SHIELD Against CCP Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/708
Last Updated: July 12, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Strong, Dale W. [R-AL-5]

ID: S001220

Follow the money

The bill

SHIELD Against CCP Act

HR. 708, 119th Congress — read as touching Cybersecurity.

The sponsor

Rep. Strong, Dale W. [R-AL-5]

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

The money

$89,900 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Intelligence Community" section, p. 251-253 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

March 10, 2025

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

The SHIELD Against CCP Act - because what the US government really needs is another acronym and a working group to "counter" the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) alleged threats. How quaint.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill establishes a working group within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to examine, assess, and report on efforts to counter CCP-related threats in various areas, including terrorism, cybersecurity, border security, and transportation security. The real purpose? To create more bureaucratic red tape, justify increased funding for DHS, and provide a platform for politicians to grandstand about China.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill creates a new working group with a Director appointed by the Secretary of Homeland Security. This group will:

1. Examine and report on CCP-related threats (because no one has done that before). 2. Account for resources dedicated to countering these threats (a.k.a., justify budget increases). 3. Identify gaps in policies, processes, and activities (code for "we need more money and personnel"). 4. Facilitate cooperation among DHS offices and components (read: create more meetings and paperwork).

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

1. The Chinese Communist Party (because they're the boogeyman du jour). 2. US citizens (who will foot the bill for this bureaucratic exercise). 3. DHS employees (who'll have to deal with more red tape and pointless meetings). 4. Politicians (who'll use this as a talking point to sound tough on China).

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "security theater" - it provides the illusion of action without actually addressing any real issues. The impact will be:

1. Increased bureaucracy and inefficiency within DHS. 2. More taxpayer dollars wasted on redundant efforts and unnecessary personnel. 3. Politicians getting to pretend they're doing something about China, while accomplishing nothing.

In short, this bill is a symptom of the disease that afflicts Washington: a desperate need for relevance, a lack of real solutions, and an abundance of hot air.

Related Topics

National Security & IntelligenceDefense Spending & Procurement
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Strong, Dale W. [R-AL-5]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$89,900
21 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$13,900
Committees
$0
Individuals
$76,000

No PAC contributions found

1
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
2 transactions
$6,600
2
THE CHICKASAW NATION
2 transactions
$5,300
3
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000
4
JOHN PLUNK ATTORNEY PC
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
LEE, ARNOLD
1 transaction
$6,600
2
HINCHMAN, ROBERT
1 transaction
$6,600
3
STIERS, WILLIAM
2 transactions
$6,600
4
ALMODOVAR, ANGEL R.
2 transactions
$6,600
5
LUCKEY, PALMER
2 transactions
$6,600
6
LIPTON, LEE
1 transaction
$5,000
7
BENTLEY, PHILIP W. III
1 transaction
$5,000
8
GUERRERI, CARL N.
1 transaction
$3,300
9
REESE, MARK A.
1 transaction
$3,300
10
OZMEN, FATIH
1 transaction
$3,300
11
MCCARTER, ANGELA
1 transaction
$3,300
12
GILCHRIST, WADE
1 transaction
$3,300
13
SAYLOR, ANNIE
1 transaction
$3,300
14
KRETZSCHMAR, RICHARD
1 transaction
$3,300
15
BRAUN, JOHN
1 transaction
$3,300
16
BAILEY, WILLIAM C.
1 transaction
$3,300
17
BARON, ROBERT
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 8 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Suozzi, Thomas R. [D-NY-3]

ID: S001201

Top Contributors

10

1
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Aug 3, 2024
2
SCOTTO LLC
OrganizationWOODBURY, NY
$1,650
Aug 30, 2024
3
PATROON OPERATING CO. LLC
OrganizationNEW YORK, NY
$1,000
May 13, 2024
4
THE KLAR ORGANIZATION
OrganizationEAST MEADOW, NY
$1,000
Aug 8, 2024
5
TERIAN, OLIVIA
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$9,400
May 2, 2024
6
TERIAN, OLIVIA
OLIVIA TERIAN ART & DESIGN • BUSINESS OWNER
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Mar 8, 2024
7
MORAN, MARY
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualGREENWICH, CT
$6,600
Mar 28, 2024
8
MORAN, MARY
IndividualGREENWICH, CT
$6,600
May 2, 2024
9
FAIVUS, HARRY E.
MOUNT SINAI • PHYSICIAN
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,000
Oct 31, 2024
10
SOSNICK, AARON
IndividualRENO, NV
$3,392
Jun 25, 2024

Rep. Higgins, Clay [R-LA-3]

ID: H001077

Top Contributors

10

1
HEBERT, MARC
JONES WALKER • ATTORNEY
IndividualMETAIRIE, LA
$3,500
Sep 8, 2024
2
HAMER, GREGORY J MR. SR
B&G FOOD ENTERPRISES LLC. • CORP. SECRETARY
IndividualMORGAN CITY, LA
$3,300
Nov 25, 2024
3
FREY, GERARD A.
SELF EMPLOYED • FARMERS
IndividualIOTA, LA
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
4
CRAPPEL, ADAM
AE OFFICE MACHINES • PRESIDENT
IndividualPATTERSON, LA
$3,300
Mar 31, 2023
5
UIHLEIN, RICHARD
ULINE • CEO
IndividualLAKE BLUFF, IL
$3,300
Jan 26, 2023
6
BOLLINGER, DONALD
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNEW ORLEANS, LA
$3,300
Mar 7, 2023
7
BOLLINGER, DONALD
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNEW ORLEANS, LA
$3,300
Mar 7, 2023
8
COOLEY, WILLIAM
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualWEST PALM BEACH, FL
$3,300
Mar 7, 2023
9
HAMER, GREGORY J MR. SR
BG FOOD ENTERPRISES LLC • EXECUTIVE
IndividualMORGAN CITY, LA
$3,300
Mar 12, 2024
10
DAVIS, JORDAN
WESTERN CONSTRUCTION ROOFING • SALES PROJECT MANAGER
IndividualHARRISON, ID
$3,300
Jan 9, 2024

Rep. Green, Mark E. [R-TN-7]

ID: G000590

Top Contributors

10

1
HAND, J.R.
HAND FAMILY COMPANIES • CEO
IndividualCLARKSVILLE, TN
$6,600
May 20, 2024
2
SCARLETT, DOROTHY
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNASHVILLE, TN
$6,600
Jun 11, 2024
3
CRABBE, JENNELL
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualCLARKSVILLE, TN
$6,600
Feb 9, 2023
4
CRABBE, JOHN
SELF • CONSTRUCTION
IndividualCLARKSVILLE, TN
$6,600
Feb 9, 2023
5
EVANS, BARBARA
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualHENDERSONVILLE, TN
$6,600
Mar 10, 2023
6
EVANS, JOHN
PRESIDENT • PRESIDENT
IndividualHENDERSONVILLE, TN
$6,600
Mar 10, 2023
7
KEMMERER, KAREN
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualJACKSON, WY
$6,600
May 16, 2023
8
GONTOWNIK, YONI
GIC • VICE PRESIDENT
IndividualENGLEWOOD, NJ
$6,600
Aug 1, 2024
9
SCARLETT, JOE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNASHVILLE, TN
$6,600
Sep 9, 2024
10
UIHLEIN, RICHARD
ULINE • CHAIRMAN
IndividualLAKE FOREST, IL
$5,800
Jan 26, 2023

Rep. Guest, Michael [R-MS-3]

ID: G000591

Top Contributors

10

1
RMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC
OrganizationHOOVER, AL
$2,500
Sep 17, 2024
2
DUNAGIN PEST SOLUTIONS LLC
OrganizationHATTIESBURG, MS
$1,650
Sep 17, 2024
3
DUNAGIN PEST SOLUTIONS LLC
OrganizationHATTIESBURG, MS
$1,650
Sep 17, 2024
4
MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS
$1,000
Sep 30, 2023
5
CLAW FORESTRY SERVICES, LLC
OrganizationJACKSON, SC
$1,000
Sep 30, 2024
6
VILLAGE OF MADISON, LLC
OrganizationMADISON, MS
$500
Sep 30, 2024
7
BLACKWELL, DEAN
SELF EMPLOYED • PHYSICIAN
IndividualJACKSON, MS
$3,300
Nov 3, 2024
8
DAVIS, LESLEY
MS ADVOCACY GROUP • PUBLIC POLICY
IndividualFLOWOOD, MS
$3,300
Oct 21, 2024
9
DOZIER, ROBERT HUGH
MIPA • EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
IndividualRIDGELAND, MS
$3,300
Oct 31, 2024
10
DUFF, THOMAS M
SOUTHERN TIRE MART • OWNER
IndividualHATTIESBURG, MS
$3,300
Oct 31, 2024

Rep. Luttrell, Morgan [R-TX-8]

ID: L000603

Top Contributors

10

1
ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE
OrganizationWOODVILLE, TX
$3,300
Dec 21, 2023
2
TIGUA INDIAN RES.-YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO
OrganizationEL PASO, TX
$3,300
Jun 20, 2023
3
ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE
OrganizationWOODVILLE, TX
$3,300
Sep 27, 2024
4
TIGUA INDIAN RES.-YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO
OrganizationEL PASO, TX
$2,500
Sep 20, 2024
5
GRIFFIN, KENNETH
CITADEL LLC • FOUNDER CEO
IndividualMIAMI BEACH, FL
$6,600
Apr 10, 2023
6
SINGER, PAUL
ELLIOTT INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • CO-CEO CO-CIO PRESIDENT
IndividualPALM BEACH, FL
$6,600
Apr 10, 2023
7
STEDMAN, STUART
STEDMAN WEST INTERESTS INC. • INVESTOR/PRESIDENT
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$6,600
Jun 22, 2023
8
FISHER, KENNETH
FISHER INVESTMENTS • EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN
IndividualPLANO, TX
$6,600
May 23, 2024
9
FISHER, SHERRILYN
PLANO 6500 LLC • MEMBER
IndividualPLANO, TX
$6,600
May 23, 2024
10
ERICKSON, MARILYN
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualPOWELL, TN
$6,600
Jul 6, 2024

Rep. Evans, Gabe [R-CO-8]

ID: E000300

Top Contributors

10

1
WRIGHT, ELIZABETH
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualENGLEWOOD, CO
$6,600
Jun 29, 2024
2
WOODWARD, JOHN
SPIERER WOODWARD • ATTORNEY
IndividualGREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO
$6,600
Sep 19, 2023
3
BERGSTROM, ROBERT
BT CONSTRUCTION • CONSTRUCTION
IndividualFORT LUPTON, CO
$6,600
Oct 13, 2024
4
ERICKSON, GARY
EXECUTIVE CUSTOM CONSTRUCTION • GENERAL CONTRACTOR
IndividualCOLORADO SPRINGS, CO
$6,600
Oct 15, 2024
5
HASELDEN, BYRON
HASELDEN CONSTRUCTION • CEO
IndividualCENTENNIAL, CO
$6,600
Oct 14, 2024
6
HASELDEN, EDDIE
HASELDEN CONSTRUCTION • CHAIRMAN
IndividualCENTENNIAL, CO
$6,600
Oct 14, 2024
7
HASELDEN, MIKE
HASELDEN CONSTRUCTION • CO-CHAIRMAN
IndividualENGLEWOOD, CO
$6,600
Oct 14, 2024
8
WAGNER, BRUCE
WAGNER EQUIPMENT • PRES
IndividualLITTLETON, CO
$5,000
Sep 20, 2024
9
DUKE, D. A.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualENGLEWOOD, CO
$5,000
Oct 9, 2024
10
MCDONALD, BRUCE
MCDONALD INSURANCE GROUP • OWNER
IndividualLITTLETON, CO
$3,868
Sep 30, 2024

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

ID: M001194

Top Contributors

10

1
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI
$3,300
Aug 30, 2023
2
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Aug 30, 2023
3
POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS
OrganizationDOWAGIAC, MI
$3,300
Aug 30, 2023
4
SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE TRIBAL OPERATIONS
OrganizationMOUNT PLEASANT, MI
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023
5
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS
OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023
6
NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI
OrganizationFULTON, MI
$3,300
Mar 12, 2024
7
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$3,300
Jun 20, 2024
8
SAULT STE. MARIE TRIBE CHIPPEWA INDIANS
OrganizationSAULT SAINTE MARIE, MI
$2,900
Dec 19, 2023
9
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$2,500
Mar 4, 2024
10
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS
OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA
$2,500
Sep 30, 2024

Rep. Pfluger, August [R-TX-11]

ID: P000048

Top Contributors

10

1
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$3,300
Apr 18, 2024
2
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$3,300
Jun 30, 2023
3
ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE
OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX
$1,000
Sep 27, 2024
4
DIMEMMO, COLETTE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualFORT MYERS, FL
$6,600
Oct 24, 2024
5
PUDWILL, JAMES
IndividualNIPOMO, CA
$6,600
Sep 16, 2024
6
GELBMAN, JOEL
IndividualNAPLES, FL
$6,600
Sep 16, 2024
7
GELBMAN, JOEL
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNAPLES, FL
$6,600
Aug 26, 2024
8
PUDWILL, JAMES
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNIPOMO, CA
$6,600
Aug 3, 2024
9
WILSON, CELIA R
OIL AND GAS • SELF-EMPLOYED
IndividualMIDLAND, TX
$5,800
Mar 31, 2024
10
WILSON, CELIA R
SELF • OIL AND GAS
IndividualMIDLAND, TX
$5,800
Apr 9, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Strong, Dale W. [R-AL-5]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 65 nodes and 41 connections (57 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $141,450

Top Donors - Rep. Strong, Dale W. [R-AL-5]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

4 Orgs17 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • +Cybersecurityconfidence 0.90

    Section 2(b)(1)(B) directs the Working Group to examine DHS efforts to counter cybersecurity threats posed by the CCP, and Section 2(f) mandates R&D for technologies enhancing security and situational awareness relating to countering such threats, which benefits cybersecurity firms through potential contracts and increased demand.

  • +Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.85

    Section 2(f) requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to carry out research and development, including operational testing, of technologies and techniques for enhancing DHS security relating to countering threats from the CCP, which likely involves defense contractors for technology development and testing.

  • Section 2(c) requires the Working Group to review and disseminate information gathered by Federal, State, local, Tribal, and territorial partners and the National Network of Fusion Centers, which supports law enforcement and surveillance technology vendors through increased information sharing and potential demand for surveillance tools.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Strong, Dale W. [R-AL-5])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 HELPS

  • from 31 contributions
    • KING, DAVID A.$2,000
    • BELL, THOMAS$2,000
    • STEVENS, ROY$1,000
    • HULL, STEVE$1,000
    • PORTER, ELIZABETH$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.

Intelligence Community

Strong
Vector: 65%
Pages: 251-253AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The SHIELD Against CCP Act aligns strongly with Project 2025's focus on countering Chinese Communist Party threats through enhanced intelligence coordination, particularly in cyber, economic, and technological espionage domains, by establishing a DHS working group to assess and improve counter-CCP efforts across federal, state, local, and private sectors."

Key themes:counterintelligenceChina threatinformation sharingcybersecurityinteragency coordination

— 218 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise NATIONAL COUNTERINTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY CENTER (NCSC) The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) has taken a keen inter- est in possibly updating the codified language underpinning much of the nation’s counterintelligence apparatus. “Spy vs. spy” threats continue to exist, but the rise of China and (to an extent) Russia’s machinations move beyond the governmental sphere to technological, economic, supply chain, cyber, academic, state, and local espionage threats at a level our country has never seen. The asymmetric threat includes cyber, nontraditional collection, and issues involving legitimate busi- nesses serving as collection platforms. Barring statutory changes that could occur before 2025, a future conserva- tive President should further empower and resource the IC by executive order or through suggested changes in the Counterintelligence Enhancement Act (CEA) of 2002.32 NCSC was given some authority for outreach efforts on behalf of the IC for counterintelligence education, insider threats, and broader U.S. government best practices, but there remain significant deltas between Title 50 and non–Title 50 entities’ protections. Primary operational elements should remain at the FBI and CIA, with the Bureau and NCSC collaborating on nongovernmental outreach. While there is no need to create a separate agency, a future President and DNI should amplify NCSC’s authorities and roles with respect to counterintelligence strategy, policy, outreach, and governance, including supporting necessary Joint Duty Assignments (JDA) for FBI and CIA personnel. At the same time, the FBI requires significant additional resources and legal authorities to fulfill its statu- tory role as the lead operational counterintelligence agency in dealing with the ever-growing threats posed by our adversaries. The CEA should be updated to include foreign espionage efforts aimed at universities. Corporate America, technology companies, research institutions, and academia must be willing, educated partners in this generational fight to protect our national security interests, economic interests, national sovereignty, and intellectual prop- erty as well as the broader rules-based order—all while avoiding the tendency to cave to the left-wing activists and investors who ignore the China threat and increasingly dominate the corporate world. Reinstitution of the National Security Higher Education Advisory Board and the National Security Business Alliance Council should be prioritized with leadership from the NCSC, the FBI, or a com- bination of both entities. When the CCP steals at least $400 billion–$600 billion in intellectual prop- erty each year, it is time to devote some strategic thinking to exactly how and to what degree counterintelligence efforts can help to protect America’s commercial endeavors. If Chinese strategic technology gains are happening almost entirely in transnational commercial space, for example, and the private sector is also gath- ering and analyzing some critical intelligence, these essential data points should assist in national-level counterintelligence efforts.

Department of Homeland Security

Moderate
Vector: 65%
Pages: 180-182AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 DHS section seek to strengthen Department of Homeland Security capabilities related to border and port security and improve interagency coordination, but the bill targets CCP‑specific threats while Project 2025 focuses on immigration enforcement, USCIS reforms, and border wall funding, resulting in only partial thematic overlap."

Key themes:border securityport of entry securityDHS coordinationnational securityinformation sharing

— 147 — Department of Homeland Security Personnel USCIS should be classified as a national security–sensitive agency, and all of its employees should be classified as holding national security–sensitive posi- tions. Leaks must be investigated and punished as they would be in a national security agency, and the union should be decertified. Any employees who cannot accept that change and cannot conform their behavior to the standards required by such an agency should be separated. USCIS’s D.C. personnel presence should be skeletal, and agency employees with operational or security roles should be rotated out to offices throughout the United States. These USCIS employees should live and work in the communities that are most affected by their daily duties and decisions. NECESSARY BORDER AND IMMIGRATION STATUTORY, REGULATORY, AND ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES The current border security crisis was made possible by glaring loopholes in our immigration system. The result was a preventable and predictable his- toric increase in illegal and inadmissible encounters along our southern border. This pulled limited resources from the front lines of our nation’s borders and away from their national security mission, releasing a vast and complex set of threats into our country. To regain our sovereignty, integrity, and security, Congress must pass meaningful legislation to close the current loopholes and prevent future Administrations from exploiting them for political gain or per- sonal ideology. Legislative Proposals l Title 42 authority in Title 8. Create an authority akin to the Title 42 Public Health authority that has been used during the COVID-19 pandemic to expel illegal aliens across the border immediately when certain non- health conditions are met, such as loss of operational control of the border. l Mandatory appropriation for border wall system infrastructure. The monies appropriated would be used to fund the construction of additional border wall systems, technology, and personnel in strategic locations in accordance with the Border Security Improvement Plan (BSIP). l Appropriation for Port of Entry infrastructure. Border security is not addressed solely by systems in between the ports of entry. POEs require technology and physical upgrades as well as an influx of personnel to meet capacity demands and act as the literal gatekeepers for the country. This is the first line of defense against drug and human smuggling operations. — 148 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Unaccompanied minors 1. Congress should repeal Section 235 of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA),9 which provides numerous immigration benefits to unaccompanied alien children and only encourages more parents to send their children across the border illegally and unaccompanied. These children too often become trafficking victims, which means that the TVPRA has failed. 2. If an alternative to repealing Section 235 of the TVPRA is necessary, the section should be amended so that all unaccompanied children, regardless of nationality, may be returned to their home countries in a safe and efficient manner. Currently, the TVPRA allows only children from contiguous countries (Canada and Mexico) to be returned while every other unaccompanied minor must be placed into a lengthy process that usually results in the minor’s landing in the custody of an illegal alien family member. 3. Congress must end the Flores Settlement Agreement by explicitly setting nationwide terms and standards for family and unaccompanied detention and housing. Such standards should focus on meeting human needs and should allow for large-scale use of temporary facilities (for example, tents). 4. Congress should amend the Homeland Security Act and portions of the TVPRA to move detention of alien children expressly from the Department of Health and Human Services to DHS. l Asylum reform 1. The standard for a credible fear of persecution should be raised and aligned to the standard for asylum. It should also account specifically for credibility determinations that are a key element of the asylum claim. 2. Codify former asylum bars and third-country transit rules. 3. Congress should eliminate the particular social group protected ground as vague and overbroad or, in the alternative, provide a clear definition with parameters that at a minimum codify the holding in Matter of A-B- that gang violence and domestic violence are not grounds for asylum.10

Department of State

Moderate
Vector: 64%
Pages: 208-210AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on DHS-led counter-CCP threat coordination, which aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on responding vigorously to the Chinese threat and improving interagency coordination, though it does not directly address treaty reform or State Department leadership as outlined in the policy."

Key themes:countering CCP threatsinteragency coordinationnational securityinformation sharingDepartment of Homeland Security

— 175 — Department of State numerous logistical challenges in negotiating, approving, and implementing trea- ties and agreements. This is particularly true under the Biden Administration. For example, under the Biden Administration, the State Department was considered sufficiently unreliable in terms of alignment and effectiveness such that its political leadership invoked its Circular 175 (C-175) authority to delegate its diplomatic capacity to other agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security. At time of publication, the State Department is negotiating (or seeking to nego- tiate) large-scale, sovereignty-eroding agreements that could come at considerable economic and other costs to the American people. Although such agreements should be evaluated and approved as are treaties, the Biden Administration is likely to simply call them “agreements.” The Biden State Department not only approves but also enforces treaties that have not been ratified by the U.S. Senate. This practice must be thoroughly reviewed—and most likely jettisoned. The next President should recalibrate how the State Department handles trea- ties and agreements, primarily by restoring constitutionality to these processes. He or she should direct the Secretary of State to freeze any ongoing treaty or inter- national agreement negotiations and assess whether those efforts align with the new President’s foreign policy direction. The next Administration should also direct the secretary to order an immediate stand-down on enforcement of any treaties that have not been ratified by the Senate, and order a thorough review of the degree to which such enforcement has impacted the department’s functions, policies, and use of resources. The Secretary of State, in cooperation with the Office of the Attorney General and the White House Counsel’s Office, should also conduct a review to identify “agreements” that are really treaty commitments within the ordinary public mean- ing of the Constitution,6 and suspend compliance pending presidential transmittal of those agreements to the Senate for advice and consent. The next Administration should also move to withdraw from treaties that have been under Senate consider- ation for 20 years or more, with the understanding that those treaties are unlikely to be ratified. Under circumstances in which ratification of a stale treaty before the Senate still serves national interests, the treaty letter of transmittal and sub- mission should be updated for current circumstances. The Secretary of State must revoke most outstanding C-175 authorities that have been granted to other agen- cies during previous Administrations, although such revocations should be closely coordinated with the White House for logistical reasons. Coordinate with Other Agencies. Interagency engagement in this new environment must be similarly adjusted to mirror presidential direction. Indeed, coordination among federal agencies is challenging even in the most well-oiled Administrations. Although such coordination is inescapable and sometimes produc- tive, agencies tend to leverage each other’s resources in ways that occasionally have off-mission consequences for the agency or agencies with the resources. Ideally, the — 176 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Secretary of State should work as part of an agile foreign policy team along with the National Security Advisor, the Secretary of Defense, and other agency heads to flesh out and advance the President’s foreign policy. Bureaucratic stovepipes of the past should be less important than commitment to, and achievement of, the President’s foreign policy agenda. The State Department’s role in these interagency discussions must reflect the President’s clear direction and disallow resources and tools to be used in any way that detracts from the presidentially directed mission. Coordinate with Congress. Congress has both the statutory and appropri- ations authority to impact the State Department’s operations and has a strong interest in key aspects of American foreign policy. The department must therefore take particular care in its interaction with Congress, since poor interactions with Congress, regardless of intentions, could trigger congressional pushback or have other negative impacts on the President’s agenda. This will require particularly strong leadership of the Department of State’s Bureau of Legislative Affairs. The Secretary of State and political leadership should ensure full coordination with the White House regarding congressional engage- ment on any State Department responsibility. This may lead to, for example, the President authorizing the State Department to engage with Members of Congress and relevant committees on certain issues (including statutorily designated con- gressional consultations), but to remain “radio silent” on volatile or designated issues on which the White House wants to be the primary or only voice. All such authorized department engagements with Congress must be driven and handled by political appointees in conjunction with career officials who have the relevant expertise and are willing to work in concert with the President’s political appoin- tees on particularly sensitive matters. Respond Vigorously to the Chinese Threat. The State Department recently opened the Office of China Coordination, or “China House.” This office is intended to bring together experts inside and outside the State Department to coordinate U.S. government relations with China “and advance our vision for an open, inclu- sive international system.”7 Whether China House will streamline U.S. government communication, consensus, and action on China policy—given the presence of other agencies with strong competing or adverse interests—remains to be seen. The unit is dependent on adequate and competent staff being assigned by other bureaus within the State Department. Nonetheless, the concept is one a Republican Administration should support mutatis mutandis. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been “at war” with the U.S. for decades. Now that this reality has been accepted throughout the gov- ernment, the State Department must be prepared to lead the U.S. diplomatic effort accordingly. The centralization of efforts in one place is critical to this end. Review Immigration and Domestic Security Requirements. Arguably, the department’s most noteworthy challenge on the global stage has been its handling

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

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

Full Policy Text

Related Bills