DPA Modernization Act of 2026

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/7688
Last Updated: August 13, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH-8]

ID: D000626

Follow the money

The bill

DPA Modernization Act of 2026

HR. 7688, 119th Congress — read as touching Defense Contractors.

The sponsor

Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH-8]

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

The money

$105,400 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Defense" section, p. 128-130 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 529.

April 14, 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

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the intellectually bankrupt inhabitants of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The DPA Modernization Act of 2026 is a laughable attempt to "modernize" the Defense Production Act of 1950. The real purpose? To further entrench the military-industrial complex, expand executive power, and line the pockets of defense contractors. It's a classic case of "bipartisan" cooperation, where both parties come together to screw the American people.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill is a mess of bureaucratic jargon, but I'll highlight the most egregious aspects:

* Section 3 "modernizes" the priorities and allocations system, allowing the President to unilaterally declare national emergencies and control the distribution of critical materials. Because what could possibly go wrong with granting the executive branch more unchecked power? * The bill increases the threshold for certain loans from $10,000 to $100,000, because who needs oversight when handing out taxpayer money to defense contractors? * It also reorganizes various sections of the Defense Production Act, a clear attempt to obfuscate the fact that nothing substantive is being changed.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects will benefit from this bill:

* Defense contractors, who will receive more lucrative contracts and loan guarantees * The military-industrial complex, which will continue to expand its influence and power * The executive branch, which will gain more authority to unilaterally declare national emergencies and control the economy

Meanwhile, the American people will be left footing the bill, literally and figuratively.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a symptom of a deeper disease: the corrupting influence of money and power in politics. It will:

* Further erode civil liberties, as the executive branch gains more power to control the economy and declare national emergencies * Increase the national debt, as defense contractors receive more loan guarantees and contracts * Perpetuate the cycle of corruption, where politicians are bought and paid for by special interests

In conclusion, the DPA Modernization Act of 2026 is a masterclass in legislative deception. It's a bill that should be diagnosed with a severe case of " Politician-Induced Stupidity" (PIS), a condition characterized by an inability to prioritize the public interest over personal gain and special interests. The prognosis? Grim, unless we can somehow manage to cure our politicians of their addiction to power and corruption.

Related Topics

Defense Spending & ProcurementFederal Budget & Appropriations
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH-8]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$105,400
19 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$0
Committees
$0
Individuals
$105,400

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

1
PHELAN, BRENT J
2 transactions
$11,600
2
CASCARILLA, CHARLES
1 transaction
$6,600
3
CASCARILLA, MARISSA
1 transaction
$6,600
4
FISHER, KENNETH
1 transaction
$6,600
5
FISHER, SHERRILYN
1 transaction
$6,600
6
GROW, RICHARD
1 transaction
$6,600
7
ROBINSON, ROBERT S
1 transaction
$6,600
8
BEAMAN, LEE
1 transaction
$6,600
9
RICKETTS, J. PETER
1 transaction
$6,600
10
UIHLEIN, RICHARD
1 transaction
$5,800
11
BECKETT, JOHN
1 transaction
$5,000
12
BECKHAM, JEFFREY
1 transaction
$5,000
13
WEAVER, TIMOTHY J
1 transaction
$5,000
14
BROPHY, DAN
1 transaction
$3,500
15
BROPHY, CARLEEN
1 transaction
$3,500
16
PETRELLI, JOSEPH L.
1 transaction
$3,300
17
GREWAL, PAUL
1 transaction
$3,300
18
JOHN, POWELL
1 transaction
$3,300
19
SMITH, KRISTIN
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 4 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Beatty, Joyce [D-OH-3]

ID: B001281

Top Contributors

20

1
EDWARDS, JEFFREY W.
INSTALLED BUILDING PRODUCTS/EDWARDS CO • PRESIDENT, CEO, CHAIRMAN
IndividualCOLUMBUS, OH
$5,000
Oct 9, 2024
2
BANFIELD, WILLIAM
QUICKEN LOANS • CHIEF RISK OFFICER
IndividualROCHESTER HILLS, MI
$3,300
May 1, 2024
3
COHEN, PHILIP
PRN FUNDING LLC • MANAGEMENT
IndividualPEPPER PIKE, OH
$3,300
Apr 22, 2024
4
LAVINE, JEANNIE
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualBOSTON, MA
$3,300
Jun 28, 2024
5
LAVINE, JONTHAN
BAIN CAPITAL • INVESTOR
IndividualBOSTON, MA
$3,300
Jun 28, 2024
6
STOKES, RAVEN R
SELF • MOTHER
IndividualBEXLEY, OH
$3,300
Jun 12, 2024
7
WALKER, KIRT A
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL • PRESIDENT & CEO
IndividualNEW ALBANY, OH
$3,300
May 29, 2024
8
WILLIAMS, CLIFTON
TAFT LAW • LOBBYIST
IndividualCHAGRIN FALLS, OH
$3,300
Aug 18, 2024
9
HUGHES, CARL F
CONLON PUBLIC STRATEGIES • PUBLIC STRATEGIES
IndividualMARION, OH
$3,300
Oct 27, 2024
10
GILBERT, DAN
ROCKET MORTGAGE • CEO
IndividualDETROIT, MI
$3,300
Nov 16, 2023

Rep. Huizenga, Bill [R-MI-4]

ID: H001058

Top Contributors

28

1
POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS
OrganizationDOWAGIAC, MI
$3,300
Dec 11, 2023
2
THALOP LLC
OrganizationINDIANAPOLIS, IN
$1,000
Aug 29, 2024
3
BARREL DOG, LLC
OrganizationHOLLAND, MI
$1,000
Sep 1, 2024
4
NOAH HOMES LLC
OrganizationINDIANAPOLIS, IN
$1,000
Sep 30, 2024
5
THALOP LLC
OrganizationINDIANAPOLIS, IN
$1,000
Sep 30, 2024
6
B&B DAIRY
OrganizationPLAINVIEW, TX
$500
Jul 28, 2024
7
B&B DAIRY
OrganizationPLAINVIEW, TX
$500
Sep 5, 2024
8
STRAIGHT LINE RED ANGUS
OrganizationBANGOR, MI
$250
Jul 23, 2024
9
VAN ANDEL, AMY
THE STEVE AND AMY VAN ANDEL FOUNDATION • EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
IndividualADA, MI
$75,000
Mar 29, 2024
10
VAN ANDEL, STEPHEN
AMWAY • CHAIRMAN
IndividualADA, MI
$75,000
Mar 29, 2024

Rep. Vargas, Juan [D-CA-52]

ID: V000130

Top Contributors

28

1
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$3,300
Mar 6, 2023
2
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$3,300
Mar 6, 2023
3
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$3,300
Mar 6, 2023
4
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Apr 29, 2024
5
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA
$3,300
Jun 27, 2024
6
PALA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationPALA, CA
$2,900
Oct 16, 2024
7
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$1,000
Oct 7, 2024
8
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$700
Mar 6, 2023
9
KOHN, VICTOR
CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES INC. • FINANCIAL ANALYST
IndividualENCINO, CA
$3,300
Dec 6, 2023
10
DE TOLEDO, PHILIP
CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES • MANAGER
IndividualSHERMAN OAKS, CA
$3,300
Dec 8, 2023

Rep. Nunn, Zachary [R-IA-3]

ID: N000193

Top Contributors

24

1
OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationRED ROCK, OK
$3,300
May 29, 2024
2
TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF ND
OrganizationBELCOURT, ND
$3,300
May 29, 2024
3
SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA
OrganizationTAMA, IA
$2,500
Dec 31, 2024
4
SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA
OrganizationTAMA, IA
$1,000
Sep 1, 2023
5
SMITH, JOHN M.
CRST TRUCKING • CEO
IndividualCEDAR RAPIDS, IA
$6,600
Oct 28, 2024
6
SILVERMAN, JEFFREY
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualBAL HARBOUR, FL
$6,600
Oct 17, 2023
7
EMMET, RICHARD
JANE STREET CAPITAL • FINANCE
IndividualLARCHMONT, NY
$6,600
Nov 21, 2023
8
WEEKLEY, RICHARD W.
SELF EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$6,600
Nov 7, 2023
9
STERN, ELIZABETH
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSCARSDALE, NY
$6,600
Dec 6, 2023
10
SILVERMAN, JEFFREY
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualBAL HARBOUR, FL
$6,600
Feb 15, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH-8]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 46 nodes and 44 connections

Total contributions: $44

Top Donors - Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH-8]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

19 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 14 helped, 1 harmed.

  • +Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.90

    The bill modernizes and reauthorizes the Defense Production Act, which provides authorities for loan guarantees, purchases, commitments to purchase, and subsidy payments to expand productive capacity and supply for national defense, directly benefiting defense contractors. See Sections 201-208 (Title II: Expansion of Productive Capacity and Supply).

  • +Health Insuranceconfidence 0.90

    Section 302(b)(14) adds 'public health emergency preparedness and response activities' to the list of authorized uses of DPA authorities, which directly benefits health insurers by enabling government procurement of pandemic-related services and countermeasures they provide.

  • The bill includes provisions for critical minerals resilience and procurement of critical technologies (defined in section 316(a) to include semiconductors), with authorities to make grants, purchases, and commitments to purchase, and to waive regulations to expedite procurement. See Section 203(b) (Critical Minerals Resilience) and Section 203(i) (Waiver to Expedite Procurement).

  • Section 206(d)(1)(A) requires agencies to include medical materials (including drugs, devices, and biological products) in supply chain security plans, which directly supports long-term care facilities that rely on such supplies for resident care during emergencies.

  • The bill establishes a Subcommittee on Emerging Technology that includes artificial intelligence and robotics as covered technology fields, and requires analysis of how such technology can improve efficiencies and address supply chain gaps for national defense. See Section 317(h)(1)(B)(ii) and (D)(i).

  • +Agribusinessconfidence 0.80

    Section 316(d)(8) adds the Secretary of Agriculture as a Committee member for transactions involving agricultural land, agriculture biotechnology, or the agriculture industry, directly benefiting agribusinesses through increased federal oversight and potential support in national security-related agricultural investments.

+ 9 more industries not shown.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH-8])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

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

Strong
Vector: 66%
Pages: 128-130AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The DPA Modernization Act directly supports Project 2025's defense industrial base and acquisition reform goals by streamlining resource allocation, expanding productive capacity, and enabling faster procurement of critical technologies—key elements needed to modernize U.S. military capabilities."

Key themes:defense industrial baseacquisition reformsupply chain resilienceresource allocationinnovation funding

— 95 — Department of Defense 1. Expand and modernize the U.S. nuclear force so that it has the size, sophistication, and tailoring to deter Russia and China simultaneously. 2. Develop a nuclear arsenal with the size, sophistication, and tailoring— including new capabilities at the theater level—to ensure that there is no circumstance in which America is exposed to serious nuclear coercion. l Increase allied counterterrorist burden-sharing. Transnational terrorism remains a threat to Americans even as we pivot toward Asia. 1. Sustain the military forces needed to deter, prevent, and combat terrorism, but at a sustainable cost in concert with other elements of national power and partner efforts. 2. Prioritize enhancing the capability of allies and partners to take the lead in combating terrorism in their regions. DOD ACQUISITION AND SUSTAINMENT (A&S) The DOD’s ability to acquire and field new and existing technologies is essential to the ability of America’s military personnel to fight and win our nation’s wars. To succeed in this endeavor, we must optimize the systems and personnel that the department uses, but the inflexible bureaucratic structure and risk-adverse culture that have developed over the decades make it difficult to provide the tools that warfighters need at the speed of relevance. The number one problem is the DOD budgeting process (instituted in 1961) that requires acquisition spending to be locked years in advance. Because tech- nologies change so rapidly and requirements can change overnight, this creates situations in which military personnel not only go to war with outdated technol- ogy, but also may be fighting with equipment that is less capable than that of their competitors. America owes its military many things, and the most important is the resources they need to survive on the battlefield and carry out the tasks we ask of them. Needed Reforms l Reform the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution (PPBE) process. 1. Enhance funding and authority for DOD mission-focused innovation organizations and away from program-specific stovepipes that, planned for and designed two or three years earlier, may no longer be — 96 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise relevant. This allows the acquisition community to focus on portfolio management and move money around more easily instead of being locked into inflexible, multiyear procurement cycles. 2. The President should examine the recommendations of the congressionally mandated Commission on Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Reform4 and develop a strategy for implementing those that the Administration considers to be in the best interests of the American people. The commission’s final report is due on September 1, 2023. 3. Develop legislation or other means of providing funding outside the traditional PPBE process for the prototyping and experimentation of emerging technologies that are deemed essential to modernization and future conflict. Consider creating a “fast track” for projects that satisfy the most pressing national security needs. 4. Require the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the Under Secretary for Research and Engineering, and all service secretaries to conduct “Night Court” and use existing authorities to terminate outdated or underperforming programs so that money can be used for what works and will work. Require the Under Secretaries and service secretaries to brief the Secretary annually on the results. 5. Require the Office of the Secretary of Defense to research and report on the acquisition processes used by America’s adversaries to improve our understanding of how they are often able to innovate and field new technologies on a faster timeline. l Strengthen America’s defense industrial base. 1. Replenish and maintain U.S. stockpiles of ammunition and other equipment that have been depleted as a result of U.S. support to Ukraine. This will strengthen the defense industry supply chain and ensure that adequate inventory exists if it is needed for a future conflict. 2. Collaborate with industry to develop a prioritized list of reforms that the DOD and Congress can enact and implement to incentivize industry to help America’s military innovate and field needed capabilities.

Department of Defense

Strong
Vector: 65%
Pages: 128-130AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The DPA Modernization Act of 2026 aligns closely with Project 2025's defense industrial base goals by expanding productive capacity, streamlining procurement and regulatory processes, and enhancing flexibility for critical materials and emergency response, mirroring several of the policy's key initiatives."

Key themes:defense industrial basesupply chain resilienceacquisition flexibilitycritical materialsprototyping/fast track

— 96 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise relevant. This allows the acquisition community to focus on portfolio management and move money around more easily instead of being locked into inflexible, multiyear procurement cycles. 2. The President should examine the recommendations of the congressionally mandated Commission on Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Reform4 and develop a strategy for implementing those that the Administration considers to be in the best interests of the American people. The commission’s final report is due on September 1, 2023. 3. Develop legislation or other means of providing funding outside the traditional PPBE process for the prototyping and experimentation of emerging technologies that are deemed essential to modernization and future conflict. Consider creating a “fast track” for projects that satisfy the most pressing national security needs. 4. Require the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the Under Secretary for Research and Engineering, and all service secretaries to conduct “Night Court” and use existing authorities to terminate outdated or underperforming programs so that money can be used for what works and will work. Require the Under Secretaries and service secretaries to brief the Secretary annually on the results. 5. Require the Office of the Secretary of Defense to research and report on the acquisition processes used by America’s adversaries to improve our understanding of how they are often able to innovate and field new technologies on a faster timeline. l Strengthen America’s defense industrial base. 1. Replenish and maintain U.S. stockpiles of ammunition and other equipment that have been depleted as a result of U.S. support to Ukraine. This will strengthen the defense industry supply chain and ensure that adequate inventory exists if it is needed for a future conflict. 2. Collaborate with industry to develop a prioritized list of reforms that the DOD and Congress can enact and implement to incentivize industry to help America’s military innovate and field needed capabilities. — 97 — Department of Defense 3. Strengthen the ability of acquisition authorities to engage in multiyear procurements and block buys. This will improve private-sector rates of return, thereby incentivizing defense contractors to partner with the government. It will also reduce government overhead by reducing the number of procurement competitions. 4. Prioritize the U.S. and allies under the “domestic end product” and “domestic components” requirements of the Build America, Buy America Act.5 Currently, defense companies are required to manufacture defense items for the U.S. government that are 100 percent domestically produced and at least 50 percent composed of domestically produced components. However, there are loopholes that allow companies to manufacture these items overseas. This can create supply chain and other issues, especially in wartime. Manufacturing components and end products domestically and with allies spurs factory development, increases American jobs, and builds resilience in America’s defense industrial base. 5. Review the sectors currently prioritized for onshoring or “friendshoring” of manufacturing (kinetic capabilities, castings and forgings, critical materials, microelectronics, space, and electric vehicle batteries); evaluate them according to the strategic landscape; and expand or reprioritize the list as appropriate. 6. Help small businesses to become medium-size and large vendors, which encourages a more resilient industrial base and fosters competition. Encourage and plan for durable supply chains for small businesses so they also have commercial/private-sector customers and are not solely dependent on defense orders, which can be highly specialized, expensive, and irregular. 7. Increase external engagement among small businesses to inform them of DOD’s needs and how they could work with DOD to meet national security priorities. l Optimize the DOD acquisition community. 1. Create incentives to emphasize speed and agility in decision-making for prototyping and program-of-record starts and terminations. Most bureaucrats would rather follow a checklist and fail than go outside the procedures and win because failure means negative

Department of Defense

Strong
Vector: 63%
Pages: 161-163AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The DPA Modernization Act directly updates the Defense Production Act to enhance presidential authority for resource prioritization, expand productive capacity, and streamline regulatory processes for national defense and emergency response, which aligns with Project 2025's focus on strengthening the defense industrial base, improving defense support of civil authorities, and ensuring rapid mobilization for great‑power competition."

Key themes:defense production modernizationemergency resource allocationsupply chain resiliencepresidential authoritycongressional oversight

— 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).

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

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

Full Policy Text

Related Bills