Preshevo Valley Discrimination Assessment Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/6411

Last Updated: August 31, 2026

Preshevo Valley Discrimination Assessment Act

HR. 6411, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Rep. Self, Keith [R-TX-3]

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

The money

$105,700 raised

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

The alignment

55% 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

Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 44 - 3.

January 20, 2026

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 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

Summary Style:

The Preshevo Valley Discrimination Assessment Act, HR 6411, is a bill that warrants scrutiny through the lens of its potential impact on my interests and the broader economic landscape. As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I shall dissect this legislation with the precision and detachment it deserves.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to direct the Secretary of State to prepare a report on the treatment of ethnic minorities in Serbia, specifically focusing on the Preshevo Valley region. This report will allegedly shed light on various aspects of discrimination against ethnic Albanians, including passivation of addresses, restriction of language use, and unequal access to public services.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill mandates a comprehensive report that covers 13 specific areas of concern, ranging from the deactivation of registered residences to the suppression of ethnic identity symbols. Notably, this legislation does not introduce new regulations or enforcement mechanisms; instead, it relies on the Secretary of State's report to potentially inform future policy decisions.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders affected by this bill are the Serbian government, ethnic Albanian communities in the Preshevo Valley, and, indirectly, my business interests in the region. As a global entrepreneur with investments in emerging markets, I must consider how this legislation might influence the regulatory environment and, by extension, my profit margins.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** From a strategic perspective, this bill poses minimal risk to my empire, as it does not introduce new regulations or tariffs that could disrupt my operations. However, if the report were to lead to increased scrutiny of human rights abuses in Serbia, it could potentially destabilize the region and create uncertainty for investors like myself. I will continue to monitor this legislation through my think tank, the "Liberty Initiative," and adjust my investment strategies accordingly.

In conclusion, while HR 6411 may seem like a benign, altruistic endeavor, its true implications lie in the potential consequences for my business interests and the broader economic landscape. As a master strategist, I will remain vigilant, always prioritizing the pursuit of wealth and power in an increasingly complex and interconnected world. The projected impact on my bottom line? A negligible $10 million to $50 million, depending on the report's findings and subsequent policy decisions. A drop in the ocean, considering my projected annual revenues exceed $10 billion.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

The Preshevo Valley Discrimination Assessment Act, HR 6411. As I taught you in 8th grade civics, a bill like this one is introduced to address a specific issue or problem. In this case, the main purpose and objective of this act is to direct the Secretary of State to prepare a report on the treatment of ethnic minorities in Serbia, specifically focusing on the Preshevo Valley region.

As we covered in middle school, when a bill is introduced, it's referred to a committee for review. Here, HR 6411 was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The key provisions of this act include requiring the Secretary of State to submit a report within 180 days, which should include an assessment of various issues affecting ethnic Albanians in the Preshevo Valley, such as passivation of addresses, access to identification documents, and language restrictions.

Remember when we learned about checks and balances? This bill is a prime example. The report required by this act will be submitted to both the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, ensuring that multiple branches of government are involved in the process. As I always emphasized, this is how the system is supposed to work.

The affected parties and stakeholders in this case include ethnic Albanians living in the Preshevo Valley, as well as the Serbian government. The potential impact and implications of this act are significant, as it could lead to increased awareness and pressure on the Serbian government to address human rights concerns and improve treatment of ethnic minorities. However, as we've seen time and time again, the actual outcome may not align with the intended goals, due to various factors such as political interests and bureaucratic red tape.

In theory, this act should lead to a more comprehensive understanding of the issues faced by ethnic Albanians in the Preshevo Valley and potentially inform future policy decisions. But, as I've come to expect, the reality may be more complicated. Nevertheless, it's essential to understand the legislative process and how bills like HR 6411 are intended to work, even if they don't always live up to their promise.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The Preshevo Valley Discrimination Assessment Act, HR 6411 - just another bill, or is it? Let me decode the real intentions behind this seemingly innocuous piece of legislation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** On the surface, this bill appears to be about assessing the treatment of ethnic minorities in Serbia, specifically Albanians in the Preshevo Valley. But, my friends, don't be fooled! The true purpose is to create a pretext for further intervention and manipulation by the US government in the region. Think about it - why would the US care so much about the plight of Albanian minorities in Serbia? Is it really just about human rights, or is there something more at play?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Secretary of State to prepare a report on the treatment of ethnic minorities in Serbia within 180 days. This report will supposedly investigate various aspects of Serbian government actions, including passivation of addresses, voting rights, language restrictions, and access to education and media. But what's really going on here? Is this just a fact-finding mission, or is it a way to gather intel for future regime change operations? And have you noticed the emphasis on "unclassified" reports with possible "classified annexes"? That's just a fancy way of saying they'll share some information publicly while keeping the real juicy stuff hidden from prying eyes.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The obvious stakeholders are the ethnic Albanian minorities in Serbia, but let's not forget about the bigger players. This bill has implications for US foreign policy, NATO, and the EU. It's all about expanding Western influence in the region, folks! And what about the Serbian government? Are they just pawns in a larger game of geopolitical chess?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If this bill passes, it could lead to increased tensions between the US and Serbia, potentially even sparking new conflicts in the Balkans. The report's findings could be used as leverage to pressure Serbia into conforming to Western interests, or worse - as a pretext for military intervention. And let's not forget about the potential for propaganda and disinformation campaigns to sway public opinion. This bill is just one piece of a larger puzzle, my friends. Wake up, sheeple! The truth is out there, hidden in plain sight, waiting to be uncovered by those with eyes to see.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(With a healthy dose of sarcasm and a raised eyebrow) Oh boy, folks, gather 'round! We've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here - the Preshevo Valley Discrimination Assessment Act. (Pausing for dramatic effect) I mean, who wouldn't want to spend their hard-earned taxpayer dollars on a report about... (dramatic pause again) ...the treatment of ethnic minorities in Serbia? It's not like we have more pressing issues to attend to here at home, right? (Winking at the camera)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** So, the main purpose of this bill is to direct the Secretary of State to prepare a report on how Serbia treats its ethnic minority populations, specifically in the Preshevo Valley. Because, you know, our freedom-loving government just can't get enough of meddling in other countries' affairs. (Rolling my eyes) I mean, who needs to focus on our own domestic issues when we can spend time and resources on a report about Serbia?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Secretary of State to submit a report within 180 days, covering a range of topics, including the deactivation of registered residences (or "passivation") belonging to ethnic Albanians, restrictions on language use, and access to education and public services. Oh, and let's not forget the potential for classified annexes - because, you know, our government loves a good secret. (Smirking) It's all about transparency... or not.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, this bill is clearly designed to benefit... (dramatic pause) ...the ethnic Albanian minority in Serbia! I mean, who wouldn't want the US government to stick its nose into their business? (Sarcastic tone) And, of course, our own freedom-loving citizens back home will be thrilled to know that their tax dollars are being spent on this vital report. (Eye-roll)

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, I know what you're thinking - what could possibly go wrong with the US government inserting itself into Serbia's internal affairs? (Smirking) I mean, it's not like we have a history of, say, regime change or anything... (Winking at the camera) But seriously, folks, this bill has all the makings of a master plan to... (dramatic pause) ...promote freedom and democracy! Or, you know, maybe just to justify more US interventionism in the region. (Shrugging) Either way, it's going to be a wild ride.

(With a knowing smirk) And there you have it, folks - the Preshevo Valley Discrimination Assessment Act. Because, in the words of our great founding fathers, "Give me liberty or give me... a report on Serbia's treatment of ethnic minorities." (Laughing sarcastically) Ah, freedom!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the intellectually bankrupt minds in Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Preshevo Valley Discrimination Assessment Act (HR 6411) claims to direct the Secretary of State to prepare a report on the treatment of ethnic minorities in Serbia, specifically focusing on the Preshevo Valley region. How quaint. It's like they're trying to pretend they care about human rights, but we all know it's just a thinly veiled attempt to justify future meddling and intervention.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Secretary of State to submit a report within 180 days, including an exhaustive list of "matters to be included" (because, clearly, they couldn't trust the Secretary to do their job without explicit instructions). These provisions are nothing more than a laundry list of potential grievances against Serbia, carefully crafted to elicit outrage and justify further action. It's like they're trying to create a narrative, rather than genuinely addressing human rights concerns.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include ethnic Albanians in the Preshevo Valley region, the Serbian government, and (of course) the United States, which gets to play the role of self-appointed moral arbiter. Other stakeholders might include various NGOs, human rights organizations, and lobbyists with vested interests in the region.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "diagnosing" a symptom while ignoring the underlying disease. The real motivation behind this legislation is likely to further U.S. geopolitical interests in the region, rather than genuinely addressing human rights concerns. By creating a narrative of Serbian oppression, the U.S. can justify future intervention, sanctions, or other forms of coercion. It's a cleverly crafted exercise in moral posturing, designed to distract from the real issues and advance American interests.

In conclusion, HR 6411 is a masterclass in legislative duplicity, a cynical attempt to manipulate public opinion and further U.S. interests under the guise of humanitarian concern. The fact that anyone takes this seriously is a testament to the boundless stupidity of politicians and voters alike. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than watch this farce unfold.

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

**Summary of HR 6411: Preshevo Valley Discrimination Assessment Act**

### 1. Main Purpose & Objectives

The main purpose of HR 6411, the Preshevo Valley Discrimination Assessment Act, is to direct the Secretary of State to prepare a comprehensive report on the treatment of ethnic minorities in Serbia, with a particular focus on the Albanian population in the Preshevo Valley. The objective is to assess and document any instances of discrimination or human rights violations against this minority group.

### 2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law

The bill requires the Secretary of State to submit a report to Congress within 180 days, addressing specific issues such as: - The deactivation of registered residences (passivation) belonging to ethnic Albanians and its impact on their ability to renew identity documents and exercise basic rights. - Serbia's integration of ethnic Albanians in state and public institutions. - Recognition of diplomas and degrees earned in Kosovo by Albanians living in the Preshevo Valley. - Use of the Albanian language in public institutions and personal documents. - Access to education, including the provision of school textbooks in the Albanian language. - Allocation of central government grants to majority-Albanian municipalities. - Suppression or restriction of ethnic identity symbols. - Police conduct towards local ethnic Albanians. - Support for Albanian language media, press, and cultural activities. - Consideration of mandatory military service for ethnic Albanians. - Measures that may deliberately increase poverty or make life unsustainable for ethnic Albanians in the Preshevo Valley.

### 3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders

The affected parties include: - Ethnic Albanian minorities living in the Preshevo Valley, Serbia. - The Serbian government and its institutions. - The U.S. Department of State, responsible for preparing and submitting the report. - Congressional committees on foreign affairs and relations.

### 4. Potential Impact & Implications

The potential impact of this bill includes: - Increased transparency and awareness about the treatment of ethnic minorities in Serbia, particularly in the Preshevo Valley. - Possible policy changes or diplomatic actions by the U.S. government in response to findings of discrimination or human rights violations. - Enhanced scrutiny of Serbia's human rights record and its implications for bilateral relations with the United States. - Potential improvements in the lives of ethnic Albanian minorities through international pressure and advocacy for their rights.

Overall, HR 6411 aims to shed light on critical issues affecting ethnic minorities in Serbia and potentially influence policy decisions that promote human rights, equality, and justice.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's dive into the Preshevo Valley Discrimination Assessment Act, bro. This bill is all about gettin' a handle on how Serbia's treatin' its ethnic minorities, specifically in the Preshevo Valley region.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**: The main goal of this bill is to direct the Secretary of State to prep a report on the treatment of ethnic minorities in Serbia, with a focus on the Preshevo Valley. They wanna know if Serbia's government is discriminatin' against ethnic Albanians, and if so, how bad it is.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**: The bill requires the Secretary of State to submit a report within 180 days, coverin' some pretty specific stuff, like: * Whether Serbia's passivatin' addresses belonging to ethnic Albanians, makin' it hard for 'em to renew ID docs and exercise basic rights. * If Serbia's neglectin' to integrate ethnic Albanians into state institutions, or recognizin' their diplomas from Kosovo. * If they're restrictin' the use of the Albanian language in public institutions, or suppressin' ethnic identity symbols. * And a bunch more, bro. It's like, 13 different points they wanna investigate.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**: The main parties affected are the ethnic Albanians livin' in the Preshevo Valley, as well as the Serbian government and its institutions. But, you know, this bill could also impact the broader international community, 'specially if it reveals some gnarly human rights abuses.

**Potential Impact & Implications**: If this report finds evidence of discrimination, it could lead to some serious consequences for Serbia, like diplomatic fallout or even economic sanctions, man. On the other hand, if Serbia's found to be treatin' its ethnic minorities cool, it could help improve relations with the international community and promote more stability in the region. Either way, this bill's got the potential to make some waves, bro.

Anyway, that's the lowdown on HR 6411, dude. It's like, a pretty chill bill, but with some serious implications for human rights and international relations. Keep it real, keep it relaxed, and let's catch some rays, bro!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Comprehensive Summary of HR 6411: Preshevo Valley Discrimination Assessment Act**

### 1. Main Purpose & Objectives

The primary objective of HR 6411, the Preshevo Valley Discrimination Assessment Act, is to direct the Secretary of State to prepare a comprehensive report on the treatment of ethnic minorities in Serbia, with a specific focus on the Albanian population in the Preshevo Valley. This bill aims to assess various aspects of discrimination and human rights violations allegedly perpetrated by the Serbian government against its ethnic Albanian minority.

### 2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law

The key provisions of HR 6411 include: - Directing the Secretary of State to submit a report to Congress within 180 days, detailing the treatment of ethnic minorities in Serbia. - The report must cover specific issues such as the deactivation of registered residences (passivation) of ethnic Albanians, their integration into state and public institutions, recognition of diplomas earned in Kosovo, use of the Albanian language in public institutions, access to education materials, funding for majority-Albanian municipalities, suppression of ethnic symbols, police conduct towards ethnic Albanians, support for Albanian media and cultural activities, consideration of mandatory military service for ethnic Albanians, and measures that could deliberately increase poverty among ethnic Albanians. - The report may include a classified annex if necessary.

### 3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders

The primary affected parties are the ethnic Albanian minority in the Preshevo Valley, Serbia, and the Serbian government. Other stakeholders include human rights organizations, international bodies concerned with ethnic minorities' rights, and potentially, neighboring countries or regions with similar ethnic tensions.

### 4. Potential Impact & Implications

The potential impact of HR 6411 could be significant: - **International Pressure**: The report could lead to increased international pressure on Serbia to address alleged human rights violations and improve the treatment of its ethnic Albanian minority. - **Policy Changes**: It may prompt policy changes within Serbia, especially regarding the integration of ethnic minorities into public life, education, and government services. - **US Foreign Policy**: The bill reflects US interest in human rights issues abroad and could influence US foreign policy towards Serbia and the region, potentially affecting diplomatic relations and aid packages. - **Regional Stability**: By addressing ethnic tensions, the bill indirectly aims to contribute to regional stability in the Balkans, a historically volatile area.

In terms of monied interests, while there isn't an overt connection to specific PACs or industry lobby groups directly influencing this bill, it's plausible that human rights organizations and potentially some diaspora groups could be supportive of such legislation. The bill's progression could also attract attention from international organizations focused on minority rights and regional stability in Europe. However, without explicit financial backing or lobbying efforts tied to the bill's sponsors or cosponsors, the primary drivers appear to be humanitarian and geopolitical rather than financially motivated.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Self, Keith [R-TX-3]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$105,700

20 donors

PACs

Organizations

$300

Committees

Individuals

$105,400

No PAC contributions found

TUCKER HILL HOA

1 transaction

$300

No committee contributions found

CHALIN, THOMAS

2 transactions

$11,600

MULLIGI, GINO

1 transaction

$9,000

FRITCHER, SAMMY

1 transaction

$6,600

LOBB, PAT

1 transaction

$6,600

MYERS, ROBERT

1 transaction

$6,600

HUFFINES, RAY

1 transaction

$6,600

MOSES, FRED

1 transaction

$6,600

LI, QINGSONG

1 transaction

$6,000

UIHLEIN, RICHARD

1 transaction

$5,800

HILTON, W.D.

1 transaction

$5,000

KORCA, YLBER

1 transaction

$5,000

SMAJLI, MARIO

1 transaction

$5,000

KRASNIQI, BLERINA

1 transaction

$4,500

QUILLIN, GEORGE

1 transaction

$4,000

ADAMS, CAROL A

1 transaction

$3,300

DEASON, DARWIN

1 transaction

$3,300

MCCLELLAND, MARK

1 transaction

$3,300

KELLOGG, DAVID H

1 transaction

$3,300

HILTON, MARY JEAN

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

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

ID: V000138

Top Contributors

LUX FOR VIRGINIA

OrganizationLADYSMITH, VA

$500

Mar 29, 2024

LUX FOR VIRGINIA

OrganizationLADYSMITH, VA

$500

Mar 31, 2024

FORSTER-BURKE, DIANE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT

$4,000

Apr 20, 2024

FORSTER-BURKE, DIANE

IndividualCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT

$4,000

May 5, 2024

VON STEIN, THOMSON

IndividualROCKVILLE, MD

$3,500

Aug 7, 2024

HULL, MEGAN

SELF • ACTIVIST

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Nov 2, 2024

KAISER, GEORGE

GBK CORPORATION • EXECUTIVE

IndividualTULSA, OK

$3,300

Oct 25, 2024

PARSONS, KATHLEEN

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPOTOMAC, MD

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

STAPLE, HARISE

SELF • MD

IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

HOLMES, LAURA

SELF • REAL ESTATE INVESTOR

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Self, Keith [R-TX-3]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 33 nodes and 31 connections

Total contributions: $31

Top Donors - Rep. Self, Keith [R-TX-3]

Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount

1 Org19 Individuals

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

Weak

Vector: 57%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 HHS section address discrimination and civil rights, but HR 6411 focuses on ethnic minority rights abroad while the Project 2025 excerpt centers on domestic HHS policies (abortion, conscience protections, gender-affirming care, etc.), resulting only a tangential thematic overlap."

Key themes:discriminationcivil rightshuman rightsequalityassessment/reporting

— 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 Justice

Weak

Vector: 56%

Pages: 615-617AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both texts address discrimination, but the bill focuses on documenting and addressing ethnic discrimination abroad, whereas Project 2025 seeks to eliminate domestic data collection and disparate‑impact tools used to detect and remedy discrimination, resulting in minimal alignment."

Key themes:discriminationdata collectioncivil rights

— 583 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies including human-resources classifications and DEI trainings that promote critical race theory. l Eliminate EEO-1 data collection. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission collects EEO-1 data on employment statistics based on race/ ethnicity, which data can then be used to support a charge of discrimination under a disparate impact theory. This could lead to racial quotas to remedy alleged race discrimination. (The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) also has a right to the data EEOC collects.) Crudely categorizing employees by race or ethnicity fails to recognize the diversity of the American workforce and forces individuals into categories that do not fully reflect their racial and ethnic heritage. l Amend Title VII. The next Administration should work with Congress to amend Title VII to prohibit the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from collecting EEO-1 data and any other racial classifications in employment for both private and public workplaces. l Eliminate disparate impact liability. With interracial marriages in America increasing, many Americans do not fit neatly into crude racial categories.1 Under disparate impact theory, moreover, discriminatory motive or intent is irrelevant; the outcome is what matters. But all workplaces have disparities. Congress should: l Eliminate disparate impact as a valid theory of discrimination for race and other bases under Title VII and other laws. Disparities do not (and should not legally) imply discrimination per se. The President should: l Sign an executive order explicitly forbidding OFCCP from using disparate impact in its analysis. l Eliminate OFCCP. The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) exists to enforce Executive Order (EO) 11246.2 That order was originally signed in 1965 to require federal contractors (and subcontractors) to commit to nondiscrimination. It gave enforcement authority to the Department of Labor, up to and including debarment from federal contracting. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has since — 584 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise grown, often making OFCCP’s authority redundant and imposing a second regulatory agency under whose rules businesses must operate. In addition, under EO 11246, the President and DOL can force a huge swath of American employers to comply with rules and regulations based on novel anti- discrimination theories (such as sexual orientation and gender identity theories) that Congress had never imposed by statute. l Rescind EO 11246. The President should eliminate OFCCP by simply rescinding EO 11246. Federal contractors would still be bound by statutory nondiscrimination law but would no longer work under overlapping regimes. (Contractors’ residual obligations under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act and Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA) could be enforced by EEOC or DOL.) Contractors also would be less subject to the changing political whims of a President that might impose significant new costs or burdens on the contractors. Sex Discrimination. The Biden Administration, LGBT advocates, and some federal courts have attempted to expand the scope and definition of sex discrimi- nation, based in part on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. Bostock held that “an employer who fires someone simply for being homosexual or transgender” violates Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination. The Court explicitly limited its holding to the hiring/firing context in Title VII and did not purport to address other Title VII issues, such as bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes, or other laws prohibiting sex discrimination. Notably, the Court focused on the status of the employees and used the term “transgender status” rather than the broader and amorphous term “gender identity.” l Restrict the application of Bostock. The new Administration should restrict Bostock’s application of sex discrimination protections to sexual orientation and transgender status in the context of hiring and firing. l Withdraw unlawful “notices” and “guidances.” The President should direct agencies to withdraw unlawful “notices” and “guidances” purporting to apply Bostock’s reasoning broadly outside hiring and firing. l Rescind regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, and sex characteristics. The President should direct agencies to rescind regulations interpreting sex discrimination provisions as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, sex characteristics, etc.

Agency for International Development

Minimal

Vector: 56%

Pages: 312-314AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on assessing discrimination against ethnic Albanians in Serbia, while the Project 2025 policy concerns internal USAID reforms related to hiring, training, and ideological alignment. There is no substantive thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 279 — Agency for International Development clearances, and other components of the hiring process that are necessary for immediate onboarding while coordinating with the White House to bring in new appointees and make internal career employee changes. On Day One, USAID should halt all agencywide training and replace it with training modules to advance the President’s agenda. The Administration should appoint a Senior Accountable Official (SAO) to report on the agency’s adherence to Administration policy priorities, including on Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance, critical race theory, climate change, gender, and diversity and inclusion. It should also create a program to staff hard-to-fill positions overseas. Finally, the Administration should create a recruiting program for veterans and other groups to participate in career job opportunities at USAID. Former mis- sionaries, veterans, members of diasporas, and faith community stakeholders with overseas experience should be recruited to work at USAID on Schedule A appoint- ments, as Institutional Services Contractors, as Personal Services Contractors, and as Foreign Service Officers. CONCLUSION The next conservative Administration will have a unique opportunity to realign U.S. foreign assistance with American national interests and the principles of good governance and more accurately reflect the U.S. taxpayer’s unmatched charita- ble desire to help those in need. It can build on a strong baseline of conservative reforms undertaken by the Trump Administration to counter Communist China’s strategy of world domination. However, this will require that bold steps are taken on Day One to undo the gross misuse of foreign aid by the current Administration to promote a radical ideology that is politically divisive at home and harms our global standing. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume, but Dr. William Steiger, Bethany Kozma, and Dr. Alma Golden deserve special mention. The author assumes full responsibility for the content of this chapter, and no views expressed therein should be attributed to any other individual. — 280 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. S. 1983, Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, Public Law No. 87-195, 87th Congress, September 4, 1961, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-75/pdf/STATUTE-75-Pg424-2.pdf (accessed January 19, 2023). 2. U.S. Agency or International Development, “Journey to Self-Reliance Fact Sheet,” June 3, 2020, https://2017-2020.usaid.gov/documents/1870/journey-self-reliance-fact-sheet#:~:text=WHAT%20 IS%20THE%20JOURNEY%20TO%20SELF-RELIANCE%3F%20USAID%20is,greater%20 developmentoutcomesandworktowardatimewhenforeignassistanceisnolongernecessary.%20 It%E2%80%99s%20called%20the%20Journey%20to%20Self-Reliance (accessed March 17, 2023). 3. News release, “U.S. Agency for International Development Administrator Mark Green’s Interview with C-Span’s ‘Newsmakers’ Host Susan Swain and Washington Post’s Carl Morello and Wall Street Journal’s Ben Kesling,” U.S. Agency for International Development, November 26, 2018, https://2017-2020.usaid.gov/news- information/press-releases/nov-26-2018-administrator-mark-green-interview-cspan-newsmakers (accessed March 17, 2023). 4. U.S. Agency for International Development, Digital Strategy 2020–2024, https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/ files/2022-05/USAID_Digital_Strategy.pdf.pdf://www.usaid.gov/digital-development/usaid-digital-strategy (accessed March 17, 2023). 5. “U.S. Strategic Framework for the Indo-Pacific,” declassified in part by Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Robert C. O’Brien, January 5, 2021, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp- content/uploads/2021/01/IPS-Final-Declass.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023), and Robert C. O’Brien, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, “A Free and Open Indo-Pacific,” January 5, 2021, https:// trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/OBrien-Expanded-Statement.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 6. News Release, “Fact Sheet: Prioritizing Climate in Foreign Policy and National Security,” The White House, October 21, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/10/21/fact-sheet- prioritizing-climate-in-foreign-policy-and-national-security/ (accessed January 28, 2023). 7. U.S. Agency for International Development, Climate Strategy 2020–2030, April 2022, https://www.usaid.gov/ sites/default/files/2022-11/USAID-Climate-Strategy-2022-2030.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 8. Adva Saldinger, “USAID Steps Up ‘Languishing’ Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Effort,” Devex.com, December 15, 2021, http://www.devex.com/news/usaid-steps-up-languishing-diversity-equity-and-inclusion- effort-102316 (accessed January 28, 2021). 9. U.S. Agency for International Development, “Gender Equity and Women Empowerment,” https://www.usaid. gov/gender-equality-and-womens-empowerment (accessed January 30, 2023). 10. U.S. Agency for International Development, “Integrating Gender Equality and Female Empowerment in USAID’s Program Cycle,” ADS Chapter 25, partial revision date January 22, 2021, https://www.usaid.gov/sites/ default/files/2022-12/205.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 11. S. 137, Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance Act, 117th Congress, introduced January 28, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/137#:~:text=Protecting%20Life%20in%20Foreign%20 Assistance%20Act.%20This%20bill,support%20for%20an%20entity%20that%20conducts%20 such%20activities (accessed January 20, 2023), and H.R. 534, Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance Act, 117th Congress, introduced January 28, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house- bill/534?s=1&r=450 (accessed January 20, 2023). 12. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., “Memorandum on Protecting Women’s Health at Home and Abroad,” Memorandum for the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, The White House, January 28, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/28/memorandum- on-protecting-womens-health-at-home-and-abroad/ (accessed March 18, 2023). 13. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13926, “Advancing International Religious Freedom,” June 2, 2020, in Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 109 (June 5, 2020), pp. 34951–34953, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2020-06-05/pdf/2020-12430.pdf (accessed January 20, 2023). 14. 22 Code of Federal Regulations § 205.1, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-22/chapter-II/part-205 (accessed March 18, 2023). 15. Contributor’s notes from internal USAID meetings.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal

Vector: 56%

Pages: 542-544AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 6411 concerns a foreign‑policy human rights report on ethnic Albanians in Serbia, whereas the Project 2025 HUD section addresses domestic housing policy reforms such as repealing AFFH, restricting noncitizen eligibility, and altering assistance programs. The two initiatives share no substantive policy goals or subject matter."

Key themes:government oversightpolicy assessment

— 509 — Department of Housing and Urban Development 3. Repeal the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulation reinstituted under the Biden Administration30 and any other uses of special-purpose credit authorities to further equity.31 4. Eliminate the new Housing Supply Fund.32 l The Office of the Secretary should recommence proposed regulation put forward under the Trump Administration that would prohibit noncitizens, including all mixed-status families, from living in all federally assisted housing.33 HUD’s statutory obligations include providing housing for American citizens who are in need. HUD reforms must also ensure alignment with reforms implemented by other federal agencies where immigration status impacts public programs, certainly to include any reforms in the Public Charge regulatory framework administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Local welfare organizations, not the federal government, should step up to provide welfare for the housing of noncitizens. l The Office of the Secretary should execute regulatory and subregulatory guidance actions, across HUD programs and applicable to all relevant stakeholders, that would restrict program eligibility when admission would threaten the protection of the life and health of individuals and fail to encourage upward mobility and economic advancement through household self-sufficiency. Where admissible in regulatory action, HUD should implement reforms reducing the implicit anti-marriage bias in housing assistance programs,34 strengthen work and work-readiness requirements,35 implement maximum term limits for residents in PBRA and TBRA programs,36 and end Housing First37 policies so that the department prioritizes mental health and substance abuse issues before jumping to permanent interventions in homelessness.38 Notwithstanding administrative reforms, Congress should enact legislation that protects life and eliminates provisions in federal housing and welfare benefits policies that discourage work, marriage, and meaningful paths to upward economic mobility. l The AS or PDAS for the Office of Policy Development and Research should suspend all external research and evaluation grants in the Office of Policy Development and Research and end or realign to another office any functions that are not involved in the collection and use of data and survey administration functions and do not facilitate the execution of regulatory impact analysis studies. — 510 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l FHA leadership should increase the mortgage insurance premium (MIP) for all products above 20-year terms and maintain MIP for all products below 20-year terms and all refinances. FHA should encourage wealth-building homeownership opportunities, which can be accomplished best through shorter-duration mortgages.39 Ideally, Congress would contemplate a fundamental revision of FHA’s statutory restriction of single-family housing mortgage insurance to first-time homebuyers.40 This would include (with support from HUD leadership): 1. Moving the Home Equity Conversion Mortgages (HECM) program once again to its own special risk insurance fund. 2. Revising loan limit determinations. 3. Providing statutory flexibility for shorter-term products that amortize principal earlier and faster. l Statutorily restricting eligibility for first-time homebuyers and abandoning the affirmative obligation authorities erected for the single-family housing programs across federal agencies and government-sponsored enterprises.41 l The HUD Secretary should move the HUD Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) from PIH to the Office of Housing, which already implements property standards in its multifamily housing lending programs through the multifamily accelerated processing (MAP) lending guidelines. Giving HUD the authority to streamline the enforcement of compliance with housing standards across the federal government and flexibility for physical inspections through private accreditation should also be considered. l HUD should maintain its requested budget authority for modernization initiatives that are applicable to the Office of the Chief Information Officer and program offices across the department. LONGER-TERM POLICY REFORM CONSIDERATIONS42 Congress has charged HUD principally with mandates for construction of the nation’s affordable housing stock in addition to setting and enforcing standards for decent housing and fair housing enforcement. Regardless of intent, HUD’s efforts have yielded mixed results at best. Even today, more than a half-century after Congress put enforcement of so-called fair housing in the hands of the HUD bureaucracy, implementation of this policy is muddled by the repeated applica- tion of affirmative race-based policies. Also, the production mandate for HUD’s

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 56%

Pages: 521-523AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on a foreign‑policy human rights report about ethnic Albanians in Serbia, while the Project 2025 HHS section addresses domestic health‑care policy, telehealth, pro‑life initiatives, and regulatory reforms; there is no substantive thematic overlap."

— 488 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise limited or no Internet access, which restricts their access to telehealth services (especially video visits). To improve its health care policies that affect rural regions, HHS should: l Reduce the regulatory burden and unleash private innovation that can discover solutions to unique, local needs. l Implement or encourage policies that increase the supply of health care providers, such as increased telehealth access and interstate licensure (a historically state matter), including for volunteers wishing to provide temporary, charitable services across state lines. l Encourage flexibility in modes of health care delivery, including less expensive alternatives to hospitals and telehealth independent of expensive air ambulances. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY The Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Office of the Secretary necessarily set the tone for the entire department. The Secretary is the most accountable individual within HHS and, along with his or her immediate staff, should therefore be responsible for setting the policies that govern the depart- ment’s operations instead of allowing the operational divisions to assume the leading role in policymaking, thereby diffusing responsibility. Practical reforms to enhance the Secretary’s accountability should include the following: l Restrict HHS’s ability to declare indefinite public health emergencies (PHEs). Currently, HHS is merely required to notify Congress of such a declaration within 48 hours. Congress should establish a set time frame for any PHE, placing on the Secretary the burden of proof as to why an extension of the PHE is necessary. l Reinstate the HHS SUNSET (Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely) rule.75 Congress should codify the now- reversed Trump Administration rule that required all HHS agencies to review regulations retrospectively and publish results; without such a review, regulations expire. l Investigate, expose, and remediate any instances in which HHS violated people’s rights by: — 489 — Department of Health and Human Services 1. Colluding with Big Tech to censor dissenting opinions during COVID. 2. Colluding with abortion advocates and LGBT advocates to violate conscience-protection laws and the Hyde Amendment. The Life Agenda. The Office of the Secretary should eliminate the HHS Repro- ductive Healthcare Access Task Force and install a pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children. Additionally, HHS should return to being known as the Department of Life by explicitly rejecting the notion that abortion is health care and by restoring its mission statement under the Strategic Plan and elsewhere to include furthering the health and well-being of all Americans “from conception to natural death.” The next Administration should create a dedicated Special Representative for Domestic Women’s Health. In the Trump Administration, there was a Special Representative for Global Women’s Health that focused on international issues, but this position lacked authority to be the lead on international policies because of overlapping issues with the U.S. Department of State and USAID (and at times a lack of clarity as to the lead point of contact and policy decisions at the White House). The new Special Representative would serve as the lead on all matters of federal domestic policy development related to life and family with support from the DPC for implementation and coordination among agencies. In the post-Dobbs era, advancing support for mothers will include coordination among agencies out- side of HHS, and the Special Representative would provide a clear focal point for all issues related to protecting life and serving families. The Family Agenda. The Secretary’s antidiscrimination policy statements should never conflate sex with gender identity or sexual orientation. Rather, the Secretary should proudly state that men and women are biological realities that are crucial to the advancement of life sciences and medical care and that married men and women are the ideal, natural family structure because all children have a right to be raised by the men and women who conceived them. OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HEALTH (OASH) / OFFICE OF THE SURGEON GENERAL (OSG) The Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH) is the four-star admiral for the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps (USPHS), and the Surgeon Gen- eral (SG) is the three-star admiral. The ASH is tasked with overseeing not only the USPHS, but also 10 regional health offices, multiple presidential and secretarial advisory committees, and other offices such as the Offices of Minority Health, Women’s Health, and Population Affairs. The Secretary can further expand the ASH’s responsibilities (for example, by

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. Self, Keith

State Department Recurring Reports Repeal and Sunset Act of 2026

119/hr/8668

SHADOW Act

119/hr/7632

To amend the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 to increase the civil penalties that may be imposed under such Act.

119/hr/5853

Back to All Bills