Don’t Sell Kids’ Data Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/6292
Last Updated: January 6, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Pallone, Frank [D-NJ-6]

ID: P000034

Follow the money

The bill

Don’t Sell Kids’ Data Act of 2025

HR. 6292, 119th Congress — read as touching Big Tech Platforms.

The sponsor

Rep. Pallone, Frank [D-NJ-6]

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

The money

$82,625 raised

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

The alignment

95% match to Project 2025

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

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

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

December 10, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Another bill that's about as effective as a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. Let's dissect this mess, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Don't Sell Kids' Data Act of 2025 is a half-hearted attempt to protect minors from data brokers who collect, use, and sell their personal information without consent. The bill aims to prohibit data brokers from collecting, using, or maintaining the personal data of children and teens.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces some minor changes to existing law:

* Data brokers are prohibited from collecting, using, or maintaining personal data of minors. * An exception is made for data collection necessary for compliance with the act. * Data brokers must delete any personal data of minors upon request. * The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will enforce this act.

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

* Data brokers, who will have to pretend to care about children's privacy. * Minors and their parents, who might feel a false sense of security thinking their data is protected. * Lobbyists from the tech industry, who will try to water down the bill or find loopholes.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a joke. It's like trying to stop a tsunami with a broken sandcastle. The real issue is that data brokers are just symptoms of a larger disease – our addiction to surveillance capitalism. This bill doesn't address the root cause, and its provisions are too weak to make a significant impact.

The FTC will be responsible for enforcing this act, but we all know how effective they've been in regulating tech giants (hint: not very). The bill also relies on minors or their parents to request deletion of personal data, which is unrealistic. How many 12-year-olds do you think will bother to submit a request?

The real winners here are the data brokers and tech companies that will continue to exploit loopholes and find ways to collect and sell personal data. They'll just rebrand themselves as "compliance experts" and charge more for their services.

In conclusion, this bill is a token effort to appease the masses while doing nothing to address the real issue. It's like putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound – it might look pretty, but it won't stop the bleeding.

**Diagnosis:** The patient (Congress) has a severe case of "Legislative Theater-itis," characterized by grandstanding and empty promises. The symptoms include:

* A lack of understanding of the underlying issue (surveillance capitalism). * A reliance on weak provisions that won't make a significant impact. * An overemphasis on optics rather than actual change.

Treatment: A strong dose of reality, followed by a healthy dose of skepticism towards any bill that claims to "protect" our data.

Related Topics

Cybersecurity & Data Privacy
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Pallone, Frank [D-NJ-6]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$82,625
23 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$13,225
Committees
$0
Individuals
$69,400

No PAC contributions found

1
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
3 transactions
$6,600
2
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
2 transactions
$3,300
3
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
2 transactions
$1,825
4
HOLMDEL FUNERAL HOME
1 transaction
$500
5
MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
1 transaction
$500
6
HIGHLANDS DEMOCRATIC CLUB
1 transaction
$500

No committee contributions found

1
MARINO, ROBERT
3 transactions
$13,300
2
GOODSTEIN, DEBBIE
2 transactions
$6,600
3
HEALEY, PATRICK J.
1 transaction
$3,300
4
SINGH, JASPREET
1 transaction
$3,300
5
O'KELLEY, BRAD
1 transaction
$3,300
6
BOYADJIAN, NISHAN
1 transaction
$3,300
7
ARONSON, LAUREN
1 transaction
$3,300
8
OBERHELMAN, DIANE
1 transaction
$3,300
9
GATES, WILLIAM H. III
1 transaction
$3,300
10
BRENNER, DEAN R.
1 transaction
$3,300
11
HEREDIA, GEOFF
1 transaction
$3,300
12
GRAHAM, JOHN F X
1 transaction
$3,300
13
TSAI, TENNY
1 transaction
$3,300
14
PARKER, FAITH
1 transaction
$3,300
15
PETKANICS, DONNA
1 transaction
$3,300
16
ALEXANDER, STACEY
1 transaction
$3,300
17
ELMENDORF, STEVEN
1 transaction
$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. Pallone, Frank [D-NJ-6]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 61 nodes and 30 connections (79 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $82,625

Top Donors - Rep. Pallone, Frank [D-NJ-6]

Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount

6 Orgs17 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 5 harmed.

  • −Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.90

    Section 2(a)(1)(A)-(B) prohibits data brokers from collecting, using, maintaining, selling, licensing, renting, trading, transferring, releasing, disclosing, providing access to, or otherwise making available personal data of minors. This directly impacts big tech platforms that rely on data brokerage for targeted advertising and user profiling, imposing compliance costs and restricting data practices.

  • −Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.85

    Section 2(a)(1)(A)-(B) applies to data brokers, which includes telecom companies that collect and sell user data (e.g., location, browsing) to third parties. The ban on such activities for minors forces telecoms to alter data practices, implement deletion mechanisms, and face enforcement actions, imposing operational and compliance costs.

  • −Crypto & Fintechconfidence 0.80

    Section 2(a)(1)(A)-(B) covers data brokers, which includes fintech and crypto firms that aggregate and sell user financial and behavioral data. The prohibition on handling minors' data requires these firms to build age-gating, deletion systems, and monitoring, increasing compliance burdens and limiting data monetization.

  • Section 2(a)(1)(A)-(B) applies to data brokers, which includes e-commerce platforms that track and sell user behavior data. The ban on collecting/maintaining minors' personal data forces these companies to implement age verification, data deletion workflows, and cease certain analytics, imposing direct compliance costs.

  • Section 2(a)(1)(A)-(B) applies to data brokers, which includes AI and cloud providers that train models on or sell access to user data. The restriction on using minors' data limits data availability for model training and imposes deletion obligations, increasing compliance costs and potentially reducing model accuracy or service offerings.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Pallone, Frank [D-NJ-6])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HARMS

  • from 14 contributions
    • ERGEN, CANTEY M.$6,600
    • ERGEN, CHARLES W.$6,600
    • GREATREX, MARK$2,000
    • SHRUM, JESSICA$2,000
    • REINSDORF, ANDREW$1,000
  • from 7 contributions
    • WALKER, KENT$3,300
    • CHALFANT, JAMES$3,300
    • JACKSON, LISA$1,000
    • MARKS, ALEXIS$500
    • POWDERLY, TIMOTHY$500
  • from 1 contribution
    • FOSTER, HEATHER$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.

Federal Trade Commission

Very Strong
Vector: 68%
Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 6292 directly implements the Project 2025 policy objective by expanding FTC authority to protect minors online through prohibitions on data collection without parental consent, addressing the limitations of COPPA, and targeting unfair/deceptive practices involving children's data—core themes in the Project 2025 FTC section."

Key themes:protecting children onlineFTC enforcement authorityparental consentunfair/deceptive practicesdata privacy for minors

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

Federal Trade Commission

Very Strong
Vector: 66%
Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill directly implements the Project 2025 FTC objective of protecting children online by prohibiting data brokers from collecting minors' data without consent, mandating deletion, and empowering the FTC to enforce these protections as unfair/deceptive practices."

Key themes:child online privacyFTC enforcementparental consentdata broker restrictionsdata deletion rights

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

Department of Justice

Weak
Vector: 62%
Pages: 608-610AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill centers on prohibiting data brokers from collecting minors' personal data to protect online privacy, whereas the Project 2025 DOJ section focuses on law enforcement actions, FBI operations, domestic terrorism concerns, and parental targeting; only a peripheral connection exists through shared concern for child safety (e.g., missing children)."

Key themes:child protectiondata privacylaw enforcement

— 575 — Department of Justice 22. Editorial Board, “About Those Domestic-Terrorist Parents,” The Wall Street Journal, October 26, 2021, https://www. wsj.com/articles/about-those-domestic-terrorists-national-school-boards-association-merrick-garland-memo- fbi-11635285900 (accessed February 3, 2023); John Malcom, “Are Parents Being Tagged as ‘Domestic Terrorists’ by the FBI? Justice Department Needs to Show Its Cards,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 18, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/are-parents-being-tagged-domestic-terrorists-the- fbi-justice (accessed February 3, 2023); Victor Nava, “FBI Treated Twitter as a ‘Subsidiary,’ Flagged Tweets and Accounts for ‘Misinformation,’” New York Post, updated December 16, 2022, https://nypost.com/2022/12/16/fbi- treated-twitter-as-subsidiary-flagged-tweets-for-misinformation/ (accessed February 3, 2023). 23. Mary Margaret Olohan, “DOJ’s Kristen Clarke: A Pro-Abortion Activist Enforcing the Law Against Pro-Lifers,” The Daily Signal, October 26, 2022, https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/10/26/dojs-kristen-clarke-pro- abortion-activist-enforcing-law-pro-lifers/ ; Josh Gerstein, “DOJ Official Pressed on Targeting of Supreme Court Justices,” Politico, July 28, 2022, https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/28/doj-official-pressed-on- targeting-of-supreme-court-justices-00048506 (accessed February 3, 2023). 24. Solomon, “FBI Email Chain May Provide Most Damning Evidence of FISA Abuses Yet”; Post Editorial Board, “The FBI Knew RussiaGate Was a Lie—But Hid That Truth”; O’Neill, “FBI Pressured Twitter, Sent Trove of Docs Hours Before Post Broke Hunter Laptop Story.” 25. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, “History: The Nation Calls, 1908–1923,” https:// www.fbi.gov/history/brief-history/the-nation-calls (accessed February 3, 2023). 26. Press release, “FBI and Law Enforcement Partners Arrest Nearly 6,000 Violent Criminals This Summer,” U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 13, 2022, https://www.fbi.gov/news/ press-releases/press-releases/fbi-and-law-enforcement-partners-arrest-nearly-6000-violent-criminals-this- summer (accessed February 3, 2023). 27. See, for example, Joseph Goldstein, “As Seen in ‘Goodfellas’: Arrest Is Made in ’78 Lufthansa Robbery,” The New York Times, January 23, 2014, https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/nyregion/arrests-in-cold-case- investigation-including-78-lufthansa-heist.html (accessed February 3, 2023). 28. Danielle Wallace, “FBI Nationwide Operation Locates 121 Actively Missing Kids, Child Sex Trafficking Victims,” Fox News, August 15, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/us/fbi-nationwide-operation-locates-actively-missing- kids-child-sex-trafficking-victims (accessed February 3, 2023). 29. Adam Shaw, “FBI Stepped in After Suspected Chinese Spy Got Close to Swalwell, Other Politicians, Report Finds,” Fox News, December 8, 2020, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-chinese-spy-swalwell-other- politicians (accessed February 3, 2023). 30. The precise scope and contours of this review warrant special consideration. A review of all ongoing drug trafficking investigations or specific violent crime investigations may not warrant the department’s attention in the same way as high-profile, politically sensitive investigations likely will. Nevertheless, the goal should be as comprehensive a review as possible. 31. 28 U.S. Code § 531, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/531 (accessed February 3, 2023). Emphasis added. 32. The same could be said to apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and potentially to the U.S. Marshals Service, although the USMS’s mission protecting the federal courts could present compelling reasons why the department should maintain it as a direct report to the Deputy Attorney General. 33. See, for example, Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 1, October 27, 1787, https://founders.archives. gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0152 (accessed February 3, 2023). 34. An argument could also be made that the upper echelons of the FBI’s leadership should physically relocate back to the Robert F. Kennedy building to ensure proper accountability and to emphasize organizational reality: The FBI is a component of the department, not its equal, as outlined above. 35. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Audit of the Roles and Responsibilities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Office of the General Counsel in National Security Matters, Report No. 22-116, September 2022, https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/22-116.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). 36. S. 2212, Crime Control Act of 1976, Public Law No. 94-503, October 15, 1976, § 203, 90 Stat. 2427 (codified as amended at 28 U.S. Code § 532), https://www.congress.gov/94/statute/STATUTE-90/STATUTE-90-Pg2407. pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). 37. See “Enhancing Federal Focus and Resources in Jurisdictions with Rule-of-Law Deficiencies,” infra. — 576 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 38. Garland Memorandum, October 4, 2021; press release, “America First Legal Seeks Two Federal Investigations on Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Infamous Oct. 4th Memo Siccing the FBI on Concerned Parents,” America First Legal Foundation, March 14, 2022, https://aflegal.org/america-first-legal-seeks-two-federal- investigations-on-attorney-general-merrick-garlands-infamous-oct-4th-memo-siccing-the-fbi-on-concerned- parents/ (accessed February 3, 2023). 39. Luke Rosiak, “In Aftermath of Enemies List, School Committee Pledges to ‘Silence the Opposition,’” Daily Wire, March 27, 2021, https://www.dailywire.com/news/after-enemies-list-school-body-pledges-to-silence-the- opposition (accessed February 3, 2023). 40. The language of the Equal Protection Clause “reflects that ‘achieving equal protection against lawbreakers was at the core of the Clause’s objectives.’” Lefebure v. D’Aquilla, 15 F.4th 650, 669 (5th Cir. 2021) (Graves, J. dissenting) (quoting Lawrence Rosenthal, “Policing and Equal Protection,” Yale Law & Policy Review, Vol. 21, No. 53 (2003), p. 70) cert. denied, 212 L. Ed. 2d 791, 142 S. Ct. 2732 (2022)), https://casetext.com/case/ lefebure-v-daquilla-2 (accessed February 3, 2023). 41. See, for example, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler’s actions in 2020 calling on federal officials—executing their mission to protect federal property and officials—to leave the city, saying, “They’re not wanted here” despite the fact that local reports found that “[o]ut of more than a thousand arrests reported by the Portland Police Bureau and other local law enforcement since late May 2020, only about 8.4% of the cases are still open” and that the “rest have been dismissed or listed as no complaint, which means authorities are not currently pursuing charges.” BBC News, “Portland Protests: Mayor Demands Federal Officers Leave City,” July 20, 2020, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53466718 (accessed February 3, 2023), and Hannah Lambert, “91% of Portland Protest Arrests Not Being Prosecuted,” Portland Tribune, January 5, 2021, https://archive.ph/ OSDbz (accessed February 3,2023). 42. Figure 4, “Trend in Average Guideline Minimum and Average Sentence Imposed for Armed Career Criminals Fiscal Years 2010–2019,” in U.S. Sentencing Commission, Federal Armed Career Criminals: Prevalence, Patterns, and Pathways, March 2021, p. 26, https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/ research-publications/2021/20210303_ACCA-Report.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). 43. 18 U.S. Code § 924(e), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/924 (accessed February 3, 2023). 44. S. 1586, Restoring the Armed Career Criminal Act, 117th Congress, introduced May 12, 2021, https://www. congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1586 (accessed February 6, 2023). 45. This could require seeking the Supreme Court to overrule Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008), in applicable cases, but the department should place a priority on doing so. 46. 21 U.S. Code § 801 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/chapter-13/subchapter-I/part-A (accessed February 3, 2023). 47. 18 U.S. Code §§ 1961–1968, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-96 (accessed February 3, 2023). 48. For more on this topic generally, see “Ensuring Enforcement and Administration of Our Immigration Laws,” infra. 49. See Paul J. Larkin, “Twenty-First Century Illicit Drugs and Their Discontents: The Scourge of Illicit Fentanyl,” Heritage Foundation Legal Memorandum No. 313, November 1, 2022), https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2022-11/LM313.pdf. 50. Jessica Rendall, “100,000 People Died from Drug Overdoses in the US in One Year, a Record,” CNET, November 18, 2021, https://www.cnet.com/health/medical/100000-people-died-from-drug-overdoses-in- the-us-in-one-year-a-record/ (accessed February 3, 2023). 51. U.S. Department of Justice, National Security Division, “Information About the Department of Justice’s China Initiative and a Compilation of China-Related Prosecutions Since 2018,” last updated November 19, 2021, https://www.justice.gov/archives/nsd/information-about-department-justice-s-china-initiative-and- compilation-china-related (accessed February 3, 2023). 52. Ronn Blitzer and Jake Gibson, “Biden DOJ Ending National Security Initiative Aimed at Countering China amid Complaints About Bias,” Fox News, February 23, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-ending-china- initiative-national-security-program-bias (accessed February 3, 2023). 53. National Security Strategy, The White House, October 2022, p. 23, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/ uploads/2022/10/Biden-Harris-Administrations-National-Security-Strategy-10.2022.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). See also ibid., p. 8.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills