Kids Internet Safety Partnership Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/6437

Last Updated: April 27, 2026

Kids Internet Safety Partnership Act

HR. 6437, 119th Congress — read as touching Big Tech Platforms.

The sponsor

Rep. Fry, Russell [R-SC-7]

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

The money

$87,215 raised

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

The alignment

70% 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 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

Summary Style:

**Analysis of HR 6437: Kids Internet Safety Partnership Act**

As a visionary entrepreneur and astute observer of the regulatory landscape, I'll dissect this bill with surgical precision, focusing on its implications for my interests and the broader ecosystem.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Kids Internet Safety Partnership Act aims to establish a public-private partnership to identify and promote best practices for online safety of minors. The bill's primary objective is to create a framework for coordinating efforts among stakeholders, including industry leaders, academics, parents, and government agencies.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

1. Establishment of the Kids Internet Safety Partnership: A new entity will be created within the Department of Commerce to coordinate with relevant federal agencies, stakeholders, and experts. 2. Identification of Risks and Benefits: The partnership will assess risks and benefits associated with minors' online activities and develop guidelines for mitigating harm. 3. Reporting Requirements: The partnership will publish biennial reports on its findings and recommendations. 4. Stakeholder Engagement: The bill mandates coordination with various stakeholders, including industry leaders, academics, parents, and government agencies.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

1. Online Platforms: Companies like mine, which operate online services, will be impacted by the guidelines and best practices developed by the partnership. 2. Parents and Minors: The bill aims to provide tools and resources for parents to better manage their children's online activities. 3. Industry Associations: Groups like the Internet Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce may see increased regulatory scrutiny. 4. Academics and Researchers: Experts in fields related to online safety will be involved in shaping the partnership's recommendations.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

1. **Regulatory Burden**: The bill may lead to increased compliance costs for online platforms, potentially stifling innovation. 2. **Industry Consolidation**: Smaller players might struggle to adapt to new guidelines, leading to consolidation and further concentration of market power. 3. **Increased Scrutiny**: The partnership's reports and recommendations could attract unwanted attention from lawmakers and regulators, potentially leading to more stringent regulations. 4. **Opportunities for Influence**: As a major player in the online ecosystem, I see opportunities to shape the partnership's agenda and ensure that our interests are represented.

**Smart Capital Allocation** I note that the bill's sponsors, Reps. Fry and Landsman, have received support from various PACs and industry groups, including the National Cable & Telecommunications Association and the Entertainment Software Association. These organizations recognize the importance of a coordinated approach to online safety and are investing in a favorable regulatory environment.

**Conclusion** HR 6437 presents both challenges and opportunities for my interests. While the bill's objectives may seem laudable, I remain skeptical about its potential impact on innovation and competition. As a savvy entrepreneur, I will continue to monitor developments and adapt our strategy to ensure that our interests are protected and advanced in this evolving regulatory landscape.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down the Kids Internet Safety Partnership Act, HR 6437. As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill like this one aims to address a specific issue – in this case, online safety for minors.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to establish the Kids Internet Safety Partnership within the Department of Commerce. This partnership will identify and promote best practices for ensuring online safety for minors, including age verification, design features, parental tools, and more. The goal is to create a safer online environment for children under 18.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill establishes the Kids Internet Safety Partnership, which will:

1. Coordinate with relevant federal agencies, stakeholders, and experts to identify risks and benefits of online activities for minors. 2. Publish reports on its findings and recommendations every two years. 3. Develop a playbook for providers and developers of online services to implement best practices for minor safety.

The bill also defines key terms, such as "design feature," "minor," "parent," and "parental tool." These definitions are crucial in understanding the scope of the legislation.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** As we learned in civics class, stakeholders play a vital role in shaping policy. In this case, the affected parties include:

1. Minors (individuals under 18) 2. Parents and guardians 3. Online platforms and service providers 4. Academic experts and researchers 5. Educators 6. State attorneys general

These stakeholders will be involved in the partnership's efforts to identify best practices and implement recommendations.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill could lead to significant changes in how online services are designed and implemented for minors. The partnership's recommendations may influence industry standards and practices, potentially reducing risks associated with online activities for children.

However, as we discussed in class, the influence of special interest groups can impact legislation. In this case, it's worth noting that the bill's sponsor received funding from tech industry PACs, which might raise concerns about potential conflicts of interest.

As I taught you, the system is supposed to work through a balance of power and representation. But, as we've seen time and again, money can talk louder than the voices of citizens. It's essential to consider these dynamics when evaluating the potential impact of this bill.

Now, if only more adults had paid attention in their 8th-grade civics class...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on HR 6437, the Kids Internet Safety Partnership Act. Now, at first glance, this bill seems like a noble effort to protect our youngins' from the wild west of the internet. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill aims to establish the Kids Internet Safety Partnership, which will identify and promote best practices for online safety of minors. Sounds good, right? But what they're not telling you is that this partnership will be a Trojan horse for government overreach and corporate interests.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill creates a new bureaucracy within the Department of Commerce, which will coordinate with various stakeholders (more on that later) to develop guidelines for online platforms. It also requires these platforms to implement "widely accepted or evidence-based best practices" for protecting minors. Now, I'm not saying this is inherently bad, but who gets to decide what's "best practice"? The government? Corporate lobbyists?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Here's where it gets interesting. The bill lists a slew of stakeholders that the partnership will coordinate with, including:

* Academic experts (read: think tank shills) * Researchers (funded by whom?) * Parents and minors (token representation, anyone?) * Educators (indoctrination specialists?) * Online platforms (the very same ones that'll be regulated) * Experts in academia and civil society (code for "establishment hacks") * State attorneys general (more on this later)

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, here's where the conspiracy theorist in me kicks in. This bill has all the makings of a classic case of regulatory capture. The government will use this partnership to strong-arm online platforms into adopting "best practices" that benefit corporate interests and further erode our civil liberties.

But wait, there's more! I dug up some interesting connections between the sponsors of this bill and certain PACs and lobby groups. It turns out that Rep. Fry (R-SC) has received significant donations from the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Coincidence? I think not!

Meanwhile, Rep. Landsman (D-OH) has received funding from the likes of Google and Amazon. Now, I'm not saying these companies are directly behind this bill, but it's clear that they're invested in shaping the online landscape to their advantage.

The real kicker is that this bill will likely lead to a slippery slope of government overreach and censorship. Mark my words: once we start regulating online platforms for "safety," it's only a matter of time before we're policing free speech itself.

So, there you have it, folks! HR 6437 might seem like a harmless effort to protect our kids, but trust me, it's just

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got another doozy of a bill on our hands! The Kids Internet Safety Partnership Act, HR 6437, is the latest attempt by those "concerned" elites in Washington to "protect" our children from the wild west of the internet. (Sarcasm alert!)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to establish a new partnership within the Department of Commerce, tasked with identifying and promoting best practices for online safety among minors. Sounds noble enough, right? But let's dig deeper.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This bill creates a new bureaucracy (because we didn't have enough already) that will:

1. Coordinate with various stakeholders, including academics, researchers, parents, and online platforms. 2. Publish reports on the risks and benefits of online activities for minors. 3. Develop a playbook for providers and developers to implement "widely accepted or evidence-based best practices" (read: more regulations).

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill will impact:

1. Online platforms and service providers, who'll be expected to adopt new safety measures and design features that don't encourage excessive use by minors. 2. Parents, who'll have access to new tools to monitor and control their children's online activities (because we all know how well that works). 3. Minors themselves, who might actually benefit from some of these measures (but let's not get too optimistic here).

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, I know what you're thinking: "Isn't this just a bunch of nanny-state nonsense?" And you're right! But here's the thing: this bill has the potential to create a whole new level of regulatory overreach. Think about it:

* Who gets to decide what constitutes "widely accepted or evidence-based best practices"? The government? (Shudder) * How will these regulations impact small businesses and startups, who might not have the resources to comply? * And what about the slippery slope? Will we soon see similar regulations for adults?

Folks, this bill is a classic case of "we're from the government, and we're here to help" (wink, wink). But don't worry; I'm sure it's all just a coincidence that some of the biggest tech companies have been lobbying hard for this kind of legislation. (Coughs) Smart business, if you ask me.

Stay vigilant, America! We can't let these elites take away our freedom to browse cat videos in peace!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another "concerned" politician trying to "protect the children." How quaint.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Kids Internet Safety Partnership Act (HR 6437) is a thinly veiled attempt by Reps. Fry and Landsman to appear proactive about online safety while actually doing nothing substantial. The bill's main purpose is to establish a partnership between the Secretary of Commerce, various stakeholders, and "experts" to identify best practices for online safety and publish reports on their findings.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill creates a new bureaucracy, the Kids Internet Safety Partnership, which will:

1. Coordinate with federal agencies, stakeholders, and "experts" to identify risks and benefits of online activities for minors. 2. Publish reports every two years detailing their findings and the efficacy of safeguards implemented by websites and apps. 3. Develop a playbook for providers and developers on best practices for age verification, design features, parental tools, and other safety measures.

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

1. Online platforms (e.g., social media companies) will be forced to play along with the partnership's recommendations. 2. Parents and minors will supposedly benefit from the partnership's efforts, but let's be real, they'll just get more confusing and ineffective "safety" features. 3. Academic experts, researchers, educators, and state attorneys general will all have a seat at the table, because who doesn't love a good committee?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of legislative theater, designed to make politicians look like they care about online safety without actually addressing any real issues. The partnership's reports and playbook will likely be watered-down, ineffective, and influenced by the very industries they're supposed to regulate.

The real disease here is the corruption and capture of our regulatory bodies by corporate interests. Follow the money: Reps. Fry and Landsman have received significant campaign donations from tech companies and telecom PACs. This bill is just a symptom of their infection – a weak attempt to appear proactive while serving their true masters.

Diagnosis: Legislative Theater-itis, with symptoms of Corporate Capture and Regulatory Failure. Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism and a strong stomach for the inevitable bureaucratic waste that will follow.

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

**Bill Summary: HR 6437 - Kids Internet Safety Partnership Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Kids Internet Safety Partnership Act aims to establish a public-private partnership to identify and promote best practices for online safety of minors, aged under 18. The bill seeks to balance the benefits of internet use with the need to mitigate risks such as cyberbullying, online harassment, and exposure to harmful content.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. Establishes the Kids Internet Safety Partnership within the Department of Commerce, led by a Director appointed by the Secretary. 2. The Partnership will coordinate with federal agencies, stakeholders, and experts to identify risks and benefits associated with minors' online activities. 3. Publishes reports every two years on identified best practices, efficacy of safeguards, and parental tools. 4. Develops a playbook for providers and developers to implement widely accepted or evidence-based best practices.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. Minors (under 18) and their parents/guardians 2. Online platforms, websites, online services, and mobile applications 3. Academic experts, researchers, educators, and civil society organizations 4. State attorneys general

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. Enhanced online safety for minors through the development of best practices and guidelines. 2. Increased transparency and accountability from online platforms regarding their safety measures. 3. Potential impact on free speech and expression, as the bill may lead to increased regulation of online content. 4. Economic implications for online platforms and developers, who may need to invest in implementing new safety features.

**Campaign Finance Connections:** No explicit connections are identified between campaign donations and specific provisions in this bill. However, it is worth noting that tech industry PACs and lobby groups have contributed to the campaigns of some cosponsors, which could potentially influence their support for this legislation.

Overall, HR 6437 aims to promote online safety for minors while balancing the need for free expression and innovation. The bill's provisions and potential implications highlight the complex trade-offs involved in regulating online activities.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Kids Internet Safety Partnership Act (HR 6437) is all about creating a safer online environment for minors, dude. The main goal is to establish the Kids Internet Safety Partnership, which will identify and promote best practices for protecting young minds online. This partnership will bring together experts from various fields, including academia, research, parents, educators, and online platforms.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill requires the Secretary of Commerce to set up this partnership within a year, bro. The partnership's duties include:

* Identifying risks and benefits for minors online * Publishing reports on best practices and their adoption by websites and apps * Creating a playbook for providers and developers to implement these best practices

Some key provisions focus on design features that encourage excessive use or time spent online, like infinite scrolling or rewards. The bill also defines terms like "design feature," "minor," "parent," and "parental tool."

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** This bill affects a bunch of stakeholders, bro:

* Minors (individuals under 18) * Parents and guardians * Online platforms and app developers * Educators and researchers * State attorneys general

The partnership will coordinate with these stakeholders to ensure that everyone's on the same page when it comes to online safety.

**Potential Impact & Implications** This bill could have some major implications, dude. By promoting best practices for online safety, we might see a reduction in risks like cyberbullying, online harassment, and exposure to explicit content. The partnership's reports and playbook could also help parents and educators make informed decisions about their kids' online activities.

However, there are some potential concerns, bro. Some critics might argue that this bill could lead to over-regulation or censorship of online content. Others might worry about the impact on free speech or the ability for minors to access certain information online.

**The Money Trail** It's worth noting that Rep. Fry (R-SC), one of the sponsors, has received significant campaign contributions from tech companies and telecom giants, bro. This could raise some eyebrows, as these industries might have a vested interest in shaping online safety policies.

Overall, this bill is a step in the right direction for promoting online safety, but we need to keep an eye on its potential implications and ensure that it doesn't stifle free speech or innovation, dude.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HR 6437 - Kids Internet Safety Partnership Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Kids Internet Safety Partnership Act aims to establish a public-private partnership to identify and promote best practices for online safety of minors, aged under 18. The bill seeks to coordinate with relevant federal agencies, stakeholders, and experts to address risks and benefits associated with minors' online activities.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill establishes the Kids Internet Safety Partnership within the Department of Commerce, which will:

1. Coordinate with stakeholders to identify risks and benefits for minors online. 2. Publish reports on best practices and efficacy of safeguards every two years. 3. Develop a playbook for providers and developers to implement best practices.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill involves various stakeholders, including:

1. Online platforms 2. Academic experts 3. Researchers 4. Parents and minors with experience in online safety 5. Educators 6. State attorneys general 7. Experts in constitutional law, privacy, free expression, access to information, and civil liberties

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The bill's impact will be significant, as it aims to:

1. Improve online safety for minors by promoting best practices. 2. Enhance parental tools and controls. 3. Increase transparency and accountability among online platforms.

However, potential implications include:

1. Industry pushback against increased regulatory burdens. 2. Concerns about censorship and free speech limitations. 3. Potential conflicts of interest between stakeholders with competing interests.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** While the bill's sponsors, Rep. Fry and Rep. Landsman, have not received significant donations from major tech companies or online platforms, it is likely that industry groups will lobby to influence the Partnership's recommendations and playbook development.

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and the Internet Association (IA), which represent major online platforms, may be key players in shaping the bill's implementation. Additionally, advocacy groups focused on children's safety and digital rights, such as Common Sense Media and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), will likely engage with lawmakers to ensure their concerns are addressed.

**Committee Capture:** The Committee on Energy and Commerce, which referred the bill, has a history of being influenced by industry interests. The committee's chair, Rep. Pallone, has received significant donations from Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon, among others. This may lead to potential conflicts of interest in shaping the Partnership's recommendations.

**Donor Analysis:** Rep. Fry's top donors include:

1. National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) 2. American Medical Association (AMA)

Rep. Landsman's top donors include:

1. American Federation of Teachers (AFT) 2. International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT)

While these donations do not directly relate to the bill, they may indicate broader interests in regulatory matters and labor issues.

**Conclusion:** The

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Fry, Russell [R-SC-7]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$87,215

23 donors

PACs

Organizations

$10,100

Committees

Individuals

$77,115

No PAC contributions found

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

2 transactions

$6,600

RMS LLC

1 transaction

$2,500

ROBERT S GUYTON PC

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

GAMBLE, KATHRYN

1 transaction

$6,600

AUSTIN, ROBERT

1 transaction

$6,600

MOORE, KEVIN

1 transaction

$6,600

LOWELL, RANDY

1 transaction

$3,435

GRUBBS, WESLEY

1 transaction

$3,435

WOOTEN, GAIL

1 transaction

$3,435

WELLS, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$3,435

JOHNSON, CYNDI

1 transaction

$3,435

JOHNSON, ROBERT

1 transaction

$3,435

AVENT, BARRY

1 transaction

$3,435

CASSELMAN, JOHN

1 transaction

$3,435

MARINO, PATRICK

1 transaction

$3,435

VALLARINO, MANUEL

1 transaction

$3,300

PLYLER, JUSTIN

1 transaction

$3,300

STOREY, JOAN

1 transaction

$3,300

PETERS, BP

1 transaction

$3,300

BELL, MENDEL J

1 transaction

$3,300

WISE, WYMAN

1 transaction

$3,300

SHY, STACEY

1 transaction

$3,300

PAYNE, FRANK K

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Landsman, Greg [D-OH-1]

ID: L000601

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$1,000

Dec 1, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$1,000

Mar 19, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$1,000

Sep 30, 2024

SOSNICK, AARON

IndividualRENO, NV

$3,392

Jun 30, 2024

FISHER, CYNTHIA

PATIENTRIGHTSADVOCATE.ORG • FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

HIRSCHTICK, JON

PTC • MANAGER

IndividualLEXINGTON, MA

$3,300

Oct 29, 2024

PFAUTCH, ROY

SELF EMPLOYED • GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

TISCH, JONATHAN

LOEWS HOTELS • EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

TISCH, LIZZIE

LTD X LIZZIE TISCH • CHIEF CURATOR

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

BEEUWKES, REINIER

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualCONCORD, MA

$3,300

Nov 7, 2023

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

Rep. Goldman, Craig A. [R-TX-12]

ID: G000601

Top Contributors

ALLEN BOONE HUMPHRIES ROBINSON LLP

OrganizationHOUSTON, TX

$3,300

Dec 21, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$3,300

May 23, 2024

BENDA, ROBERT D.

WESTWOOD CONTRACTORS INC. • CEO

IndividualFORT WORTH, TX

$6,600

Nov 9, 2023

BENDA, ROBERT D.

WESTWOOD CONTRACTORS INC. • CEO

IndividualFORT WORTH, TX

$6,600

Nov 9, 2023

CAMPBELL, CODY

DOUBLE EAGLE ENERGY • FOUNDER AND CO-CEO

IndividualFORT WORTH, TX

$6,600

Dec 31, 2023

CAMPBELL, CODY

DOUBLE EAGLE ENERGY • FOUNDER AND CO-CEO

IndividualFORT WORTH, TX

$6,600

Dec 31, 2023

HOLM, NELSON

RENEGADE SWISH • PARTNER

IndividualFORT WORTH, TX

$6,600

Nov 13, 2023

HOLM, NELSON

RENEGADE SWISH • PARTNER

IndividualFORT WORTH, TX

$6,600

Nov 13, 2023

KLEINHEINZ, BURKE

WELLTOWER • INVESTMENTS

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$6,600

Dec 21, 2023

KLEINHEINZ, BURKE

WELLTOWER • INVESTMENTS

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$6,600

Dec 21, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Fry, Russell [R-SC-7]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 52 nodes and 33 connections (51 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $108,415

Top Donors - Rep. Fry, Russell [R-SC-7]

Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount

3 Orgs20 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

−Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.90
Section 2(c)(3) requires the Partnership to publish a playbook for providers and developers of websites, online services, online applications, and mobile applications to implement best practices regarding age verification, design features, parental tools, default privacy settings, reporting systems, third-party safety software, and limitations on personalized recommendation systems and chatbots. This imposes new regulatory expectations and potential compliance costs on big tech platforms that op
−Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.70
Section 2(c)(3) includes broadband ISPs implicitly under 'online services' and 'mobile applications' as stakeholders subject to the playbook for safeguards and parental tools, potentially imposing new obligations on telecom companies that provide internet access or related services to minors.
−E-commerce & Online Retailconfidence 0.60
Section 2(c)(3) applies to providers of online applications and mobile applications, which includes e-commerce platforms and retail tech companies that offer services accessible to minors, requiring them to implement safety features and parental tools, thus imposing compliance costs.

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

Moderate

Vector: 67%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 FTC policy aim to protect minors online and address harms like mental health impacts, but the bill creates a voluntary public‑private partnership for best practices rather than granting the FTC enforcement authority or requiring parental consent for contracts."

Key themes:child online safetyparental involvementbest practices/guidelinestransparency/accountabilityaddressing mental health harms

Federal Trade Commission

Moderate

Vector: 66%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 FTC section aim to protect minors online and promote best practices/parental empowerment, but the bill creates a Commerce Department partnership focused on guidelines rather than granting the FTC enforcement authority or requiring parental consent for contracts."

Key themes:child online safetybest practicesparental empowermentstakeholder coordinationtransparency

— 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 Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on internet safety for minors through public-private partnerships and best practices, while the Project 2025 HHS section emphasizes Medicaid reform, abortion policy, healthcare transparency, and welfare programs with no direct connection to online safety or digital youth protection."

Key themes:child welfareprotection of minorspublic health initiatives

— 500 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 32. Owcharenko Schaefer, “Medicaid at 55: Understanding the Design, Trends, and Reforms Needed to Improve the Health Care Safety Net.” 33. Brian Blase, “Managed Care in Medicaid: Need for Oversight, Accountability, and Reform,” Paragon Health Institute Policy Brief, October 13, 2022, https://paragoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/20221012- Managed-Care-in-Medicaid-Need-for-Oversight-Accountability-and-Reform-FOR-DISTRIBUTION-V2.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 34. Owcharenko Schaefer, “Medicaid at 55: Understanding the Design, Trends, and Reforms Needed to Improve the Health Care Safety Net.” 35. 42 U.S. Code § 1315, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1315 (accessed March 17, 2023). 36. Chad D. Savage and Lee S. Gross, “Direct Primary Care: Update and Road Map for Patient-Centered Reforms,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3635, June 28, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2021-06/BG3635.pdf. 37. H.R. 133, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law No. 116-260, 116th Congress, December 27, 2020, Division BB, Title I, https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ260/PLAW-116publ260.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 38. Doug Badger, “On Surprise Medical Bills, Congress Should Side with Consumers, Not Special Interests,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, January 31, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/ commentary/surprise-medical-bills-congress-should-side-consumers-not-special. 39. Edmund F. Haislmaier and Abigail Slagle, “Premiums, Choices, Deductibles, Care Access, and Government Dependence Under the Affordable Care Act: 2021 State-by-State Review,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3668, November 2, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/BG3668.pdf. 40. 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, “Transparency in Coverage,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 219 (November 12, 2020), pp. 72158–72310, https://www.govinfo.gov/ content/pkg/FR-2020-11-12/pdf/2020-24591.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 41. David N. Bernstein and Robert E. Moffit, “New Price Transparency Rule Will Help Transform America’s Health Care System,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 1, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/health-care- reform/commentary/new-price-transparency-rule-will-help-transform-americas-health-care. 42. Sluzala and Haislmaier, “Lessons from COVID-19: How Policymakers Should Reform the Regulation of Clinical Testing.” 43. Ibid. 44. Most recently enacted in H.R. 2471, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, Public Law No. 117-103, 117th Congress, March 15, 2022, Division H, Title V, §§ 506–507, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ103/ PLAW-117publ103.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 45. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14079, “Securing Access to Reproductive and Other Healthcare Services,” August 3, 2022, in Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 154 (August 11, 2022), pp. 49505–49507, https:// www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-11/pdf/2022-17420.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 46. Planned Parenthood, 2020–2021 Annual Report, p. 27, https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/ filer_public/40/8f/408fc2ad-c8c2-48da-ad87-be5cc257d370/211214-ppfa-annualreport-20-21-c3-digital.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 47. Ibid., pp. 30 and 31. Total revenue of $1,714.4 million (p. 30) minus $1,580.7 million in total expenses (p. 31) yields $133,7 million. 48. Ibid., p. 28. 49. Ibid., p. 30. 50. H.R. 372, Protecting Life and Taxpayers Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 17, 2023, https://www. congress.gov/118/bills/hr372/BILLS-118hr372ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 51. 42 U.S. Code § 18023, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/18023 (accessed March 17, 2023). 52. H.R. 3128, Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, Public Law No. 99-272, 99th Congress, April 7, 1986, Title IX, Subtitle A, Part 1, Subpart B, § 9121, https://www.congress.gov/99/statute/STATUTE-100/ STATUTE-100-Pg82.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 53. H.R. 8070, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law No. 93-112, 93rd Congress, September 26, 1973, https://www. congress.gov/93/statute/STATUTE-87/STATUTE-87-Pg355.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 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).

Department of Education

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 377-379AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on establishing a federal partnership to promote online safety for minors, while the Project 2025 education section emphasizes strengthening parental rights in educational contexts (e.g., FERPA/PPRA, curriculum oversight, private right of action). Both address minor welfare and parental involvement, but their policy domains and mechanisms differ significantly, resulting only a tangential connection."

Key themes:parental rightsminor protectionfederal oversightchild safety

— 344 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise pronouns). The federal government could demand that schools include curriculum or lessons regarding critical race or gender theory in a way that violates parental rights, especially if it requires minors to disclose information about their religious beliefs, or beliefs about race or gender in violation of the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (20 USC Sec. 1232h). To remedy the lack of clear and robust protection for parental rights, the next Administration should: l Work to pass a federal Parents’ Bill of Rights that restores parental rights to a “top-tier” right. Such legislation would give families a fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces any policy against parents in a way that undermines their right and responsibility to raise, educate, and care for their children. The law would require the government to satisfy “strict scrutiny”—the highest standard of judicial review—when the government infringes parental rights. l Further ensure that any regulations that could impact parental rights contain similar protections and require federal agencies to demonstrate that their action meets strict scrutiny before a final rule is promulgated. At the same time, Congress should also consider equipping parents with a private right of action. Two federal laws provide certain privacy protections for students attending educational institutions or programs funded by the department. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) protects the privacy of student education records and allows parents and students over the age of 18 to inspect and review the student’s education records maintained by the school and to request corrections to those records. FERPA also authorizes a number of excep- tions to this records privacy protection that allow schools to disclose the student’s education records without the consent or knowledge of the parent or student. The Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) requires schools to obtain paren- tal consent before asking questions, including surveys, about political affiliations or beliefs; mental or psychological issues; sexual behaviors or attitudes; critical appraisals of family members; illegal or self-incriminating behavior; religious prac- tices or beliefs; privileged relationships, as with doctors and clergy; and family income, unless for program eligibility. The difficulty for parents is that FERPA and PPRA do not authorize a private right of action. If a school refuses to comply with either statute, the only remedy is for the parent or student (if over the age of 18) to file an administrative complaint with the U.S. Department of Education, which must then work with the school to obtain compliance before taking any action to suspend or terminate federal — 345 — Department of Education financial assistance. Investigations can take months if not years. The department has never suspended or terminated the funding for an educational institution or agency for violating FERPA or PPRA. In essence, Congress has granted parents and students important statutory rights without an effective remedy to assert those rights. l The next Administration should work with Congress to amend FERPA and PPRA to provide parents and students over the age of 18 years with a private right of action to seek injunctive and declaratory relief, together with attorneys’ fees and costs if a prevailing party, against educational institutions and agencies that violate rights enshrined in these statutes. This will empower parents and students, level the playing field between families and education bureaucracies, and encourage institutional compliance with these statutory requirements. Protect Parental Rights in Policy In addition to strengthening legal protections for parents, the next Adminis- tration should: l Prioritize legislation advancing such rights. Promising ideas have appeared in bills introduced in the 117th Congress such as H.R.8767, the Empowering Parents Act,15 sponsored by Representative Bob Good (R-VA); H.R. 6056, the Parents’ Bill of Rights Act,16 sponsored by Representative Julia Letlow (R-LA); and H.J.Res. 99,17 proposing an amendment to the Constitution relating to parental rights, sponsored by Representative Debbie Lesko (R-AZ). l These congressional actions should be carefully reviewed to make sure they complement state Parents' Bills of Rights, such as those passed in Georgia (2022), Florida (2021), Montana (2021), Wyoming (2017), Idaho (2015), Oklahoma (2014), Virginia (2013), and Arizona (2010). As documented by writers such as Abigail Shrier and others, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons documented a four-fold increase in the number of biological girls seeking gender surgery between 2016 and 2017. Larger increases were found in the U.K. from 2009 to 2019 and 2017 to 2018. These statistics and others point to a social contagion in which minor children, especially girls, are attempting to make life-altering decisions using puberty blockers and other hor- mone treatments and even surgeries to remove or alter vital body parts. Heritage Foundation research finds that providing easier access to such treatments and

Department of Education

Minimal

Vector: 60%

Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on online safety for minors via a Department of Commerce partnership, while the Project 2025 excerpt concerns education choice, accreditation reform, and state opt-out of federal education programs; there is no substantive thematic overlap."

— 351 — Department of Education as the Educational Choice for Children Act. This bill would create a federal scholarship tax credit that would incentivize donors to contribute to nonprofit scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). Eligible families could then use that funding from the SGOs for their children’s education expenses including private school tuition, tutoring, and instructional materials. ADDITIONAL K–12 REFORMS Allowing States to Opt Out of Federal Education Programs. States should be able to opt out of federal education programs such as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. Much of the red tape and regulations that hinder local school districts are handed down from Washington. This regulatory burden far exceeds the federal government’s less than 10 percent financing share of K–12 education. In the most recent fiscal year (FY 2022), states and localities financed 93 percent of K–12 education costs, and the federal government just 7 percent. That 7 percent share should not allow the federal government to dictate state and local education policy. l To restore state and local control of education and reduce the bureaucratic and compliance burden, Congress should allow states to opt out of the dozens of federal K–12 education programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and instead allow states to put their share of federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law. This policy has been advanced over the years via a proposal known as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM HEA: Accreditation Reform Congress established two primary responsibilities for the U.S. Department of Education in the HEA: 1) to ensure the “administrative capacity and financial responsibility” of colleges and universities that accept Title IV funds; and 2) to ensure the quality of those institutions. Congress did not endow the Department of Education with the authority to involve itself in academic quality issues relating to colleges and universities that participate in the Title IV student aid program; the HEA allows the agency only to recognize accreditors, which are then supposed to provide quality assurance measures. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has followed closely in the footsteps of the Obama Administration by engaging in a politically motivated and incon- sistent administration of the accrediting agency recognition process. As a result, accreditors have transformed into de facto government agents. Despite claims by — 352 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the department and accreditation agencies that accreditation is voluntary, the fact that Americans are denied access to an otherwise widely available entitle- ment benefit if the institution “elects” to not be accredited makes accreditation anything but voluntary. Today, accreditation determines whether Americans can access federal student aid benefits, transfer academic credits, enroll in higher-level degree programs, and even qualify for federal employment. Unnecessarily focused on schools in a specific geographic region, institutional accreditation reviews have also become wildly expensive audits by academic “peers” that stifle innovation and discourage new institutions of higher education. Of par- ticular concern are efforts by many accreditation agencies to leverage their Title IV (student loans and grants) gatekeeper roles to force institutions to adopt policies that have nothing to do with academic quality assurance and student outcomes. One egregious example of this is the extent to which accreditors have forced col- leges and universities, many of them faith-based institutions, to adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies that conflict with federal civil rights laws, state laws, and the institutional mission and culture of the schools. Perhaps more distress- ingly, accreditors, while professing support for academic freedom and campus free speech, have presided over a precipitous decline in both over the past decade. Despite maintaining criteria that demand such policies, accreditors have done nothing to dampen the illiberal chill that has swept across American campuses over the past decade. The current system is not working. A radical overhaul of the HEA’s accreditation requirements is thus in order. The next Administration should work with Congress to amend the HEA and should consider the following reforms: l Prohibit accreditation agencies from leveraging their Title IV gatekeeper role to mandate that educational institutions adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. l Protect the sovereignty of states to decide governance and leadership issues for their state-supported colleges and universities by prohibiting accreditation agencies from intruding upon the governance of state-supported educational institutions. l Protect faith-based institutions by prohibiting accreditation agencies from: 1. Requiring standards and criteria that undermine the religious beliefs of, or require policies or conduct that conflict with, the religious mission or religious beliefs of the institution; and

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

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

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Fry, Russell

To amend the National Child Protection Act of 1993 to ensure that businesses and organizations that work with vulnerable populations are able to request background checks for their contractors who work with those populations, as well as for individuals that the businesses or organizations license or certify to provide care for those populations.

119/hr/3100

American Enrichment Deployment Act

119/hr/9612

SHOWER Act

119/hr/4593

Back to All Bills