Magnus White and Safe Streets for Everyone Act of 2026

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/7353

Last Updated: March 17, 2026

Magnus White and Safe Streets for Everyone Act of 2026

HR. 7353, 119th Congress — read as touching Automotive (Legacy).

The sponsor

Rep. Clarke, Yvette D. [D-NY-9]

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

The money

$65,099 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 Health and Human Services" section, p. 533-535 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.

February 9, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

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:

**HR 7353 Analysis**

The Magnus White and Safe Streets for Everyone Act of 2026 is a pedestrian attempt at regulating the automotive industry, specifically targeting automatic emergency braking systems (AEBS). As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this bill's implications on my interests.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill aims to expand the scope of AEBS in light vehicles, ensuring they detect and respond to vulnerable road users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists. The objective is to reduce accidents and fatalities involving these groups.

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

1. **Expanded Detection Capabilities**: AEBS must now function in daylight and low light conditions, detecting a wider range of speeds and vulnerable road users. 2. **Rulemaking Process**: The Secretary of Transportation will initiate a rulemaking process within 180 days to amend existing regulations, with a final revised rule due within two years.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Automotive Industry**: Manufacturers must adapt to new AEBS standards, potentially increasing production costs and complexity. 2. **Consumers**: Theoretically, safer roads and reduced accidents will benefit the general public. 3. **My Interests**: As a forward-thinking entrepreneur with investments in autonomous vehicle technology, this bill's emphasis on advanced safety features aligns with my long-term vision.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased Regulatory Burden**: The expanded scope of AEBS may lead to higher production costs and potential delays for manufacturers. 2. **Innovation Incentives**: By mandating more sophisticated safety features, the bill creates opportunities for innovative companies like mine to develop cutting-edge solutions. 3. **Consolidation Opportunities**: As smaller manufacturers struggle to adapt to new regulations, larger players (like my own conglomerate) may capitalize on consolidation and acquisition opportunities.

**Projections:**

* Estimated compliance costs for the automotive industry: $1.5 billion - $2.5 billion * Potential revenue growth for companies investing in advanced safety features: 10% - 15% * Projected market share increase for my autonomous vehicle ventures: 20% - 25%

In conclusion, HR 7353 presents a calculated risk-reward scenario for my interests. While increased regulatory burdens may pose challenges for some manufacturers, the bill's emphasis on innovation and advanced safety features creates opportunities for forward-thinking companies like mine to thrive.

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. And, as we covered back then, it starts with introduction in either the House or Senate.

The Magnus White and Safe Streets for Everyone Act of 2026, HR 7353, aims to amend title 49 of the United States Code to require automatic emergency braking systems (AEBS) and similar crash avoidance technology in light vehicles to detect and respond in a wider range of circumstances. Remember when we learned about the importance of safety standards in transportation?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective is to enhance road safety by upgrading AEBS to better detect vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and individuals with disabilities.

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

* The bill amends Section 30129 of title 49, United States Code, to set a compliance date for the final rule by September 1, 2029. * It introduces new requirements for AEBS to function in daylight and low light conditions, at various speeds, and detect vulnerable road users with diverse skin tones, clothing, and protective gear.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* Vehicle manufacturers will need to adapt their designs and production processes to meet the new safety standards. * Vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and individuals with disabilities, will benefit from improved safety features. * The Secretary of Transportation will be responsible for initiating a rulemaking process to amend existing regulations.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* Improved safety features in vehicles may reduce the number of accidents involving vulnerable road users. * Vehicle manufacturers may face increased production costs due to the implementation of new safety standards. * The bill's provisions could lead to a reduction in traffic-related fatalities and injuries, aligning with the overall goal of promoting safe streets for everyone.

Now, I hope this summary has been enlightening. As we discussed in class, the legislative process involves multiple steps, including committee review, debate, and voting. This bill will likely face scrutiny from various stakeholders before it becomes a law.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow patriots, gather 'round and listen closely, for I have uncovered the truth behind HR 7353, the so-called "Magnus White and Safe Streets for Everyone Act of 2026". On the surface, this bill appears to be a benevolent effort to improve road safety by mandating automatic emergency braking systems in light vehicles. But, my friends, do not be fooled! There's more to this story than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The stated purpose of HR 7353 is to amend title 49 of the United States Code to require automatic emergency braking systems and similar crash avoidance technology in light vehicles to detect and respond to a wider range of circumstances. Sounds noble, right? But what's really going on here?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill proposes several key changes:

1. The Secretary of Transportation must initiate a rulemaking process within 180 days to amend existing rules for automatic emergency braking systems. 2. These systems must function in daylight and low light conditions, at various speeds, and detect vulnerable road users (VRUs) such as pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and wheelchair users. 3. The revised rule must be issued within two years of the initiation of the rulemaking process.

Now, here's where things get interesting:

* The bill specifically mentions "vulnerable road user" and defines it to include individuals not occupying a motor vehicle with more than three wheels. Hmm... what about those who do occupy such vehicles? Are they not vulnerable? * The compliance date for the revised rule is set at two years after its issuance. That's a lot of time for, ahem, "adjustments" to be made.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

Who stands to gain or lose from this bill?

1. Vehicle manufacturers: They'll need to adapt their designs and manufacturing processes to meet the new requirements. 2. Road users (VRUs): Theoretically, they'll benefit from improved safety features. 3. Government agencies: They'll be responsible for enforcing these regulations.

But what about the real stakeholders? You know, the ones who always seem to get left out of the equation?

* Taxpayers: Who's going to foot the bill for these new safety features? * Small businesses and independent contractors: Will they be able to afford the upgraded technology?

**Potential Impact & Implications**

Now we're getting to the juicy stuff!

1. Increased costs for vehicle manufacturers will likely trickle down to consumers in the form of higher prices. 2. The expanded definition of "vulnerable road user" might lead to increased liability for drivers and vehicle owners. 3. This bill could be a Trojan horse for more invasive surveillance measures, as vehicles become increasingly connected to the Internet of Things (IoT). 4. What about the potential for hacking or manipulation of these safety systems? We're talking about cars that can stop themselves, folks!

In conclusion, HR 735

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got another doozy of a bill on our hands. The Magnus White and Safe Streets for Everyone Act of 2026 - sounds like a real mouthful, doesn't it? (wink)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is all about "safety" and "freedom"... or so they claim. Its main purpose is to amend existing law to require automatic emergency braking systems in light vehicles to detect and respond to a wider range of circumstances, including vulnerable road users like pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists. (air quotes) "Because we care about the little guy," right?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes some significant changes to existing law, folks. It requires the Secretary of Transportation to initiate a rulemaking process within 180 days to amend the current rules on automatic emergency braking systems. These new rules would ensure that these systems can function in daylight and low light conditions, at various speeds, and detect vulnerable road users with different skin tones and clothing. (smirk) Because, you know, we don't want any "accidents" happening due to "technical difficulties."

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Who's affected by this bill? Well, it's not just the "elites" in Washington D.C., folks. This bill impacts the entire automotive industry, from manufacturers to consumers. It also affects vulnerable road users who might be, you know, actually protected by these new rules. (wink) But let's be real, the real stakeholders here are the trial lawyers and bureaucrats who'll be making a killing off this regulatory nightmare.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, I know what you're thinking - "But wait, isn't this just another example of government overreach?" And to that, I say... (dramatic pause) guilty as charged! This bill is a classic case of the nanny state trying to control every aspect of our lives. I mean, who needs personal responsibility when we can just rely on Big Brother to save us from ourselves? (eyeroll)

But seriously, folks, this bill has the potential to increase costs for manufacturers and consumers alike, all while creating a new regulatory burden that'll stifle innovation in the industry. And let's not forget about the unintended consequences - like, what happens when these systems start malfunctioning or become too expensive to maintain? (conspiratorial whisper) It's a slippery slope, folks.

In conclusion, this bill is just another example of how our "betters" in Washington D.C. think they know better than us common folk. But hey, at least we can all rest easy knowing that the government is looking out for our safety... right? (smirk)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce and get to the real diagnosis.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Magnus White and Safe Streets for Everyone Act of 2026 is a bill that claims to improve road safety by requiring automatic emergency braking systems in light vehicles to detect and respond to vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists. How noble. But let's not be fooled – this bill is just a symptom of a deeper disease: the perpetual need for politicians to appear concerned about public safety while actually serving their corporate masters.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends existing law by requiring the Secretary of Transportation to initiate a rulemaking process to update the automatic emergency braking system standards. The new rules would ensure that these systems function in daylight and low light conditions, detect and respond to vulnerable road users, and don't alter the maximum speed at which they operate. Oh, and it gives the Secretary two years to issue a final revised rule. Because, you know, safety is a priority – as long as it doesn't inconvenience the auto industry.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include automakers, who will have to comply with the new regulations; vulnerable road users, who might actually benefit from this bill (but let's not get too optimistic); and, of course, the politicians who sponsored this bill, who will get to tout their "commitment to safety" in their next campaign ads.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is minimal, at best. It's a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. The auto industry will likely find ways to water down the regulations or exploit loopholes, and the politicians will declare victory while doing nothing to address the root causes of road safety issues. Meanwhile, vulnerable road users will continue to be, well, vulnerable.

But hey, at least we can all feel good about ourselves for trying. After all, as the great philosopher, Homer Simpson, once said, "Mmm... safety." This bill is a perfect example of what I like to call "Legislative Lip Service" – it's all about appearances, not actual results.

Diagnosis: **Acute Case of Legislative Theateritis**, characterized by symptoms of grandstanding, empty promises, and a complete lack of substance. Treatment: a healthy dose of skepticism and a strong stomach for the inevitable disappointment that follows.

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

**HR 7353: Magnus White and Safe Streets for Everyone Act of 2026**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill aims to improve road safety by enhancing the capabilities of automatic emergency braking (AEB) systems in light vehicles, particularly in detecting and responding to vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and others.

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

* Amends Section 30129 of Title 49, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Transportation to initiate a rulemaking process within 180 days to update the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for AEB systems. * The updated standards will ensure that AEB systems: + Function in both daylight and low light conditions + Operate at all speeds specified for pedestrian automatic emergency braking + Detect and respond to vulnerable road users, including bicyclists, motorcyclists, and others, regardless of skin color or protective gear * The compliance date for the revised rule is set for no later than September 1, 2029.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* Vehicle manufacturers: Will be required to update their AEB systems to meet the new standards. * Vulnerable road users: Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and others who will benefit from improved detection and response by AEB systems. * Consumers: May see increased costs for vehicles equipped with updated AEB systems.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* Improved safety for vulnerable road users, potentially reducing the number of accidents and fatalities. * Increased costs for vehicle manufacturers to update their AEB systems, which may be passed on to consumers. * Potential impact on the development and deployment of autonomous vehicles, as improved AEB systems are a key component of these technologies. * The bill's focus on vulnerable road users reflects growing concerns about safety in urban areas, where pedestrians and cyclists often share roads with motorized vehicles.

Overall, HR 7353 aims to enhance road safety by improving the capabilities of automatic emergency braking systems, particularly in detecting and responding to vulnerable road users. While the bill may increase costs for vehicle manufacturers and consumers, its potential impact on reducing accidents and fatalities makes it a significant step forward in promoting safer roads for all users.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro!

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Magnus White and Safe Streets for Everyone Act of 2026 is all about makin' our roads safer, dude! The main goal is to reduce the number of crashes involving vulnerable road users like pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists. This bill aims to do that by upgrading the tech in light vehicles (think cars, trucks, and vans) with automatic emergency braking systems.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill makes some key changes to existing law:

* It requires the Secretary of Transportation to update the rules for automatic emergency braking systems within 180 days. These new rules will make sure that these systems can detect and respond to vulnerable road users in a wider range of circumstances, like daylight and low light conditions. * The updated rules must ensure that these systems can function at all speeds specified for pedestrian automatic emergency braking, and can detect and respond to cyclists, motorcyclists, and other vulnerable road users, regardless of their skin tone or clothing. * There's also a deadline for the final revised rule: it's gotta be issued within 2 years after the rulemaking process starts.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects a bunch of different parties, bro:

* Vehicle manufacturers: They'll need to upgrade their tech to meet these new standards. * Vulnerable road users: This includes pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and others who are more likely to get hurt in crashes. * Regulators: The Secretary of Transportation will be responsible for updating the rules and enforcing them.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill could have some major implications, dude:

* It could reduce the number of crashes involving vulnerable road users, which would save lives and prevent injuries. * It could also lead to more widespread adoption of automatic emergency braking systems in vehicles, which could make our roads safer overall. * However, it might also increase costs for vehicle manufacturers, who'll need to upgrade their tech to meet these new standards. This could potentially get passed on to consumers.

Anyway, that's the lowdown on this bill, bro! It's all about makin' our roads safer and more chill for everyone.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 7353: Magnus White and Safe Streets for Everyone Act of 2026**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The bill aims to enhance road safety by mandating the installation of advanced automatic emergency braking (AEB) systems in light vehicles. The primary objective is to reduce accidents involving vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

1. **Expanded AEB Requirements**: The bill amends Section 30129 of title 49, United States Code, to require AEB systems in light vehicles to detect and respond to a wider range of circumstances, including daylight and low-light conditions. 2. **Vulnerable Road User Safety**: The Secretary of Transportation must initiate a rulemaking process within 180 days to amend the existing AEB rule to ensure that these systems can detect and respond to vulnerable road users, including those with diverse skin tones and complexions. 3. **Compliance Dates**: The compliance date for the revised rule is set at no later than September 1, 2029.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

1. **Automotive Industry**: Manufacturers of light vehicles will be required to install advanced AEB systems that meet the new standards. 2. **Vulnerable Road Users**: Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and other vulnerable road users will benefit from enhanced safety features. 3. **Safety Advocacy Groups**: Organizations focused on road safety, such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), may support this legislation.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

1. **Improved Road Safety**: The bill's provisions could lead to a reduction in accidents involving vulnerable road users. 2. **Increased Costs for Automotive Industry**: Manufacturers may face higher costs associated with developing and installing advanced AEB systems. 3. **Regulatory Burden**: The rulemaking process and compliance dates may create regulatory challenges for the automotive industry.

**Monied Interest Analysis**

While there are no explicit PACs or special interest groups mentioned in the bill, it's likely that safety advocacy groups, such as the IIHS, have influenced this legislation. Additionally, the automotive industry may have provided input on the feasibility and costs associated with implementing advanced AEB systems. The bill's sponsors, Rep. Clarke (D-NY) and Rep. Neguse (D-CO), have received campaign contributions from various industries, including transportation and labor unions, which may have an interest in road safety legislation.

**Committee Capture and Conflicts of Interest**

The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to which this bill was referred, has a history of being influenced by the automotive industry. Some committee members may have received significant campaign contributions from automotive manufacturers or related industries, potentially creating conflicts of interest.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Clarke, Yvette D. [D-NY-9]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$65,099

19 donors

PACs

Organizations

$2,900

Committees

Individuals

$62,199

No PAC contributions found

US MARSHALS SERVICE

1 transaction

$2,900

No committee contributions found

LAVINE, JONATHAN

2 transactions

$6,600

BURDEN, CARTER

2 transactions

$6,600

ELLIS, GAREY V

1 transaction

$3,300

GIFFORD, BILLY

1 transaction

$3,300

STEWART, JENNIFER M

1 transaction

$3,300

ANSTED, JEFFREY

1 transaction

$3,300

CHAIT, ERIC

1 transaction

$3,300

GREENFIELD, ELIZABETH

1 transaction

$3,300

MAX, ISRAEL

1 transaction

$3,300

LAVINE, JEANNIE

1 transaction

$3,300

GOTTESMAN, SALLY

1 transaction

$3,300

MANCUSO, SALVATORE

1 transaction

$3,300

CAMPBELL, CHUCK

1 transaction

$2,833

HILZENDAGER, JD

1 transaction

$2,833

PERRY, DANIELLE

1 transaction

$2,833

HAMILTON-GONZALES, SYLVETA

1 transaction

$2,500

DORWART, DAVID

1 transaction

$2,500

MANSHOORY, DAVID

1 transaction

$2,500

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2]

ID: N000191

Top Contributors

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$2,500

Oct 13, 2024

YUROK TRIBE

OrganizationKLAMATH, CA

$1,000

Feb 1, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$1,000

Jun 9, 2024

EKLUND, PAUL

IndividualBOULDER, CO

$6,400

Oct 3, 2023

EKLUND, PAUL

P.N. EKLUND INTERESTS INC. • REAL ESTATE

IndividualBOULDER, CO

$6,400

Sep 30, 2023

KLARMAN, SETH

THE BAUPOST GROUP • CEO

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

GROSS, DAVID

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO • INSTRUCTOR

IndividualBOULDER, CO

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

WEAVER, LINDSAY

SELF • ENGINEER

IndividualPAGOSA SPRINGS, CO

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

BLOOM, BRADLEY

BERKSHIRE PARTNERS LLC • INVESTMENTS

IndividualWELLESLEY, MA

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Clarke, Yvette D. [D-NY-9]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 44 nodes and 24 connections (52 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $71,899

Top Donors - Rep. Clarke, Yvette D. [D-NY-9]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

1 Org18 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

−Automotive (Legacy)confidence 0.90
Section 2 amends 49 U.S.C. § 30129 to require automatic emergency braking systems in light vehicles to detect and respond to vulnerable road users (pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, etc.) in a wider range of conditions, imposing new regulatory requirements on vehicle manufacturers.
−Electric Vehicles & Batteriesconfidence 0.85
Section 2 applies to 'any passenger motor vehicle manufactured for sale in the United States,' which includes electric vehicles, imposing the same AEB system requirements on EV manufacturers as on traditional automakers.

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 Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses road safety and injury prevention for vulnerable road users, which indirectly relates to public health outcomes, while the Project 2025 HHS section focuses on healthcare policy topics such as Medicaid, managed care, price transparency, and reproductive services. There is only a tangential connection through shared goals of improving safety and reducing harm."

Key themes:public safetyinjury preventionhealthcare costsvulnerable populations

— 500 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 32. Owcharenko Schaefer, “Medicaid at 55: Understanding the Design, Trends, and Reforms Needed to Improve the Health Care Safety Net.” 33. Brian Blase, “Managed Care in Medicaid: Need for Oversight, Accountability, and Reform,” Paragon Health Institute Policy Brief, October 13, 2022, https://paragoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/20221012- Managed-Care-in-Medicaid-Need-for-Oversight-Accountability-and-Reform-FOR-DISTRIBUTION-V2.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 34. Owcharenko Schaefer, “Medicaid at 55: Understanding the Design, Trends, and Reforms Needed to Improve the Health Care Safety Net.” 35. 42 U.S. Code § 1315, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1315 (accessed March 17, 2023). 36. Chad D. Savage and Lee S. Gross, “Direct Primary Care: Update and Road Map for Patient-Centered Reforms,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3635, June 28, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2021-06/BG3635.pdf. 37. H.R. 133, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law No. 116-260, 116th Congress, December 27, 2020, Division BB, Title I, https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ260/PLAW-116publ260.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 38. Doug Badger, “On Surprise Medical Bills, Congress Should Side with Consumers, Not Special Interests,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, January 31, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/ commentary/surprise-medical-bills-congress-should-side-consumers-not-special. 39. Edmund F. Haislmaier and Abigail Slagle, “Premiums, Choices, Deductibles, Care Access, and Government Dependence Under the Affordable Care Act: 2021 State-by-State Review,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3668, November 2, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/BG3668.pdf. 40. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Transparency in Coverage,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 219 (November 12, 2020), pp. 72158–72310, https://www.govinfo.gov/ content/pkg/FR-2020-11-12/pdf/2020-24591.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 41. David N. Bernstein and Robert E. Moffit, “New Price Transparency Rule Will Help Transform America’s Health Care System,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 1, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/health-care- reform/commentary/new-price-transparency-rule-will-help-transform-americas-health-care. 42. Sluzala and Haislmaier, “Lessons from COVID-19: How Policymakers Should Reform the Regulation of Clinical Testing.” 43. Ibid. 44. Most recently enacted in H.R. 2471, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, Public Law No. 117-103, 117th Congress, March 15, 2022, Division H, Title V, §§ 506–507, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ103/ PLAW-117publ103.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 45. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14079, “Securing Access to Reproductive and Other Healthcare Services,” August 3, 2022, in Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 154 (August 11, 2022), pp. 49505–49507, https:// www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-11/pdf/2022-17420.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 46. Planned Parenthood, 2020–2021 Annual Report, p. 27, https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/ filer_public/40/8f/408fc2ad-c8c2-48da-ad87-be5cc257d370/211214-ppfa-annualreport-20-21-c3-digital.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 47. Ibid., pp. 30 and 31. Total revenue of $1,714.4 million (p. 30) minus $1,580.7 million in total expenses (p. 31) yields $133,7 million. 48. Ibid., p. 28. 49. Ibid., p. 30. 50. H.R. 372, Protecting Life and Taxpayers Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 17, 2023, https://www. congress.gov/118/bills/hr372/BILLS-118hr372ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 51. 42 U.S. Code § 18023, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/18023 (accessed March 17, 2023). 52. H.R. 3128, Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, Public Law No. 99-272, 99th Congress, April 7, 1986, Title IX, Subtitle A, Part 1, Subpart B, § 9121, https://www.congress.gov/99/statute/STATUTE-100/ STATUTE-100-Pg82.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 53. H.R. 8070, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law No. 93-112, 93rd Congress, September 26, 1973, https://www. congress.gov/93/statute/STATUTE-87/STATUTE-87-Pg355.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 501 — Department of Health and Human Services 54. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of Civil Rights, and Office of the Secretary, “Special Responsibilities of Medicare Hospitals in Emergency Cases and Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Critical Health and Human Service Programs or Activities,” draft of Proposed Rule, January 14, 2021, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/infants-nprm.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 55. H.R. 26, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https:// www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr26/BILLS-118hr26pcs.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 56. H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7/BILLS-118hr7ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 57. S. 401, Conscience Protection Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced February 24, 2021, https://www.congress. gov/117/bills/s401/BILLS-117s401is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 58. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Office of the Secretary, “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Notice of Tribal Consultation, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 149 (August 4, 2022), pp. 47824–47920, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-04/pdf/2022-16217.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 59. Ibid., p. 47916. 60. The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Administration. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, “Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 142 (July 24, 2019), pp. 35570–55581, https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/24/2019-15670/revision-of-categorical-eligibility-in-the- supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap (accessed March 17, 2023). 61. 45 Code of Federal Regulations § 75.300(c) and (d), https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/ subchapter-A/part-75/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFR911e5e1a30bfbcb/section-75.300 (accessed March 17, 2023). 62. H.R. 1750, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1750/BILLS-117hr1750ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023), and S. 656, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/ s656/BILLS-117s656is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 63. S. 3949, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-348, 117th Congress, January 25, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ348/PLAW-117publ348.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 64. Kelsey Y. Santamaria, “Child Migrants at the Border: The Flores Settlement Agreement and Other Legal Developments,” Congressional Research Service In Focus No. IF11799, April 1, 2021, https://crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11799 (accessed March 17, 2023). 65. Report, Building a Happy Home: Marriage Education as a Tool to Strengthen Families, Social Capital Project Report No. 1-22, March 2022, p. 17, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3d102525-6f0d-48ed- 92f4-d71edd468ad6/building-a-happy-home.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). The cover of the report reflects that the Social Capital Project is “[a] project of the Joint Economic Committee – Republicans.” 66. See, for example, Alan J. Hawkins, “Are Federally Supported Relationship Education Programs for Lower-Income Individuals and Couples Working? A Review of Evaluation Research,” American Enterprise Institute, September 2019, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 67. H.R. 8404, Respect for Marriage Act, Public Law No. 117-228, 117th Congress, December 13, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 68. Madison Marino, “Over 1,000 Safety Violations Mar Head Start. Children Deserve Better,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 10, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/over-1000-safety- violations-mar-head-start-children-deserve-better. 69. American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 70. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 22 (February 2, 2023), pp. 7236–7281, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-02-02/pdf/2023-01981.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023).

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 58%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on improving vehicle safety systems for vulnerable road users, which tangentially relates to the Project 2025 mobile source regulation section that emphasizes safety considerations in vehicle standards, but there is no direct overlap on environmental or emissions goals."

Key themes:vehicle safetymobile source regulationtransportation policy

— 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

Weak

Vector: 57%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses vehicle safety technology (AEB systems) while the Project 2025 EPA section focuses on regulatory streamlining, emissions reporting, and HFC rules; the only connection is a tangential link through transportation infrastructure and air quality considerations."

Key themes:transportationhighway projectsair quality

Department of Transportation

Weak

Vector: 57%

Pages: 661-663AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on enhancing vehicle safety technology (AEB systems) to protect vulnerable road users, while Project 2025's DOT section emphasizes reducing federal fuel economy and emissions regulations, opposing EV promotion, and limiting federal involvement in local infrastructure—there is minimal thematic overlap."

Key themes:Department of Transportationvehicle safetyfederal regulation

— 628 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise translate into a loss of auto industry jobs for American workers: It will also mean a significant increase in traffic deaths and injuries. As fewer new cars are purchased, the price of used cars will rise, and more Americans will be left driving older cars, which traffic statistics show are much less safe than newer vehicles. NHTSA itself has acknowledged that the Biden Administration’s fuel economy standards will generate hundreds of additional fatalities and thousands of additional injuries on U.S. highways. Because older cars also produce more harmful air pollution, the aging of America’s fleet will also have negative consequences for air quality. In addition, the Biden Administration’s efforts to accelerate EV sales by reg- ulatory fiat work against the national security interests of the United States in contravention of Congress’s goals under EPCA. Increasing the production of EVs will make the U.S. more dependent on China and other foreign countries that control the supply and processing of rare earth minerals that are needed for EV batteries. And the faster deployment of EVs will put a major strain on America’s vulnerable power grid, requiring large investments in critical infrastructure and a big boost in the nation’s electricity production, including from gas-fired and oil- fired power plants. In exchange for all of these harmful effects—on traffic safety, consumer choice, American jobs, the nation’s air quality, and U.S. national security—the Biden fuel economy regulations are predicted to have no meaningful effect on global tem- perature trends over the long term.8 The next Administration must return the federal fuel economy program to the limits established by Congress. The standards issued by NHTSA must be reset at reasonable levels that are technologically feasible for ICE automobiles and con- sistent with an increase in domestic auto production and healthy growth in the sale of safer and more affordable new vehicles. To achieve these goals, the next Administration should: l Reduce proposed fuel economy levels. The Administration should consider returning to the minimum average fuel economy levels specified by Congress for model year 2020 vehicles: levels aimed at achieving a fleet-wide average of 35 miles per gallon. Consideration should be given to maintaining the standards at those levels for the near term in order to promote the objectives laid out by Congress. l Ensure that DOT again exercises priority in the setting of fuel economy standards. Any EPA limits on carbon dioxide emissions, even if authorized under the Clean Air Act, must support and work in harmony with DOT standards and must not override them or usurp DOT’s regulatory role under EPCA. For example, EPA could regulate air conditioning systems and leave engine standards to DOT. — 629 — Department of Transportation l Revoke the special waiver granted to California by the Biden Administration. California has no valid basis under the Clean Air Act to claim an extraordinary or unique air quality impact from carbon dioxide emissions, and EPCA is clear that under no circumstances may a state agency regulate fuel economy in place of DOT. The federal government should therefore exercise its preemptive authority over CARB and take all steps necessary to invalidate any inconsistent fuel economy requirements imposed by CARB, including its ban on sales of internal combustion engines. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has jurisdiction over the inter- state highway system, which is vital for the transportation of goods and people throughout the country. The FHWA, in conjunction with state DOTs, works to ensure the quality and safety of highways and bridges. However, over the course of decades, presidential Administrations and Con- gress have caused the FHWA to go beyond its original mission. The variety of infrastructure projects now eligible for funding through the FHWA include fer- ryboat terminals, hiking trails, bicycle lanes, and local sidewalks. In many cases, such projects should be the sole responsibility of local or state governments, not dependent on FHWA funding. For local projects, federal involvement adds red tape and bureaucratic delays rather than value. The Biden Administration has broadened the FHWA’s scope by emphasizing the priorities of progressive activists instead of pursuing practical goals. These policies include a focus on “equity,” a nebulous concept that in practice means awarding grants to favored identity groups, as well as imposing obligations on states concern- ing carbon dioxide emissions from highway traffic—areas not encompassed within FHWA’s statutory authorities. Furthermore, the Biden Administration’s embrace of the “Vision Zero” approach to safety often means actively seeking congestion for automobiles to reduce speeds. Finally, the Administration has sought to use a “guidance memo” to impose policies not enacted by Congress, most notably to make it harder for growing states to expand highway capacity. Instead, the next Administration should: l Seek to refocus the FHWA on maintaining and improving the highway system. l Remove or reform rules and regulations that hamper state governments. l Reduce the amount of federal involvement in local infrastructure decisions.

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 58%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on improving vehicle automatic emergency braking systems to protect vulnerable road users, while the Project 2025 HHS section addresses Medicaid reform, price transparency, reproductive health, and related health care policies; there is no substantive thematic overlap."

Key themes:noneno thematic overlap

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. Clarke, Yvette D.

Censuring Representative Cory Mills.

119/hres/889

Back to All Bills