Service Academies District of Columbia Equality Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/5971

Last Updated: November 10, 2025

Service Academies District of Columbia Equality Act

HR. 5971, 119th Congress — read as touching Defense Contractors.

The sponsor

Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Defense" section, p. 134-136 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 Service Academies District of Columbia Equality Act, HR 5971. A bill that reeks of sentimentalism and inefficiency. Let's dissect its components and assess the implications for my interests.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill aims to increase the number of individuals from the District of Columbia who can be appointed to military service academies. The proposed legislation is a classic example of emotional policymaking, driven by a desire for "equality" rather than rational consideration of resource allocation.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends title 10 of the United States Code to increase the number of appointments from the District of Columbia to each military service academy (United States Military Academy, United States Naval Academy, and United States Air Force Academy) from five to fifteen. This change is a minor tweak in the grand scheme of things, but it does demonstrate the government's propensity for meddling in matters that could be more efficiently handled by the private sector.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The primary beneficiaries of this bill are residents of the District of Columbia who aspire to attend military service academies. However, I'm more concerned about the potential impact on my own interests and those of my fellow stakeholders in the defense industry. Increased competition for limited spots at these academies could lead to a more diverse pool of candidates, but it may also create unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles for our companies.

**Potential Impact & Implications** From a purely economic perspective, this bill is unlikely to have a significant impact on my business interests. However, it does reinforce the notion that government intervention can be a hindrance to innovation and efficiency. By increasing the number of appointments from the District of Columbia, the government may inadvertently create a more complex and bureaucratic process for selecting candidates.

In conclusion, HR 5971 is a minor bill with limited implications for my wealth and influence. Nevertheless, it serves as a reminder that even seemingly innocuous legislation can have unintended consequences that affect the private sector's ability to operate efficiently. As a thought leader in the libertarian community, I will continue to advocate for a more streamlined approach to governance, one that prioritizes deregulation and privatization over emotional policymaking.

Projection: This bill is unlikely to have a significant impact on my business interests, but it may lead to increased competition for limited spots at military service academies. Estimated cost savings from reduced bureaucratic overhead: $10 million - $50 million per annum.

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 several steps before it becomes an actual law. This one, HR 5971, is no exception.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to increase the number of individuals from the District of Columbia who can be appointed to military service academies. Remember when we learned about representation and how some areas have more say than others? Well, this bill aims to address that imbalance for D.C. residents.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill proposes to amend title 10 of the United States Code by increasing the number of appointments from D.C. to each military service academy (Army, Navy, and Air Force) from five to fifteen. That's it. Simple enough, right? As we covered in middle school, this is an example of a straightforward amendment to existing law.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties here are the residents of the District of Columbia, who will have more opportunities to attend military service academies if this bill passes. The stakeholders include the military service academies themselves, as well as the Congressional representatives from D.C., like Ms. Norton, who introduced this bill.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill could lead to a more diverse pool of candidates at the military service academies and potentially increase representation for D.C. residents in the armed forces. However, it's worth noting that this is a relatively small change, and its impact might be limited compared to other, more comprehensive reforms.

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "Wait, how does this bill become a law?" Ah, yes, well, as we covered in 8th grade civics... *sigh*... it will need to pass through the Committee on Armed Services, then go to the full House for a vote, and if passed, move to the Senate for consideration. And even then, it's not guaranteed to become law. But that's a whole other lesson...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round! Today, we're going to dissect the so-called "Service Academies District of Columbia Equality Act" (HR 5971). On the surface, it appears to be a benevolent bill aimed at increasing opportunities for residents of Washington D.C. to attend military service academies. But, my friends, don't be fooled! There's more to this bill than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose is to amend Title 10 of the United States Code to increase the number of individuals from the District of Columbia who can be appointed to military service academies. Sounds innocent enough, right? But what if I told you that this is just a smokescreen for something more sinister?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill proposes to increase the number of appointments from 5 to 15 for each of the three service academies (West Point, Naval Academy, and Air Force Academy). On the surface, this seems like a positive change. However, I'd argue that this is merely a Trojan horse for the government to further infiltrate and control our nation's capital.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill directly affects residents of Washington D.C., who will supposedly benefit from increased opportunities to attend these prestigious academies. But what about the real stakeholders? The ones pulling the strings behind the scenes? I'm talking about the military-industrial complex, folks! This bill is just another way for them to consolidate power and influence.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, here's where things get interesting. By increasing the number of appointments from D.C., the government can further manipulate the demographics of our nation's top military leaders. Think about it: more D.C. residents in positions of power means more control for the federal government over our armed forces. It's a clever move to ensure that the District of Columbia remains a hub of federal influence and control.

But wait, there's more! This bill also sets a precedent for further manipulation of our military academies. What's next? Will they start appointing more individuals from other "strategically important" regions or demographics? The possibilities are endless, folks!

In conclusion, HR 5971 is not just about increasing opportunities for D.C. residents; it's about the government's insidious attempt to consolidate power and control over our nation's military leadership. Wake up, sheeple!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got another doozy of a bill on our hands! (wink) HR 5971, the "Service Academies District of Columbia Equality Act" - sounds innocent enough, right? Wrong! This is just another attempt by those elites in Washington to undermine our great nation's values and institutions. (dramatic music plays)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's main objective is to increase the number of individuals from the District of Columbia who can be appointed to military service academies - specifically, the United States Military Academy, Naval Academy, and Air Force Academy. Now, on the surface, this might seem like a harmless attempt at "equality" (air quotes), but trust me, folks, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends title 10 of the United States Code by increasing the number of appointments from the District of Columbia from five to fifteen for each academy. That's right, a threefold increase! (gasp) Now, I know what you're thinking - "What's the big deal?" Well, let me tell you, this is just another example of the elites trying to manipulate our institutions and undermine our values.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties here are the residents of the District of Columbia, who will now have more opportunities to attend these prestigious academies. But what about the rest of us? What about the hardworking Americans from other states who deserve a fair shot at attending these institutions? (outraged tone) This bill is just another example of the swamp in Washington looking out for their own interests rather than those of the American people.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is clear - it's a power grab by the elites to further consolidate their control over our institutions. (conspiratorial whisper) Think about it, folks, with more appointments from the District of Columbia, we'll have even more liberal-leaning individuals infiltrating our military academies, shaping the minds of our future leaders. It's a slippery slope, folks! Next thing you know, they'll be trying to take away our Second Amendment rights or something. (dramatic music swells)

In conclusion, HR 5971 is just another example of the elites in Washington trying to undermine our great nation's values and institutions. We must remain vigilant and fight against these attempts to erode our freedom. (patriotic music plays) God bless America!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another bill, another exercise in futility. Let's dissect this mess.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Service Academies District of Columbia Equality Act (because "equality" sounds so much better than "special treatment") aims to increase the number of individuals from the District of Columbia who can be appointed to military service academies. How noble. I'm sure it has nothing to do with pandering to a specific constituency or buying votes.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill proposes to triple the number of appointments available to D.C. residents at each of the three main military service academies (West Point, Naval Academy, and Air Force Academy). Because, you know, five just wasn't enough. Now we're going for fifteen, because who needs merit-based admissions when you can have quotas?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: politicians looking to score points with their constituents, lobbyists representing special interest groups (in this case, probably the D.C. government and local businesses), and, of course, the poor souls who will be "benefiting" from this legislation – the students who might not actually deserve a spot at these prestigious academies.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Let's get real here. This bill is a classic case of " Affirmative Action for the Politically Connected." It's a thinly veiled attempt to curry favor with D.C. voters and create a new class of entitled beneficiaries. The actual impact will be minimal, as the number of qualified applicants from D.C. won't magically triple overnight. What we'll see instead is a watering down of standards, more bureaucratic red tape, and possibly even lawsuits when someone inevitably claims they were discriminated against.

Diagnosis: This bill suffers from a bad case of " Politician-itis" – a disease characterized by an overwhelming desire to appear virtuous while actually accomplishing nothing. Symptoms include grandiose language, meaningless quotas, and a complete disregard for the actual consequences of one's actions. Treatment involves a healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach, and a willingness to call out the emperor's new clothes.

Prognosis: This bill will likely pass with flying colors, as politicians love nothing more than to pat themselves on the back while pretending to help someone. But don't worry; it won't actually change anything meaningful. Just another day in the swamp that is Washington D.C.

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

**HR 5971: Service Academies District of Columbia Equality Act**

**Main Purpose and Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 5971 is to increase the number of individuals from the District of Columbia who may be appointed to military service academies, promoting greater representation and equality for residents of the nation's capital.

**Key Provisions and Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends title 10 of the United States Code by increasing the number of appointments available to individuals from the District of Columbia at three military service academies:

* The United States Military Academy (Section 7442(a)(5)): increases from five to fifteen * The United States Naval Academy (Section 8454(a)(5)): increases from five to fifteen * The United States Air Force Academy (Section 9442(a)(5)): increases from five to fifteen

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

* Residents of the District of Columbia, particularly high school students interested in attending military service academies * Military service academies, which will receive increased numbers of applicants from the District of Columbia * The Department of Defense, responsible for implementing the changes * Members of Congress representing the District of Columbia

**Potential Impact and Implications:** The bill's passage could lead to:

* Increased opportunities for District of Columbia residents to attend military service academies, promoting greater diversity and representation * Enhanced access to education and career development in the military for underrepresented groups * Potential increases in recruitment and retention rates among District of Columbia residents in the armed forces * Greater equality and fairness in the appointment process for military service academies

Overall, HR 5971 aims to address historical disparities in representation at military service academies by providing more opportunities for individuals from the District of Columbia.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

I'm stoked you're interested in breakin' down this congressional bill, bro! Let's dive into the Service Academies District of Columbia Equality Act (HR 5971).

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill is all about bringin' some equality to the table for residents of Washington D.C., dude. Right now, there are limited spots available for D.C. folks at our nation's top military service academies – think West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force Academy. This legislation aims to level the playing field by increasin' the number of slots available to D.C. residents.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill makes some key changes to existing law, bro. It bumps up the number of appointments from D.C. to each service academy from five to fifteen. That's a tripling of opportunities for young people from our nation's capital! These changes apply to all three academies: West Point (Section 7442), Annapolis (Section 8454), and the Air Force Academy (Section 9442).

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** This bill affects D.C. residents, particularly high school students who are interested in attendin' a military service academy. It's also relevant to the academies themselves, as they'll need to adjust their admissions processes to accommodate more applicants from D.C.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The impact of this bill is pretty chill, bro. By increasin' opportunities for D.C. residents, we're promoting diversity and equality in our military leadership pipeline. This could lead to a more representative officer corps, which is essential for buildin' trust and credibility with the communities they serve.

On the flip side, some might argue that this bill creates an unfair advantage for D.C. residents compared to other states or territories. But, like, let's be real – D.C. doesn't have the same representation as states in Congress, so it's not a bad thing to give 'em a little extra love.

In conclusion, this bill is all about bringin' some balance and equality to the table for D.C. residents who wanna serve their country through our top military service academies. It's a solid step towards buildin' a more representative and inclusive officer corps, bro!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 5971: Service Academies District of Columbia Equality Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The bill, introduced by Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), aims to increase the number of individuals from the District of Columbia who can be appointed to military service academies. The legislation seeks to promote equality and representation for D.C. residents in the nation's premier military institutions.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends Title 10, United States Code, by increasing the number of appointments available to individuals from the District of Columbia at three military service academies:

1. United States Military Academy (West Point): Increases the number of appointments from five to fifteen. 2. United States Naval Academy: Increases the number of appointments from five to fifteen. 3. United States Air Force Academy: Increases the number of appointments from five to fifteen.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The bill primarily benefits residents of the District of Columbia, who will have increased opportunities for appointment to these prestigious institutions. The military service academies and their respective branches (Army, Navy, and Air Force) will also be impacted by the influx of new students.

**Potential Impact & Implications** While the bill's intentions are laudable, it is essential to consider the potential implications:

* Increased competition for limited spots at these highly competitive institutions may lead to a more challenging selection process. * The bill may create an uneven playing field, as D.C. residents will have a disproportionate number of appointments compared to other states and territories.

**Monied Interest Analysis** Notably, this bill does not appear to be driven by significant monied interests or PACs. However, it is worth mentioning that Rep. Norton has received campaign contributions from various defense contractors and military-related organizations, such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and the National Defense Industrial Association. While these donations may not directly influence this specific legislation, they could indicate a broader relationship between Rep. Norton and the defense industry.

**Committee Capture & Conflicts of Interest** The bill has been referred to the Committee on Armed Services, which is often influenced by the defense industry. However, in this case, there are no apparent conflicts of interest or committee capture that would significantly impact the legislation's passage.

In conclusion, HR 5971 aims to promote equality and representation for D.C. residents in military service academies. While the bill's intentions are commendable, it is crucial to consider the potential implications and ensure a fair selection process.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

No campaign finance data available for Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]

Industry Impact

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

+Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.80
Section 2, 3, and 4 increase the number of individuals from the District of Columbia who may be appointed to military service academies, which could lead to increased opportunities for defense contractors in terms of future personnel and potential contracts.

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 Defense

Moderate

Vector: 65%

Pages: 134-136AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and Project 2025 aim to strengthen military recruiting and retention; HR 5971 expands the pipeline for District of Columbia residents to service academies, supporting the broader goal of improving recruitment outlined in the Project 2025 DOD personnel reforms."

Key themes:recruitingretentionservice academy appointmentsdiversity/representationmilitary personnel

— 101 — Department of Defense 1. Ensure that senior U.S. military leadership emphasizes exportability in the initial development of defense systems that are both available and interoperable with our partners and allies. 2. Create a funding mechanism to incentivize exportability in initial planning, which can be recouped after future FMS transactions. l End informal congressional notification. Informal congressional notification or “tiered review” is a hinderance to ensuring timely sales to our global partners. The tiered review process is not codified in law; it is merely a practice by which the Department of State provides a preview of prospective arms transfers before Congress is formally notified.9 1. End the tiered review process to eliminate at least 20 days from the FMS process. 2. Use the tiered review process only when unanimous congressional support is guaranteed in order to eliminate the “weaponization” by select Members of Congress that has prevented billions of dollars of arms sales from moving into formal congressional notification. l Minimize barriers to collaboration. The high cost of developing advanced defense platforms requires the United States to collaborate with key allies to minimize waste, complement strengths, and supplement our defense industrial base to create a system that is greater than that of the United States alone. 1. Enhance defense industrial base planning with partners to allow them to focus on niche areas where there are cost advantages for the United States. 2. Decrease International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to facilitate trade with such allies as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. 3. Create opportunities to improve the health of the defense supply chain with added opportunities for partners and allies to contribute. l Reform the FMS contracting process. The contracting timeline for the FMS process is shockingly slow. On average, the DOD contracting timeline takes approximately 18 months because of slow bureaucratic processes and chronic understaffing.10 — 102 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 1. Immediately fund more contracting capacity in all services to decrease the contracting timeline and improve the delivery of defense articles to our global partners. 2. Rationalize and speed arms sales decision-making to preclude our enemies from exploiting bureaucratic slothfulness and allow us to manage the development of indigenous defense industrial bases. DOD PERSONNEL The men and women of America’s armed forces are the most critical component of our national defense strategy, but in recent years, they have been overextended, undervalued, and insufficiently resourced. Their families help them to carry the burden of service, but the assistance they receive is disproportionately less than the sacrifices they make. Young civilians who would thrive in a military environ- ment are disenfranchised when educators and influencers discourage them from learning about military service and preparing for the honor of wearing Ameri- ca’s uniform. The United States military is an extraordinary institution, staffed by exceptional people who have defended our nation and changed the course of history, but the Biden Administration, through word and deed, has treated the armed forces as just another place to work. We must restore our military to a place of honor and respect and recruit and retain the individuals who will meet the rigorous standards of excellence that are required for membership in the world’s greatest fighting force. Needed Reforms l Rescue recruiting and retention. Recruiting was the worst in 2022 that it has been in two generations and is expected to be even worse in 2023. Some of the problems are self-inflicted and ongoing. The recruiting problem is not service-specific: It affects the entire Joint Force. 1. Appoint a Special Assistant to the President who will maintain liaison with Congress, DOD, and all other interested parties on the issue of recruiting and retention. 2. Improve recruiting by suspending the use of the recently introduced MHS Genesis system that uses private medical records of potential recruits at Military Entrance Processing Stations (MEPS), creating unnecessary delays and unwarranted rejections.11 3. Improve military recruiters’ access to secondary schools and require completion of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery

Department of Defense

Weak

Vector: 65%

Pages: 134-136AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 5971 focuses on increasing representation from the District of Columbia in military service academies, which aligns tangentially with Project 2025's broader goal of improving military recruitment and retention. However, the bill does not address the specific reforms outlined in Project 2025, such as eliminating diversity initiatives, restoring fitness standards, or removing medical exceptions, and instead promotes inclusivity and access."

Key themes:military recruitmentaccess to service academiesrepresentation in armed forces

— 102 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 1. Immediately fund more contracting capacity in all services to decrease the contracting timeline and improve the delivery of defense articles to our global partners. 2. Rationalize and speed arms sales decision-making to preclude our enemies from exploiting bureaucratic slothfulness and allow us to manage the development of indigenous defense industrial bases. DOD PERSONNEL The men and women of America’s armed forces are the most critical component of our national defense strategy, but in recent years, they have been overextended, undervalued, and insufficiently resourced. Their families help them to carry the burden of service, but the assistance they receive is disproportionately less than the sacrifices they make. Young civilians who would thrive in a military environ- ment are disenfranchised when educators and influencers discourage them from learning about military service and preparing for the honor of wearing Ameri- ca’s uniform. The United States military is an extraordinary institution, staffed by exceptional people who have defended our nation and changed the course of history, but the Biden Administration, through word and deed, has treated the armed forces as just another place to work. We must restore our military to a place of honor and respect and recruit and retain the individuals who will meet the rigorous standards of excellence that are required for membership in the world’s greatest fighting force. Needed Reforms l Rescue recruiting and retention. Recruiting was the worst in 2022 that it has been in two generations and is expected to be even worse in 2023. Some of the problems are self-inflicted and ongoing. The recruiting problem is not service-specific: It affects the entire Joint Force. 1. Appoint a Special Assistant to the President who will maintain liaison with Congress, DOD, and all other interested parties on the issue of recruiting and retention. 2. Improve recruiting by suspending the use of the recently introduced MHS Genesis system that uses private medical records of potential recruits at Military Entrance Processing Stations (MEPS), creating unnecessary delays and unwarranted rejections.11 3. Improve military recruiters’ access to secondary schools and require completion of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery — 103 — Department of Defense (ASVAB)—the military entrance examination—by all students in schools that receive federal funding.12 4. Encourage Members of Congress to provide time to military recruiters during each townhall session in their congressional districts. 5. Increase the number of Junior ROTC programs in secondary schools. l Restore standards of lethality and excellence. Entrance criteria for military service and specific occupational career fields should be based on the needs of those positions. Exceptions for individuals who are already predisposed to require medical treatment (for example, HIV positive or suffering from gender dysphoria) should be removed, and those with gender dysphoria should be expelled from military service. Physical fitness requirements should be based on the occupational field without consideration of gender, race, ethnicity, or orientation. l Eliminate politicization, reestablish trust and accountability, and restore faith to the force. In 2021, the Reagan National Defense Survey found that only 45 percent of Americans have “a great deal of trust and confidence in the military”—down from 70 percent in 2018.13 1. Strengthen protections for chaplains to carry out their ministry according to the tenets of their faith. 2. Codify language to instruct senior military officers (three and four stars) to make certain that they understand their primary duty to be ensuring the readiness of the armed forces, not pursuing a social engineering agenda. This direction should be reinforced during the Senate confirmation process. Orders and direction motivated by purely partisan motives should be identified as threats to readiness. 3. Reinstate servicemembers to active duty who were discharged for not receiving the COVID vaccine, restore their appropriate rank, and provide back pay. 4. Eliminate Marxist indoctrination and divisive critical race theory programs and abolish newly established diversity, equity, and inclusion offices and staff.

Department of Education

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 380-382AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 5971 focuses on increasing military service academy appointments for District of Columbia residents to promote representation and equity in military education, while the Project 2025 policy emphasizes expanding education savings accounts and school choice for D.C. students, particularly those from low-income backgrounds. Both address educational opportunity in D.C., but through different mechanisms—one expands access to federal service academies, the other promotes private school choice via E"

Key themes:District of Columbiaeducational opportunityequity in accessfederal education policystudent empowerment

— 347 — Department of Education students at or below 185 percent of the federal poverty line. The maximum schol- arship amount is $9,401 for students in kindergarten through eighth grade and $14,102 for students in grades nine through 12. The average scholarship amount is around $10,000, or less than half of the current per-student funding amount in D.C. Public Schools. l Congress should expand eligibility to all students, regardless of income or background, and raise the scholarship amount closer to the funding students receive in D.C. Public Schools (spending per student in 2020 was $22,856). l All families should be able to take their children’s taxpayer-funded education dollars to the education providers of their choosing— whether it be a public school or a private school. l Congress should additionally deregulate the program by removing the requirement of private schools to administer the D.C. Public Schools assessment and allowing private schools to control their admissions processes. Provide Education Choice for Populations Under the Jurisdiction of Congress The federal government oversees three school systems that Washington should transform into examples of quality learning environments for every child in those systems: students attending schools in Washington, D.C.; students in active-duty military families, including students attending schools operated by the U.S. Depart- ment of Defense; and students attending schools on tribal lands, which include schools under the Bureau of Indian Education. In each of these systems, federal lawmakers should allow every student the option of using an education savings account so that parents can select different education products and services to meet their child’s needs. Nearly 50,000 students attended public schools in the District of Columbia in the 2021–2022 school year. In 2022, fourth grade math students scored 11 points lower than fourth graders in 2019, which means District children lost an entire year of learning over the course of the pandemic. Eighth graders also lost an entire year of learning in math. l Federal lawmakers should offer District students the opportunity to use education savings accounts. A portion of a child’s federal education spending should be deposited in a private spending account that parents can use to pay for personal tutors, education therapists, books and curricular — 348 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise materials, private school tuition, transportation and more—accounts modeled after the accounts in Arizona, Florida, West Virginia, and seven other states. l Members of Congress should design the same account system for students in active-duty military families, including students attending schools that receive funding under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).18 Heritage Foundation research found that if even 10 percent of the students eli- gible for accounts under such a proposal transferred from an assigned school to an education savings account, the change for the sending district would be 0.1 percent of that school district’s K–12 budget. Even in heavily impacted districts (districts with a large number of students receiving Impact Aid), the budgetary effect would be less than 2 percent. Yet these children would then have the chance to receive a customized education that meets their unique needs. As with state ESA programs, families who are homeschooling are distinct in statute from families who use an ESA to customize an education at home. Furthermore, research from the Claremont Institute used documents pro- vided by a whistleblower demonstrating how educators at Department of Defense schools around the world are using radical gender theory and critical race theory in their lessons. This instructional material discards biology in favor of political indoctrination and applies critical race theory’s core tenets advocating for more racial discrimination. Such ideas are highly unpopular among parents, accord- ing to nationally representative surveys, and the course material attempts to indoctrinate students with radical ideas about race and the ambiguous concept of “gender.” Finally, schools on tribal lands and under the auspices of the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) are among the worst-performing public schools in the country. Research from Rep. Burgess Owens’ office reports that the graduation rate for BIE students is 53 percent, lower than the average for Native American students in public schools around the country, and nearly 30 percentage points lower than the national average for all students. In 2015, Arizona lawmakers expanded the state’s education savings account program to include children living on tribal lands, and by 2021, nearly 400 Native American children were using the accounts. l Federal officials should design a federal education savings account option for all children attending BIE schools. The next Administration should make the K–12 systems under federal juris- diction examples of quality learning opportunities and education freedom.

Department of Defense

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 161-163AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 5971 seeks to expand service academy appointments for District of Columbia residents, which could marginally aid recruitment and diversity goals, but it does not directly address Project 2025's primary DoD priorities such as great‑power competition, military readiness, or defense reform."

Key themes:military recruitmentservice academy accessdefense personnel

— 128 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Constitution, Preamble, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/preamble/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 2. U.S. Constitution, Article I, § 8, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-1/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 3. U.S. Constitution, Article II, § 2, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 4. Established pursuant to S. 1605, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, Public Law No. 117-81, 117th Congress, December 27, 2021, Division A, Title X, § 1004, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ81/ PLAW-117publ81.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 5. H.R. 3684, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law No. 117-58, 117th Congress, November 15, 2021, Division G, Title IX, §§ 70901–70953, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ58/PLAW-117publ58.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 6. S. 2943, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, Public Law 114-328, 114th Congress, December 23, 2016, Division A, Title IX, § 901, https://www.congress.gov/114/statute/STATUTE-130/STATUTE-130-Pg2000. pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 7. H.R. 3622, Goldwater–Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, Public Law No. 99-433, 99th Congress, October 1, 1986, https://www.congress.gov/99/statute/STATUTE-100/STATUTE-100-Pg992.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 8. U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Historical Sales Book, Fiscal Years 1950–2021, p. 7, https://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/dsca_historical_sales_book_FY21.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 9. Paul K. Kerr, “Arms Sales: Congressional Review Process,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress No. RL31675, updated June 10, 2022, p. 1, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/ RL31675.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 10. Keith Webster, “How to Reform America’s Military Sales Process,” The Hill Congress Blog, October 6, 2022, https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/3675933-how-to-reform-americas-military-sales-process/ (accessed February 15, 2023). 11. See Thomas W. Spoehr, “The Administration and Congress Must Act Now to Counter the Worsening Military Recruiting Crisis, Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 5283, July 28, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/sites/ default/files/2022-07/IB5283.pdf. 12. Ibid. 13. Ronald Reagan Institute, “Reagan National Defense Survey,” conducted November 2021, p. 4, https://www. reaganfoundation.org/media/358085/rndf_survey_booklet.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 14. See Paul J. Larkin, “Protecting the Nation by Employing Military Spouses,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, June 6, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/commentary/protecting-the-nation-employing- military-spouses. 15. See Jude Schwalbach, “Military Families Deserve Flexible Education Options,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, April 14, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/military-families-deserve- flexible-education-options. 16. See Chapter 7, “The Intelligence Community,” infra. 17. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA); the National Security Agency (NSA); the National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency (NGA); the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO); and the intelligence and counterintelligence elements of the military services: U.S. Air Force Intelligence, U.S. Navy Intelligence, U.S. Army Intelligence, and U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, which also receive guidance and oversight from the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI). 18. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). 19. The Department of Energy’s Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence; the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis and the intelligence and counterintelligence elements of the U.S. Coast Guard; the Department of Justice’s Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Office of National Security Intelligence; the Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research; and the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis. — 129 — Department of Defense 20. Staff Study, IC21: Intelligence Community in the 21st Century, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. House of Representatives, 104th Congress, 1996, p. 71, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA315088.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 21. Ronald O’Rourke, “Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense—Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress No. R43838, updated November 8, 2022, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/93 (accessed February 15, 2023). 22. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Defense Intelligence and Security: DOD Needs to Establish Oversight Expectations and to Develop Tools That Enhance Accountability, GAO-21-295, May 2021, https://www.gao.gov/ assets/gao-21-295.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 23. The U.S. military has a long history of providing support to civil authorities, particularly in response to disasters but for other purposes as well. The Defense Department currently defines defense support of civil authorities (DSCA) as “Support provided by U.S. Federal military forces, DoD civilians, DoD contract personnel, DoD Component assets, and National Guard forces (when the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Governors of the affected States, elects and requests to use those forces in Title 32, U.S.C., status) in response to requests for assistance from civil authorities for domestic emergencies, law enforcement support, and other domestic activities, or from qualifying entities for special events. Also known as civil support.” U.S. Department of Defense, Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA),” December 29, 2010, p. 16, https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/CG-5R/nsarc/DoDD%203025.18%20Defense%20Support%20 of%20Civil%20Authorities.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 24. U.S. Army, “Who We Are: The Army’s Vision and Strategy,” https://www.army.mil/about/ (accessed February 17, 2023). 25. “[T]he Army’s internal assessment must be balanced against its own statements that unit training is focused on company-level operations [reflective of counterintelligence requirements] rather than battalion or brigade operations [much less division or corps to meet large-scale ground combat operations against a peer competitor such as Russia or China]. Consequently, how these ‘ready’ brigade combat teams would perform in combat operations is an open question.” “Executive Summary” in 2023 Index of U.S. Military Strength, ed. Dakota L. Wood (Washington: The Heritage Foundation, 2023), p. 16, http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws. com/2022/Military_Index/2023_IndexOfUSMilitaryStrength.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 26. For background on the USN’s fleet size, see Brent D. Sadler, “Rebuilding America’s Military: The United States Navy,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No. 242, February 18, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2021-02/SR242.pdf, and Ronald O’Rourke, “Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress No. RL32665, December 21, 2022, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32665 (accessed February 15, 2023). 27. The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) is the process by which the services develop and the Joint Staff approves the requirements for major defense acquisitions. See Defense Acquisition University, “Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDA),” https://www.dau. edu/acquipedia/pages/articledetails.aspx#!371 (accessed February 15, 2023). 28. The board would seek to balance a mix of active military and civilians with expertise in and responsibility for major acquisitions and former military and civilians with experience in strategy and acquisitions. The proposed composition would include the Vice Chief of Naval Operations as Chairman, with three-star level membership from the Joint Staff, the Navy and Defense Acquisition Executives, and the Naval Sea Systems Command. In addition, there would be four-star retired naval officers/Navy civil servants as members, one each named by the Chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of Defense. Finally, there would be a member appointed by the Secretary of the Navy who had previous senior experience in the defense industry. 29. See James Mattis, Secretary of Defense, Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America: Sharpening the American Military’s Competitive Edge, U.S. Department of Defense, https:// dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf (accessed February 17, 2023), and U.S. Department of Defense, 2022 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America Including the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review and the 2022 Missile Defense Review, https://oldcc.gov/ resource/2022-national-defense-strategy (accessed February 17, 2023).

Department of Education

Minimal

Vector: 63%

Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 5971 focuses on increasing military service academy appointments for District of Columbia residents, which is unrelated to the Project 2025 Department of Education policy objectives concerning federal scholarship tax credits, state opt-outs from federal education programs, or higher education accreditation reform."

— 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.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes

Protecting Independent Contractors from Discrimination Act of 2026

119/hr/10035

Securities and Exchange Commission Real Estate Leasing Authority Revocation Act

119/hr/189

District of Columbia Electronic Transmittal of Legislation Act

119/hr/2693

Back to All Bills