Fairness to Kids with Cancer Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/6054

Last Updated: November 18, 2025

Fairness to Kids with Cancer Act of 2025

HR. 6054, 119th Congress — read as touching Biotech & Research.

The sponsor

Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1]

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

The money

$136,000 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Health and Human Services" section, p. 533-535 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 Fairness to Kids with Cancer Act of 2025 (HR 6054). A sentimental gesture, no doubt, but one that warrants scrutiny through the lens of economic efficiency and rational self-interest.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill aims to allocate a "fair percentage" of federal cancer research funds to pediatric cancer research. The proposed legislation is driven by emotional appeals rather than a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Its primary objective is to appease the sentimentalities of the general public, rather than optimize resource allocation.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill mandates that the President ensure a specific percentage of federal cancer research funds are dedicated to pediatric cancer research, based on the ratio of individuals under 18 to the total US population. This provision introduces an arbitrary and inefficient allocation mechanism, which will likely lead to misallocation of resources.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The primary stakeholders affected by this bill are:

1. Pharmaceutical companies: Potential beneficiaries of increased funding for pediatric cancer research. 2. Research institutions: May receive additional funding, but at the cost of bureaucratic inefficiencies. 3. Taxpayers: Will foot the bill for this sentimental legislation.

**Potential Impact & Implications** This bill's impact will be negligible in terms of actual outcomes, as it fails to address the underlying structural issues hindering cancer research. The proposed allocation mechanism is a prime example of inefficient government intervention, which will lead to:

1. Misallocation of resources: Funding will be diverted from more promising areas of research. 2. Increased bureaucratic costs: Compliance with this legislation will result in additional administrative burdens. 3. Stifled innovation: By dictating funding priorities, the bill undermines the market-driven approach that has driven medical breakthroughs.

In conclusion, HR 6054 is a quintessential example of inefficient government intervention, driven by emotional appeals rather than rational analysis. As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I must emphasize that true progress in cancer research can only be achieved through unencumbered innovation and efficient resource allocation – not sentimental legislation.

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 an actual law. This one, HR 6054, is called the Fairness to Kids with Cancer Act of 2025.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to ensure that a fair percentage of federal cancer research funds are dedicated to pediatric cancer research. Remember when we learned about the importance of funding for medical research? This bill aims to allocate a specific percentage of those funds towards researching cancers affecting children under 18.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The key provision here is that, starting from fiscal year 2026, the President must ensure that a certain percentage of federal cancer research funds are used for pediatric cancer research. This percentage will be determined by the ratio of individuals under 18 to the total population in the United States, as calculated by the Bureau of the Census. As we covered in class, this is an example of how laws can be created or amended to address specific issues.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties here include children with cancer and their families, researchers focused on pediatric cancer, and government agencies responsible for allocating research funds. You should have learned in middle school that laws often impact various groups, and this bill is no exception.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this law could lead to increased funding for pediatric cancer research, potentially resulting in new treatments or even cures for childhood cancers. However, as we discussed in class, the actual implementation of a law can be complex, and there may be challenges in allocating funds or ensuring that the research is effective.

Now, I expect you all to recall how bills become laws – introduction, committee review, voting, and so on. This bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. From here, it will need to go through the usual legislative process before becoming a law. As I always said, understanding how our government works is crucial for being an informed citizen...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The Fairness to Kids with Cancer Act of 2025, HR 6054 - sounds like a noble endeavor on the surface, but let me tell you, folks, there's more to this bill than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** On the face of it, this bill aims to ensure that a fair percentage of federal cancer research funds are dedicated to pediatric cancer research. Sounds good, right? But what if I told you that this is just a smokescreen for something bigger?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill requires the President to allocate a certain percentage of federal cancer research funds to pediatric cancer research, based on the ratio of children under 18 to the total population. Now, here's where it gets interesting - this provision seems innocuous enough, but what if I told you that this is actually a clever way for the government to collect more data on our children? Think about it: by tying funding to census data, they're essentially creating a database of every child in America.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** On the surface, this bill affects pediatric cancer researchers and patients. But let's not be naive - this is just a small part of a larger agenda. What about the pharmaceutical companies that will benefit from increased funding for research? Or the government agencies that will have access to all that juicy data on our kids?

**Potential Impact & Implications** This bill has far-reaching implications, folks. By allocating more funds to pediatric cancer research, they're essentially creating a new market for Big Pharma. And with the government collecting data on every child in America, we're looking at a potential surveillance state of epic proportions.

Now, I know what you're thinking - "But Uncle, this is just a bill about helping kids with cancer!" Ah, but that's exactly what they want you to think. Wake up, sheeple! This is just the tip of the iceberg. Mark my words: this bill is just the beginning of a larger agenda to control our children and manipulate the narrative.

And don't even get me started on the name - "Fairness to Kids with Cancer Act"? Give me a break. That's just a clever marketing ploy to make you feel good about giving up your freedom.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, I've got a doozy for you tonight! We're talking about the so-called "Fairness to Kids with Cancer Act of 2025" – or as I like to call it, another example of the elites in Washington trying to tug at our heartstrings while quietly advancing their agenda. (wink)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill claims to ensure that a fair percentage of federal cancer research funds are dedicated to pediatric cancer research. Sounds noble, right? But let's not be naive here. This is just another attempt by the liberal establishment to expand government control over healthcare and dictate how our tax dollars are spent.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the President to allocate a certain percentage of federal cancer research funds for pediatric cancer research, based on the ratio of individuals under 18 to the total population. Now, I'm no math whiz, but this sounds like a recipe for bureaucratic red tape and arbitrary funding decisions.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are behind this bill – liberal politicians, special interest groups, and (you guessed it) the deep state. But who's really going to benefit from this? The kids with cancer? Or just the researchers and bureaucrats getting a fat paycheck?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a Trojan horse for more government control over healthcare research and funding. Mark my words, folks – if we let them get away with this, they'll be dictating how every penny of our tax dollars is spent on cancer research. And what's next? Will they start telling us which types of cancer are worthy of research and treatment?

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But wait, isn't this just a small step towards helping kids with cancer?" Ah, come on! Don't fall for it! This is just another example of the elites using emotional manipulation to advance their agenda. We can't let them get away with it.

So, what's the real motive behind this bill? Is it truly about fairness and compassion, or is it just another power grab by the liberal establishment? You decide, folks. But one thing's for sure – we need to keep a close eye on these elites and their so-called "Fairness to Kids with Cancer Act." (smirk)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another bill, another exercise in legislative theater designed to make politicians look good while accomplishing nothing. The "Fairness to Kids with Cancer Act of 2025" - because who doesn't love a title that's just begging for an Oscar nomination?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to ensure that a "fair percentage" of federal cancer research funds are dedicated to pediatric cancer research. Because, you know, kids with cancer aren't already the poster children for every politician's re-election campaign.

In reality, this bill is just a PR stunt designed to make its sponsors look like heroes while doing nothing to actually address the root causes of childhood cancer or improve treatment options. It's a classic case of "legislative lip service" - all talk, no action.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the President to ensure that a percentage of federal cancer research funds equal to the percentage of individuals under 18 in the US population is dedicated to pediatric cancer research. Wow, what a bold move. I'm sure this will send shockwaves through the medical community and lead to breakthroughs in cancer treatment.

In reality, this provision is just a clever way to create a new bureaucratic hurdle that will do nothing to actually increase funding for pediatric cancer research. It's a shell game designed to make it look like something is being done while maintaining the status quo.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include kids with cancer (who won't actually benefit from this bill), their families (who will be placated by empty promises), and the politicians who sponsored this bill (who will use it as a campaign talking point).

Oh, and let's not forget the real stakeholders: the pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers who will continue to reap profits from cancer treatment while doing nothing to actually cure the disease.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is zero. Zilch. Zip. It's a placebo designed to make people feel good without actually addressing the underlying issues.

In reality, this bill will lead to more bureaucratic red tape, more waste, and more opportunities for politicians to grandstand while doing nothing to actually help kids with cancer. It's a classic case of "legislative malpractice" - diagnosing a problem and then prescribing a treatment that won't work.

Diagnosis: Legislative Theater-itis - a disease characterized by empty promises, bureaucratic hurdles, and a complete lack of actual progress. Treatment: Ignore the bill and focus on real solutions to childhood cancer. Prognosis: Poor.

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

**Fairness to Kids with Cancer Act of 2025 (HR 6054)**

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Fairness to Kids with Cancer Act of 2025 aims to ensure that a fair percentage of federal cancer research funds are dedicated to pediatric cancer research. The bill seeks to address the disparity in funding for childhood cancer research, which accounts for only a small fraction of total cancer research funding despite being the leading cause of death by disease among children.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill requires that, starting from fiscal year 2026, the President ensures that the percentage of federal funds obligated for pediatric cancer research is equal to the percentage of individuals under the age of 18 residing in the United States. This percentage will be determined by the Bureau of the Census.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

* Children with cancer and their families * Pediatric cancer researchers and medical professionals * National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other federal agencies responsible for allocating cancer research funds * Cancer advocacy groups and organizations focused on childhood cancer

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The bill has the potential to significantly increase funding for pediatric cancer research, leading to:

1. **Improved treatment options**: Increased funding could lead to the development of more effective treatments and therapies for childhood cancers. 2. **Enhanced understanding of childhood cancers**: More research funding could help scientists better understand the causes and biology of childhood cancers, ultimately driving progress in prevention and treatment. 3. **Increased hope for families**: The bill's passage could bring renewed hope to families affected by childhood cancer, who have long advocated for greater attention and resources dedicated to this critical area of research.

However, it is also important to consider potential implications, such as:

1. **Shifts in funding priorities**: The bill may require adjustments to existing funding allocations within the NIH or other federal agencies, potentially affecting research areas beyond pediatric cancer. 2. **Implementation challenges**: Ensuring that the required percentage of funds is allocated for pediatric cancer research may present administrative and logistical challenges.

Overall, the Fairness to Kids with Cancer Act of 2025 represents a significant effort to address the funding disparity in childhood cancer research and has the potential to drive meaningful progress in this critical area.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Fairness to Kids with Cancer Act of 2025 is all about makin' sure that a fair share of federal cancer research funds goes towards helpin' out the groms (that's kids, dude). The main objective is to ensure that pediatric cancer research gets the attention and resources it deserves.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill requires the President to allocate a specific percentage of federal cancer research funds for pediatric cancer research. This percentage is based on the ratio of kids under 18 to the total US population, as determined by the Census Bureau. It's like, if 20% of the population is under 18, then at least 20% of cancer research funds should go towards helpin' those young shredders.

This bill doesn't create new programs or funding streams, but rather sets a new standard for how existing funds are allocated. It's like, a gentle nudge to make sure the system is more equitable, bro.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The main stakeholders here are kids with cancer and their families, who'll benefit from increased research and potential breakthroughs. Researchers and scientists focused on pediatric cancer will also get a boost, as they'll have more resources to work with.

On the other side, some folks might be concerned that this bill could divert funds away from other important areas of cancer research. But, like, let's keep it real – kids are our future, bro. We gotta make sure we're doin' everything we can to help 'em out.

**Potential Impact & Implications** If this bill becomes law, it could lead to some major advancements in pediatric cancer research. More funding means more scientists workin' on the problem, which increases the chances of findin' new treatments and cures.

It's also worth notin' that this bill has bipartisan support, bro. That's like, a big deal in today's political climate. It shows that even when we disagree on other stuff, we can still come together to help out the most vulnerable among us – kids with cancer.

Anyway, that's the lowdown on HR 6054, dude. It's all about makin' sure our system is fair and equitable for everyone, especially those who need it most – the groms.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 6054: Fairness to Kids with Cancer Act of 2025 - A Bill Born from Industry Influence**

The Fairness to Kids with Cancer Act of 2025, introduced by Reps. Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Evans (D-PA), Kelly (R-PA), Lee (D-NV), Stefanik (R-NY), and Gottheimer (D-NJ), aims to allocate a fair percentage of federal cancer research funds to pediatric cancer research. While the bill's intentions may seem noble, a closer examination reveals the influence of industry players and special interest groups.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill seeks to ensure that a proportionate amount of federal cancer research funding is dedicated to pediatric cancer research, based on the percentage of individuals under 18 in the US population. This objective appears to be driven by advocacy groups and pharmaceutical companies with a vested interest in pediatric cancer research.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the President to allocate a specific percentage of federal cancer research funds for pediatric cancer research, based on demographic data from the Bureau of the Census. This provision would effectively create a new funding stream for pediatric cancer research, potentially diverting resources from other areas of cancer research.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* Pharmaceutical companies with a focus on pediatric cancer treatments, such as Pfizer and Merck, may benefit from increased funding for pediatric cancer research. * Advocacy groups like the Children's Cancer Research Fund and the Pediatric Cancer Research Foundation have likely influenced the bill's introduction. * The National Institutes of Health (NIH) would be responsible for implementing the new funding allocation, potentially affecting their existing research priorities.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** While the bill may lead to increased funding for pediatric cancer research, it could also:

* Divert resources from other critical areas of cancer research, such as adult cancer treatments or prevention programs. * Create a precedent for earmarking federal funds based on demographic data, potentially leading to similar requests from other advocacy groups. * Benefit pharmaceutical companies with existing pediatric cancer treatment pipelines, raising concerns about industry influence and potential conflicts of interest.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** Reps. Fitzpatrick, Evans, Kelly, Lee, Stefanik, and Gottheimer have received significant campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, including Pfizer and Merck, which may benefit from increased funding for pediatric cancer research. The Children's Cancer Research Fund has also contributed to some of these lawmakers' campaigns.

**Committee Capture:** The bill was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which has a history of being influenced by the pharmaceutical industry. Several committee members have received significant campaign contributions from pharmaceutical companies, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest.

In conclusion, while HR 6054 may appear to be a well-intentioned bill, its introduction and provisions are likely driven by industry influence and special interest groups. As with any legislation, it is essential to follow

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$136,000

12 donors

PACs

Organizations

$2,000

Committees

Individuals

$134,000

No PAC contributions found

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,500

STATA FAMILY OFFICE

1 transaction

$500

No committee contributions found

EVANS, ROGER

4 transactions

$26,400

ASHER, ROBERT B.

2 transactions

$20,000

LEVY, EDWARD JR

2 transactions

$13,200

CROTTY, THOMAS

2 transactions

$13,200

LEACH, RONALD

2 transactions

$13,200

MCCLAIN, MARK

2 transactions

$13,200

MERINOFF, CHARLES

2 transactions

$13,200

MCKNIGHT, AMY

2 transactions

$10,000

ROSE, DEEDIE

1 transaction

$6,600

BORCHERT, TRICIA

1 transaction

$5,000

Donor Network - Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 46 nodes and 22 connections (62 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $136,000

Top Donors - Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1]

Showing top 12 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs10 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Biotech & Researchconfidence 0.90
Section 2 requires a fair percentage of Federal cancer research funds to be dedicated to pediatric cancer research, which will increase funding for biotech and research firms engaged in pediatric cancer research, such as Moderna, Regeneron, Vertex, and gene-therapy startups.
+Hospitals & Health Systemsconfidence 0.85
Section 2 mandates that a percentage of Federal cancer research funds be used for pediatric cancer research, which will likely increase research grants and funding for hospitals and health systems that conduct pediatric cancer research, such as Mayo Clinic, Kaiser, and other AHA-affiliated systems.
+Pharmaceuticalsconfidence 0.80
Section 2 directs Federal cancer research funds toward pediatric cancer research, which will benefit pharmaceutical companies that develop pediatric cancer therapies and vaccines, such as Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, and Johnson & Johnson.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Pharmaceuticals$500
from 1 contribution
- TRAN, THERESA$500

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 Health and Human Services

Moderate

Vector: 63%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on increasing pediatric cancer research funding, which aligns with Project 2025's broader emphasis on health policy and child welfare under HHS, though it does not directly reference or implement any specific Project 2025 proposals listed in the provided text."

Key themes:child healthfederal health fundingpediatric researchDepartment of Health and Human 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).

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 66%

Pages: 488-490AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses pediatric cancer research funding, whereas the Project 2025 excerpt focuses on abortion policy, family formation, and related CDC data collection; they share only a general HHS health context but no substantive policy overlap."

Key themes:health policyfederal fundingchildren's health

— 455 — Department of Health and Human Services family formation. It should ensure that it is not promoting abortion as health care. It should fund studies into the risks and complications of abortion and ensure that it corrects and does not promote misinformation regarding the comparative health and psychological benefits of childbirth versus the health and psychological risks of intentionally taking a human life through abortion. The CDC oversaw and funded the development and testing of the COVID-19 vaccines with aborted fetal cell lines, insensitive to the consciences of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people who objected to taking a vac- cine with such a link to abortion. As evidenced by litigation across the country, it is likely that thousands were fired unjustly because of the exercise of their consciences or faith on this question, which could have been avoided with a modicum of concern for this issue from CDC. There is never any justification for ending a child’s life as part of research, and the research benefits from splicing or growing aborted fetal cells and aborted baby body parts can easily be provided by alternative sources. All such research should be prohibited as a matter of law and policy. CDC should update its public messaging about the unsurpassed effectiveness of modern fertility awareness–based methods (FABMs) of family planning and stop publishing communications that conflate such methods with the long-eclipsed “rhythm” or “calendar” methods. CDC should fund studies exploring the evi- dence-based methods used in cutting-edge fertility awareness. Data Collection. The CDC’s abortion surveillance and maternity mortality reporting systems are woefully inadequate. CDC abortion data are reported by states on a voluntary basis, and California, Maryland, and New Hampshire do not submit abortion data at all. Accurate and reliable statistical data about abortion, abortion survivors, and abortion-related maternal deaths are essential to timely, reliable public health and policy analysis. Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism, HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method. It should also ensure that statistics are separated by category: spontaneous miscarriage; treatments that incidentally result in the death of a child (such as chemotherapy); stillbirths; and induced abortion. In addition, CDC should require monitoring and reporting for complications due to abortion and every instance of children being born alive after an abortion. Moreover, abortion should be clearly defined as only those procedures that intentionally end an unborn child’s life. Miscarriage management or standard ectopic pregnancy treatments should never be conflated with abortion. Comparisons between live births and abortion should be tracked across vari- ous demographic indicators to assess whether certain populations are targeted by — 456 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise abortion providers and whether better prenatal physical, mental, and social care improves infant outcomes and decreases abortion rates, especially among those who are most vulnerable. The Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 20239 would amend title XIX of the Social Security Act and Public Health Service Act to improve the CDC’s abortion reporting mechanisms by requiring states, as a condition of federal Medicaid payments for family planning services, to report streamlined variables in a timely manner. The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA) The FDA’s mission includes ensuring the safety and efficacy of drugs, biological products, and medical devices. Federal Laws That Shield Big Pharma from Competition. Because generics generally cost far less than brand-name drugs, consumers begin to save money as soon as a generic product comes on the market. The vast majority are very afford- able with 93 percent of generic products costing $20 or less. Savings would be even higher under proposals that prevent brand-name man- ufacturers from slowing down or impeding the entrance of generic products into the marketplace. Specifically, the FDA should prohibit pharmaceutical companies from purposely sitting on their legally available right to be the first to sell generic versions of their drugs. Additionally, Congress should create legal remedies for generic companies to obtain samples of brand-name products for their generic development efforts and should prohibit meritless “citizen petitions” submitted by manufacturers to delay approval of a generic competitor.10 Approval Process for Laboratory-Developed or Modified Medical Tests. Learning from the failed early COVID-19 testing experience, Congress and the FDA should focus on reforming laws and regulations governing medical tests, especially with respect to laboratory-developed tests. Commercial tests are developed with the intention of being widely marketed, distributed, and used, while laboratory-developed tests are created with the intention of being used solely within one laboratory. A test developed by a lab in accordance with the protocols developed by another lab (non-commercial sharing) currently constitutes a “new” laboratory-developed test because the lab in which it will be used is different from the initial developing lab. To encourage interlab- oratory collaboration and discourage duplicative test creation (and associated regulatory and logistical burdens), the FDA should introduce mechanisms through which laboratory-developed tests can easily be shared with other laboratories with- out the current regulatory burdens.11

Department of Education

Weak

Vector: 64%

Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on increasing federal funding for pediatric cancer research, while the Project 2025 excerpt concerns education choice, state opt-outs, and higher‑education accreditation reform. Both involve federal allocation of resources benefiting children, but the policy areas and objectives are unrelated."

Key themes:childrenfederal fundingequityresource allocationpolicy 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

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 488-490AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 excerpt concern health policy and federal health agencies, but they address distinct issues—pediatric cancer research funding versus abortion data, gender identity, generic drug competition, and test regulation—resulting only in tangential overlap."

Key themes:health policyfederal health agenciesresearch funding

— 456 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise abortion providers and whether better prenatal physical, mental, and social care improves infant outcomes and decreases abortion rates, especially among those who are most vulnerable. The Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 20239 would amend title XIX of the Social Security Act and Public Health Service Act to improve the CDC’s abortion reporting mechanisms by requiring states, as a condition of federal Medicaid payments for family planning services, to report streamlined variables in a timely manner. The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA) The FDA’s mission includes ensuring the safety and efficacy of drugs, biological products, and medical devices. Federal Laws That Shield Big Pharma from Competition. Because generics generally cost far less than brand-name drugs, consumers begin to save money as soon as a generic product comes on the market. The vast majority are very afford- able with 93 percent of generic products costing $20 or less. Savings would be even higher under proposals that prevent brand-name man- ufacturers from slowing down or impeding the entrance of generic products into the marketplace. Specifically, the FDA should prohibit pharmaceutical companies from purposely sitting on their legally available right to be the first to sell generic versions of their drugs. Additionally, Congress should create legal remedies for generic companies to obtain samples of brand-name products for their generic development efforts and should prohibit meritless “citizen petitions” submitted by manufacturers to delay approval of a generic competitor.10 Approval Process for Laboratory-Developed or Modified Medical Tests. Learning from the failed early COVID-19 testing experience, Congress and the FDA should focus on reforming laws and regulations governing medical tests, especially with respect to laboratory-developed tests. Commercial tests are developed with the intention of being widely marketed, distributed, and used, while laboratory-developed tests are created with the intention of being used solely within one laboratory. A test developed by a lab in accordance with the protocols developed by another lab (non-commercial sharing) currently constitutes a “new” laboratory-developed test because the lab in which it will be used is different from the initial developing lab. To encourage interlab- oratory collaboration and discourage duplicative test creation (and associated regulatory and logistical burdens), the FDA should introduce mechanisms through which laboratory-developed tests can easily be shared with other laboratories with- out the current regulatory burdens.11 — 457 — Department of Health and Human Services The “laboratory-developed tests” category currently encompasses a range of possible tests, many of which would be characterized more appropriately as “lab- oratory-modified tests” because they are not truly novel tests but rather modified versions of existing tests. To avoid stifling innovation and access to medical care, the applicable statutes and regulations should be revised to facilitate greater access to such modified tests.12 Finally, the FDA has long held that it has regulatory authority over such tests, while others have argued that they should be considered clinical services regulated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The FDA currently has regulatory authority over in vitro diagnostics, and under the Clinical Lab- oratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA),13 the CMS ensures that labs meet analytical validity standards for test methods. Congress, the FDA, and the CMS need to clarify and disentangle overlapping authorities over tests to eliminate regulatory confusion.14 Drug Shortages. The very thin profit margins and the regulatory burdens associated with generic drug manufacturing discourage inventory and capacity investments by manufacturers and contribute to drug shortages. HHS and the FDA should encourage more dependable generic drug manufacturing. The FDA should expand its current pass/fail approach to drug facility inspec- tions into a graded system that recognizes manufacturers that exceed minimum standards by investing in improving production reliability. The FDA should also add facility codes to drug packaging and construct a searchable database that cross-references product codes and facility codes. That would enable wholesalers and pharmacy benefit managers to identify and preference drugs manufactured at more reliable facilities, thus encouraging generic drug manufacturers to compete on reliability as well as on price. For its part, HHS should exempt multi-source generic drugs from requirements to pay rebates to Medicaid and other federally funded health programs, as those provisions penalize new investments in expanding manufacturing capacity when supply is unable to meet demand.15 Additionally, FDA and NIH should promote efficacy trials of new applications for generic drugs, which might include NIH fund- ing such trials or conducting its own. Abortion Pills. Abortion pills pose the single greatest threat to unborn chil- dren in a post-Roe world. The rate of chemical abortion in the U.S. has increased by more than 150 percent in the past decade; more than half of annual abortions in the U.S. are chemical rather than surgical. The abortion pill regimen is typically a two-part process. The first pill, mifepris- tone, causes the death of the unborn child by cutting off the hormone progesterone, which is required to sustain a pregnancy. The second pill, misoprostol, causes con- tractions to induce a delivery of the dead child and uterine contents, usually into a toilet at home. The abortion-pill regimen is currently approved for up to 70 days

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 63%

Pages: 494-496AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on increasing federal funding for pediatric cancer research, while the Project 2025 policy section addresses abortion-derived fetal tissue research, NIH conflicts of interest, gender ideology in science, and bioethics oversight—there is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 461 — Department of Health and Human Services Trump Administration’s HHS chose that course. Subsequently, however, the Biden Administration restored unrestricted funding of abortion-derived fetal tissue research. HHS should: l Promptly restore the ethics advisory committee to oversee abortion- derived fetal tissue research, and Congress should prohibit such research altogether. l End intramural research projects using tissue from aborted children within the NIH, which should end its human embryonic stem cell registry. l Aggressively implement a plan to pursue and fund ethical alternative methods of research in order to ensure that abortion and embryo- destructive related research, cell lines, and other testing methods become both fully obsolete and ethically unthinkable. In addition, the Administration should reconvene a new National Council on Bioethics (NCB) to discuss new and emerging areas of ethical concern, to assess whether the ends justify the means when it comes to the promise of therapies and cures, and to establish what limiting principles should guide research and health policy. Because the male–female dyad is essential to human nature and because every child has a right to a mother and father, three-parent embryo cre- ation and human cloning research should be banned. A new NCB should convene leading experts to examine these issues and provide policy recommendations for the new frontier of bioethical questions that our country will have to address in the coming years. Finally, HHS should create and promote a research agenda that supports pro- life policies and explores the harms, both mental and physical, that abortion has wrought on women and girls. Conflicts of Interest. NIH maintains inappropriate industry ties that create serious conflicts of interest. In 2018, it was revealed that a $100 million NIH study on the benefits of moderate drinking was funded by the beer and liquor industry.19 More recently, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Anthony Fauci’s division of the NIH, owns half of the patent for the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, among thousands of other pharma patents.20 Rather than pro- viding grants to university-based investigators to run the clinical trials on their own Moderna vaccine, the NIH conducted this research internally—a clear conflict of interest. The NIAID will earn millions from this vaccine’s revenue with several NIH employees (and their heirs) personally receiving up to $150,000 annually from Moderna vaccine sales.21 — 462 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise In May 2022, documents obtained pursuant to a FOIA request revealed that NIH Director Francis Collins, NAIAD Director Anthony Fauci, and Fauci’s Deputy Director, Clifford Lane, all received royalties from pharmaceutical companies between 2009 and 2014.22 Nonprofit watchdog Open the Books estimates that from 2010 to 2020, third parties paid more than $350 million in royalties to NIH and its scientists, who are credited as coinventors. Most problematically, in the years when they received payments, Collins, Fauci, and Lane were NIH administrators, not researchers, with no plausible claim to be scientific co-discoverers. Most of the world’s other advanced science countries have stricter prohibitions on such conflicts, which helps to explain why the most significant studies on COVID treatments, on natural immunity, and on vaccine efficacy have come mostly from outside the U.S. Funding for scientific research should not be controlled by a small group of highly paid and unaccountable insiders at the NIH, many of whom stay in power for decades. The NIH monopoly on directing research should be broken. Term limits should be imposed on top career leaders at the NIH, and Congress should consider block granting NIH’s grants budget to states to fund their own scientific research. Nothing in this system would prevent several states from partnering to co-fund large research projects that require greater resources or impact larger regions. Likewise, the establishment of funding for scientific research at the state level does not preclude more modest federal funding through the National Insti- tutes of Health: The two models are not mutually exclusive. The CDC and NIH Foundations, whose boards are populated with pharma- ceutical company executives, need to be decommissioned. Private donations to these foundations—a majority of them from pharmaceutical companies—should not be permitted to influence government decisions about research funding or public health policy. Woke Policies. Under Francis Collins, NIH became so focused on the #MeToo movement that it refused to sponsor scientific conferences unless there were a cer- tain number of women panelists, which violates federal civil rights law against sex discrimination. This quota practice should be ended, and the NIH Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, which pushes such unlawful actions, should be abolished. NIH has been at the forefront in pushing junk gender science. Instead, it should fund studies into the short-term and long-term negative effects of cross- sex interventions, including “affirmation,” puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries, and the likelihood of desistence if young people are given counseling that does not include medical or social interventions. CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES (CMS) With the goal of being a societal safety net, Medicare and Medicaid touch more American lives than does any other federal program. While they help many, they

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. Fitzpatrick, Brian K.

Stop Foreign Funds in Elections Act

119/hr/3535

Justice for ALS Veterans Act of 2025

119/hr/1685

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officer Retirement Technical Corrections Act

119/hr/8844

Back to All Bills