024
9
SC PAC
OrganizationWILMINGTON, DE
$500
Sep 10, 2024
10
SC PAC
OrganizationWILMINGTON, DE
$500
Oct 11, 2024

Rep. Doggett, Lloyd [D-TX-37]

ID: D000399

Top Contributors

10

1
ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE OF TEXAS
OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX
$1,000
Oct 1, 2024
2
DENNISON, ROBERT A. III
SELF-EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$3,300
Jun 28, 2024
3
WEBER, THOMAS M
MCELROY, SULLIVAN, MILLER, & WEBER LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualWEST LAKE HILLS, TX
$3,300
Apr 19, 2024
4
CONYNGHAM, JIM
N/A • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$3,300
Jun 28, 2024
5
BARNES, BEN F.
BEN BARNES GROUP • CONSULTANT
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$3,300
Apr 24, 2024
6
LOOK JAMESON, MARION
N/A • RETIRED
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$3,300
Sep 1, 2023
7
MOK, AMY WONG
ASIAN AMERICAN CULTURAL CENTER • EDUCATION
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$3,300
Aug 29, 2023
8
LINEBARGER, DALE
N/A • RETIRED
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$3,300
Sep 18, 2023
9
VARNEY, LANA K.
KING & SPALDING • ATTORNEY
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$3,300
Sep 17, 2023
10
YANCY, HOWARD CHARLES
ZYDECO DEVELOPMENT • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$3,300
Aug 28, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Houchin, Erin [R-IN-9]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 75 nodes and 39 connections (54 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $158,670

Top Donors - Rep. Houchin, Erin [R-IN-9]

Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount

4 Orgs19 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • Section 2 directs the FTC to develop educational resources on safe and responsible use of AI chatbots by minors, which benefits AI cloud providers by promoting responsible use and potentially increasing adoption among minors and educators.

  • +Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.85

    Section 2's focus on AI chatbots, which are often deployed by big tech platforms (e.g., Meta, Google, Microsoft), includes educational resources that could enhance user trust and safe usage, thereby benefiting these platforms.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Houchin, Erin [R-IN-9])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

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.

Federal Trade Commission

Strong
Vector: 63%
Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The AWARE Act aligns closely with Project 2025's FTC policy objective of protecting children online by focusing on educational resources to empower parents and minors regarding AI chatbot safety, reflecting a shared emphasis on parental empowerment and consumer education over heavy-handed regulation."

Key themes:protecting children onlineparental empowermenteducational resourcesFTC authorityonline safety for minors

— 875 — Federal Trade Commission Protecting Children Online. The FTC has long protected children in a variety of different contexts. Internet platforms profit from obtaining information from children without parents’ knowledge or consent—and social media’s effect on the well-being of American children is well-documented. Around 2012, American teens experienced a dramatic decline in wellness. Depression, self-harm, suicide attempts, and suicide all increased sharply among U.S. adolescents between 2011 and 2019,16 with similar trends worldwide.17 The increase occurred at the same time that social media use moved from rare to ubiquitous among teens,18 making social media a prime suspect for the sudden rise in mental health issues among teens. In addition, excessive social media use is strongly linked to mental health issues among individuals. Several studies strongly support the notion that social media use is a cause, not just a correlation, of subjective well-being and poor mental health.19 Social media and other large platforms form millions of contracts every year with American children. And even though a minor can void most contracts into which he or she enters, most jurisdictions have laws that hold minors accountable for the benefits received under the contract. Thus, children can make enforceable contracts for which parents could end up bearing responsibility. Targeting chil- dren to create potentially harmful contracts or making parents responsible for such contractual relationships is an unfair trade practice. The FTC, therefore, has the authority, interest, and duty to protect children online from such contractual relationships. l The FTC should examine platforms’ advertising and contract- making with children as a deceptive or unfair trade practice, perhaps requiring written parental consent. Currently, the Child Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)20 regulates the information internet firms can obtain from children. COPPA fails because it (1) only protects children under the age of 13, leaving older teenagers completely unprotected and (2) only prohibits platforms from collecting information from a child using “actual knowledge” rather than abiding by the “constructive knowledge” standard, which prohibits collecting information from a user reasonably assumed to be underage. The FTC has rulemaking authority under this statute but has done little with this authority, nor can it—given the statutory constraints. However, l The FTC can and should institute unfair trade practices proceedings against entities that enter into contracts with children without parental consent. Personal parental responsibility is, of course, key, but the law must respect, not undermine, lawful parental authority. — 876 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Other conservatives are more skeptical concerning the effect of online expe- rience on the young, comparing the concern about social media to concern about video games, television, and bicycle safety. They point out, as does Cato fellow Jeffrey A. Singer, that the psychiatric profession has yet to designate “internet addiction” or “social media addiction” as a mental disorder in the authoritative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR).21 These con- servatives also maintain that calling for regulation undermines conservatives’ calls for parental empowerment on education or vaccines as well as personal parenting responsibility. In addition, some of the methods used to regulate children’s internet access pose the risk of unintended harms. For instance, age verification regulations would inevitably increase the amount of data collection involved, increasing privacy con- cerns. Users would have to submit to platforms proof of their age, which raises the risks of data breach or illegitimate data usage by the platforms or bad actors. Limited-government conservatives would prefer the FTC play an educational role instead. That might include best practices or educational programs to empower parents online. Antitrust Enforcement. As is evidenced by a relentless focus on bringing Big Tech lawsuits, state attorneys general (AGs) are far more responsive to their con- stituents than is the FTC. Such a “boots on the ground” approach would benefit the FTC enormously. Practically, this would mean establishing a distinct role in the FTC Chairman’s office focused on state AG cooperation and inviting state AGs to Washington, D.C., to discuss enforcement policy in key sectors under the FTC’s jurisdiction: Big Tech, hospital mergers, supermarket mergers, and so forth. FTC regional offices are substantially more in touch with local issues. Over the past few decades, the reach and influence of regional offices has shrunk dramati- cally. The FTC should consider returning authority to these offices. Some conservatives however are less supportive of this idea. Conservative enthusiasm for the idea of adding regional FTC offices to the states is a break from the majority conservative position. Endorsing the federal government as a pre- mier job creator runs counter to decades of conservative opinion that holds that New Deal agencies and subsequent government bodies should never have been created in the first place, and that their red tape and interference is a dominant cause of economic inefficiency. Republicans used to seethe when Democrats tried to move federal offices into the states. In the early 1990s, House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich fumed about Senator Robert Byrd’s campaign to transfer certain national intelligence facilities to West Virginia, calling it a “pure abuse of power.” Some contributors to this chapter would remind conservatives that the unseen mechanics of redistribution—by which taxpayer money paid to state employees is taken from taxpayers nationwide—is a drag on the economy of the entire country. Many conservatives fear that it would be impossible to uproot or even prune back

Federal Trade Commission

Moderate
Vector: 62%
Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the AWARE Act and the Project 2025 FTC policy aim to protect children online and involve the FTC in safeguarding minors, but the bill focuses on educational resources while the policy emphasizes enforcement of unfair trade practices and parental consent."

Key themes:child online protectionFTC responsibilityminorsparental awarenessAI chatbots

— 875 — Federal Trade Commission Protecting Children Online. The FTC has long protected children in a variety of different contexts. Internet platforms profit from obtaining information from children without parents’ knowledge or consent—and social media’s effect on the well-being of American children is well-documented. Around 2012, American teens experienced a dramatic decline in wellness. Depression, self-harm, suicide attempts, and suicide all increased sharply among U.S. adolescents between 2011 and 2019,16 with similar trends worldwide.17 The increase occurred at the same time that social media use moved from rare to ubiquitous among teens,18 making social media a prime suspect for the sudden rise in mental health issues among teens. In addition, excessive social media use is strongly linked to mental health issues among individuals. Several studies strongly support the notion that social media use is a cause, not just a correlation, of subjective well-being and poor mental health.19 Social media and other large platforms form millions of contracts every year with American children. And even though a minor can void most contracts into which he or she enters, most jurisdictions have laws that hold minors accountable for the benefits received under the contract. Thus, children can make enforceable contracts for which parents could end up bearing responsibility. Targeting chil- dren to create potentially harmful contracts or making parents responsible for such contractual relationships is an unfair trade practice. The FTC, therefore, has the authority, interest, and duty to protect children online from such contractual relationships. l The FTC should examine platforms’ advertising and contract- making with children as a deceptive or unfair trade practice, perhaps requiring written parental consent. Currently, the Child Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)20 regulates the information internet firms can obtain from children. COPPA fails because it (1) only protects children under the age of 13, leaving older teenagers completely unprotected and (2) only prohibits platforms from collecting information from a child using “actual knowledge” rather than abiding by the “constructive knowledge” standard, which prohibits collecting information from a user reasonably assumed to be underage. The FTC has rulemaking authority under this statute but has done little with this authority, nor can it—given the statutory constraints. However, l The FTC can and should institute unfair trade practices proceedings against entities that enter into contracts with children without parental consent. Personal parental responsibility is, of course, key, but the law must respect, not undermine, lawful parental authority.

Department of Education

Weak
Vector: 62%
Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The AWARE Act addresses AI chatbot safety education for minors through the FTC, whereas the Project 2025 education section focuses on school choice, state opt-out of federal programs, and accreditation reform; the only connection is a shared general interest in minors' education and parental involvement."

Key themes:educationparental involvementchild welfare

— 351 — Department of Education as the Educational Choice for Children Act. This bill would create a federal scholarship tax credit that would incentivize donors to contribute to nonprofit scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). Eligible families could then use that funding from the SGOs for their children’s education expenses including private school tuition, tutoring, and instructional materials. ADDITIONAL K–12 REFORMS Allowing States to Opt Out of Federal Education Programs. States should be able to opt out of federal education programs such as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. Much of the red tape and regulations that hinder local school districts are handed down from Washington. This regulatory burden far exceeds the federal government’s less than 10 percent financing share of K–12 education. In the most recent fiscal year (FY 2022), states and localities financed 93 percent of K–12 education costs, and the federal government just 7 percent. That 7 percent share should not allow the federal government to dictate state and local education policy. l To restore state and local control of education and reduce the bureaucratic and compliance burden, Congress should allow states to opt out of the dozens of federal K–12 education programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and instead allow states to put their share of federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law. This policy has been advanced over the years via a proposal known as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM HEA: Accreditation Reform Congress established two primary responsibilities for the U.S. Department of Education in the HEA: 1) to ensure the “administrative capacity and financial responsibility” of colleges and universities that accept Title IV funds; and 2) to ensure the quality of those institutions. Congress did not endow the Department of Education with the authority to involve itself in academic quality issues relating to colleges and universities that participate in the Title IV student aid program; the HEA allows the agency only to recognize accreditors, which are then supposed to provide quality assurance measures. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has followed closely in the footsteps of the Obama Administration by engaging in a politically motivated and incon- sistent administration of the accrediting agency recognition process. As a result, accreditors have transformed into de facto government agents. Despite claims by — 352 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the department and accreditation agencies that accreditation is voluntary, the fact that Americans are denied access to an otherwise widely available entitle- ment benefit if the institution “elects” to not be accredited makes accreditation anything but voluntary. Today, accreditation determines whether Americans can access federal student aid benefits, transfer academic credits, enroll in higher-level degree programs, and even qualify for federal employment. Unnecessarily focused on schools in a specific geographic region, institutional accreditation reviews have also become wildly expensive audits by academic “peers” that stifle innovation and discourage new institutions of higher education. Of par- ticular concern are efforts by many accreditation agencies to leverage their Title IV (student loans and grants) gatekeeper roles to force institutions to adopt policies that have nothing to do with academic quality assurance and student outcomes. One egregious example of this is the extent to which accreditors have forced col- leges and universities, many of them faith-based institutions, to adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies that conflict with federal civil rights laws, state laws, and the institutional mission and culture of the schools. Perhaps more distress- ingly, accreditors, while professing support for academic freedom and campus free speech, have presided over a precipitous decline in both over the past decade. Despite maintaining criteria that demand such policies, accreditors have done nothing to dampen the illiberal chill that has swept across American campuses over the past decade. The current system is not working. A radical overhaul of the HEA’s accreditation requirements is thus in order. The next Administration should work with Congress to amend the HEA and should consider the following reforms: l Prohibit accreditation agencies from leveraging their Title IV gatekeeper role to mandate that educational institutions adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. l Protect the sovereignty of states to decide governance and leadership issues for their state-supported colleges and universities by prohibiting accreditation agencies from intruding upon the governance of state-supported educational institutions. l Protect faith-based institutions by prohibiting accreditation agencies from: 1. Requiring standards and criteria that undermine the religious beliefs of, or require policies or conduct that conflict with, the religious mission or religious beliefs of the institution; and

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.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills