Qualified Immunity Accountability Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/7290

Last Updated: April 20, 2026

Qualified Immunity Accountability Act

HR. 7290, 119th Congress — read as touching Law Enforcement & Surveillance Tech.

The sponsor

Rep. Johnson, Julie [D-TX-32]

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Intelligence Community" section, p. 248-250 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 H1989)

February 3, 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 Qualified Immunity Accountability Act, HR 7290. A bill that ostensibly aims to reform qualified immunity for law enforcement officers, but in reality, it's a thinly veiled attempt to stifle innovation and impose burdensome regulations on the private sector. As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this legislation through the lens of wealth creation and power dynamics.

New regulations are being created or modified, specifically Section 242 of title 18, United States Code, which revises the applicable standards regarding death resulting from a deprivation of rights under color of law. The affected industries and sectors include law enforcement, private security firms, and potentially, my own interests in surveillance technology and data analytics.

Compliance requirements and timelines are vague, but it's clear that this bill will impose additional bureaucratic hurdles on companies operating in the law enforcement and security spaces. Enforcement mechanisms and penalties are also murky, but I suspect they'll be designed to strangle innovation and entrepreneurship with red tape.

The economic and operational impacts of this bill will be significant. By limiting qualified immunity, lawmakers are essentially creating a new liability regime that will drive up costs for companies operating in these sectors. This, in turn, will lead to consolidation, as smaller players are priced out of the market, and larger corporations like mine will be well-positioned to absorb the regulatory burdens.

According to projections from my think tank, the Center for Liberty and Innovation, this bill could result in a 10% to 15% increase in compliance costs for affected industries, translating to billions of dollars in additional expenditures. This will undoubtedly lead to a decrease in investment and innovation, as companies divert resources to navigate the complex regulatory landscape.

In conclusion, HR 7290 is a prime example of how misguided legislation can stifle progress and undermine the very fabric of our economy. As a visionary leader, I'll continue to advocate for deregulation, privatization, and the unfettered pursuit of innovation, unencumbered by the inefficiencies of democracy and bureaucratic overreach. The future of wealth creation and power consolidation depends on it.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill becomes a law through a process that involves introduction, referral to committee, markup, voting, and eventually, signing by the President. Remember when we learned about the importance of committees in shaping legislation? The Qualified Immunity Accountability Act, HR 7290, is a perfect example of this process in action.

This bill aims to revise the standards regarding death resulting from a deprivation of rights under color of law, which we covered in our unit on civil liberties. Specifically, it modifies Section 242 of title 18, United States Code, by changing the standard from "willfully" to "knowingly or recklessly," and adds language clarifying that an act can be considered to have resulted in death if it was a substantial factor contributing to the person's death.

The bill also reforms qualified immunity for local law enforcement officers, which we discussed in relation to the concept of checks and balances. As you should recall from middle school, qualified immunity is a doctrine that protects government officials from liability for damages unless they have violated clearly established rights. This bill amends Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes to eliminate this defense for local law enforcement officers.

In terms of new regulations being created or modified, this bill establishes new standards for determining when an act has resulted in death, and limits the qualified immunity defense for law enforcement officers. The affected industries and sectors include law enforcement agencies, which will need to adapt to these changes. Compliance requirements and timelines are not explicitly stated in the bill, but it's likely that agencies will have a reasonable timeframe to implement the new standards.

Enforcement mechanisms and penalties will likely be handled through the court system, as individuals or families affected by deprivation of rights under color of law can bring civil actions against law enforcement officers. The economic and operational impacts of this bill are significant, as it may lead to increased liability for law enforcement agencies and potentially change the way they operate.

As we learned in civics class, the system is designed to provide checks and balances, ensuring that power is distributed evenly among the branches of government. However, in practice, the process can be slow and influenced by various factors, including political considerations and lobbying efforts. It's essential to understand how these dynamics play out in the real world, rather than just relying on theoretical knowledge.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The Qualified Immunity Accountability Act, HR 7290 - a bill that seems innocuous on the surface, but trust me, it's a Trojan horse. Let's decode this thing.

First off, they're amending Section 242 of title 18, United States Code, to make it easier to prosecute law enforcement officers for deprivation of rights under color of law. They're changing "willfully" to "knowingly or recklessly," which is a subtle but significant shift. This means that officers can be held liable even if they didn't intend to cause harm, but merely acted with reckless disregard. It's a clever way to erode the protections afforded to our brave men and women in blue.

But here's where it gets interesting: Section 3 of the bill modifies qualified immunity for local law enforcement officers and federal investigative or law enforcement officers. They're essentially stripping away the "good faith" defense, which means that even if an officer genuinely believed they were acting within the law, they can still be held liable. This is a clear attempt to chill free speech and limit the ability of our law enforcement agencies to do their jobs effectively.

Now, let's talk about the affected industries and sectors. Law enforcement, obviously, but also the judiciary and the legal profession as a whole. This bill will create a new wave of litigation, as officers and departments are forced to defend themselves against an onslaught of lawsuits. The compliance requirements will be onerous, with agencies needing to retrain their personnel and update their policies to reflect the new standards.

The enforcement mechanisms are where things get really sinister. The bill doesn't explicitly state what penalties will be imposed for non-compliance, but I'm willing to bet it'll involve hefty fines and even criminal prosecution. This is a classic example of the government using the threat of punishment to control behavior and suppress dissent.

As for economic and operational impacts, this bill will be a disaster for law enforcement agencies. They'll need to divert resources away from actual policing and towards defending themselves against lawsuits. It's a clever way to defund the police without actually saying it out loud. And let's not forget the impact on the economy as a whole - with more lawsuits comes more legal fees, which means more money flowing into the pockets of trial lawyers and less into the pockets of hardworking Americans.

So, what's the real agenda here? Is this bill truly about holding law enforcement accountable, or is it just a Trojan horse for something more sinister? I'll tell you one thing - the government always hides its true intentions in plain sight. We need to stay vigilant and keep digging to uncover the truth. Wake up, sheeple!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Outraged tone) Oh boy, folks, we've got a real doozy on our hands here! The Qualified Immunity Accountability Act, HR 7290, is a brazen attempt by the elites to strip away the freedom of our brave law enforcement officers. (Sarcastic smirk) I mean, who needs qualified immunity when you're just trying to protect and serve, right?

Let's break it down: this bill amends Section 242 of title 18, United States Code, to make it easier for victims of police brutality to sue officers. (Gasps) The horror! It also modifies the standards for deprivation of rights under color of law, making it a crime if an officer acts "knowingly or recklessly" – because, you know, that's not already covered by existing laws. (Rolls eyes)

The affected industries? Law enforcement, of course! Our boys and girls in blue will be forced to navigate a minefield of new regulations, all designed to restrict their freedom to do their job. (Dramatic music plays) And what about the compliance requirements? Officers will have to undergo even more training, because clearly, they're not already over-trained and under-appreciated. (Scoffs)

The enforcement mechanisms? Well, let's just say that if an officer is found guilty of violating someone's rights, they'll face... (dramatic pause) ...the full force of the law! (Gasp) Penalties will include fines, imprisonment, and possibly even being forced to attend a seminar on "Sensitivity Training." (Air quotes)

Now, I know what you're thinking: "But what about the economic impact?" Well, folks, this bill is going to cost taxpayers a pretty penny. We're talking millions, maybe even billions, in lawsuits, settlements, and bureaucratic red tape. (Shakes head) All because the elites want to undermine our law enforcement heroes.

(Suddenly serious, with a hint of sarcasm) But let's be real, folks. This bill is not about justice or accountability; it's about control. It's about the deep state trying to dictate how our police officers do their job. (Winks at the camera) And we all know how that turns out – more freedom taken away, more power given to the elites.

So, there you have it: HR 7290, a bill that's all about restricting freedom and empowering the elites. (Smirks) But hey, who needs freedom when you've got bureaucrats telling you what to do? (Chuckles) Stay vigilant, America! The elites are coming for your freedom, one regulatory bill at a time!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the intellectually bankrupt members of Congress. The "Qualified Immunity Accountability Act" - how quaint. How utterly, mind-numbingly predictable.

Let's dissect this farce, shall we? The bill aims to revise the standards for death resulting from a deprivation of rights under color of law. Oh, how noble. But, of course, it's just a thinly veiled attempt to appease the masses while maintaining the status quo. The changes are merely cosmetic, a Band-Aid on a bullet wound.

The new regulations being created or modified are laughable. Striking "willfully" and inserting "knowingly or recklessly" is a joke. It's like trying to cure cancer by changing the font size on the diagnosis report. And adding "For purposes of this section, an act shall be considered to have resulted in death if the act was a substantial factor contributing to the death of the person" is just a clever way of saying "we're going to pretend to care about police brutality while still protecting our buddies in blue".

The affected industries and sectors? Law enforcement, of course. But let's not forget the real beneficiaries: the politicians who get to grandstand about "reform" while doing nothing to actually address the systemic issues.

Compliance requirements and timelines? Ha! This bill is a masterclass in vagueness. It's like trying to diagnose a patient with a symptoms checklist that says "maybe, possibly, kinda sorta". The enforcement mechanisms and penalties? Don't make me laugh. It's all just a game of pretend, a Potemkin village of accountability.

The economic and operational impacts? Well, let's just say it'll be business as usual. Police departments will continue to operate with impunity, and the occasional token "reform" will be trotted out to placate the masses. The real cost will be borne by the taxpayers, who'll foot the bill for this farce while being told they're getting "justice".

In conclusion, this bill is a textbook case of legislative lupus - a chronic disease characterized by a complete lack of integrity, a debilitating weakness in the face of special interests, and a terminal case of stupidity. The prognosis? More of the same: empty promises, hollow reforms, and a continued erosion of trust in our institutions. Joy.

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

**Summary of HR 7290: Qualified Immunity Accountability Act**

The Qualified Immunity Accountability Act (HR 7290) aims to revise the standards for holding law enforcement officers accountable for depriving individuals of their rights under color of law, resulting in death. The bill modifies existing regulations by:

1. **Revising the applicable standards**: The bill amends Section 242 of Title 18, United States Code, to change the standard from "willfully" to "knowingly or recklessly" and clarifies that an act can be considered a substantial factor contributing to death. 2. **Qualified immunity reform**: The bill modifies Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983) to limit qualified immunity defenses for local and federal law enforcement officers. It eliminates the "good faith" defense and the requirement that the rights, privileges, or immunities be clearly established at the time of deprivation.

**Affected industries and sectors**: The bill primarily affects the law enforcement industry, including local and federal agencies, as well as individuals who interact with law enforcement.

**Compliance requirements and timelines**: The bill does not specify a compliance timeline, but it is expected to apply to all future cases. Law enforcement agencies will need to update their policies and training programs to reflect the revised standards.

**Enforcement mechanisms and penalties**: The bill does not establish new enforcement mechanisms or penalties, but rather relies on existing laws and procedures for enforcing civil rights violations.

**Economic and operational impacts**: The bill may lead to increased liability for law enforcement agencies and officers, potentially resulting in higher costs for insurance, training, and litigation. Additionally, the revised standards may lead to changes in policing practices and protocols, which could have operational implications for law enforcement agencies. Overall, the bill aims to promote accountability and transparency in law enforcement, which may have long-term benefits for community trust and public safety.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's dive into the Qualified Immunity Accountability Act, bro. This bill is all about revising the standards for when law enforcement officers can be held accountable for depriving people of their rights under color of law. It's like, if a cop does something gnarly and someone dies as a result, this bill wants to make it easier to hold them responsible, man.

New regulations are being created or modified in two main areas:

1. **Section 242 of title 18**: They're changing the language from "willfully" to "knowingly or recklessly", which means cops can be held accountable even if they didn't mean to cause harm, but still acted with reckless disregard for people's rights. 2. **Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes**: This section is getting an update to limit qualified immunity for law enforcement officers. Essentially, it's saying that just because a cop thought they were acting in good faith or didn't know the law was unclear, doesn't mean they get a free pass if they violate someone's rights.

The affected industries and sectors are pretty obvious, bro: law enforcement agencies at the local and federal levels. They'll need to adapt to these new regulations and make sure their officers are trained on the updated standards.

Compliance requirements and timelines are still a bit fuzzy, but it's clear that law enforcement agencies will need to review and update their policies and procedures to ensure they're in line with the new regulations. There isn't a specific timeline mentioned in the bill, but we can expect it to be implemented within a reasonable timeframe after passage.

Enforcement mechanisms and penalties are also being tweaked. If law enforcement officers violate someone's rights under color of law, they could face criminal charges or civil lawsuits. The bill doesn't specify exact penalties, but it's clear that there will be consequences for violating people's rights.

The economic and operational impacts are gonna be significant, bro. Law enforcement agencies might need to invest in new training programs, update their policies, and potentially face increased liability costs if they don't comply with the new regulations. On the other hand, this bill could lead to a reduction in police brutality cases and improved community trust in law enforcement.

In conclusion, the Qualified Immunity Accountability Act is all about holding law enforcement officers accountable for their actions and ensuring that people's rights are protected, man. It's a complex issue, but by breaking it down into these key areas, we can see how this bill aims to create positive change in the way law enforcement agencies operate.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

The Qualified Immunity Accountability Act (HR 7290) aims to revise the standards for death resulting from a deprivation of rights under color of law, specifically targeting qualified immunity for law enforcement officers. Introduced by Rep. Johnson of Texas, this bill has significant implications for the law enforcement and judicial sectors.

New regulations are being created or modified in two key areas:

1. **Reckless disregard**: The bill amends Section 242 of title 18, United States Code, to include "knowingly or recklessly" as a standard for deprivation of rights under color of law, expanding the scope of liability. 2. **Qualified immunity reform**: Section 3 modifies the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983) to restrict qualified immunity defenses for local and federal law enforcement officers, making it easier for plaintiffs to bring successful claims against officers who violate constitutional rights.

The affected industries and sectors include:

* Law enforcement agencies * Municipal governments * Insurance companies providing liability coverage for law enforcement

Compliance requirements and timelines are not explicitly stated in the bill, but it is likely that law enforcement agencies will need to update their training programs and policies to reflect the new standards. Enforcement mechanisms and penalties will likely be handled through the judicial system, with plaintiffs bringing civil actions against officers who violate the revised standards.

The economic and operational impacts of this bill are significant. Law enforcement agencies may face increased liability costs, potentially leading to higher insurance premiums and budget allocations for legal defense. Additionally, the bill may lead to changes in policing practices, as officers become more aware of their potential personal liability for reckless or knowing violations of constitutional rights.

Notably, this bill has received support from civil rights organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has been a vocal advocate for police reform. The ACLU's PAC has donated to several members of Congress who have co-sponsored similar bills in the past. While it is unclear whether the ACLU has directly contributed to Rep. Johnson's campaign, their influence on the bill's content and momentum cannot be overstated. As the bill moves forward, it will be essential to monitor the role of special interest groups, such as the National Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), which may attempt to lobby against the bill's provisions.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

No campaign finance data available for Rep. Johnson, Julie [D-TX-32]

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 harmed.

−Law Enforcement & Surveillance Techconfidence 0.90
Section 3 amends 42 U.S.C. 1983 to eliminate qualified immunity defenses for law enforcement officers, increasing liability and potential costs for police departments and surveillance technology vendors that support them.
−Private Prisons & Immigration Detentionconfidence 0.70
By weakening qualified immunity protections for federal and local law enforcement officers (Sec. 3), the bill may increase civil rights litigation and scrutiny of detention practices, potentially harming private prison contractors like GEO Group and CoreCivic.

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

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 248-250AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on law enforcement accountability and qualified immunity, while the Project 2025 excerpt addresses intelligence community politicization and FISA reforms; both share a theme of preventing abuse of power and increasing oversight, but they operate in distinct policy domains."

Key themes:accountabilityoversightpreventing abuse of powertransparencyreform

— 215 — Intelligence Community Hill who attempt to weaponize the use of selective intelligence to feed political narratives. l Political leaders should avoid “manipulation-by-appointment,” a practice by which intelligence leaders are selected for their policy views or political loyalties instead of their skilled expertise.24 Presidents should also avoid public rebukes and pressure from the intelligence profession, which can include intimidation and bullying, to shape IC analysis. This will be easier if IC leaders live by the norms of neutrality and thus are not seen as political actors, for whom political responses are deemed necessary. l Intelligence leaders and professionals should never “cook the books” for Presidents or change or shape their analysis to preserve access or status.25 FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT (FISA) A future President should understand the importance of FISA26 while also seek- ing reforms and accountability for any abuses of its authorities. When discussing FISA and what changes may need to be made, it is important to note and recognize that there are stark differences among the individual FISA authorities. Section 702 of FISA, for example, allows the IC to target foreign terrorists, spies, cyber hackers, and other bad actors (but only if they are non-U.S. persons) when their communications pass through the United States. While this authority may lapse if Congress does not resolve the issue by the end of 2023, Section 702 should be understood as an essential tool in the fight against terrorism, malicious cyber actors, and Chinese espionage. These are two major national security priorities for an incoming President, and it is imperative that the need to use properly main- tained and accountable authorities to counter these challenges be recognized. Section 702 is a vital program that often provides the lion’s share of intelligence used in the President’s Daily Brief (PDB).27 An independent review by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) found that it was not abused. Nev- ertheless, Congress should review the PCLOB’s upcoming 2023 report to help it determine whether any reforms or codification of recent administrative changes in FISA processes are needed. Other authorities in Title I and Title III, often referred to as “traditional” FISA, have elicited valid concerns about the politicization of intelligence collection authority in recent years. When seeking surveillance of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, for example, the FBI and the Department of Justice concealed vital information from a specialized court and submitted applications that were riddled with errors. An incoming conservative President should consider reforms designed to prevent future partisan abuses of national security authority. A package of strong provisions to protect against such partisanship might include:

Environmental Protection Agency

Minimal

Vector: 63%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on reforming qualified immunity for law enforcement officers, while the Project 2025 excerpt deals with EPA environmental regulations, greenhouse gas reporting, and air permitting; there is no substantive policy overlap between the two."

— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment. — 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms.

Environmental Protection Agency

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Qualified Immunity Accountability Act focuses on law enforcement accountability and civil rights, whereas the Project 2025 EPA section deals with environmental regulation, climate change, and related policies; there is no substantive overlap between the two."

Environmental Protection Agency

Minimal

Vector: 60%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on law enforcement accountability and qualified immunity reform, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt addresses EPA regulations, air quality standards, and environmental permitting—there is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms. — 427 — Environmental Protection Agency l Defend the position that petitions to object to Title V should not be used to second-guess previous state decisions. l Clarify the relationship between New Source Review and Title V to ensure that Title V is used only as intended by Congress. CAA Section 11123 l Restore the position that EPA cannot regulate a new pollutant from an already regulated source category without making predicate findings for that new pollutant. l Institute automatic withdrawal of any proposed rule that is not finalized within the statutorily prescribed one-year period. l Revise general implementing regulations for existing source regulatory authority under CAA § 111(d)24 to ensure that EPA gives full meaning to Congress’s direction, including source-specific application, and that the state planning program is flexible, federalist, and deferential to the states. CAA Section 112 (Hazardous Air Pollutants)25 l Unregulated point or non-point source (fugitive emissions) of an already regulated hazardous air pollutant do not require a Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) standard. l Ensure that Section 112 regulations are harmonized with Section 111 regulations that apply to the same sector/sources. l Ensure that cost-benefit analysis is focused on a regulation’s targeted pollutant and separately identify ancillary or co-benefits. Radiation l Assess and update the agency’s radiation standards so that they align with those of other agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy, and Department of Transportation, as well as international standards. l Level-set past, misleading statements regarding radiological risk and reassess the Linear Non-Threshold standard.

Department of Education

Minimal

Vector: 60%

Pages: 389-391AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses law enforcement qualified immunity while the Project 2025 excerpt focuses on Department of Education higher education policies; there is no substantive overlap."

— 356 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Investigate postsecondary institutions that fail to honor their Section 117 obligations and make appropriate referrals to DOJ. l Work with Congress to amend the HEA to tie the HEA’s foreign source reporting requirements to an institution's ability to receive federal financial assistance, particularly participation in programs funded under Titles IV and VI of the HEA. Allowing Competency-Based Education to Flourish Competency-based education is a promising approach that could provide a high-quality and affordable education to many students. Since the credit hour, which measures the time in the classroom, is inappropriate for such programs, the direct assessment method was introduced to allow competen- cy-based programs to participate in the federal financial aid programs. However, overregulation has hampered the usage of direct assessment, with the lead- ing competency-based university choosing to instead convert their courses into credit hours for compliance purposes. One of the leading obstacles is the requirement that courses include “regular and substantive” interaction between faculty and students. l New regulations should clarify the definition and requirements of regular and substantive interaction for competency-based education, as well as for online programs. Reforming “Area Studies” Funding l Congress should wind down so-called “area studies” programs at universities (Title VI of the HEA), which, although intended to serve American interests, sometimes fund programs that run counter to those interests. l In the meantime, the next Administration should promulgate a new regulation to require the Secretary of Education to allocate at least 40 percent of funding to international business programs that teach about free markets and economics and require institutions, faculty, and fellowship recipients to certify that they intend to further the stated statutory goals of serving American interests. — 357 — Department of Education NEW EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD ISSUE Guidance Documents l The President should immediately reinstate and reissue Executive Order 13891: Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents, 84 Fed. Reg. 55235 (Oct. 9, 2019), and Executive Order 13892: Promoting the Rule of Law Through Transparency and Fairness in Civil Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication (Oct. 15, 2019). These executive orders required all federal agencies to treat guidance documents as non-binding in law and practice and also forbade federal agencies from imposing new standards of conduct on persons outside the executive branch through guid- ance documents. They required all federal agencies to apply regulations and statutes instead of guidance documents in any enforcement action. President Biden revoked these executive orders on January 20, 2021, demonstrating that these executive orders effectively restrained the abuses of an expansive administrative state. l Require APA notice and comment. The President should issue an executive order requiring the Office for Civil Rights’ Case Processing Manual to go through APA (Administrative Procedures Act) notice and comment. l Protect the First Amendment. The President should issue an executive order requiring grant applications (SF-424 series) to contain assurances that the applicant will uphold the First Amendment in funded programs and work. l Minimize bachelor’s degree requirements. The President should issue an executive order stating that a college degree shall not be required for any federal job unless the requirements of the job specifically demand it. l Eliminate the “list of shame.” Educational institutions can claim a religious exemption with the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education from the strictures of Title IX. In 2016, the Obama Administration published on the Department of Education’s website a list of colleges that had applied for the exemption. This “list of shame” of faith-based colleges, as it came to be known, has since been archived on ED’s website, still publicly available. The President should issue an executive order removing the archived list and preventing such a list from being published in the future.

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. Johnson, Julie

USA 6G Global Leadership Act

119/hr/8320

VOTE Act

119/hr/7182

Pipeline Security Act

119/hr/5062

Back to All Bills