Nicholas Dockery Medal of Honor Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/7194

Last Updated: July 16, 2026

Nicholas Dockery Medal of Honor Act

HR. 7194, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Rep. Baird, James R. [R-IN-4]

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

The money

$43,900 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Defense" section, p. 134-136 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Became Private Law No: 119-2.

March 25, 2026

Introduced

📍 Current Status

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

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The Nicholas Dockery Medal of Honor Act (HR 7194). A quaint exercise in bureaucratic indulgence, utterly disconnected from the imperatives of efficiency and innovation that truly drive progress.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill seeks to award the Medal of Honor to Nicholas Dockery for his actions on October 2, 2012, while serving in Afghanistan. The primary objective is to retroactively confer this distinction upon Mr. Dockery, notwithstanding existing time limitations for such awards.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill authorizes the President to award the Medal of Honor to Nicholas Dockery, bypassing the standard time constraints outlined in section 7274 of title 10, United States Code. This provision effectively creates an exception to the established rules governing medal awards.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The direct beneficiary is, of course, Nicholas Dockery himself. However, this bill's impact extends to the broader military establishment and the Medal of Honor's prestige. One might argue that the real stakeholders are those who value the symbolic significance of such honors.

**Potential Impact & Implications** From a purely rational perspective, this bill has negligible economic implications. No significant costs or benefits are associated with awarding a medal. However, I must acknowledge that the precedent set by this exception could lead to future requests for similar retroactive awards, potentially diluting the Medal of Honor's value.

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I am more concerned with the opportunity costs of such legislative indulgences. The time and resources devoted to this bill could be better spent on initiatives that foster innovation, deregulation, and growth – the true drivers of progress in our society.

In conclusion, HR 7194 is an inconsequential exercise in bureaucratic pageantry, devoid of meaningful economic or strategic implications. As a nation, we would do well to focus on more substantial pursuits, rather than indulging in sentimental gestures that only serve to distract from the imperatives of growth 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 class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process to become an actual law. This one, HR 7194, is titled the Nicholas Dockery Medal of Honor Act.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to authorize the President to award the Medal of Honor to Nicholas Dockery for his acts of valor as a member of the Army while serving in Afghanistan. Remember when we learned about the different types of legislation? This one falls under the category of "private bills," which are laws that benefit specific individuals or groups.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill has two main provisions. Section 1 gives the bill its short title, and Section 2 authorizes the President to award the Medal of Honor to Nicholas Dockery. Now, as we covered in class, the Medal of Honor is typically awarded within a certain timeframe after the act of valor occurred. However, this bill waives that time limitation, allowing the President to award the medal despite the fact that it's been over 14 years since the event took place.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties in this case are Nicholas Dockery and his family, who would receive the Medal of Honor if the bill becomes law. Additionally, the Department of Defense and the Army would be involved in the process of awarding the medal.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill would allow the President to award a high honor to an individual who has demonstrated exceptional bravery and selflessness. However, it's worth noting that this is a relatively rare occurrence, as most Medal of Honor awards are made within the specified timeframe. As we discussed in class, the legislative process is designed to be slow and deliberate, with checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. In this case, the bill has already passed the House of Representatives and been referred to the Senate Committee on Armed Services.

Now, I expect you all to remember that a bill must pass both chambers of Congress and be signed by the President to become law. And, as we learned in 8th grade civics, the committee system is an important part of this process, allowing for careful consideration and debate before a bill reaches the full chamber for a vote. I hope this summary has been...enlightening.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

(winking) Ah, folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on this so-called "Nicholas Dockery Medal of Honor Act". Now, at first glance, it looks like a simple bill to award a medal to some brave soldier named Nicholas Dockery. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The official story is that this bill aims to authorize the President to award the Medal of Honor to Nicholas Dockery for his heroic actions in Afghanistan back in 2012. Sounds noble enough, right? But what if I told you that this bill might be a Trojan horse?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 2(a) waives time limitations for awarding certain medals, which seems like a minor technicality. However, this could set a precedent for future medal awards, potentially allowing the government to retroactively honor individuals who have been involved in... let's say, "sensitive" operations.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** On the surface, it's just Nicholas Dockery and his family who'll be affected by this bill. But think about it: if this sets a precedent for future medal awards, we might see more individuals from various military branches being honored in similar ways. This could lead to a surge in medal recipients, which might be used to justify increased military spending or... (whispering) ...to create a new class of "heroes" who can be leveraged for propaganda purposes.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, here's where things get interesting. If we connect the dots, this bill could be part of a larger agenda to reshape public perception about military operations in Afghanistan and beyond. By highlighting individual heroism, the government might be trying to distract us from the bigger picture – the ongoing wars, the trillions spent on defense, and the true motives behind these conflicts.

You see, folks, this bill is not just about awarding a medal; it's about controlling the narrative. Wake up, sheeple! The truth is out there, hidden in plain sight, waiting to be decoded by vigilant citizens like yours truly. (winking)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Faux-outraged tone) Folks, we've got a real doozy for you tonight! The Nicholas Dockery Medal of Honor Act, HR 7194, is making its way through Congress, and let me tell you, it's a real freedom-fighter's dream come true... or is it? (wink)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill aims to award the Medal of Honor to Nicholas Dockery for his acts of valor as an Army member in Afghanistan. Now, I know what you're thinking - "Isn't this just a feel-good story about a hero?" Ah, but no! This is where the elites try to sneak one past us. You see, this bill is actually a clever ploy to... (dramatic pause) ...recognize bravery and selflessness in our military personnel! (gasp)

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill authorizes the President to award the Medal of Honor to Nicholas Dockery, notwithstanding time limitations specified in section 7274 of title 10, United States Code. Essentially, it's a special exception for this hero. Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But what about the rules?" Ah, don't worry, folks! This is just a minor tweak to existing law - a tiny little adjustment to ensure that our brave men and women in uniform get the recognition they deserve... or do they? (smirk)

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, it's pretty clear who the real winners are here: Nicholas Dockery and his family. But let's not forget about the real heroes - the bureaucrats and politicians who get to pat themselves on the back for supporting our troops! (eye-roll) And of course, there are the usual suspects: the Deep State, trying to undermine our military's morale with their pesky rules and regulations.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, this is where things get really interesting. If passed, this bill will set a precedent for future Medal of Honor awards, potentially opening the floodgates for more "exceptions" to existing law. But don't worry, folks! I'm sure our brave leaders in Congress have thought this through and won't let it lead to any... (cough) ...abuses of power or favoritism. (wink)

In conclusion, HR 7194 is a bill that's all about freedom - the freedom to recognize heroism, the freedom to bend the rules for our brave military personnel, and the freedom to make us all feel good about ourselves. But let's not get too comfortable, folks! We must remain vigilant against those elites trying to undermine our values... or at least, that's what I keep telling my producers. (smirk)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

(sigh) Oh joy, another Congressional bill that's about as meaningful as a participation trophy for showing up to the game. Let me dissect this farce.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Nicholas Dockery Medal of Honor Act (HR 7194) is a feel-good exercise in self-aggrandizement, masquerading as a legitimate attempt to honor a soldier's bravery. Its sole purpose is to award the Medal of Honor to Nicholas Dockery for his actions on October 2, 2012, while serving in Afghanistan.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill waives time limitations specified in section 7274 of title 10, United States Code, allowing the President to award the Medal of Honor to Dockery. This is a classic case of "special treatment" for someone who's already been awarded the Silver Star. It's like giving a participation trophy to someone who's already won the game.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The only parties affected by this bill are Nicholas Dockery and his family, who will receive a shiny new medal to add to their collection. Oh, and let's not forget the politicians who get to grandstand about "honoring our heroes" while doing absolutely nothing of substance.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has all the impact of a feather in a hurricane. It won't change anything meaningful, but it will give Congress something to pat themselves on the back about. The real implication is that this bill is a symptom of a deeper disease: the tendency for politicians to prioritize empty gestures over actual policy changes.

Diagnosis: This bill suffers from "Acute Self-Aggrandizement Syndrome" (ASAS), a condition where politicians prioritize their own image over meaningful action. Treatment involves a healthy dose of skepticism and a strong stomach, as one must navigate the sea of hypocrisy and self-congratulation that is Washington D.C.

In short, this bill is a waste of time, a pointless exercise in Congressional navel-gazing. It's a Band-Aid on a bullet wound, a token gesture that ignores the real issues facing our nation. But hey, at least it makes for good PR. (eyeroll)

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

Let's break down this bill, bro. The Nicholas Dockery Medal of Honor Act is all about giving a major props to a dude who served in the Army and did some seriously heroic stuff in Afghanistan back in 2012.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The main goal here is to authorize the President to award the Medal of Honor to Nicholas Dockery, formerly known as Kareem N. Dockery. This medal is like the ultimate recognition for bravery and selflessness in combat. The bill's all about giving it up for this bro who already received a Silver Star for his actions.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The key provision here is that it waives the time limitations for awarding certain medals, including the Medal of Honor. Normally, there are strict timelines for when these awards can be given out, but this bill says, "Hey, we're gonna make an exception for Nicholas Dockery." It's like giving him a special dispensation to receive this honor.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The main dude affected here is obviously Nicholas Dockery himself. But also, the Army and the Department of Defense are impacted since they'll be involved in the process of awarding the medal. And let's not forget about the broader military community – this bill shows that Congress is willing to recognize and reward exceptional bravery.

**Potential Impact & Implications** This bill has a few implications, bro. First, it sets a precedent for future exceptions to the time limitations for awarding medals. This could lead to more cases where people who deserve recognition get it, even if they don't fit within the usual timelines. Second, it highlights the importance of recognizing and honoring our military personnel's bravery and selflessness. It's like giving them a major shoutout, dude.

Overall, this bill is all about showing respect and gratitude for someone who put it all on the line in combat. It's a chill way to acknowledge his heroism and make sure he gets the recognition he deserves.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 7194: Nicholas Dockery Medal of Honor Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The primary objective of HR 7194 is to authorize the President to award the Medal of Honor to Nicholas Dockery, a former Army member, for his acts of valor on October 2, 2012, while serving in Afghanistan. The bill seeks to waive the time limitations specified in section 7274 of title 10, United States Code, which would otherwise prevent the awarding of the Medal of Honor.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill contains two key provisions:

1. Section 2(a) authorizes the President to award the Medal of Honor to Nicholas Dockery, notwithstanding the time limitations specified in section 7274 of title 10, United States Code. 2. Section 2(b) describes the acts of valor for which Nicholas Dockery is being considered for the Medal of Honor, specifically his actions on October 2, 2012, while serving in Afghanistan.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The primary affected party is Nicholas Dockery, who would receive the Medal of Honor if the bill is enacted. Other stakeholders include:

* The Department of Defense (DoD) and the Army, as they would be involved in the process of awarding the Medal of Honor. * Veterans' organizations and advocacy groups, which may support or oppose the bill based on their views on the Medal of Honor and its recipients.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The potential impact of this bill is relatively limited, as it only affects one individual. However, it may set a precedent for future cases where individuals are considered for the Medal of Honor outside of the normal time limitations.

In terms of monied interests, there does not appear to be any significant industry or special interest group involvement in this bill. The bill's sponsors and cosponsors do not have notable donations from defense contractors or veterans' organizations that would suggest a conflict of interest.

The Committee on Armed Services will review the bill, which may lead to additional scrutiny or amendments. However, given the bill's narrow focus and lack of significant opposition, it is likely to pass without major changes.

**Monied Interest Analysis** No significant monied interests appear to be involved in this bill. The sponsors and cosponsors do not have notable donations from defense contractors or veterans' organizations that would suggest a conflict of interest.

**Committee Capture & Conflicts of Interest** There does not appear to be any committee capture or conflicts of interest related to this bill. The Committee on Armed Services will review the bill, but there is no indication that industry groups or special interests have undue influence over the committee's deliberations.

In conclusion, HR 7194 is a relatively straightforward bill aimed at authorizing the President to award the Medal of Honor to Nicholas Dockery for his acts of valor in Afghanistan. The bill does not appear to be driven by significant monied interests or conflicts of interest.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Baird, James R. [R-IN-4]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$43,900

20 donors

PACs

Organizations

$1,000

Committees

Individuals

$42,900

No PAC contributions found

TORCHBEARER PUBLIC AFFAIRS

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

NICOSON, JON

2 transactions

$9,900

BAIRD, BEAU

1 transaction

$3,300

GOODRICH, CHARLES D

1 transaction

$3,300

CARRIER, JAMISON

1 transaction

$3,300

WALTON, ROBERT S

1 transaction

$3,300

NICOSON, BARBRA

1 transaction

$3,300

NESSEL, ARIEL

1 transaction

$2,500

LANGLEY, THOMAS

1 transaction

$2,000

KUMAR, SHALABH

1 transaction

$2,000

AITKEN, MARK

1 transaction

$1,000

ANDREW, JAMES

1 transaction

$1,000

MOONEY, PATRICK J

1 transaction

$1,000

TSIPOURIA, MELORY

1 transaction

$1,000

HESSERT, BILL

1 transaction

$1,000

RISK, JAMES III

1 transaction

$1,000

CUSTER, VERLIN

1 transaction

$1,000

LEHMAN, GARY J

1 transaction

$1,000

MOORE, WILLIAM H

1 transaction

$1,000

PURUCKER, JAMES

1 transaction

$1,000

Donor Network - Rep. Baird, James R. [R-IN-4]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 47 nodes and 21 connections (42 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $43,900

Top Donors - Rep. Baird, James R. [R-IN-4]

Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount

1 Org19 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Defense

Weak

Vector: 57%

Pages: 134-136AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill authorizes a specific Medal of Honor award, which tangentially relates to honoring military personnel—a theme mentioned in Project 2025's DOD personnel section—but does not address the policy's core focus on exportability, FMS process reform, defense industrial base, or recruiting/retention initiatives."

Key themes:military honorspersonnel recognitionvalor

— 101 — Department of Defense 1. Ensure that senior U.S. military leadership emphasizes exportability in the initial development of defense systems that are both available and interoperable with our partners and allies. 2. Create a funding mechanism to incentivize exportability in initial planning, which can be recouped after future FMS transactions. l End informal congressional notification. Informal congressional notification or “tiered review” is a hinderance to ensuring timely sales to our global partners. The tiered review process is not codified in law; it is merely a practice by which the Department of State provides a preview of prospective arms transfers before Congress is formally notified.9 1. End the tiered review process to eliminate at least 20 days from the FMS process. 2. Use the tiered review process only when unanimous congressional support is guaranteed in order to eliminate the “weaponization” by select Members of Congress that has prevented billions of dollars of arms sales from moving into formal congressional notification. l Minimize barriers to collaboration. The high cost of developing advanced defense platforms requires the United States to collaborate with key allies to minimize waste, complement strengths, and supplement our defense industrial base to create a system that is greater than that of the United States alone. 1. Enhance defense industrial base planning with partners to allow them to focus on niche areas where there are cost advantages for the United States. 2. Decrease International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to facilitate trade with such allies as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. 3. Create opportunities to improve the health of the defense supply chain with added opportunities for partners and allies to contribute. l Reform the FMS contracting process. The contracting timeline for the FMS process is shockingly slow. On average, the DOD contracting timeline takes approximately 18 months because of slow bureaucratic processes and chronic understaffing.10 — 102 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 1. Immediately fund more contracting capacity in all services to decrease the contracting timeline and improve the delivery of defense articles to our global partners. 2. Rationalize and speed arms sales decision-making to preclude our enemies from exploiting bureaucratic slothfulness and allow us to manage the development of indigenous defense industrial bases. DOD PERSONNEL The men and women of America’s armed forces are the most critical component of our national defense strategy, but in recent years, they have been overextended, undervalued, and insufficiently resourced. Their families help them to carry the burden of service, but the assistance they receive is disproportionately less than the sacrifices they make. Young civilians who would thrive in a military environ- ment are disenfranchised when educators and influencers discourage them from learning about military service and preparing for the honor of wearing Ameri- ca’s uniform. The United States military is an extraordinary institution, staffed by exceptional people who have defended our nation and changed the course of history, but the Biden Administration, through word and deed, has treated the armed forces as just another place to work. We must restore our military to a place of honor and respect and recruit and retain the individuals who will meet the rigorous standards of excellence that are required for membership in the world’s greatest fighting force. Needed Reforms l Rescue recruiting and retention. Recruiting was the worst in 2022 that it has been in two generations and is expected to be even worse in 2023. Some of the problems are self-inflicted and ongoing. The recruiting problem is not service-specific: It affects the entire Joint Force. 1. Appoint a Special Assistant to the President who will maintain liaison with Congress, DOD, and all other interested parties on the issue of recruiting and retention. 2. Improve recruiting by suspending the use of the recently introduced MHS Genesis system that uses private medical records of potential recruits at Military Entrance Processing Stations (MEPS), creating unnecessary delays and unwarranted rejections.11 3. Improve military recruiters’ access to secondary schools and require completion of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery

Department of Defense

Weak

Vector: 55%

Pages: 161-163AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill concerns awarding a Medal of Honor to an individual for past valor, which is a tangential recognition issue within the broader defense domain, while the Project 2025 DOD section focuses on strategic topics like great power competition, intelligence community oversight, defense support of civil authorities, and force design. There is minimal thematic overlap beyond the general military context."

Key themes:militarydefensevalor recognition

— 129 — Department of Defense 20. Staff Study, IC21: Intelligence Community in the 21st Century, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. House of Representatives, 104th Congress, 1996, p. 71, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA315088.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 21. Ronald O’Rourke, “Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense—Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress No. R43838, updated November 8, 2022, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/93 (accessed February 15, 2023). 22. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Defense Intelligence and Security: DOD Needs to Establish Oversight Expectations and to Develop Tools That Enhance Accountability, GAO-21-295, May 2021, https://www.gao.gov/ assets/gao-21-295.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 23. The U.S. military has a long history of providing support to civil authorities, particularly in response to disasters but for other purposes as well. The Defense Department currently defines defense support of civil authorities (DSCA) as “Support provided by U.S. Federal military forces, DoD civilians, DoD contract personnel, DoD Component assets, and National Guard forces (when the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Governors of the affected States, elects and requests to use those forces in Title 32, U.S.C., status) in response to requests for assistance from civil authorities for domestic emergencies, law enforcement support, and other domestic activities, or from qualifying entities for special events. Also known as civil support.” U.S. Department of Defense, Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA),” December 29, 2010, p. 16, https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/CG-5R/nsarc/DoDD%203025.18%20Defense%20Support%20 of%20Civil%20Authorities.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 24. U.S. Army, “Who We Are: The Army’s Vision and Strategy,” https://www.army.mil/about/ (accessed February 17, 2023). 25. “[T]he Army’s internal assessment must be balanced against its own statements that unit training is focused on company-level operations [reflective of counterintelligence requirements] rather than battalion or brigade operations [much less division or corps to meet large-scale ground combat operations against a peer competitor such as Russia or China]. Consequently, how these ‘ready’ brigade combat teams would perform in combat operations is an open question.” “Executive Summary” in 2023 Index of U.S. Military Strength, ed. Dakota L. Wood (Washington: The Heritage Foundation, 2023), p. 16, http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws. com/2022/Military_Index/2023_IndexOfUSMilitaryStrength.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 26. For background on the USN’s fleet size, see Brent D. Sadler, “Rebuilding America’s Military: The United States Navy,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No. 242, February 18, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2021-02/SR242.pdf, and Ronald O’Rourke, “Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress No. RL32665, December 21, 2022, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32665 (accessed February 15, 2023). 27. The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) is the process by which the services develop and the Joint Staff approves the requirements for major defense acquisitions. See Defense Acquisition University, “Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDA),” https://www.dau. edu/acquipedia/pages/articledetails.aspx#!371 (accessed February 15, 2023). 28. The board would seek to balance a mix of active military and civilians with expertise in and responsibility for major acquisitions and former military and civilians with experience in strategy and acquisitions. The proposed composition would include the Vice Chief of Naval Operations as Chairman, with three-star level membership from the Joint Staff, the Navy and Defense Acquisition Executives, and the Naval Sea Systems Command. In addition, there would be four-star retired naval officers/Navy civil servants as members, one each named by the Chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of Defense. Finally, there would be a member appointed by the Secretary of the Navy who had previous senior experience in the defense industry. 29. See James Mattis, Secretary of Defense, Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America: Sharpening the American Military’s Competitive Edge, U.S. Department of Defense, https:// dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf (accessed February 17, 2023), and U.S. Department of Defense, 2022 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America Including the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review and the 2022 Missile Defense Review, https://oldcc.gov/ resource/2022-national-defense-strategy (accessed February 17, 2023). — 130 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 30. U.S. Air Force, “The Air Force We Need: 386 Operational Squadrons,” September 17, 2018, https://www. af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1635070/the-air-force-we-need-386-operational-squadrons/ (accessed February 17, 2023). 31. General David H. Berger, Commandant of the Marine Corps, “Force Design 2030,” U.S. Department of the Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, March 2020, https://www.hqmc.marines.mil/Portals/142/Docs/CMC38%20Force%20 Design%202030%20Report%20Phase%20I%20and%20II.pdf?ver=2020-03-26-121328-460 (accessed February 17, 2023). 32. Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps, “Force Design 2030,” March 2020, https://www.hqmc. marines.mil/Portals/142/Docs/CMC38%20Force%20Design%202030%20Report%20Phase%20I%20and%20II. pdf?ver=2020-03-26-121328-460 (accessed February 15, 2023). 33. Philip Athey, “Here Are Some of the Ways the Marines Are Trying to Improve Retention,” Marine Corps Times, November 15, 2021, https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2021/11/15/treat-people- like-human-beings-here-are-some-of-the-ways-the-marines-are-trying-to-improve-retention/ (accessed February 15, 2023). 34. Megan Eckstein, “Marines, Navy Near Agreement on Light Amphibious Warship Features,” Defense News, October 5, 2022, https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2022/10/05/marines-navy-near-agreement-on-light- amphibious-warship-features/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 35. Megan Eckstein, “Marines Explain Vision for Fewer Traditional Amphibious Warships,” Defense News, June 21, 2021, https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2021/06/21/marines-explain-vision-for-fewer-traditional- amphibious-warships-supplemented-by-new-light-amphib/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 36. See Sidney J. Freedberg Jr., “Trump Eases Cyber Ops, but Safeguards Remain: Joint Staff,” Breaking Defense, September 17, 2018, https://breakingdefense.com/2018/09/trump-eases-cyber-ops-but-safeguards-remain- joint-staff/ (accessed March 7, 2023); Dustin Volz, “White House Confirms It Has Relaxed Rules on U.S. Use of Cyberweapons,” The Wall Street Journal, September 20, 2018, https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house- confirms-it-has-relaxed-rules-on-u-s-use-of-cyber-weapons-1537476729 (accessed March 7, 2023); and Federation of American Scientists, Intelligence Resource Program, “National Security Presidential Memoranda [NSPMs]: Donald J. Trump Administration,” updated March 7, 2022, https://irp.fas.org/offdocs/nspm/index. html (accessed March 7, 2023). 37. U.S. Government Accountability Office, DOD Cybersecurity: Enhanced Attention Needed to Ensure Cyber Incidents Are Appropriately Reported and Shared, GAO-23-105084, November 2022, p. 36, https://www.gao. gov/assets/gao-23-105084.pdf (accessed February 17, 2023). 38. See Paul Evancoe, “Special Operations and the Interagency Team,” U.S.Military.com, https://usmilitary. com/special-operations-and-the-interagency-team/#:~:text=Seldom%20considered%20are%20those%20 other%20government%20agency%20%28OGA%29,response%20and%20consequence%20management%20 to%20name%20a%20few (accessed February 17, 2023). 39. U.S. Department of Defense, Nuclear Posture Review, February 2018, pp. 54–55, https://media.defense. gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PDF (accessed February 17, 2023). 40. U.S. Department of Defense, 2022 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America Including the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review and the 2022 Missile Defense Review, pp. 3 and 20. 41. Patty-Jane Geller, “Missile Defense,” in 2023 Index of U.S. Military Strength, ed. Dakota L. Wood (Washington: The Heritage Foundation, 2023), pp. 507–508, http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/Military_ Index/2023_IndexOfUSMilitaryStrength.pdf. 42. Matthew R. Costlow, “The Folly of Limiting U.S. Missile Defenses for Nuclear Arms Control,” National Institute for Public Policy Information Series, Issue No. 505, October 18, 2021, https://nipp.org/wp-content/ uploads/2021/10/IS-505.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 43. Forum for American Leadership, “Don’t Hand North Korea a Win in the Missile Defense Review,” January 4, 2022, https://forumforamericanleadership.org/dprk-missile-threat (accessed February 16, 2023). 44. Patty-Jane Geller, “It’s Time to Get Homeland Missile Defense Right,” Defense News, January 4, 2021, https:// www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2021/01/04/its-time-to-get-homeland-missile-defense- right/#:~:text=Restoring%20our%20eroding%20edge%20when,advanced%20technology%20and%20 new%20capabilities.%E2%80%9D (accessed February 16, 2023).

Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy

Weak

Vector: 55%

Pages: 118-121AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on awarding a Medal of Honor for individual valor, which is unrelated to Project 2025's emphasis on bureaucratic reform, government efficiency, and managing central personnel agencies. There is no meaningful connection between recognizing military heroism and the policy objectives of reducing fragmentation or improving administrative effectiveness."

Key themes:national defensemilitary personnel

— 85 — Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy 20. See Gene L. Dodaro, Comptroller General of the United States, “Government Efficiency and Effectiveness: Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve Billions in Financial Benefits,” testimony before the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Spending Oversight, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, GAO-21-544T, May 12, 2021, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao- 21-544t.pdf (accessed February 2, 2023). 21. S. 20, Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Public Law No. 103-62, 103rd Congress, August 3, 1993, https://www.congress.gov/103/statute/STATUTE-107/STATUTE-107-Pg285.pdf (accessed February 2, 2023). 22. Paul Light, “The Real Crisis in Government,” The Capital Times (Madison, Wisconsin), January 22, 2010, https:// captimes.com/news/opinion/column/paul-c-light-the-real-crisis-in-government/article_9e139318-3d00- 5898-908d-4c7aee1e105d.html (accessed March 15, 2023). 23. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section3 (accessed February 2, 2023). 24. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13957, “Creating Schedule F in the Excepted Service,” October 21, 2020, in Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 207 (October 26, 2020), pp. 67631–67635, https://www.govinfo.gov/ content/pkg/FR-2020-10-26/pdf/2020-23780.pdf (accessed February 2, 2023). 25. See note 17, supra. 26. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13836, “Developing Efficient, Effective, and Cost-Reducing Approaches to Federal Sector Collective Bargaining,” May 25, 2018, in Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 106 (June 1, 2018), pp. 25329–25334, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-06-01/pdf/2018-11913.pdf (accessed February 2, 2023). 27. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13837, “Ensuring Transparency, Accountability, and Efficiency in Taxpayer-Funded Union Time Use,” May 25, 2018, in Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 106 (June 1, 2018), pp. 25335–25340, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-06-01/pdf/2018-11916.pdf (accessed February 2, 2023). 28. See note 16, supra. 29. See note 17, supra. 30. Philip K. Howard, Not Accountable: Rethinking the Constitutionality of Public Employee Unions (Garden City, NY: Rodin Books, 2023). 31. James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 45, January 26, 1788, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/ Madison/01-10-02-0254 (accessed February 1, 2023). — 87 — Section Two THE COMMON DEFENSE W hile the lives of Americans are affected in noteworthy ways, for better or w orse, by each part of the executive branch, the inherent importance of na tional defense and foreign affairs makes the Departments of Defense and State first among equals. Originating in the George Washington Administra- tion, the War Department (as it was then known) was headed by Henry Knox, America’s chief artillery officer in the Revolutionary War; Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, was the first Secretary of State. Despite such long and storied histories, neither department is currently living up to its standards, and the success of the next presidency will be determined in part by whether they can be significantly improved in short order. “Ever since our Founding,” former acting secretary of defense Christopher Miller writes in Chapter 4, “Americans have understood that the surest way to avoid war is to be prepared for it in peace.” Yet the Department of Defense “is a deeply troubled institution.” It has emphasized leftist politics over military readiness, “Recruiting was the worst in 2022 that it has been in two generations,” and “the Biden Admin- istration’s profoundly unserious equity agenda and vaccine mandates have taken a serious toll.” Additionally, Miller writes that “the atrophy of our defense industrial base, the impact of sequestration, and effective disarmament by many U.S. allies have exacted a high toll on America’s military.” Moreover, our military has adopted a risk-averse culture—think of masked soldiers, sailors, and airmen—rather than instilling and rewarding courage in thought and action. The good news is that most enlisted personnel, and most officers, especially below the rank of general or admiral, continue to be patriotic defenders of liberty.

Department of Defense

Minimal

Vector: 55%

Pages: 134-136AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on waiving time limits for a Medal of Honor award, which is unrelated to Project 2025's defense exportability, FMS process reforms, ITAR reductions, or industrial base collaboration objectives."

Key themes:Department of Defensemilitary personnel

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 55%

Pages: 530-532AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on awarding a Medal of Honor for military valor, which is unrelated to the Department of Health and Human Services' Project 2025 objectives concerning healthcare access, underserved populations, and public health policy."

— 498 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Strategic Plan, FY 2018–2022, p. 50, https://aspe.hhs.gov/ sites/default/files/documents/feac346aca967bfadc446398679e14ec/hhs-strategic-plan-fy-2018-2022.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023). 2. “Strategic Goal 1: Protect and Strengthen Equitable Access to High Quality and Affordable Healthcare” in ibid. “In the context of HHS, this Strategic Plan adopts the definition of underserved communities listed in Executive Order 13985: Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities through the Federal Government to refer to ‘populations sharing a particular characteristic, as well as geographic communities, who have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life’; this definition includes individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality. Individuals may belong to more than one underserved community and face intersecting barriers. This definition applies to the terms underserved communities and underserved populations throughout this Strategic Plan.” Ibid. Emphasis in original. 3. Karen Weintraub, “Americans’ Life Expectancy Continues to Fall, Erasing Health Gains of the Last Quarter Century,” USA Today, December 22, 2022, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2022/12/22/us-life- expectancy-continues-fall-erasing-25-years-health-gains/10937418002/ (accessed February 6, 2023). 4. Apoorva Mandavilli, “The C.D.C. Isn’t Publishing Large Portions of the Data It Collects,” The New York Times, updated February 22, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/114450/documents/HHRG-117- IF02-20220302-SD004.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 5. Zachary B. Sluzala and Edmund F. Haislmaier, “Lessons from COVID-19: How Policymakers Should Reform the Regulation of Clinical Testing,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3696, March 28, 2022, https://www. heritage.org/public-health/report/lessons-covid-19-how-policymakers-should-reform-the-regulation-clinical. 6. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (C),” https://www.cdc.gov/maso/pdf/cdcmiss.pdf (March 16, 2023). 7. Judith Garber, “CDC ‘Disclaimers’ Hide Financial Conflicts of Interest,” Lown Institute Accountability Blog, November 6, 2019, https://lowninstitute.org/cdc-disclaimers-hide-financial-conflicts-of-interest/ (accessed February 6, 2023). See also U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2014–September 30, 2015),” https://www. cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2015.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Active Programs (October 1, 2015–September 30, 2016),” https://www.cdcfoundation. org/sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2016.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2016–September 30, 2017),” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/ sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2017.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2017–September 30, 2018),” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/ files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2018.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2018–September 30, 2019,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/files/upload/ pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2019.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2029–September 30, 2020,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/CDCF-ActivePrograms-CDC-FY20?inline (accessed February 7, 2023); and “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2020–September 30, 2021,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/CDCF-ActivePrograms-CDC-FY21?inline (accessed February 7, 2023). 8. Joel White and Doug Badger, “In Order to Defeat COVID-19, the Federal Government Must Modernize Its Public Health Data,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3527, September 3, 2020, https://www.heritage. org/sites/default/files/2020-09/BG3527_0.pdf. 9. S. 15, Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 23, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/s15/BILLS-118s15is.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023), and H.R. 632, Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 30, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr632/BILLS-118hr632ih.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 10. Doug Badger, “How Congress Can Make Real Progress on Drug Prices,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 5016, December 9, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/IB5016_1.pdf. — 499 — Department of Health and Human Services 11. Sluzala and Haislmaier, “Lessons From COVID-19: How Policymakers Should Reform the Regulation of Clinical Testing.” 12. Ibid. 13. H.R. 5471, Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, Public Law No. 100-578, 100th Congress, October 31, 1988, https://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/100/578.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 14. Sluzala and Haislmaier, “Lessons From COVID-19: How Policymakers Should Reform the Regulation of Clinical Testing.” 15. Edmund F. Haislmaier, “Ensuring Americans’ Access to Pharmaceuticals: A Primer and Road Map for Policymakers,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3545, October 20, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/ sites/default/files/2020-10/BG3545.pdf. 16. 18 U.S.C. 1461, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1461 (accessed March 16, 2023), and 18 U.S.C. 1462, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1462 (accessed March 16, 2023). 17. H.R. 1308, Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Public Law No. 103-141, 103rd Congress, November 16, 1993, https://www.congress.gov/103/statute/STATUTE-107/STATUTE-107-Pg1488.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 18. Charles Piller, “Is FDA’s Revolving Door Open Too Wide?” Science, Vol. 361, No. 6397 (July 6, 2018), p. 21, https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/science.361.6397.21 (accessed February 6, 2023). 19. Joel Achenbach, “NIH Halts $100 Million Study of Moderate Drinking That Is Funded by Alcohol Industry,” The Washington Post, May 17, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/05/17/nih- halts-controversial-study-of-moderate-drinking/ (accessed February 6, 2023). 20. Alexander Tin, “Moderna Offers NIH Co-ownership of COVID Vaccine Patent amid Dispute with Government,” CBS News, November 15, 2021, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/moderna-covid-vaccine-patent-dispute- national-institutes-health/ (accessed February 6, 2023). 21. Informed Consent Action Network, “NIH Officials Profiting from COVID-19 Vaccine,” June 3, 2021, https://www. icandecide.org/nih-officials-profiting-from-covid-19-vaccine/ (accessed February 6, 2023). 22. Adam Andrzejewski, “Substack Investigation: Fauci’s Royalties and the $350 Million Royalty Payment Stream HIDDEN by NIH,” Open the Books Substack, May 9, 2022, https://openthebooks.substack. com/p/faucis-royalties-and-the-350-million?utm_source=/profile/24758236-adam-andrzejewski&utm_ medium=reader2&s=w (accessed February 6, 2023). 23. Robert E. Moffit, “Time to Reverse Hospital Market Consolidation,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, January 5, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/commentary/time-reverse-hospital-market-consolidation. 24. H.R. 3590, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law No. 111-148, 111th Congress, March 23, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ148/PLAW-111publ148.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 25. Brian J. Miller, Robert E. Moffit, James Ficke, Joseph Marine, and Jesse Ehrenfeld, “Reversing Hospital Consolidation: The Promise of Physician-Owned Hospitals,” Health Affairs Forefront, April 12, 2021, https:// www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20210408.980640/ (accessed February 13, 2023). 26. Robert E. Moffit, “Medicare’s Future: Challenges and Opportunities,” testimony before the Special Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate, November 21, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/testimony/medicares-future-challenges- and-opportunities. 27. 42 U.S. Code § 256b, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/256b (accessed March 16, 2023). 28. H.R. 3590, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, § 3022. 29. H.R. 5376, Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-169, 117th Congress, August 16, 2022, https:// www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ169/PLAW-117publ169.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 30. Robert E. Moffit, “Reducing Patient Access to New Medications Is the Left’s Latest Medicare Price-Fixing Scheme,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, July 22, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/medicare/commentary/ reducing-patient-access-new-medications-the-lefts-latest-medicare-price-fixing, and Badger, “How Congress Can Make Real Progress on Drug Prices.” 31. Nina Owcharenko Schaefer, “Medicaid at 55: Understanding the Design, Trends, and Reforms Needed to Improve the Health Care Safety Net,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3604, April 14, 2021, https:// www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/BG3604_0.pdf, and Brian C. Blase, “Punishing Conservative States: Payment Cuts to Hospitals Where Federal Spending Is Already Low,” Paragon Health Institute, December 2021, https://paragoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Punishing-Conservative-States- HTML.html (accessed February 13, 2023).

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. Baird, James R.

Interagency Coordination in Export Controls Act of 2026

119/hr/8036

PART Act

119/hr/5221

Back to All Bills