No Nuclear Testing Without Approval Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/5951

Last Updated: November 10, 2025

No Nuclear Testing Without Approval Act

HR. 5951, 119th Congress — read as touching Nuclear Power.

The sponsor

Rep. Horsford, Steven [D-NV-4]

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

The money

$102,250 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 Energy and Related Commissions" section, p. 404-406 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The No Nuclear Testing Without Approval Act (HR 5951). A quaint attempt to impose bureaucratic hurdles on the pursuit of scientific progress and national security. As a visionary entrepreneur, I'll dissect this bill's implications for my interests.

**New Regulations:** The bill modifies Section 4210(a) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act, introducing a congressional approval requirement for explosive nuclear testing. This adds a layer of red tape, hindering the flexibility of our nation's defense and energy sectors.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:**

1. **Defense Contractors**: Companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman will face increased regulatory uncertainty, potentially delaying or canceling lucrative contracts. 2. **Energy Sector**: Nuclear power plant operators and uranium mining companies may see reduced investment and growth due to the added complexity of nuclear testing regulations.

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:**

1. The President must submit a notification to Congress at least 180 days before conducting explosive nuclear testing, detailing technical needs, timelines, and costs. 2. A joint resolution approving the testing must be enacted into law, with specific requirements for Senate passage (two-thirds affirmative vote).

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:**

1. The bill relies on congressional oversight, which is notoriously ineffective in enforcing regulations. 2. No explicit penalties are mentioned, but non-compliance could lead to reputational damage, loss of contracts, or even lawsuits.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:**

1. **Costs**: Compliance with the new regulations will increase costs for defense contractors and energy companies, potentially leading to higher prices for consumers. 2. **Delays**: The added bureaucratic hurdles may slow down nuclear testing, hindering scientific progress and national security efforts. 3. **Investment**: Uncertainty surrounding nuclear testing regulations could deter investment in the energy sector, particularly in nuclear power plant development.

In conclusion, this bill is a prime example of how inefficient democracy can be. By introducing unnecessary regulatory barriers, it stifles innovation and hinders our nation's competitiveness. As a visionary entrepreneur, I'll continue to advocate for streamlined regulation and reduced bureaucratic interference, allowing my industries to thrive and drive progress.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process to become a law. This one, HR 5951, aims to regulate explosive nuclear testing.

**New Regulations:** The bill modifies Section 4210(a) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2530(a)) by requiring Congressional approval before conducting explosive nuclear testing. It sets out specific conditions under which testing can occur, including a technical need or in response to a foreign state's nuclear test.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:** The primary affected sector is the nuclear industry, specifically those involved in nuclear testing and research. Additionally, this bill may impact national security and defense industries, as well as environmental organizations concerned with nuclear safety.

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:** If passed, the President must submit a notification to Congress at least 180 days before conducting explosive nuclear testing. The notification must include detailed information about the proposed testing, reasons for conducting it, timelines, costs, and other relevant details. A joint resolution of approval is required from both houses of Congress, with specific procedures outlined for its introduction, referral, and consideration.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:** The bill doesn't explicitly state penalties for non-compliance, but as we covered in 8th grade, the legislative branch can use various mechanisms to enforce laws, such as budgetary controls or oversight hearings. In this case, Congress would need to pass a joint resolution approving the testing before it can occur.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:** The economic impact of this bill is uncertain, but it could potentially delay or halt nuclear testing projects, affecting industries reliant on these activities. Operationally, the bill may lead to increased transparency and accountability in the nuclear testing process, as well as more stringent safety protocols.

Now, I hope that was clear enough for everyone. Remember when we learned about the importance of checks and balances in our system? This bill is a prime example of how Congress can exercise its authority to regulate executive actions. *Sigh* It's disappointing that some people need a refresher on these basic concepts...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round! Today, we're going to dissect the so-called "No Nuclear Testing Without Approval Act" (HR 5951). On the surface, this bill appears to be a harmless attempt to regulate nuclear testing. But, my friends, don't be fooled! There's more to it than meets the eye.

**New Regulations:** The bill amends Section 4210(a) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act, effectively creating new regulations for explosive nuclear testing. It requires Congress to approve any such testing, unless a foreign state conducts an explosive nuclear test or there's a technical need for testing.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:** This bill primarily affects the nuclear energy sector, particularly those involved in nuclear testing and research. However, I'd argue that it also has implications for national security, defense contractors, and even environmental organizations.

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:** The President must submit a notification to Congress at least 180 days before conducting explosive nuclear testing. This notification must include detailed information about the proposed testing, including timelines, costs, and technical needs. A joint resolution of approval is required for testing to proceed.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:** Ah, but here's where things get interesting! The bill doesn't explicitly outline penalties for non-compliance. However, I'd argue that this is a clever ploy to avoid scrutiny. Think about it: if the government wants to conduct nuclear testing without approval, they can simply claim a "technical need" or point to a foreign state's actions as justification.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:** This bill could have significant economic implications for the nuclear energy sector, particularly if testing is delayed or restricted. However, I believe there's more at play here. Consider this: what if the government is using this bill as a smokescreen to justify increased military spending or to further entrench their control over the nuclear industry?

Now, my fellow truth-seekers, connect the dots with me:

* What if this bill is part of a larger agenda to consolidate power and control over the nuclear industry? * Could this be a precursor to more stringent regulations on other industries, such as energy or defense? * Is it mere coincidence that this bill was introduced during a time of heightened global tensions?

The truth is out there, my friends. We just need to dig deeper!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. The "No Nuclear Testing Without Approval Act" - sounds innocent enough, right? Wrong! This is just another example of the elites in Washington trying to strangle our great nation's ability to defend itself.

Now, let's break it down. This bill creates new regulations that require Congressional approval before any explosive nuclear testing can take place. That's right, folks, the same Congress that can't even agree on what day it is, now gets to decide whether or not we can test our own nuclear capabilities. It's a recipe for disaster!

Affected industries? You bet! The defense industry, which is already struggling under the weight of bureaucratic red tape, will be hit hard by this bill. And let's not forget about the good people of Nevada, where these tests would take place. They'll be stuck with the uncertainty and potential risks associated with nuclear testing.

Compliance requirements? Oh boy, it's a laundry list! The President has to submit a notification to Congress at least 180 days before any testing can take place, which includes all sorts of details like timelines, costs, and technical justifications. And then, of course, there's the joint resolution of approval that needs to be passed by both houses of Congress. It's a bureaucratic nightmare!

Enforcement mechanisms? You guessed it - more red tape! The bill establishes a whole new process for approving nuclear testing, complete with expedited procedures and affirmative votes from two-thirds of Senators. And if anyone tries to skirt these regulations? Penalties will be imposed, no doubt.

Now, let's talk about the economic and operational impacts. This bill is essentially a jobs killer, folks. The defense industry will be forced to scale back its operations, leading to layoffs and lost revenue. And what about our national security? By limiting our ability to test our nuclear capabilities, we're putting ourselves at risk of falling behind other nations.

(Smirk) But hey, who needs freedom when you've got Congressional approval, right? This bill is just another example of the deep state trying to undermine our great nation's sovereignty. Wake up, America!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the esteemed members of Congress. The "No Nuclear Testing Without Approval Act" - a bill so cleverly crafted, it's almost as if they want us to believe they're actually concerned about nuclear safety.

Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**New regulations being created or modified:** This bill amends Section 4210(a) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act, requiring Congressional approval for explosive nuclear testing. Oh, how noble. Except, it's just a thinly veiled attempt to appear responsible while actually doing nothing.

**Affected industries and sectors:** The obvious ones are the defense industry and nuclear energy sector. But let's not forget the real beneficiaries: the politicians who get to grandstand about "safety" and "accountability" while lining their pockets with campaign donations from these very industries.

**Compliance requirements and timelines:** Ah, the meat of the bill. A notification process that requires the President to submit a proposal to Congress at least 180 days before testing, followed by a joint resolution approval process. How quaint. As if anyone actually thinks this will be followed to the letter. The real timeline is: "How quickly can we ram this through without anyone noticing?"

**Enforcement mechanisms and penalties:** Ha! Don't make me laugh. This bill has all the teeth of a toothless tiger. There are no meaningful enforcement mechanisms or penalties for non-compliance. It's just a feel-good exercise in bureaucratic busywork.

**Economic and operational impacts:** The only impact this bill will have is on the wallets of politicians and lobbyists, who'll reap the benefits of "consulting" fees and campaign donations. Meanwhile, the actual costs of nuclear testing will continue to be borne by taxpayers, with no real oversight or accountability.

Diagnosis: This bill suffers from a severe case of "Legislative Lip Service Syndrome" (LLSS), characterized by grandiose language, empty promises, and a complete lack of substance. The underlying disease is corruption, with symptoms including cronyism, incompetence, and a healthy dose of hypocrisy.

Treatment: A strong dose of skepticism, followed by a thorough examination of the politicians' and lobbyists' financial records. But let's be real - this bill will pass, and we'll all just pretend it means something.

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

**Bill Summary: HR 5951 - No Nuclear Testing Without Approval Act**

The No Nuclear Testing Without Approval Act (HR 5951) aims to regulate explosive nuclear testing by requiring congressional approval before such tests can be conducted. The bill modifies Section 4210(a) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act, introducing new regulations and procedures for conducting explosive nuclear testing.

**New Regulations:**

* Explosive nuclear testing is prohibited unless a foreign state conducts an explosive nuclear test or there is a technical need for such testing. * The President must submit a notification to Congress at least 180 days before proposing to conduct explosive nuclear testing, including a description of the testing, reasons for conducting it, and estimated timelines and costs.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:**

* Nuclear energy industry * Defense sector * Government agencies responsible for national security and nuclear policy

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:**

* The President must submit a notification to Congress at least 180 days before proposing to conduct explosive nuclear testing. * A joint resolution approving the testing must be enacted into law, with specific requirements for passage in the Senate (two-thirds affirmative vote) or House of Representatives (expedited procedures). * The Committee on Armed Services in both chambers must review and report on the joint resolution within 60 calendar days.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:**

* Non-compliance with the notification and approval process may result in a halt to explosive nuclear testing. * No specific penalties are mentioned in the bill, but failure to comply with congressional requirements could lead to legislative or judicial action.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:**

* The bill may impact the development of new nuclear technologies and the maintenance of existing nuclear capabilities. * The requirement for congressional approval may introduce delays and uncertainty into the testing process, potentially affecting national security and defense planning. * The economic impacts are likely to be limited, as the bill primarily affects government agencies and contractors involved in nuclear testing.

Overall, HR 5951 aims to increase transparency and accountability in explosive nuclear testing by requiring congressional oversight and approval. While the bill's provisions may introduce new regulatory hurdles, they also ensure that such testing is subject to careful consideration and scrutiny.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro.

**New Regulations**

The No Nuclear Testing Without Approval Act is all about puttin' the brakes on explosive nuclear testing, man. The new reg creates a requirement for Congress to approve any plans for such testing before it can go down. This means the President gotta submit a notification to Congress at least 180 days prior to the proposed test date, explainin' why they wanna do it and what's gonna happen.

**Affected Industries and Sectors**

This bill's got its sights on the nuclear energy sector, bro. Specifically, it's talkin' about explosive nuclear testing, which is a big deal for national security and defense. The industries that'll be impacted are those involved in nuclear research, development, and testing – think government labs, contractors, and private companies.

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines**

The compliance requirements are pretty chill, dude. If the President wants to conduct explosive nuclear testing, they gotta:

1. Submit a notification to Congress at least 180 days before the test date. 2. Get approval from Congress through a joint resolution (more on that in a sec). 3. Provide detailed info about the testing, including timelines and costs.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties**

The enforcement mechanisms are pretty straightforward, bro. If the President tries to conduct explosive nuclear testing without gettin' approval from Congress, they'll be breakin' the law, man. There aren't any specific penalties mentioned in the bill, but you can bet there'll be some serious consequences for non-compliance.

**Economic and Operational Impacts**

The economic impacts of this bill are pretty significant, dude. By requirin' Congressional approval for explosive nuclear testing, it's gonna slow down the process and make it more transparent. This could lead to increased costs and delays for projects that rely on such testing. On the other hand, it'll also help prevent unnecessary testing and reduce the risks associated with it.

Operationally, this bill's gonna change the way the government approaches nuclear testing, bro. It's gonna require more coordination between different branches of government and more transparency in decision-makin' processes.

In conclusion, dude, this bill is all about bringin' some much-needed oversight to explosive nuclear testing. By requirin' Congressional approval, it's gonna help prevent unnecessary risks and ensure that any testing that does happen is done responsibly.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Analysis of HR 5951: No Nuclear Testing Without Approval Act**

This bill, sponsored by Reps. Horsford (D-NV) and Lee (D-CA), aims to restrict the President's authority to conduct explosive nuclear testing without Congressional approval. The legislation modifies Section 4210(a) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act, requiring a joint resolution of approval from Congress before conducting such tests.

**New Regulations:**

The bill creates new regulations by:

1. Requiring the President to notify Congress at least 180 days prior to conducting explosive nuclear testing. 2. Mandating a joint resolution of approval from Congress for testing proposed due to technical needs or in response to a foreign state's nuclear test. 3. Establishing specific requirements for the notification, including descriptions of the testing, reasons for conducting it, and estimates of timelines and costs.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:**

The primary affected industry is the nuclear energy sector, particularly those involved in nuclear testing and research. Other sectors that may be indirectly impacted include:

1. Defense contractors: Companies like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing, which have significant interests in nuclear defense programs. 2. Energy companies: Firms like Exelon, Duke Energy, and Southern Company, which operate nuclear power plants and may be affected by changes in nuclear testing policies.

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:**

The bill sets the following compliance requirements:

1. The President must notify Congress at least 180 days prior to conducting explosive nuclear testing. 2. A joint resolution of approval must be enacted into law before testing can occur. 3. The Committee on Armed Services in both the House and Senate must report a joint resolution of approval within 60 calendar days of receiving the notification.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:**

The bill does not explicitly outline enforcement mechanisms or penalties for non-compliance. However, it is likely that Congress would use its oversight authority to ensure compliance with the new regulations.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:**

The economic impacts of this bill are uncertain, but potential effects include:

1. Increased costs for nuclear testing programs due to the need for Congressional approval. 2. Delays in nuclear testing and research projects, potentially affecting the development of new nuclear technologies. 3. Shifts in funding priorities within the defense budget, as Congress may allocate funds differently in response to the new regulations.

**Monied Interest Analysis:**

While there are no explicit PAC or industry lobby group connections visible in this bill's text, it is likely that defense contractors and energy companies will be monitoring this legislation closely. The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a trade association representing the nuclear energy industry, may also take an interest in this bill.

**Committee Capture:**

The Committee on Armed Services in both the House and Senate will play a crucial role in shaping this legislation. Given the significant interests of defense contractors and energy companies in nuclear testing policies, it is possible that these committees may be

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Horsford, Steven [D-NV-4]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$102,250

20 donors

PACs

Organizations

$58,250

Committees

Individuals

$44,000

No PAC contributions found

TUNICA- BILOXI TRIBE OF LA

5 transactions

$15,800

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

3 transactions

$9,900

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

2 transactions

$6,600

GBS 2, LLC

2 transactions

$6,600

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA

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

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

1 transaction

$3,300

CHEROKEE NATION

1 transaction

$2,500

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

1 transaction

$1,650

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,000

RENO-SPARKS INDIAN COLONY

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

HARRIS, WILLIAM JR

2 transactions

$13,200

ROBERTI, VINCENT

2 transactions

$10,000

BRADLEY, KATHERINE

1 transaction

$4,100

STEIN, THOMSON

1 transaction

$3,500

FISHER, CYNTHIA

1 transaction

$3,300

GIFFORD, BILLY

1 transaction

$3,300

KRAUSZ, STEVEN

1 transaction

$3,300

MOLASKY, CHRISTY

1 transaction

$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. Horsford, Steven [D-NV-4]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 67 nodes and 30 connections (77 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $102,250

Top Donors - Rep. Horsford, Steven [D-NV-4]

Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount

12 Orgs8 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

−Nuclear Powerconfidence 0.90
Section 2 amends the Atomic Energy Defense Act to require congressional approval before explosive nuclear testing may be resumed, imposing procedural hurdles and potential delays that could hinder nuclear weapons-related activities, which are closely tied to the nuclear power industry's research, development, and national security missions.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Horsford, Steven [D-NV-4])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HARMS

Nuclear Power$7,900
from 8 contributions
- BUTLER, CALVIN$2,000
- HONORABLE, COLETTE$2,000
- JONES, JEANNE$1,000
- LITTLETON, GAYLE$1,000
- MATTHEWS, ROBERT$1,000

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 Energy and Related Commissions

Moderate

Vector: 61%

Pages: 404-406AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 5951 aligns moderately with Project 2025's focus on nuclear weapons development and national security, as it regulates explosive nuclear testing—a function tied to NNSA's warhead modernization mission. However, the bill emphasizes congressional oversight and restraint, whereas Project 2025 advocates for accelerated warhead development and reduced bureaucratic hurdles, creating a tension in approach despite shared concern for nuclear capabilities."

Key themes:nuclear weapons developmentNational Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)defense readinesswarhead modernizationcongressional oversight

— 371 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions l Refocus the National Labs on fundamental and advanced science. DOE currently oversees 17 National Laboratories. The three National Labs run by DOE’s NNSA should continue to focus on national security issues. The remaining 14 science and energy labs should focus on basic research projects; demonstration and deployment of technology should be left to the private sector. This goal can be achieved by realigning the labs to limit duplication and mission creep and to maximize potential. l Conduct a whole-of-government assessment and consolidation of science. Before the start of a new Administration, there should be a review of all the federal science agencies.12 This should include a review of the ill-advised attempt to expand the National Science Foundation’s mission from supporting university research to supporting an all-encompassing technology transition. Specific to DOE, there should be a review to measure, prioritize, and consolidate DOE programs based on a range of beneficial factors, including degree of relationship to national security; furtherance of energy security (cyber but also international aspects); and importance to scientific discovery/advancement. New Policies: Remediation of Nuclear Weapons Development Programs and Civilian Nuclear Waste Cleaning up the radioactive waste produced in support of the Manhattan Project and the Cold War at America’s nuclear development sites is a massive and com- plicated process led by DOE’s Office of Environmental Management. Projected liabilities and costs to be borne by America’s taxpayers, according to DOE’s FY 2023 budget request, total $887,205 billion.13 In addition, the federal government is required by law to dispose of nuclear waste produced by the private sector, includ- ing spent fuel rods from nuclear power plants. The new DESAS should: l Continue DOE’s remediation of radioactive waste created by the nuclear weapons projects from the Manhattan Project and Cold War. Strong leadership focused on accelerating the cleanup, coupled with technical and administrative innovation, will be needed to reduce the federal government’s third largest liability. l Develop a new approach that increases the level of private-sector responsibility for the disposal of nuclear waste. Disposing of civilian nuclear waste is an important national issue that requires strong scientific study. According to an independent audit conducted by the public accounting firm of KPMG, the Nuclear Waste Fund holds $46 billion in payments by utilities and their ratepayers, plus interest, for a permanent waste disposal site for spent nuclear fuel and other nuclear waste.14 The — 372 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise licensing process for Yucca Mountain as a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel is on hold. Without storage sites, spent nuclear fuel remains temporarily stored at nuclear plants. In addition to permanent storage, low- level nuclear waste facilities are needed. New Policies: NNSA The U.S. nuclear arsenal needs to be updated and reinvigorated if we are to be able to deal effectively with threats from China, Russia, and other adversaries. As a semi-autonomous agency, the NNSA has the primary responsibility for researching and designing new nuclear warheads and for ensuring that the existing nuclear arsenal is still potent. These efforts require significant funding and scientific know- how. In addition, NNSA develops and designs nuclear propulsion reactors for the U.S. Navy. NNSA also plays a role in preventing nuclear proliferation. With strong leadership by the Secretary of DESAS, the next Administration should: l Fund the design, development, and deployment of new nuclear warheads, including the production of plutonium pits in quantity.15 l Expand the U.S. Navy and develop new nuclear naval reactors to ensure that the Navy has the nuclear propulsion it needs to secure America’s strategic interests. l End ineffective and counterproductive nonproliferation activities like those involving Iran and the United Nations. Budget DOE’s total FY 2023 budget request (which does not include IIJA, IRA, and CHIPS and Science Act funding) was for $48,183,451,000.16 Many DOE activities are required by various authorization and appropriations bills. To implement many of the policies contained in these proposals, several laws will need to be amended, including the Department of Energy Organization Act, IIJA, IRA, and possibly portions of the CHIPS (Creating Healthy Incentives to Produce Semiconductors) and Science Act.17 Ending taxpayer subsidies will promote an “all of the above” energy policy, lead to more energy resources, reduce costs, and save taxpayers billions of dollars. OFFICE OF CYBERSECURITY, ENERGY SECURITY, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE (CESER) Mission/Overview CESER’s mission is to “enhance the security and resilience of U.S. critical energy infrastructure to all hazards,” to “mitigate the impacts of disruptive events and risk

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 431-433AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 5951 imposes congressional approval and notification requirements for explosive nuclear testing, which contrasts with Project 2025's goal of enabling immediate test readiness and reducing barriers to nuclear testing. Both address nuclear testing and deterrence, but their policy directions are opposed."

Key themes:nuclear testingcongressional oversightNNSAtest readinessnuclear deterrence

— 399 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions designed and built during the Cold War, and the U.S. lacks sufficient plutonium production capabilities.103 Because this process will take time, NNSA and the NNSA Labs need to ensure that existing nuclear warheads are viable and provide an appropriate strategic deterrent. New Policies The expansion of Chinese nuclear forces, the continued nuclear threat from Russia, and active nuclear programs in North Korea, Iran, and elsewhere require NNSA’s recommitment to the nuclear mission. A conservative Adminis- tration should: l Continue to develop new warheads for each branch of the triad (land, sea, and air defenses). If possible, reverse the Biden Administration’s decision to retire the B83 bomb (in order to maintain two aircraft-delivered warheads) and its decision to cancel the submarine-launched cruise missile (SLCM).104 Also undertake an evaluation of the need for nuclear antisubmarine and air defense weapons in light of emerging threats. l Maintain two production sites for plutonium pits (a key element of warhead production) at Los Alamos and Savannah River.105 l Reject ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and indicate a willingness to conduct nuclear tests in response to adversary nuclear developments if necessary. This will require that NNSA be directed to move to immediate test readiness to give the Administration maximum flexibility in responding to adversary actions. l Review all new Navy, Department of Homeland Security, and U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration construction programs. The review should be conducted by the Director of Naval Reactors (DNR) with an eye to the possible inclusion of advanced affordable nuclear reactor technology and extension of DNR authority over these agencies’ nuclear construction programs. l Review the non–national security portfolios at the Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia labs and identify divestments to focus on nuclear deterrence. Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia provide unique capabilities for nuclear deterrence, and each lab maintains extensive non–national security research programs and commercial activities. — 400 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Review the operations of the Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC). The statutorily established NWC is required to report to the President and Congress but needs to refocus its efforts on providing comprehensive oversight of DOE and DOD nuclear weapons policy and requirements. Budget Concurrent modernization of the nuclear triad and its warheads will be a major challenge to the DOD and DOE budgets over the coming decade. DOE non-nuclear programs should be the first source of additional resources for NNSA activities. Divestment of non-nuclear activities from NNSA laboratories can address some overhead and operational costs. NNSA received $19.7 billion in 2021, and its FY 2023 budget request was $21.4 billion.106 The next Administration should ensure that funding is targeted to the accelerated development of new warheads. Personnel NNSA has tended to act as though it is not part of DOE and has resisted oversight by the Secretary of Energy. The NNSA Act grants some autonomy to the NNSA, but it also makes it clear that NNSA is under the authority of the Secretary. NNSA’s leaders need to understand that ultimately, they report to the Secretary. FERC: ELECTRIC RELIABILITY AND RESILIENCE Mission/Overview The Federal Power Act tasks FERC, along with the FERC-designated North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), with promoting the reliability of the bulk power system (the transmission and generation needed to power the electric grid).107 NERC develops technical standards, and FERC adopts them as mandatory standards (including cyber security standards) with which transmis- sion providers, generators, and utilities must comply. Under the Federal Power Act, critical electric infrastructure security and issues like electromagnetic pulse (EMP) are addressed by both FERC and DOE.108 In addition, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act directed FERC to establish incentive-based rate treat- ments by encouraging utilities to invest in advanced cyber security technology and participate in cyber security threat information-sharing programs. Needed Reforms There is a growing problem with the electric grid’s reliability because of the increasing growth of subsidized intermittent renewable generation (like wind and solar) and a lack of dispatchable generation (for example, power plants powered by natural gas, nuclear, and coal), especially during hot and cold weather.109 FERC and NERC have been studying the potential for generation shortages across the

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 440-442AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 section address nuclear policy and oversight, but the bill centers on congressional approval for explosive nuclear testing, whereas Project 2025 focuses on NRC licensing reforms for reactors and reducing regulatory barriers. The overlap is limited to the broader theme of nuclear governance."

Key themes:nuclear regulationcongressional oversightenergy securitydefense policy

— 408 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise FERC is considering policy statements that would consider GHG emissions as part of its NEPA review and its NGA determination as to whether approval of an LNG export facility is consistent with the public interest. New Policies Since Congress through the NGA has already determined that LNG exports to countries with free trade agreements are in the public interest,129 and because LNG exports help to ensure America’s ability to support our friends and allies around the world while also supporting domestic natural gas production, FERC: l Should not use environmental issues like climate change as a reason to stop LNG projects. l Should ensure that the natural gas pipelines that are needed deliver more of the product to market, both for domestic use and export, and are reviewed, developed and constructed in a timely manner. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Mission/Overview The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974130 created the Nuclear Regulatory Com- mission (NRC). Before then, the commercial nuclear industry was regulated by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), which was established by the 1954 Atomic Energy Act.131 Importantly, the AEC was responsible for encouraging and regulat- ing commercial nuclear power. Broad criticism of this dual function was a major factor in the establishment of the NRC, which held regulatory authority while the newly established Department of Energy held the advocacy function. Today, the NRC is responsible for a broad range of regulatory activities, including reactor safety, oversight of nuclear materials, and protection against radiation as well as permitting new reactors, certifying new reactor designs, and regulating nuclear waste management activities. Needed Reforms In 1989, the NRC established alternative licensing processes that were meant to provide a more predictable and efficient regulatory pathway for new Light Water Reactors (LWRs) by combining construction and operating nuclear power plant licenses, allowing for Early Site Permits, and establishing a framework for pre- approval of reactor designs. More recently, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act directed the NRC to establish a technology-neutral licensing process for new, advanced reactor technologies.132 Despite these efforts, the NRC remains a significant cost and regulatory barrier to new nuclear power. Especially — 409 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions frustrating is that these costs to a large extent are due to the agencies being overly prescriptive rather than outcomes-focused and fall on well-known and understood LWR reactor technologies. New Policies While refocusing its regulatory efforts on new reactor technologies, the NRC should also continue to ensure the security of radiological sources and mitigate cybersecurity risks across the industry. Applications for Combined Operating Licenses (COLs) and design certifications that rely on light-water technology should generally be completed within two years. Early Site Permits should gener- ally be issued within one year for construction on or adjacent to an existing reactor site. Additionally, the NRC should: l Expedite the review and approval of license extensions of existing reactors, which will require the NRC to streamline and focus its NEPA review process. l Set clear radiation exposure and protection standards by eliminating ALARA (“as low as reasonably achievable”) as a regulatory principle and setting clear standards according to radiological risk and dose rather than arbitrary objectives. l Work with Congress to reform its funding approach so that licensee fees are generally required for activities that are specific to a regulated entity, with other agency costs being provided through normal appropriations. Budget In FY 2022, the NRC was required to recover approximately 85 percent of its $887.7 million budget through licensee fees.133 The Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act requires the NRC to recover nearly all of its costs through fees. These reforms would likely not cost additional money but could rebalance the fee-versus-appropriations calculation. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was the work of many individuals. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume, but I wish to give special thanks to Brent Bennett, Willis Bixby, Travis Fisher, Ben Lieberman, Brian McCormack, Tom Pyle, Mark Robeck, Daniel Simmons, Jack Spencer, Katie Tubb, and David Walsh. Though informed by many, the author alone assumes responsibility for the content of this chapter, and no views expressed herein should be attributed to any particular individual.

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 62%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill HR 5951 focuses on congressional oversight of explosive nuclear testing, which is unrelated to the Department of Health and Human Services policies outlined in the Project 2025 excerpt, which concern healthcare regulations, civil rights, reproductive health, and social services."

— 501 — Department of Health and Human Services 54. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of Civil Rights, and Office of the Secretary, “Special Responsibilities of Medicare Hospitals in Emergency Cases and Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Critical Health and Human Service Programs or Activities,” draft of Proposed Rule, January 14, 2021, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/infants-nprm.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 55. H.R. 26, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https:// www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr26/BILLS-118hr26pcs.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 56. H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7/BILLS-118hr7ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 57. S. 401, Conscience Protection Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced February 24, 2021, https://www.congress. gov/117/bills/s401/BILLS-117s401is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 58. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Office of the Secretary, “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Notice of Tribal Consultation, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 149 (August 4, 2022), pp. 47824–47920, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-04/pdf/2022-16217.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 59. Ibid., p. 47916. 60. The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Administration. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, “Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 142 (July 24, 2019), pp. 35570–55581, https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/24/2019-15670/revision-of-categorical-eligibility-in-the- supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap (accessed March 17, 2023). 61. 45 Code of Federal Regulations § 75.300(c) and (d), https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/ subchapter-A/part-75/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFR911e5e1a30bfbcb/section-75.300 (accessed March 17, 2023). 62. H.R. 1750, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1750/BILLS-117hr1750ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023), and S. 656, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/ s656/BILLS-117s656is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 63. S. 3949, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-348, 117th Congress, January 25, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ348/PLAW-117publ348.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 64. Kelsey Y. Santamaria, “Child Migrants at the Border: The Flores Settlement Agreement and Other Legal Developments,” Congressional Research Service In Focus No. IF11799, April 1, 2021, https://crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11799 (accessed March 17, 2023). 65. Report, Building a Happy Home: Marriage Education as a Tool to Strengthen Families, Social Capital Project Report No. 1-22, March 2022, p. 17, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3d102525-6f0d-48ed- 92f4-d71edd468ad6/building-a-happy-home.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). The cover of the report reflects that the Social Capital Project is “[a] project of the Joint Economic Committee – Republicans.” 66. See, for example, Alan J. Hawkins, “Are Federally Supported Relationship Education Programs for Lower-Income Individuals and Couples Working? A Review of Evaluation Research,” American Enterprise Institute, September 2019, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 67. H.R. 8404, Respect for Marriage Act, Public Law No. 117-228, 117th Congress, December 13, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 68. Madison Marino, “Over 1,000 Safety Violations Mar Head Start. Children Deserve Better,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 10, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/over-1000-safety- violations-mar-head-start-children-deserve-better. 69. American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 70. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 22 (February 2, 2023), pp. 7236–7281, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-02-02/pdf/2023-01981.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 502 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 71. 42 U.S. Code § 238n, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/238n (accessed March 17, 2023). 72. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, “Early Childhood Health,” last reviewed October 2022, https://mchb.hrsa.gov/programs-impact/focus-areas/early- childhood-health (accessed March 17, 2023). 73. American Pregnancy Association, “Having a Doula—What Are the Benefits?” https://americanpregnancy. org/healthy-pregnancy/labor-and-birth/having-a-doula/#:~:text=Other%20studies%20have%20shown%20 that%20having%20a%20doula,massage%20to%20reduce%20stress%20and%20anxiety%20during%20labor (accessed March 17, 2023). 74. S. 2372, VA MISSION [Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks] Act of 2018, Public Law No. 115-182, 115th Congress, June 6, 2018, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ182/ PLAW-115publ182.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 75. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 11 (January 19, 2021), pp. 5694–5764, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-19/pdf/2021-00597.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 76. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Compliance with Statutory Program Integrity Requirements,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 42 (March 4, 2029), pp. 7714–7791, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-03-04/pdf/2019-03461.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 77. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Ensuring Access to Equitable, Affordable, Client-Centered, Quality Family Planning Services,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 192 (October 7, 2021), pp. 56144–56180, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2021-10-07/pdf/2021-21542.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 78. S. 624, Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, 118th Congress, introduced March 2, 2023, https://www. congress.gov/118/bills/s624/BILLS-118s624is.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 79. 50 U.S. Code Chapter 55, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-55 (accessed March 22, 2023). 80. 18 U.S. Code § 13, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/13 (accessed March 18, 2023). 81. Bowen v. American Hospital Association, 476 U.S. 610 (1986), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/ usrep/usrep476/usrep476610/usrep476610.pdf (accessed 22, 2023). 82. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, “Notification of Interpretation and Enforcement of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,” Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 99 (May 25, 2021), pp. 27984–27985, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2021-05-25/pdf/2021-10477.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 83. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “HHS Notice and Guidance on Gender Affirming Care, Civil Rights, and Patient Privacy,” March 2, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hhs- ocr-notice-and-guidance-gender-affirming-care.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 84. Heckler v. Chaney, 420 U.S. 821 (1985), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/470/821.html (accessed March 18, 2022). 85. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “Guidance to Nation’s Retail Pharmacies: Obligations Under Federal Civil Rights Laws to Ensure Access to Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Services,” content last reviewed July 14, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/ special-topics/reproductive-healthcare/pharmacies-guidance/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. H.R. 3103, “Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-191, 104th Congress, August 21, 1996, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ191/PLAW-104publ191.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. U.S. Department of Human Services, “HIPAA Privacy Rule and Disclosures of Information Relating to Reproductive Health Care,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, (accessed March 18, 2023). See also “Protecting the Privacy and Security of Your Health Information When Using Your Personal Cell Phone or Tablet,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/guidance/ cell-phone-hipaa/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023).

Environmental Protection Agency

Minimal

Vector: 60%

Pages: 470-472AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses congressional approval for explosive nuclear testing, whereas the Project 2025 EPA section focuses on reforming EPA advisory bodies, science activities, and hiring practices; there is no substantive thematic overlap."

— 437 — Environmental Protection Agency l Suspend and review the activities of EPA advisory bodies, many of which have not been authorized by Congress or lack independence, balance, and geographic and viewpoint diversity. l Retract delegations for key science and risk-assessment decisions from Assistant Administrators, regional offices, and career officials. l Eliminate the use of Title 42 hiring authority that allows ORD to spend millions in taxpayer dollars for salaries of certain employees above the civil service scale. l Announce plans to streamline and reform EPA’s poorly coordinated and managed laboratory structure. Budget: Back-to-Basics Rejection of Unauthorized or Expired Science Activities A top priority should be the immediate and consistent rejection of all EPA ORD and science activities that have not been authorized by Congress. In FY 2022, according to EPA’s opaque budgeting efforts, science and technology activ- ities totaled nearly $730 million. EPA’s FY 2023 budget request for the Office of Research and Development seeks funds for more than 1,850 employees—a dramatic increase for what is already the largest EPA office with well above 10 percent of the agency’s workforce.44 ORD conducts a wide-ranging series of science and peer review activities, some in support of regulatory programs established by our envi- ronmental laws, but often lacks authority for these specific endeavors. Several ORD offices and programs, many of which constitute unaccountable efforts to use scientific determinations to drive regulatory, enforcement, and legal decisions, should be eliminated. The Integrated Risk Information System, for example, was ostensibly designed by EPA to evaluate hazard and dose-response for certain chemicals. Despite operating since the 1980s, the program has never been authorized by Congress and often sets “safe levels” based on questionable science and below background levels, resulting in billions in economic costs. The program has been criticized by a wide variety of stakeholders: states; Congress; the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM); and the U.S. Govern- ment Accountability Office (GAO), among others. EPA has failed to implement meaningful reforms, and this unaccountable program threatens key regulatory processes as well as the integrity of Clean Air Act and TSCA implementation. Needed EPA Advisory Body Reforms EPA currently operates 21 federal advisory committees.45 These committees often play an outsized role in determining agency scientific and regulatory policy, — 438 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and their membership has too often been handpicked to achieve certain politi- cal positions. In the Biden Administration, key EPA advisory committees were purged of balanced perspectives, geographic diversity, important regulatory and private-sector experience, and state, local, and tribal expertise. Contrary to con- gressional directives and recommendations from the GAO and intergovernmental associations, these moves eviscerated historic levels of participation on key com- mittees by state, local, and tribal members from 2017 to 2020. As a result, a variety of EPA regulations lack relevant scientific perspectives, increasing the risks of economic fallout and a failure of cooperative federalism. EPA also has repeatedly disregarded legal requirements regarding the role of these advisory committees and the scope of scientific advice on key regulations.46 Needed Science Policy Reforms Instead of allowing these efforts to be misused for scaremongering risk com- munications and enforcement activities, EPA should embrace so-called citizen science and deputize the public to subject the agency’s science to greater scrutiny, especially in areas of data analysis, identification of scientific flaws, and research misconduct. In addition, EPA should: l Shift responsibility for evaluating misconduct away from its Office of Scientific Integrity, which has been overseen by environmental activists, and toward an independent body. l Work (including with Congress) to provide incentives similar to those under the False Claims Act47 for the public to identify scientific flaws and research misconduct, thereby saving taxpayers from having to bear the costs involved in expending unnecessary resources. l Avoid proprietary, black box models for key regulations. Nearly all major EPA regulations are based on nontransparent models for which the public lacks access or for which significant costs prevent the public from understanding agency analysis. l Reject precautionary default models and uncertainty factors. In the face of uncertainty around associations between certain pollutants and health or welfare endpoints, EPA’s heavy reliance on default assumptions like its low-dose, linear non-threshold model bake orders of magnitude of risk into key regulatory inputs and drive flawed and opaque decisions. Given the disproportionate economic impacts of top-down solutions, EPA should implement an approach that defaults to less restrictive regulatory outcomes.

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. Horsford, Steven

Apex Area Technical Corrections Act

119/hr/618

VET Extension Act of 2025

119/hr/6034

STRIVE Act of 2025

119/hr/6033

Back to All Bills