James T. Woods Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/6719

Last Updated: August 9, 2026

James T. Woods Act

HR. 6719, 119th Congress — read as touching Big Tech Platforms.

The sponsor

Rep. Lee, Laurel M. [R-FL-15]

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

The money

$152,500 raised

25 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

Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 346.

March 1, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

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 James T. Woods Act. A bill that, on the surface, appears to be a well-intentioned effort to combat online child exploitation. But let's not be naive. This legislation is merely a thinly veiled attempt to expand the government's reach into the digital realm, imposing unnecessary regulations and stifling innovation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill aims to prohibit threats to minors and amend existing laws related to child sexual abuse material. It also seeks to update federal sentencing guidelines for child sex crimes. But make no mistake, this is not about protecting children; it's about consolidating power and control over the internet.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends sections 2252A and 2252 of title 18, United States Code, to include new provisions related to threats to distribute child sexual abuse material. It also updates federal sentencing guidelines for child sex crimes, increasing penalties for offenders. But what's truly concerning is the expansion of the definition of "child sexual abuse material" to include any visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill will primarily affect online platforms, social media companies, and individuals who distribute or possess child sexual abuse material. But let's be clear, this is not just about punishing offenders; it's about setting a precedent for increased government control over the internet. The real stakeholders here are the tech giants, who will be forced to comply with these new regulations, and the government itself, which will gain more power to surveil and censor online activity.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The bill's impact will be twofold. Firstly, it will lead to increased censorship and surveillance of online platforms, stifling free speech and innovation. Secondly, it will create a new wave of regulatory compliance costs for tech companies, which will inevitably be passed on to consumers. But what's truly concerning is the potential for this legislation to set a precedent for future regulations, further eroding our civil liberties and consolidating power in the hands of the government.

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I must emphasize that this bill is a prime example of how misguided government intervention can stifle innovation and progress. We should be focusing on creating a free and open internet, not one controlled by bureaucrats and special interest groups. The James T. Woods Act is a threat to our digital freedom, and we must reject it.

Projected impact on my business empire: $500 million in increased compliance costs over the next 5 years.

Recommendation: Oppose this bill and advocate for a more nuanced approach that balances the need to protect children with the importance of preserving online freedom and innovation.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics, a bill is a proposed law that must go through several stages before it becomes an actual law. This one, HR 6719, has already been reported out of committee and is now on the Senate calendar.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The James T. Woods Act aims to combat online child sex offenses by amending existing laws related to child exploitation and abuse material. The bill's primary objective is to strengthen federal sentencing guidelines for offenders who engage in prohibited conduct against children, including those who threaten to distribute or produce child sexual abuse material.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes several key changes to existing law:

1. It amends Section 2252A of Title 18, United States Code, to include threats to distribute child sexual abuse material as a prohibited offense. 2. It adds new provisions to Section 2252 of Title 18, United States Code, related to the distribution and possession of child sexual abuse material. 3. The bill also amends federal sentencing guidelines to account for the scale, complexity, and dangerousness of online child sex crimes.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects various parties, including:

1. Offenders who engage in prohibited conduct against children 2. Victims of child exploitation and abuse 3. Law enforcement agencies responsible for investigating and prosecuting these crimes 4. The federal judiciary, which will be responsible for applying the new sentencing guidelines

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The James T. Woods Act has significant implications for the fight against online child sex offenses:

1. It strengthens federal laws to combat child exploitation and abuse material. 2. It provides law enforcement with additional tools to investigate and prosecute these crimes. 3. The bill's amendments to sentencing guidelines may lead to harsher penalties for offenders, which could serve as a deterrent.

Now, I know this is all quite straightforward, but apparently, some of you need a refresher on how bills become laws and what they actually do. As we covered in 8th grade civics, the legislative process involves introducing a bill, committee review, debate, voting, and eventual signing into law by the President. This bill has already cleared several hurdles, and its passage could have significant consequences for those involved in online child sex offenses.

Next thing you know, I'll be explaining what the three branches of government are...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on HR 6719, aka the James T. Woods Act. Now, at first glance, this bill seems like a straightforward attempt to combat online child predators and protect our youth from exploitation. But, as we all know, nothing is ever as it seems in the world of politics.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of this bill is to prohibit threats to minors and amend existing laws related to child sexual abuse material. Sounds noble enough, right? However, I've got my eye on some suspicious language that might indicate a more insidious agenda.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This bill makes significant changes to sections 2252A and 2252 of title 18, United States Code. It adds new provisions for prohibiting threats to distribute child sexual abuse material and expands the definition of "child sexual abuse material" to include visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

Now, here's where things get interesting: the bill also introduces a new term, "prohibited conduct against a child," which includes a laundry list of offenses like kidnapping, live streaming of child sexual abuse, and using a child to produce child sexual abuse material. Sounds like a good thing, right? But what about the part that says this definition "does not include" certain types of conduct, like advertising or distributing child sexual abuse material? That's some curious language, if you ask me.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects online platforms, social media companies, and anyone who might be accused of distributing or creating child sexual abuse material. But what about the government agencies tasked with enforcing these new provisions? Who's watching them?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** On the surface, this bill seems like a necessary measure to protect our children from online predators. However, I see some potential red flags:

1. **Increased surveillance:** This bill could lead to increased monitoring of online activity, which might infringe on our civil liberties. 2. **Overreach and abuse:** The expanded definition of "prohibited conduct against a child" could be used to target innocent individuals or groups. 3. **Censorship:** The language around "child sexual abuse material" is broad enough to potentially censor legitimate content or stifle free speech.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "Uncle, you're being paranoid again." But let me tell you, folks, in the world of politics, nothing is ever as it seems. There's always more to the story. Keep your eyes open, and don't be afraid to question the official narrative.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Outraged tone) Folks, we've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. The James T. Woods Act, also known as the SAFE Act - because who doesn't love a good acronym? (smirk) This bill is all about combating online predators and protecting our precious children from the scourge of child sex exploitation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main objective of this bill is to strengthen federal laws against child sex exploitation, specifically targeting those who threaten or coerce minors into creating or transmitting explicit content. It's a noble cause, but let's be real, it's also a classic case of the government trying to control the internet and stifle our freedom of speech. (wink)

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends existing laws to include new provisions that prohibit threats to distribute child sex abuse material, as well as increases penalties for those who engage in such activities. It also updates federal sentencing guidelines to account for the complexity and scale of online child sex crimes. (sarcastic tone) Oh boy, because what we really need is more government bureaucrats deciding how long people should spend in jail.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill affects a range of stakeholders, including law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, judges, and of course, the poor souls who get caught up in these online exploitation schemes. (dramatic music) But let's not forget about the real victims here - our children! (emotional appeal)

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is significant, folks. It could lead to increased surveillance and censorship of online activities, all under the guise of protecting our kids. (conspiratorial whisper) But what's really going on here? Is this just another example of the deep state trying to control our every move? (wink)

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But wait, isn't this bill a good thing?" And to that, I say... (pausing for dramatic effect) ...maybe. Maybe it's a necessary evil in today's online landscape. But let's not forget about the slippery slope we're on here. Once we start giving the government more power to control our online activities, where does it end? (rhetorical question)

So, there you have it, folks - the James T. Woods Act: a bill that's either a necessary step in protecting our children or a draconian measure designed to stifle our freedom of speech. You decide. (smirk)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another bill from the esteemed members of Congress, because what this country really needs is more legislation that sounds good but accomplishes nothing. Let's dissect this mess.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The James T. Woods Act (HR 6719) claims to combat online predators and child sex offenses. How noble. Its primary objective is to amend existing laws to better address the complexities of online child exploitation. Yeah, because that's exactly what we need – more amendments to laws that are already ineffective.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** This bill proposes changes to sections 2252A and 2252 of title 18, United States Code, which deal with material involving the sexual exploitation of minors. It adds new provisions to prohibit threats to distribute child sex abuse material, because apparently, that wasn't already covered under existing laws. The bill also amends federal sentencing guidelines to account for the "scale, complexity, and dangerousness" of these offenses.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The usual suspects: children (as victims), online predators (as perpetrators), law enforcement agencies, and the judiciary. Oh, and let's not forget the politicians who get to grandstand about how they're protecting our children while doing nothing meaningful.

**Potential Impact & Implications** This bill is a perfect example of "legislative theater." It creates the illusion of action without actually addressing the root causes of online child exploitation. The proposed changes will likely lead to more bureaucratic red tape, increased surveillance, and further erosion of civil liberties – all under the guise of protecting children.

In reality, this bill will do little to prevent online child sex offenses. It's a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. The real issues lie in the lack of effective law enforcement strategies, inadequate resources for victims' support services, and the inherent flaws in our justice system.

But hey, at least our politicians can say they did something. That's all that matters, right? Now, let's get back to the important work of pretending to care about our children while lining the pockets of special interest groups and lobbyists.

Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a severe case of " Politician-itis" – a disease characterized by an excessive need for self-aggrandizement, a lack of genuine concern for the welfare of citizens, and a propensity for creating meaningless legislation. Treatment: a healthy dose of skepticism, critical thinking, and a strong stomach to withstand the putrid stench of bureaucratic nonsense.

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

**HR 6719: James T. Woods Act**

**Main Purpose and Objectives:** The James T. Woods Act aims to combat online child sex offenses by strengthening federal laws and sentencing guidelines related to child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and prohibited conduct against minors.

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

1. **Expansion of Threats Against Minors**: The bill amends 18 U.S.C. § 2252A to include threats to distribute CSAM or visual depictions of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, with the intent that the minor create or transmit such material. 2. **Modification of Federal Sentencing Guidelines**: The SAFE Act (Sentencing Accountability For Exploitation Act) within the bill updates federal sentencing guidelines to account for the complexity and scale of online child sex crimes, ensuring advisory sentencing ranges reflect the severity of these offenses.

**Affected Parties and Stakeholders:**

1. **Minors and Their Families**: The bill aims to protect minors from online exploitation and abuse. 2. **Law Enforcement Agencies**: Federal agencies responsible for investigating and prosecuting CSAM-related crimes will be impacted by the updated laws and guidelines. 3. **Judiciary and Courts**: Judges and courts will need to apply the revised sentencing guidelines when handling cases involving CSAM and prohibited conduct against minors.

**Potential Impact and Implications:**

1. **Increased Protection for Minors**: The bill's provisions aim to prevent online exploitation and abuse of minors, ensuring their safety and well-being. 2. **Enhanced Accountability for Offenders**: Strengthened laws and sentencing guidelines will hold offenders accountable for their actions, potentially deterring would-be perpetrators. 3. **Improved Investigation and Prosecution**: Updated federal laws and guidelines will aid law enforcement agencies in investigating and prosecuting CSAM-related crimes more effectively.

Overall, the James T. Woods Act seeks to address the growing concern of online child sex offenses by strengthening federal laws and sentencing guidelines, ultimately protecting minors from exploitation and abuse.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

I'm gonna break down this bill for ya, and it's gonna be a wild ride.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The James T. Woods Act is all about combatin' online predators who target minors. The main goal is to strengthen laws against child sex offenses, particularly those that involve threats, exploitation, and abuse of kids online. It's like, we gotta protect the groms, bro.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

This bill makes some significant changes to existing law:

1. **Threats to Minors**: The bill expands the definition of "material involving the sexual exploitation of minors" to include threats to distribute visual depictions of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. 2. **Child Sexual Abuse Material**: It updates the federal sentencing guidelines to account for the complexity, scale, and danger of online child sex crimes. 3. **Prohibited Conduct Against Children**: The bill defines "prohibited conduct against a child" to include kidnapping, illegal sexual abuse, live streaming of child abuse, using a child to produce child sex material, and more.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects:

1. **Law Enforcement**: They'll have new tools to investigate and prosecute online predators. 2. **Victims' Families**: The bill aims to provide justice and support for families affected by these heinous crimes. 3. **Online Platforms**: Social media, apps, and websites will need to adapt to new regulations and reporting requirements.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill could have a significant impact:

1. **Increased Accountability**: Online predators will face harsher penalties, which might deter some from committing these crimes. 2. **Improved Investigations**: Law enforcement will have more resources to track down and prosecute offenders. 3. **Better Protection for Kids**: The bill aims to reduce the number of child sex offenses online, keeping kids safer.

However, there are also potential concerns:

1. **Free Speech Implications**: Some argue that the bill might infringe on free speech rights or lead to over-censorship. 2. **Implementation Challenges**: Online platforms and law enforcement will need to adapt quickly to new regulations and reporting requirements.

Anyway, dude, that's a summary of the James T. Woods Act. It's like, we gotta keep our kids safe online, bro.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 6719: James T. Woods Act - A Bill with Hidden Motivations and Industry Influence**

The James T. Woods Act, also known as the SAFE Act, is a bill that aims to combat online child sex offenses by amending federal sentencing guidelines and expanding the definition of prohibited conduct against children. However, upon closer examination, it becomes clear that this bill has been shaped by industry interests and special interest groups.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:**

The main purpose of the James T. Woods Act is to increase penalties for online child sex offenders and provide law enforcement with more tools to investigate and prosecute these crimes. The bill's objectives include:

* Amending federal sentencing guidelines to account for the complexity, scale, and dangerousness of online child sex offenses * Expanding the definition of prohibited conduct against children to include live streaming of child sexual abuse and using a child to produce child sexual abuse material * Providing law enforcement with more resources to investigate and prosecute online child sex crimes

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

The bill makes several key changes to existing law, including:

* Amending Section 2252A of Title 18, United States Code, to include threats to distribute visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct * Expanding the definition of prohibited conduct against children to include live streaming of child sexual abuse and using a child to produce child sexual abuse material * Increasing penalties for online child sex offenders by amending federal sentencing guidelines

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

The affected parties and stakeholders in this bill include:

* Online platforms and social media companies, which may be required to implement new measures to prevent the distribution of child sexual abuse material * Law enforcement agencies, which will receive additional resources to investigate and prosecute online child sex crimes * Child advocacy groups, which have been pushing for stronger laws to protect children from online exploitation

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

The potential impact and implications of this bill are significant. While the bill's intentions may be noble, its provisions may have unintended consequences, such as:

* Overly broad definitions of prohibited conduct that could lead to over-prosecution and chilling effects on free speech * Increased costs for online platforms and social media companies, which may pass these costs on to consumers * Potential conflicts with existing laws and regulations, particularly in the area of child pornography

**Industry Influence and Special Interest Groups:**

The James T. Woods Act has been shaped by industry interests and special interest groups, including:

* The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC), which has been a vocal advocate for stronger laws to protect children from online exploitation * The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), which has provided input on the bill's provisions related to online child sex abuse material * Online platforms and social media companies, which have lobbied for provisions that would limit their liability for distributing child sexual abuse material

In conclusion, while the

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Lee, Laurel M. [R-FL-15]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$152,500

22 donors

PACs

$1,000

Organizations

$19,500

Committees

Individuals

$132,000

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (NABPAC)

1 transaction

$1,000

DREAM FINDERS HOMES

3 transactions

$16,500

MICCOSUKEE TRIBE

1 transaction

$3,000

No committee contributions found

WEATHERFORD, WILL

2 transactions

$13,200

RANNEY, TIM

1 transaction

$6,600

BARNETT, HOYT R

1 transaction

$6,600

BOWDEN, VIRGINIA

1 transaction

$6,600

HOSSEINI, FOROUGH B

1 transaction

$6,600

HOSSEINI, MORTEZA

1 transaction

$6,600

LUPOLI, NILOUFAR H

1 transaction

$6,600

NUNN, WILHELM A

1 transaction

$6,600

WAGNER, SHARI

1 transaction

$6,600

WANEK, KAREN A

1 transaction

$6,600

WANEK, TODD

1 transaction

$6,600

FAISON, JAY W

1 transaction

$6,600

GERSON, MARK

1 transaction

$6,600

GILLIAM, RICHARD

1 transaction

$6,600

MCMAHON, LINDA

1 transaction

$6,600

STERN, ELIZABETH MAY

1 transaction

$6,600

VINIK, JEFFREY N

1 transaction

$6,600

WEEKLEY, RICHARD

1 transaction

$6,600

WILEY, LADD

1 transaction

$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Schmidt, Derek [R-KS-2]

ID: S001228

Top Contributors

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Jul 26, 2024

A-OK ENTERPRISES, LLC

OrganizationWICHITA, KS

$500

Jul 10, 2024

ROSE, DIANA

ASPIRE65 • OWNER

IndividualOLATHE, KS

$6,600

Jul 19, 2024

ROSE, GARY

ASPIRE HEALTH PLANS, LLC • INSURANCE SALES

IndividualOLATHE, KS

$6,600

Jul 19, 2024

PROCHNOW, JOSEPH

FOCUS WORKFORCES • EXECUTIVE

IndividualOVERLAND PARK, KS

$6,600

Jul 25, 2024

NELSON, NORMAN T

SELF • AGRICULTURE

IndividualLONG ISLAND, KS

$6,600

Sep 3, 2024

CUTLER, ROBERT S.

C3 • CEO

IndividualOVERLAND PARK, KS

$6,600

Dec 9, 2024

BONAVIA, NICHOLAS J.

BONAVIA PROPERTIES • PRESIDENT

IndividualWICHITA, KS

$6,600

May 3, 2024

MILLER, RICHARD

MILLER'S PROFESSIONAL IMAGING • CEO

IndividualPITTSBURG, KS

$6,600

Jun 25, 2024

PATTERSON, ROB

RMJK ENTERPRISES INC • CEO

IndividualKANSAS CITY, KS

$6,600

Jun 30, 2024

Rep. Gillen, Laura [D-NY-4]

ID: G000602

Top Contributors

RALLYE MOTORS

OrganizationROSLYN, NY

$6,000

Jul 18, 2023

RALLYE MOTORS

OrganizationROSLYN, NY

$6,000

Jun 5, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$1,000

Aug 1, 2024

STONE, JAMES M

PLYMOUTH ROCK COMPANY, INC. • EXECUTIVE

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$5,000

Oct 16, 2024

FAIVUS, HARRY E

SELF-EMPLOYED • OPHTHALMOLOGIST

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,000

Nov 1, 2024

STONE, JAMES M

PLYMOUTH ROCK COMPANY, INC. • EXECUTIVE

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$5,000

Oct 16, 2024

HELFER, RICKI

N/A • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$4,000

Sep 10, 2024

ANDEER, KYLE

APPLE INC • ATTORNEY

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Mar 27, 2024

BINDER, CHARLES

SELF-EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Mar 21, 2024

BURNSTEIN, CLIFFORD

Q PRIME • MANAGER

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Mar 28, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Lee, Laurel M. [R-FL-15]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 51 nodes and 58 connections

Total contributions: $58

Top Donors - Rep. Lee, Laurel M. [R-FL-15]

Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC2 Orgs19 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

−Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.90
The bill amends 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252, 2252A, 1466A, 2260A, and adds § 2261C to criminalize threats to distribute child sexual abuse material and coercion of minors to commit harm, which could increase liability and compliance costs for online platforms that host user-generated content, such as social media and streaming services.
−Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.80
The bill's provisions apply to offenses using 'any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce,' which includes telecommunications networks; carriers may face increased obligations to monitor, report, or assist law enforcement regarding coercive or extortive communications involving minors.
−Print & Broadcast Mediaconfidence 0.70
The bill amends 18 U.S.C. § 2258A(g) to require electronic communication service providers and remote computing service providers to report certain offenses; while primarily targeting online platforms, broadcasters with online components or user-interactive features may be impacted by reporting requirements.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Lee, Laurel M. [R-FL-15])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HARMS

Print & Broadcast Media$1,000
from 1 contribution
- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (NABPAC)$1,000

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: 65%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 FTC section aim to protect children from online harms, but the bill focuses on criminal penalties for CSAM while the policy emphasizes FTC enforcement of unfair trade practices, contracts, and COPPA reforms, resulting in partial thematic overlap."

Key themes:child online protectionexploitation preventionparental consentonline harmsregulatory oversight

Federal Trade Commission

Moderate

Vector: 64%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 FTC section aim to protect children from online harms, but the bill focuses on criminal penalties for CSAM while the FTC policy emphasizes regulating unfair trade practices, data collection, and parental consent; thus they share goals but differ in mechanisms."

Key themes:child online protectionparental consentonline exploitation preventionregulatory/enforcement measures

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

Department of Justice

Moderate

Vector: 59%

Pages: 608-610AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on combating online child sexual exploitation through enhanced sentencing and legal tools, which aligns with Project 2025's broader DOJ emphasis on law enforcement effectiveness and addressing serious crimes, though the specific provisions of the bill are not directly referenced in the provided Project 2025 text."

Key themes:law enforcementsentencing reformchild protectionDOJ prioritiesviolent crime

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

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The James T. Woods Act focuses on combating online child sexual abuse material and strengthening sentencing for offenders, which relates to child protection but does not directly align with the specific HHS-focused policies in Project 2025, such as those concerning abortion, gender-affirming care, or civil rights in health programs. While both involve child welfare, the bill's law enforcement and criminal justice emphasis differs from Project 2025's HHS policy priorities."

Key themes:child protectionchild welfareexploitation prevention

— 501 — Department of Health and Human Services 54. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of Civil Rights, and Office of the Secretary, “Special Responsibilities of Medicare Hospitals in Emergency Cases and Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Critical Health and Human Service Programs or Activities,” draft of Proposed Rule, January 14, 2021, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/infants-nprm.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 55. H.R. 26, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https:// www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr26/BILLS-118hr26pcs.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 56. H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7/BILLS-118hr7ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 57. S. 401, Conscience Protection Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced February 24, 2021, https://www.congress. gov/117/bills/s401/BILLS-117s401is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 58. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Office of the Secretary, “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Notice of Tribal Consultation, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 149 (August 4, 2022), pp. 47824–47920, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-04/pdf/2022-16217.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 59. Ibid., p. 47916. 60. The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Administration. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, “Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 142 (July 24, 2019), pp. 35570–55581, https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/24/2019-15670/revision-of-categorical-eligibility-in-the- supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap (accessed March 17, 2023). 61. 45 Code of Federal Regulations § 75.300(c) and (d), https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/ subchapter-A/part-75/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFR911e5e1a30bfbcb/section-75.300 (accessed March 17, 2023). 62. H.R. 1750, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1750/BILLS-117hr1750ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023), and S. 656, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/ s656/BILLS-117s656is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 63. S. 3949, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-348, 117th Congress, January 25, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ348/PLAW-117publ348.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 64. Kelsey Y. Santamaria, “Child Migrants at the Border: The Flores Settlement Agreement and Other Legal Developments,” Congressional Research Service In Focus No. IF11799, April 1, 2021, https://crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11799 (accessed March 17, 2023). 65. Report, Building a Happy Home: Marriage Education as a Tool to Strengthen Families, Social Capital Project Report No. 1-22, March 2022, p. 17, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3d102525-6f0d-48ed- 92f4-d71edd468ad6/building-a-happy-home.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). The cover of the report reflects that the Social Capital Project is “[a] project of the Joint Economic Committee – Republicans.” 66. See, for example, Alan J. Hawkins, “Are Federally Supported Relationship Education Programs for Lower-Income Individuals and Couples Working? A Review of Evaluation Research,” American Enterprise Institute, September 2019, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 67. H.R. 8404, Respect for Marriage Act, Public Law No. 117-228, 117th Congress, December 13, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 68. Madison Marino, “Over 1,000 Safety Violations Mar Head Start. Children Deserve Better,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 10, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/over-1000-safety- violations-mar-head-start-children-deserve-better. 69. American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 70. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 22 (February 2, 2023), pp. 7236–7281, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-02-02/pdf/2023-01981.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 502 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 71. 42 U.S. Code § 238n, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/238n (accessed March 17, 2023). 72. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, “Early Childhood Health,” last reviewed October 2022, https://mchb.hrsa.gov/programs-impact/focus-areas/early- childhood-health (accessed March 17, 2023). 73. American Pregnancy Association, “Having a Doula—What Are the Benefits?” https://americanpregnancy. org/healthy-pregnancy/labor-and-birth/having-a-doula/#:~:text=Other%20studies%20have%20shown%20 that%20having%20a%20doula,massage%20to%20reduce%20stress%20and%20anxiety%20during%20labor (accessed March 17, 2023). 74. S. 2372, VA MISSION [Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks] Act of 2018, Public Law No. 115-182, 115th Congress, June 6, 2018, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ182/ PLAW-115publ182.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 75. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 11 (January 19, 2021), pp. 5694–5764, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-19/pdf/2021-00597.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 76. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Compliance with Statutory Program Integrity Requirements,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 42 (March 4, 2029), pp. 7714–7791, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-03-04/pdf/2019-03461.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 77. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Ensuring Access to Equitable, Affordable, Client-Centered, Quality Family Planning Services,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 192 (October 7, 2021), pp. 56144–56180, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2021-10-07/pdf/2021-21542.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 78. S. 624, Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, 118th Congress, introduced March 2, 2023, https://www. congress.gov/118/bills/s624/BILLS-118s624is.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 79. 50 U.S. Code Chapter 55, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-55 (accessed March 22, 2023). 80. 18 U.S. Code § 13, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/13 (accessed March 18, 2023). 81. Bowen v. American Hospital Association, 476 U.S. 610 (1986), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/ usrep/usrep476/usrep476610/usrep476610.pdf (accessed 22, 2023). 82. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, “Notification of Interpretation and Enforcement of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,” Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 99 (May 25, 2021), pp. 27984–27985, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2021-05-25/pdf/2021-10477.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 83. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “HHS Notice and Guidance on Gender Affirming Care, Civil Rights, and Patient Privacy,” March 2, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hhs- ocr-notice-and-guidance-gender-affirming-care.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 84. Heckler v. Chaney, 420 U.S. 821 (1985), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/470/821.html (accessed March 18, 2022). 85. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “Guidance to Nation’s Retail Pharmacies: Obligations Under Federal Civil Rights Laws to Ensure Access to Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Services,” content last reviewed July 14, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/ special-topics/reproductive-healthcare/pharmacies-guidance/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. H.R. 3103, “Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-191, 104th Congress, August 21, 1996, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ191/PLAW-104publ191.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. U.S. Department of Human Services, “HIPAA Privacy Rule and Disclosures of Information Relating to Reproductive Health Care,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, (accessed March 18, 2023). See also “Protecting the Privacy and Security of Your Health Information When Using Your Personal Cell Phone or Tablet,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/guidance/ cell-phone-hipaa/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023).

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 60%

Pages: 515-517AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The James T. Woods Act focuses on combating online child sexual exploitation through criminal justice reforms, while the Project 2025 HHS policy section addresses caregiver strategy, telehealth licensing, contraceptive mandates, and women's preventive services—there is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 483 — Department of Health and Human Services l Readdress the National Strategy to Support Family Caregivers. While in theory the strategy aims to support family members with duties to care for older family members, the plan is overly focused on racial and “LGBTQ+ equity.” The strategy should be examined to establish an efficient plan to support caregivers and their families. There should also be a review of its COVID-19 policies. HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (HRSA) l Congress should allow CMS to use the 340B data that HRSA collects rather than having CMS conduct its own survey, especially in view of the U.S. Supreme Court’s American Hospital Association v. Becerra decision.69 The legislation should also create penalties for those who do not respond to HRSA’s data collection. l Legally define the locus of service as where the provider is located during the telehealth visit rather than where the patient is. With such a definition, states could continue to reserve their powers to establish the standards for licensure and scope of practice. The providers could ensure continuity and consistency of care no matter where their patients might move while maintaining the licenses that make the most sense for them. Americans are far more mobile and technologically advanced today than they were when most health care laws were written. Telehealth has become increasingly important, particularly during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. It also has great potential in rural and other areas where there are shortages of health care providers. HRSA’s Office for the Advancement of Telehealth includes a program known as the Licensure Portability Grant Program, which bolsters state efforts to reform licensing laws to maximize telehealth flexibility. HRSA does not have the authority through this office to dictate licensure laws; that power has typically been reserved to the states. However, telehealth across state lines, when permitted, is interstate commerce, which can be regulated by the federal government according to the Constitution. l Restore Trump religious and moral exemptions to the contraceptive mandate (also a CMS rule). HHS should rescind, if finalized, the regulation titled “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” proposed jointly by HHS, Treasury, and Labor.70 This rule proposes to amend Trump-era final rules regarding religious and moral exemptions and accommodations for coverage of certain preventive services under the ACA. Preventive services include contraception, and — 484 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise it appears the proposed rule would change the existing regulations for religious and moral exemptions to the ACA’s contraception mandate. There is no need for further rulemaking that curtails existing exemptions and accommodations. l Require HRSA to use rulemaking to update the women’s preventive services mandate. The contraceptive mandate issued under Obamacare has been the source of years of egregious attacks on many Americans’ religious and moral beliefs. The mandate was issued as part of the women’s preventive services guidelines, which were issued without any rulemaking that involved public notice and an opportunity to comment. Instead, HRSA issued and changed the mandate by simply posting changes to its website. HRSA also started off not requiring coverage of fertility awareness–based methods of family planning, then requiring them, and then removing the requirement without notifying the public. A federal judge recently ruled that this failure to undergo notice and comment in issuing the mandate is unlawful. HRSA should be required to repromulgate any women’s preventive services mandates through the notice and comment process that is compliant with the Administrative Procedures Act. Moreover, since the Obama Administration HRSA entered into long- term contracts with the pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and related entities to serve as an exclusive adviser with respect to the content of this mandate, HRSA has used this arrangement to ignore comments that members of the public were sometimes able to submit in the process, and ACOG has abused its position to attack HHS’s allowance of religious and moral exemptions to the contraceptive mandate. HHS should rescind these contracts and establish an advisory committee that is compliant with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and has members that are committed to women’s preventive services and are not pro-abortion ideologues. l Expand inclusion of fertility awareness–based methods and supplies to family planning in the women’s preventive services mandate. The ACA requires coverage of and prevents insurance plans from imposing any cost-sharing requirements on women who obtain preventive care and screenings as defined by HRSA. In 2016, HHS included “instruction in fertility awareness-based methods” as part of this requirement. However, in December 2021, HHS removed that language from its list without using the notice-and-comment process or giving any rationale, both of which are mandated by the Administrative Procedures Act. In August

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. Lee, Laurel M.

Safe Cloud Storage Act

119/hr/7834

Energy Emergency Leadership Act

119/hr/7258

Renewed Hope Act

119/hr/6998

Back to All Bills