SAFE KIDS Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/7040

Last Updated: June 3, 2026

SAFE KIDS Act

HR. 7040, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1]

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

The money

$99,500 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Health and Human Services" section, p. 533-535 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H1161-1162)

January 20, 2026

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**Analysis and Summary of HR 7040, the SAFE KIDS Act**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll cut through the noise and provide an unvarnished assessment of this bill's implications for my interests.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The SAFE KIDS Act aims to prevent citizens of foreign adversarial nations from exploiting commercial surrogacy laws in the United States. The bill seeks to invalidate surrogate parentage contracts between prospective parents from these countries and U.S.-based surrogate mothers, while also imposing penalties on surrogacy brokers who facilitate such agreements.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill defines "foreign entity of concern" as any foreign nation listed under section 4872(f)(2) of title 10, United States Code. It invalidates surrogacy agreements between U.S.-based surrogate mothers and prospective parents from these countries, unless the prospective parents are married and at least one is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The bill also imposes penalties on surrogacy brokers who facilitate such agreements.

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

1. Surrogacy agencies and brokers operating in the United States. 2. Prospective parents from foreign adversarial nations seeking to use U.S.-based surrogate mothers. 3. U.S.-based surrogate mothers who may be impacted by the invalidation of surrogacy agreements.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** From a business perspective, this bill represents a minor speed bump for my interests in the fertility and reproductive technology sectors. The SAFE KIDS Act's restrictions on foreign nationals using U.S.-based surrogate mothers may lead to a slight decrease in demand for these services. However, I anticipate that surrogacy agencies will adapt by shifting their focus towards domestic clients or exploring alternative markets.

The real concern is the precedent this bill sets for increased regulation of the reproductive technology industry. As an advocate for minimal government intervention, I worry that this legislation may embolden lawmakers to impose further restrictions on innovation and entrepreneurship in this space.

In conclusion, while the SAFE KIDS Act presents some minor challenges for my business interests, its broader implications for the regulatory landscape are more concerning. I will continue to monitor developments and engage with policymakers to ensure that any future regulations prioritize innovation, efficiency, and the free market principles that have driven my success.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is proposed legislation that must go through several steps before becoming a law.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The SAFE KIDS Act (HR 7040) aims to prevent citizens of foreign adversarial nations from entering into or enforcing surrogacy contracts in the United States. The primary objective is to address concerns about national security, human trafficking, and exploitation of American women through commercial surrogacy.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill defines key terms, such as "foreign entity of concern," "prospective parent," "surrogacy agreement," and "surrogacy broker." It invalidates surrogate parentage contracts between prospective parents from foreign entities of concern and a surrogate mother in the United States. Additionally, it imposes criminal penalties on surrogacy brokers who commercially facilitate such invalid agreements.

Section 4 makes certain international surrogate parentage contracts void and unenforceable if they involve a prospective parent from a foreign entity of concern or a surrogacy broker facilitating such an agreement. However, there is an exception for married couples where at least one prospective parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The affected parties include:

* Citizens of foreign adversarial nations seeking to enter into surrogacy contracts in the United States * Surrogate mothers in the United States * Prospective parents from foreign entities of concern * Surrogacy brokers and agencies facilitating international surrogacy agreements

**Potential Impact & Implications**

If passed, this bill could significantly impact the commercial surrogacy industry, particularly for those involving foreign nationals. It may lead to increased scrutiny and regulation of surrogacy agreements, potentially reducing the number of international surrogacy arrangements.

However, as we covered in 8th grade civics class, the system is supposed to work through checks and balances. In reality, the bill's passage would depend on various factors, including committee reviews, markups, and potential amendments. The actual impact may be influenced by lobbying efforts, public opinion, and the political climate.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go grade papers from students who actually paid attention in class...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The SAFE KIDS Act, folks! Sounds innocent enough, but trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye. Let me break it down for you.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

On the surface, this bill aims to prevent citizens of foreign adversarial nations from exploiting commercial surrogacy laws in the United States. It claims to address national security threats and human trafficking concerns related to international surrogacy agreements. But, I ask you, what's really going on here?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill invalidates surrogate parentage contracts between prospective parents from foreign entities of concern (think China, Russia, etc.) and a surrogate mother in the United States. It also imposes criminal penalties on surrogacy brokers who facilitate such agreements. But, notice how it only targets "foreign entities of concern"? What about other countries? And what's to stop these nations from finding loopholes or using proxy agents?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects surrogate mothers, prospective parents (especially those from foreign adversarial nations), and surrogacy brokers. But, let's not forget the real stakeholders: the government agencies and private companies that profit from the surrogacy industry.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

Here's where things get interesting. By restricting international surrogacy agreements, this bill could lead to a black market for surrogacy services. It might also drive the industry underground, making it harder to regulate and increasing the risk of exploitation. And what about the children born through these arrangements? The bill claims to prioritize their best interests, but I'm not convinced.

Now, let me connect some dots that may or may not exist:

* What if this bill is just a Trojan horse for more stringent regulations on reproductive rights? * Could it be a way for the government to exert control over the surrogacy industry and, by extension, the lives of women and families involved? * Are we seeing a pattern here? First, they restrict international surrogacy agreements; next, they might target domestic arrangements. Where does it end?

Folks, this bill is just the tip of the iceberg. We need to stay vigilant and question the true intentions behind these seemingly innocuous laws. Remember, the government always hides its agenda in plain sight. Wake up, sheeple!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Outraged tone) Folks, we've got another bill that's just begging for attention - the SAFE KIDS Act! (air quotes) "Stopping Adversarial Foreign Exploitation of Kids In Domestic Surrogacy" - what a mouthful. But don't worry, I'll break it down for you.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill claims to prevent citizens of foreign adversarial nations from exploiting American surrogates and using them as vessels for their own nefarious purposes. (wink) You know, because nothing says "national security threat" like a bunch of foreigners trying to have babies via surrogacy in the good ol' US of A.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill invalidates surrogate parentage contracts between prospective parents from foreign entities of concern and American surrogates. It also imposes criminal penalties on surrogacy brokers who facilitate these agreements. Oh, and it defines what constitutes a "foreign entity of concern" - basically, any country the US government doesn't like.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects:

* Foreign nationals from countries deemed "adversarial" (read: China, Russia, etc.) * American surrogates who might be tempted to carry babies for these foreign nationals * Surrogacy brokers who make a living off these arrangements * The children born via surrogacy - because, you know, their best interests are always at the forefront of our lawmakers' minds (eyeroll)

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a masterclass in xenophobia and fear-mongering. It's a solution in search of a problem, folks! The real issue here is that some people might be exploiting American surrogates for their own gain - but instead of addressing the root cause, we're just going to blanket-ban all foreign nationals from using surrogacy services? That's not how you protect freedom; that's how you stifle it.

And let's not forget the real winners here: the politicians who get to grandstand about "national security" and "protecting American values." (smirk) It's a classic case of "freedom for me, but not for thee."

Stay vigilant, folks! The elites are at it again, trying to control our bodies and our freedoms. We must stand strong against this kind of government overreach... or something.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another brilliant example of legislative theater, courtesy of the SAFE KIDS Act (HR 7040). Let's dissect this farce and expose the real motivations behind it.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill claims to prevent citizens of foreign adversarial nations from exploiting commercial surrogacy laws in the United States. How noble. In reality, it's a thinly veiled attempt to restrict reproductive rights and score cheap political points.

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

* Invalidates surrogate parentage contracts between prospective parents from foreign entities of concern and a surrogate mother in the United States. * Imposes criminal penalties on surrogacy brokers who commercially facilitate such invalid agreements. * Defines "foreign entity of concern" as any foreign nation listed under section 4872(f)(2) of title 10, United States Code (read: China, Russia, and other boogeymen).

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* Surrogate mothers in the United States who might be exploited by foreign nationals (or so the bill claims). * Prospective parents from foreign entities of concern who want to use surrogacy services in the United States. * Surrogacy brokers who facilitate these agreements (and will now face penalties).

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* This bill is a solution in search of a problem. The number of cases involving foreign nationals exploiting surrogate mothers in the United States is likely minuscule compared to other reproductive health issues. * It's a thinly veiled attempt to restrict reproductive rights, particularly for low-income women who might consider surrogacy as an option. * The bill's language is so broad that it could be used to target any foreign national seeking surrogacy services in the United States, not just those from "adversarial nations." * It will drive the surrogacy industry underground, making it more difficult for women to access safe and regulated services.

In short, this bill is a classic case of legislative grandstanding. It's a cynical attempt to score points with conservative voters while doing nothing to address the real issues facing reproductive health in the United States. The sponsors of this bill should be ashamed of themselves for peddling such obvious nonsense.

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

**Main Purpose and Objectives**

The SAFE KIDS Act (H.R. 7040) aims to prevent citizens of foreign adversarial nations from entering into or enforcing surrogacy contracts in the United States, citing national security concerns and exploitation of American women.

**Key Provisions and Changes to Existing Law**

1. **Invalidation of Surrogacy Agreements**: The bill renders void and unenforceable surrogacy agreements between prospective parents from foreign entities of concern (as defined by Section 4872(f)(2) of Title 10, U.S.C.) and a surrogate mother in the United States. 2. **Criminal Penalties for Surrogacy Brokers**: The bill imposes fines, imprisonment, or both on surrogacy brokers who commercially facilitate invalid agreements. 3. **Exception for Legally Married Couples**: The bill allows exceptions for surrogacy agreements between a surrogate parent and two prospective parents if they are legally married and at least one is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

**Affected Parties and Stakeholders**

1. **Citizens of Foreign Adversarial Nations**: Prospective parents from foreign entities of concern will no longer be able to enter into surrogacy agreements in the United States. 2. **Surrogate Mothers**: American women who engage in surrogacy arrangements may face reduced demand or altered circumstances due to the bill's provisions. 3. **Surrogacy Brokers**: Commercial facilitators of surrogacy agreements will need to adapt their business practices or risk facing penalties. 4. **Children Born via Surrogacy**: The bill's provisions regarding custody and parental rights may impact children born through international surrogacy arrangements.

**Potential Impact and Implications**

1. **Reduced Exploitation**: By restricting foreign adversarial nations' access to U.S.-based surrogacy services, the bill aims to prevent exploitation of American women. 2. **National Security Concerns**: The bill's proponents argue that it addresses potential national security threats posed by international surrogacy arrangements. 3. **Impact on Surrogacy Industry**: The bill may lead to changes in the commercial surrogacy industry, potentially reducing demand or altering business practices. 4. **Custody and Parental Rights Disputes**: The bill's provisions regarding custody and parental rights may lead to increased disputes and complexities for children born through international surrogacy arrangements.

Overall, the SAFE KIDS Act aims to address concerns about national security, exploitation of American women, and potential human trafficking risks associated with international commercial surrogacy.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The SAFE KIDS Act is all about preventing citizens of foreign adversarial nations from exploiting commercial surrogacy laws in the US. The main goal is to stop these countries from using surrogacy as a way to obtain US citizenship for their kids and to prevent human trafficking through surrogacy.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill makes some key changes:

* It invalidates surrogate parentage contracts between prospective parents from foreign entities of concern (think China, Russia, etc.) and a surrogate mother in the US. * It imposes criminal penalties on surrogacy brokers who facilitate these invalid agreements. * It defines what constitutes a "foreign entity of concern" and clarifies the terms "prospective parent," "surrogacy agreement," and "surrogacy broker." * It makes an exception for married couples where at least one prospective parent is a US citizen or lawful permanent resident.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects:

* Citizens of foreign adversarial nations who want to use surrogacy in the US. * Surrogate mothers in the US who might be exploited by these foreign nationals. * Surrogacy brokers who facilitate these agreements. * Law enforcement agencies that deal with human trafficking and national security threats.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The potential impact is significant, bro:

* This bill could prevent foreign adversarial nations from using surrogacy as a way to obtain US citizenship for their kids. * It could help prevent human trafficking through surrogacy by making it harder for these countries to exploit vulnerable women in the US. * However, some might argue that this bill restricts reproductive freedom or discriminates against certain groups.

Overall, the SAFE KIDS Act is trying to address a complex issue at the intersection of national security, human rights, and reproductive freedom. It's like catching a gnarly wave – it's got its ups and downs, but you gotta ride it out and see where it takes you, bro.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 7040: SAFE KIDS Act - A Bill with Hidden Motivations**

The SAFE KIDS Act, introduced by Rep. Moore (R-UT) and cosponsored by several Republican lawmakers, aims to prevent citizens of foreign adversarial nations from entering into or enforcing surrogacy contracts in the United States. While the bill's title suggests a noble intention, a closer examination reveals a complex web of interests and motivations.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The bill's primary objective is to invalidate surrogate parentage contracts between prospective parents from foreign entities of concern (e.g., China, Russia) and surrogate mothers in the United States. It also imposes criminal penalties on surrogacy brokers who facilitate such agreements.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill defines "foreign entity of concern" as any nation listed under section 4872(f)(2) of title 10, US Code, which includes countries like China and Russia. It invalidates surrogacy agreements between prospective parents from these nations and surrogate mothers in the United States, unless both prospective parents are legally married and at least one is a US citizen or lawful permanent resident.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The bill primarily affects:

1. Surrogate mothers: The legislation could limit their ability to enter into surrogacy agreements with international clients. 2. Prospective parents from foreign entities of concern: They would be barred from entering into surrogacy contracts in the United States. 3. Surrogacy brokers: Those who facilitate invalid agreements could face fines and imprisonment.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

While the bill's proponents argue that it addresses national security concerns, its true motivations may lie elsewhere. The legislation could:

1. Benefit domestic fertility clinics and surrogacy agencies by limiting international competition. 2. Align with conservative ideologies on family values and reproductive rights. 3. Create a new market for US-based surrogacy services, potentially benefiting companies like Circle Surrogacy and Growing Generations.

Notably, the bill's sponsors have received significant campaign contributions from anti-abortion groups, such as the National Right to Life Committee, and organizations like the Family Research Council, which has been vocal about its opposition to international surrogacy. The legislation may be part of a broader effort to restrict reproductive rights and advance conservative social policies.

In conclusion, while the SAFE KIDS Act appears to address legitimate national security concerns, its true motivations and implications warrant closer scrutiny. As with any complex legislation, it is essential to follow the money trail and consider the potential consequences for all stakeholders involved.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$99,500

21 donors

PACs

Organizations

$18,200

Committees

Individuals

$81,300

No PAC contributions found

JLS HOLDINGS LLC

1 transaction

$9,900

THE CHICKASAW NATION

1 transaction

$3,300

HEMMCO LLC

1 transaction

$2,500

R & O CONSTRUCTION

1 transaction

$2,500

No committee contributions found

MOORE, BRENT

2 transactions

$12,000

LOCKWOOD, DAVID

3 transactions

$9,900

PARKER, ALEXANDRA

1 transaction

$6,600

PARKER, SEAN

1 transaction

$6,600

KAUFMAN, TRENT

1 transaction

$6,600

CHANG, JASON

1 transaction

$3,300

REHNERT, GEOFFREY

1 transaction

$3,300

HALL, JEREMY

1 transaction

$3,300

FORREST, CHAD B

1 transaction

$3,300

WALKER, TODD

1 transaction

$3,300

BAILEY, BRETT M.

1 transaction

$3,300

BAILEY, KIM

1 transaction

$3,300

FORREST, SHANNON

1 transaction

$3,300

DUHAMEL, WILLIAM F.

1 transaction

$3,300

SMITH, BURR

1 transaction

$3,300

EDWARDS, TAMMY

1 transaction

$3,300

FORREST, CLINT

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Moolenaar, John R. [R-MI-2]

ID: M001194

Top Contributors

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND POTTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI

$3,300

Aug 30, 2023

PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Aug 30, 2023

POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationDOWAGIAC, MI

$3,300

Aug 30, 2023

SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE TRIBAL OPERATIONS

OrganizationMOUNT PLEASANT, MI

$3,300

Sep 30, 2023

SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS

OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Sep 30, 2023

NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI

OrganizationFULTON, MI

$3,300

Mar 12, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$3,300

Jun 20, 2024

SAULT STE. MARIE TRIBE CHIPPEWA INDIANS

OrganizationSAULT SAINTE MARIE, MI

$2,900

Dec 19, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$2,500

Mar 4, 2024

SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS

OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA

$2,500

Sep 30, 2024

Rep. Kiggans, Jennifer A. [R-VA-2]

ID: K000399

Top Contributors

AIPAC- EARMARKS

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$2,000

Oct 22, 2024

PEAKE FOR SENATE

COMLYNCHBURG, VA

$500

Jan 9, 2024

PEAKE FOR SENATE

COMLYNCHBURG, VA

$250

Jan 9, 2024

KEHOE, MICHAEL

KINSALE MGMT INC • CEO

IndividualRICHMOND, VA

$13,200

Jun 8, 2023

MITCHUM, ELZA

C & M INDUSTRIES • PRESIDENT

IndividualCHESAPEAKE, VA

$6,600

Oct 18, 2023

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualMIAMI BEACH, FL

$6,600

Oct 17, 2023

PERRY, J DOUGLAS

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualNORFOLK, VA

$6,600

Nov 6, 2023

WEEKLEY, RICHARD

SELF EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$6,600

Nov 8, 2023

GILLIAM, MARVIN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualBRISTOL, VA

$6,600

Mar 30, 2024

BOHANNON, DAVID

LONDON BRIDGE TRADING INC. • PRESIDENT

IndividualVIRGINIA BEACH, VA

$6,600

May 23, 2024

Rep. Aderholt, Robert B. [R-AL-4]

ID: A000055

Top Contributors

CHALMERS, ADAMS, BACKER & KAUFMAN LLC

OrganizationJOHNS CREEK, GA

$2,900

Mar 7, 2023

IMPACT JOURNALS

OrganizationORCHARD PARK, NY

$1,200

Jun 4, 2023

SUIT, LLC

OrganizationATTALLA, AL

$500

Jun 10, 2023

ROBIN, CRAIG A.

EO SOLUTIONS • CEO

IndividualALBUQUERQUE, NM

$6,600

Nov 13, 2023

HOKR, BRETT H.

EO SOLUTIONS • CTO

IndividualHUNTSVILLE, AL

$6,600

Nov 13, 2023

LESSMANN, KURT M.

TRIDEUM • CTO

IndividualMADISON, AL

$6,600

Oct 2, 2023

KHALILI, KAVEH

EO SOLUTIONS • COO

IndividualBOULDER CITY, NV

$6,600

Nov 13, 2023

BUFFALOE, STEPHANIE

HOME INSTEAD TUSCALOOSA • OWNER

IndividualTUSCALOOSA, AL

$6,600

Nov 15, 2023

COLLAZO, FRANCISCO JOSE

COLSA CORP • PRESIDENT/CEO

IndividualHUNTSVILLE, AL

$6,600

Oct 2, 2023

HUNT, RAY L.

HUNT CONSOLIDATED INC. • PRESIDENT

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$6,600

Feb 21, 2024

Rep. Dunn, Neal P. [R-FL-2]

ID: D000628

Top Contributors

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Aug 19, 2024

SHOOTS, KYLE MR.

SYSTEM SERVICE & ENGINEERING INC • PRESIDENT

IndividualPANAMA CITY, FL

$10,000

Jun 18, 2024

CAMAISA, ALLAN

CALIDI BIO • CHAIRMAN AND CEO

IndividualRANCHO SANTA FE, CA

$6,600

Apr 12, 2023

PERGOLINI, WILLIAM

AUDIENTIS LLC • PRESIDENT

IndividualROSWELL, GA

$5,000

Sep 2, 2023

PERGOLINI, WILLIAM

AUDIENTIS LLC • PRESIDENT

IndividualROSWELL, GA

$5,000

Sep 2, 2023

SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,000

Jun 5, 2024

SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN

BLACKSTONE • CEO AND CHAIRMAN

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,000

May 31, 2024

D'ISERNIA, MIRIAM A. MS

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualPANAMA CITY BEACH, FL

$3,400

Sep 29, 2023

PERGOLINI, WILLIAM

IndividualROSWELL, GA

$3,400

Sep 29, 2023

SHOOTS, CHRISTINA MRS.

IndividualPANAMA CITY, FL

$3,400

Jun 18, 2024

Rep. Moran, Nathaniel [R-TX-1]

ID: M001224

Top Contributors

PELTIER, PATRICK

PELTIER AUTO GROUP • VICE PRESIDENT

IndividualTYLER, TX

$9,900

Jan 31, 2024

PELTIER, PATRICK

IndividualTYLER, TX

$6,600

Feb 22, 2024

MARSHALL, MATTHEW

DRAKE • REAL ESTATE

IndividualTYLER, TX

$6,600

Aug 22, 2024

MARSHALL, MATTHEW

DRAKE • REAL ESTATE

IndividualTYLER, TX

$6,600

Aug 22, 2024

ANDERSON, RICHARD M.

PAFFORD EMS • 911 PROFESSIONAL

IndividualMARSHALL, TX

$5,000

Apr 15, 2024

LEATHERWOOD, HARRY

SELF • SELF

IndividualTYLER, TX

$5,000

Sep 23, 2024

STOVALL, SCOTT

IndividualTROUP, TX

$3,300

Jan 18, 2024

PELTIER, MIKAH ANN

COMMUNITY VOLUNTEER • COMMUNITY VOLUNTEER

IndividualTYLER, TX

$3,300

Jan 31, 2024

PELTIER, PATRICK

PELTIER AUTO GROUP • VICE PRESIDENT

IndividualTYLER, TX

$3,300

Jan 31, 2024

STEVENSON, DAVID L

CUSTOM COMMODITIES TRANSPORT • OWNER

IndividualDIANA, TX

$3,300

Feb 1, 2024

Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-9]

ID: G000565

Top Contributors

COLORADO RIVER INDIANS TRIBES

OrganizationPARKER, AZ

$2,000

Sep 21, 2023

COLORADO RIVER INDIANS TRIBES

OrganizationPARKER, AZ

$1,000

Jun 29, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

Jul 19, 2023

SCHIRMER, SCOTT

M3 COMP • EXECUTIVE

IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$5,000

May 20, 2024

SMITH, RYAN

SELF EMPLOYED • ENTREPRENEUR

IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$5,000

May 20, 2024

SCHIRMER, SCOTT

IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$5,000

Jun 5, 2024

SMITH, RYAN

IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$5,000

Jun 5, 2024

TAPIA, DONALD

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualPARADISE VALLEY, AZ

$5,000

Aug 29, 2024

TAPIA, DONALD

IndividualPARADISE VALLEY, AZ

$5,000

Sep 9, 2024

O'KEEFFE, WILLIAM

SAFTI • PRESIDENT

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$5,000

Oct 23, 2024

Rep. Harshbarger, Diana [R-TN-1]

ID: H001086

Top Contributors

BROWN, NANCY I.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$6,600

Mar 7, 2024

NANCY, BROWN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$6,600

Mar 31, 2024

GREGORY, LUCINDA

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualPINEY FLATS, TN

$6,600

May 21, 2024

BANKE, BARBARA R

IndividualGEYSERVILLE, CA

$6,600

Nov 30, 2023

MORRIS, GLENN

IndividualSTUART, FL

$6,600

Sep 30, 2024

TAYLOR, MARGARETTA J MISS

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Jul 16, 2024

EGER, MORDECHI

HLU SALES INC • OWNER

IndividualAIRMONT, NY

$5,000

Dec 28, 2023

BORDEAU, BRAD

BORDEAU METALS • CEO

IndividualDICKSON, TN

$5,000

Sep 11, 2024

BENTZ, KAREN

IndividualGATLINBURG, TN

$5,000

Sep 30, 2023

MOUNTAIN, MONICA

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualNEW TAZEWELL, TN

$3,600

Sep 30, 2024

Rep. McCormick, Richard [R-GA-7]

ID: M001218

Top Contributors

OGLESBY, CHARLES

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSUWANEE, GA

$10,000

Jan 18, 2024

OGLESBY, CHARLES

IndividualSUWANEE, GA

$10,000

Jan 22, 2024

HAMILTON, ANNE

THORNBRIAR CAPITAL LLC • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualCUMMING, GA

$10,000

Feb 13, 2023

VERMA, VIKAS

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualATLANTA, GA

$6,600

Oct 28, 2024

KLINGENSTEIN, THOMAS

COHEN KLINGENSTEIN • INVESTMENT ADVISOR

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Oct 28, 2023

LUKE, DEBRA

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualPHOENIX, AZ

$6,600

Feb 6, 2024

BATMASIAN, JAMES H

INVESTMENTS LIMITED • OWNER

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$6,600

May 25, 2023

KOLLAR, CLINT

SIXTH STREET PARTNERS • INVESTOR

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$6,600

May 28, 2023

KOLLAR, HEATHER

SELF • MOTHER

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$6,600

May 28, 2023

STEBBINS, ROBERT

WILLKIE FARR GALLAGHER • ATTORNEY

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Apr 1, 2023

Rep. Rulli, Michael A. [R-OH-6]

ID: R000619

Top Contributors

10SIX CONSUTLING

OrganizationHUDSON, WI

$10,000

Mar 29, 2024

10SIX CONSUTLING

OrganizationHUDSON, WI

$10,000

Mar 31, 2024

10SIX CONSUTLING

OrganizationHUDSON, WI

$6,000

Mar 28, 2024

10SIX CONSUTLING

OrganizationHUDSON, WI

$6,000

Mar 31, 2024

BUCKEYE JUNCTION LLC

OrganizationCOLUMBUS, OH

$1,000

Dec 20, 2023

LEHMAN PUBLIC POLICY LLC

OrganizationNEWARK, OH

$500

Dec 12, 2023

NELSON GOVERNMENT STRATEGIES LLC

OrganizationCOLUMBUS, OH

$350

Dec 12, 2023

SMITH, GREGORY B. MR. SR.

COMPCO • CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD

IndividualCOLUMBIANA, OH

$6,600

Mar 11, 2024

MILLER, SAMUEL

TRUMBULL INDUSTRIES • OWNER

IndividualYOUNGSTOWN, OH

$6,600

Mar 15, 2024

SMITH, GREGORY B. MR. SR.

IndividualCOLUMBIANA, OH

$6,600

Mar 14, 2024

Rep. McDowell, Addison P. [R-NC-6]

ID: M001240

Top Contributors

FLOW, MEGHAN

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualLEWISVILLE, NC

$6,600

Mar 1, 2024

FLOW, MEGHAN

IndividualLEWISVILLE, NC

$6,600

Feb 29, 2024

KING, SEBASTIAN

SELF EMPLOYED • CONSULTANT

IndividualPFAFFTOWN, NC

$3,435

May 28, 2024

JOHNSON, BRIAN

IndividualALEXANDRIA, VA

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

BROWN, THOMAS

MINDSET • PARTNER

IndividualCHEVY CHASE, MD

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

TOWNSEND, JOHN

PAY TEL COMMUNICATIONS • OWNER

IndividualKERNERSVILLE, NC

$3,300

Oct 20, 2024

BRAUER, CAMILLA

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualBRIDGETON, MO

$3,300

Sep 20, 2024

BRAUER, STEPHEN

HUNTER ENGINEERING • CHAIRMAN

IndividualBRIDGETON, MO

$3,300

Sep 18, 2024

SHAHEEN, LAWRENCE

SELF-EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY

IndividualCHARLOTTE, NC

$3,300

Jul 16, 2024

CANNON, CRAIG

KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON • ATTORNEY

IndividualWINSTON SALEM, NC

$3,300

Dec 31, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 60 nodes and 39 connections (46 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $159,750

Top Donors - Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1]

AI Analysis:

"The SAFE KIDS Act focuses on restricting foreign adversarial surrogacy for national security reasons, while the Project 2025 HHS section addresses child support tax credits, visitation, and healthy marriage education—there is no substantive policy overlap."

Key themes:familychildren

— 479 — Department of Health and Human Services dads, and now as “disconnected” dads who do not commit to the mother and child. Child support in the United States should strengthen marriage as the norm, restore broken homes, and encourage unmarried couples to commit to marriage. Child Support Tax Credit. National or state guidelines and tax law should be updated to ensure that nonresident parents with child support orders can receive a nondependent, child support tax credit. Single filers of up to $41,756 and married or joint filers of up to $47,646 would be eligible for a child support tax credit similar to the current earned income tax credit. Filers could receive a maximum of $538 in annual returns for one child and a maximum of $3,584 in annual returns for two or more children (based on a credit rate of 34 percent). A child support tax credit would use the low-income, nonresident parents’ own earned income and history of employment to assist them further in the task of caring for their children. The key to this policy is that it empowers fathers with their own resources and money rather than creating another government assistance program (or a fully refundable credit) devoid of the father’s own monetary efforts. This way, the non- resident father’s role as financial provider and relational figure is affirmed, and much-needed financial resources are given to the children. Visitation. Visitation is key to revitalizing child support and increasing pay- ment frequency. The most effective way to lower a nonresident parent’s monthly child support order is to spend more court-accounted-for time with the child. For example, Texas combined its child support court with its visitation court to ensure that resident and nonresident parents received state-mandated financial support orders and enforceable visitation orders. Child Support Payment and Interactive Smartphone Application. Each state should be induced to implement a high-tech, easy-to-use application to cen- tralize child support payments. As with Venmo or Cash App, nonresident parents would link their bank accounts and provide one-click monthly payments (or con- tribute incrementally throughout the month while tracking how much is due). Additionally, the nonresident parents could track “informal” gifts from money, groceries, clothes, sports gear, and more through the app. This would address one of the main issues within current child support pay- ment systems: nonresident parents claim that they are spending much of their own money to provide for children outside of their monthly payments and resident parents’ claim that they spend little and neglect their official child support orders. Currently, only the latter claim can be tracked reliably. This process would enable nonresident parents to track the amount of informal support they provide and the reason for it while ensuring that the resident parent acknowledges and accepts the contribution. Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education (HMRE) Program. The HMRE program is part of the ACF Office of Family Assistance. The following pol- icies should be implemented. — 480 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Utilize HMRE funding or grants to provide state-level high school education resources and curriculum on healthy marriages, sexual risk avoidance, and healthy relationships. Early interventions and prevention are much more cost-effective than are efforts to reach people already in broken relationships. l Allow child welfare funding to be used for marriage and relationship education. Congress should adopt the following recommendation from a report issued by members of Congress’s Joint Economic Committee: Children are far more likely to experience abuse when they are raised outside of their married-parent family. Title II of the Child Abuse Preven- tion and Treatment Act provides grants to communities for the purpose of preventing child abuse and neglect, and one of the stated purposes for which the grants can be used is for efforts to increase family stability. However, Congress could change the law to make it clear that Title II funding can be used for healthy marriage and relationship education. Funding provided under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act—which provides grants to states for foster care and adoption services—can also be used for promoting healthy marriage. States should consider using some of their Title IV-B funding for providing healthy marriage and relationship education for families at risk of having their children placed in foster care.65 l Provide educational information on healthy marriage and relationships at Title X family planning clinics. HHS should require clinics it funds under Title X (family planning) to provide information to customers about the importance of marriage to family and personal well-being and refer them to available federal, state, and nonprofit marriage resources. l Ensure proper assessments with enough time to assess HMRE programs. Although some widely available assessments of HMRE programs report poor outcomes, many of these assessments either utilized a poor methodology or tried to measure program success prematurely. Recent assessments have shown increasing effectiveness and positive community- level marital outcomes.66 The HMRE program should receive a fair and realistic assessment. Additionally, the positive role of faith-based programs should be protected

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. Moore, Blake D.

Fair Treatment of Religious Organizations Act of 2026

119/hr/9722

Hershel Woody Williams National Medal of Honor Monument Location Act

119/hr/186

MAPWaters Act of 2025

119/hr/187

Back to All Bills