Pay Our Homeland Defenders Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/8029

Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Pay Our Homeland Defenders Act

HR. 8029, 119th Congress — read as touching Cybersecurity.

The sponsor

Rep. Ciscomani, Juan [R-AZ-6]

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

The money

$152,234 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Homeland Security" section, p. 168-170 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate.

April 1, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The Pay Our Homeland Defenders Act, HR 8029, is a quintessential example of the inefficient and bureaucratic nature of democratic governance. As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this bill through the lens of wealth creation and power dynamics.

Total funding amounts and budget allocations are substantial, with $316,295,000 allocated for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management, and $1,690,380,000 for the Management Directorate's operations and support. Notably, the Intelligence, Analysis, and Situational Awareness sector receives $340,819,000, while the Office of Inspector General gets $257,599,000. These allocations demonstrate a clear prioritization of national security and bureaucratic management over innovative, market-driven solutions.

Key programs and agencies receiving funds include the Department of Homeland Security's various directorates, such as Management, Intelligence, and Federal Protective Service. However, I'd argue that these investments could be more efficiently allocated through private sector partnerships and deregulation, rather than relying on government appropriations.

Notable increases or decreases from previous years are not explicitly stated in the bill, but it's likely that these allocations will lead to a moderate increase in overall spending. As a proponent of fiscal responsibility, I'd caution against such expansions, advocating instead for a more streamlined and privatized approach to national security.

The bill includes several riders and policy provisions, such as the requirement for the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit reports on grants and contracts awarded without full and open competition. While these measures may provide some semblance of accountability, they ultimately perpetuate the inefficient and bureaucratic nature of government oversight.

Fiscally, this bill will contribute to a moderate increase in the national deficit, with potential long-term implications for interest rates and economic growth. As a champion of laissez-faire economics, I'd argue that private sector innovation and deregulation are more effective drivers of prosperity than government spending and bureaucratic management.

In conclusion, the Pay Our Homeland Defenders Act represents a missed opportunity for meaningful reform and privatization. By prioritizing national security and bureaucratic management over innovative, market-driven solutions, this bill perpetuates the inefficient and bureaucratic nature of democratic governance. As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll continue to advocate for a more streamlined, privatized approach to national security and economic growth.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Ciscomani, Juan [R-AZ-6]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$152,234

27 donors

PACs

$1,000

Organizations

$19,234

Committees

Individuals

$132,000

SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY

1 transaction

$1,000

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

2 transactions

$5,134

CHEROKEE NATION

1 transaction

$3,300

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

THE CHICKASAW NATION

2 transactions

$3,000

DELTA AIRLINES

1 transaction

$2,500

MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,000

COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

REIZOVIC, ROY

2 transactions

$13,200

EMMET, RICHARD

1 transaction

$6,600

EVANS, CHRISTOPHER

1 transaction

$6,600

KENDRICK, KEN

1 transaction

$6,600

KENDRICK, RANDY

1 transaction

$6,600

MCCALLISTER, ROSS

1 transaction

$6,600

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

1 transaction

$6,600

STERN, ELIZABETH MAY

1 transaction

$6,600

WEEKLEY, RICHARD

1 transaction

$6,600

ASSENMACHER, ROBERT

1 transaction

$6,600

ASSENMACHER, WILLIAM

1 transaction

$6,600

BIDWILL, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$6,600

BRAVERMAN, VERONICA

1 transaction

$6,600

CHAMBERLAIN, JAIME

1 transaction

$6,600

CHAMBERLAIN, MARTHA

1 transaction

$6,600

CHAPMAN, TED

1 transaction

$6,600

CHRIST, HAROLD

1 transaction

$6,600

COONS, BETH

1 transaction

$6,600

COTTER, CHRISTOPHER

1 transaction

$6,600

Donor Network - Rep. Ciscomani, Juan [R-AZ-6]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 67 nodes and 79 connections

Total contributions: $79

Top Donors - Rep. Ciscomani, Juan [R-AZ-6]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC7 Orgs19 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 10 helped, 2 harmed.

+Cybersecurityconfidence 0.95
Title III provides $2,218,634,000 for Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency operations and support, and $386,464,000 for procurement, construction, and improvements, directly benefiting cybersecurity firms.
+Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.90
Section 506(b) allows transfer of intelligence activity funds to Management Directorate, potentially benefiting defense contractors involved in intelligence and surveillance work.
+Law Enforcement & Surveillance Techconfidence 0.90
Section 210 prohibits procurement of non-autonomous surveillance systems, but overall funding for CBP and ICE operations supports law enforcement surveillance technology vendors.
−Private Prisons & Immigration Detentionconfidence 0.85
Section 213 prohibits use of funds to continue detention service contracts if performance evaluations are less than 'adequate', harming private prison contractors.
+Construction & Engineeringconfidence 0.85
Multiple procurement, construction, and improvements accounts across CBP, ICE, TSA, Coast Guard, Secret Service, etc., totaling billions, directly benefit construction and engineering firms.
+Health Insuranceconfidence 0.80
Section 205 prohibits CBP from preventing individuals from importing prescription drugs from Canada for personal use, which could reduce domestic prescription drug sales and thus benefit health insurers by lowering drug costs.

+ 6 more industries not shown.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Ciscomani, Juan [R-AZ-6])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

Defense Contractors$4,925
from 4 contributions
- SHOCKEY, JEFF$3,300
- GATTLE, WILLIAM$1,125
- PEDDIBHOTLA, SRIRAM$500
Big Tech Platforms$3,300
from 1 contribution
- WALKER, KENT$3,300
Health Insurance$2,750
from 6 contributions
- KEHALY, PAM$1,000
- RUIZ, DANIEL$500
- TURNER, LORI$500
- CHRIST, CARA$250
- FAHEY, MAUREEN$250
Law Enforcement & Surveillance Tech$500
from 1 contribution
- NORTON, JAMES$500
Cybersecurity$25
from 3 contributions
- STONE, BEATRIZ$25

Industries this bill HARMS

Pharmaceuticals$500
from 1 contribution
- CURRIE, L. NICOLE$500

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 Homeland Security

Moderate

Vector: 68%

Pages: 168-170AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill includes provisions for grant and contract transparency and increased oversight of detention facilities, which aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on compliance for federal grant funding and accountability. However, it does not address the policy's specific goals such as expanding dedicated political personnel, securing coasts, protecting leaders, or restructuring career staff."

Key themes:grant compliance transparencyoversight and inspectionsdetention facility oversightOffice of the Secretary fundingbudget reporting accountability

— 136 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Secure our coasts and economic zones; l Protect political leaders, their families, and visiting heads of state or government; and l Oversee transportation security. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SEC) In the next Administration, the Office of the Secretary should take on the fol- lowing key issues and challenges to ensure the effective operation of DHS. Expansion of Dedicated Political Personnel. The Secretary of Homeland Security is a presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed political appointee, but for budgetary reasons, he or she has historically been unable to fund a dedi- cated team of political appointees. A key first step for the Secretary to improve front-office functions is to have his or her own dedicated team of political appoin- tees selected and vetted by the Office of Presidential Personnel, which is not reliant on detailees from other parts of the department, to help ensure the completion of the next President’s agenda. An Aggressive Approach to Senate-Confirmed Leadership Positions. While Senate confirmation is a constitutionally necessary requirement for appointing agency leadership, the next Administration may need to take a novel approach to the confirmations process to ensure an adequate and rapid transition. For example, the next Administration arguably should place its nominees for key positions into similar positions as “actings” (for example, putting in a person to serve as the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Commissioner of CBP while that person is going through the confirmation process to direct ICE or become the Secretary). This approach would both guarantee implementation of the Day One agenda and equip the department for potential emergency situations while still honoring the confirmation requirement. The department should also look to remove lower-level but nevertheless important positions that currently require Senate confirmation from the confirmation requirement, although this effort would require legislation (and might also be mooted in the event of legisla- tion that closes portions of the department that currently have Senate-confirmed leadership). Clearer, More Durable, and Political-Only Line of Succession. Based on previous experience, the department needs legislation to establish a more durable but politically oriented line of succession for agency decision-making purposes. The ideal sequence for line of succession is certainly debatable, except that in cir- cumstances where a career employee holds a leadership position in the department, that position should be deemed vacant for line-of-succession purposes and the next eligible political appointee in the sequence should assume acting authority. Further, — 137 — Department of Homeland Security individuals wielding acting Secretary authority should have explicit authority to finalize agency actions, including regulations, to ensure that the department’s homeland security mission is fulfilled. Soft Closure of Unnecessary Offices. Pending a possible presidential deci- sion to shrink or eliminate DHS itself, the next Administration will still have the obligation to protect the homeland as required by law. The Secretary therefore can and should use his or her inherent, discretionary leadership authority to “soft close” ineffective and problematic corners of the department. While those corners are to be determined, the Secretary could shift personnel, funding, and opera- tional responsibility to mission-essential components of the department, including the Office of the Secretary itself. This effort not only would make the department more efficient, but also would support a legislative move to shrink or dismantle the department by showing that the agency can fulfill national security–critical functions without its current bloated bureaucracy. Restructuring and Redistribution of Career Personnel. To strengthen political decision-making and ensure that taxpayer dollars are being used legally and efficiently, the Secretary should make major changes in the distribution of career personnel throughout the department. For example, personnel from parts of the department undergoing soft closure could be redistributed to what will be workload-intensive corners of the department, including national security–critical and transparency functions. All personnel with law enforcement capacity should be removed immediately from office billets and deployed to field billets to maxi- mize law enforcement capacity. Compliance for Grants and Other Federal Funding. The next Adminis- tration should take steps to restore lawfulness and integrity to the department’s massive regimen of federal grant programs, most of which are managed and dis- tributed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Secretary should direct FEMA to ensure that all FEMA-issued grant funding for states, localities, and private organizations is going to recipients who are lawful actors, can demon- strate that they are in compliance with federal law, and can show that their mission and actions support the broader homeland security mission. All applicants and potential recipients of such grant funding should be required to meet certain pre- conditions for eligibility (except for receipt of post-disaster or nonhumanitarian funding) or should simply be considered ineligible for funding. Such preconditions should include at least the following: l Certification by applicants that they comply with all aspects of federal immigration laws, including the honoring of all immigration detainers. l Certification by applicants that they are both registered with E-Verify and using E-Verify in a transparent and nonevasive manner. For states

Department of Homeland Security

Moderate

Vector: 66%

Pages: 171-173AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill provides DHS funding and includes transparency provisions, which aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on accountability and operational efficiency within DHS components like CBP and ICE. However, it does not directly implement specific Project 2025 proposals such as merging Border Patrol with OAM, publishing border security data without White House review, or establishing nationwide detention standards."

Key themes:DHS fundingtransparency and accountabilityoperational efficiencyborder securityimmigration enforcement

— 139 — Department of Homeland Security also simultaneously add efficiencies to our nation’s capacity to facilitate lawful trade and travel. The BSIA should establish clear mission requirements, responsibilities, and mandates under existing law regarding the persistent need for and utilization of U.S. military personnel and resources to assist BSIA with increasing whole-of-gov- ernment efforts and long-term strategy to secure our nation’s borders effectively. In addition, appropriate elements within the newly created BSIA should be desig- nated as part of the U.S. National Security and Intelligence Community. A conservative Administration should eliminate any prohibitive guidance, direction, or mandate from DHS or the Administration that curtails or limits CBP from publishing detailed border security and enforcement data not impacting intelligence, interdiction, and investigative operations, methods, or sources. DHS should issue a regulation mandating that CBP publish accurate and timely border security data, readily available to the public, on a regular basis that avoid White House and DHS leadership review and approval. The White House should grant the authority for CBP and DHS executives to utilize component aviation assets under the Office of Air and Marine (OAM). CBP and DHS have worldwide missions with personnel and facilities that are deployed across the globe and in every state in the U.S. With a CBP workforce alone of more than 60,000 people (240,000-plus for DHS) encompassing more than a thousand sea, land, and airports, it is essential that the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Secretary, and Deputy Secretary can travel efficiently to facilities to maintain appropriate situational awareness across the department’s vast mission set and interact with the expansive workforce. Although CBP operates one of the largest aviation components of any domestic U.S. law enforcement agency, executives are prohibited from utilizing the agency’s aviation assets to facilitate official travel. Executives are required to fly on commercial airlines, and this requirement sig- nificantly limits their ability to have classified communications and takes them offline for extended periods of time. Border Patrol (BP) and OAM should be combined within CBP. BP has more than 20,000 personnel, and OAM has approximately 1,800. OAM’s assets are dedicated in support of BP operations the vast majority of the time, yet redundant approv- als, strategies, and independent hierarchal commands serve as impediments to efficient and practical resource deployments. CBP should restart and expand use of the horseback-mounted Border Patrol. As part of this announcement, the Secretary should clear the records and personnel files of those who were falsely accused by Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas of whip- ping migrants and issue a formal apology on behalf of DHS and CBP. The Secretary should combine the Office of Trade (OT) and Trade Relations with the Office of Field Operations (OFO). The OT is the smallest of CBP’s compo- nents, and its operational counterpart, OFO, has a workforce of more than 30,000. — 140 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise OT’s function is interwoven with that of its OFO operational counterpart. Combin- ing OT with OFO would achieve streamlined operations and increase OT’s capacity and capability by leveraging OFO’s expansive resources. CBP, ICE, and USCIS all have authority to issue Notices to Appear (NTA) to removable aliens in their presence, which begins removal proceedings. In most instances, CBP should turn illegal aliens over to ICE for detention, and ICE can then issue any needed NTA. CBP should issue NTAs only in limited situations for humanitarian reasons, such as medical emergencies. In addition, CBP should eliminate use of Notices to Report (NTR) altogether. CBP’s established national standards of Transport, Escort, Detention, and Search (TEDS) have been widely interpreted and expanded by lower courts. This has resulted in unrealistic and differing detention standards for CBP facilities based on the jurisdiction within which they fall, negatively impacting operations. ICE has suffered similarly. A single nationwide detention standard should be codified that prevents individual states from mandating that federal government agencies adhere to widely expansive and ever-changing sets of standards. Such standards should allow the flexibility to use large numbers of temporary facilities such as tents. The annual costs associated with establishing and maintaining temporary facil- ities to address the flow of illegal migration and associated care, transportation, and processing are prohibitive, and CBP’s budget is inadequate. CBP is forced to forgo critical mission-essential endeavors to fund the additional associated costs. Often, this requires the reprogramming of funding at the DHS level, which has a negative impact on other DHS components’ operations. This predictable cost that has to be paid from existing CBP and DHS funding levels reduces CBP’s operational readiness and ability to accomplish its diverse and critical missions to protect the American people. The next President should request a realistic budget that fully pays for these costs. Increased funding is needed for BP to hire additional support personnel, which would relieve uniformed BP agents from administrative duties associated with processing aliens and allow them to return to their national security mission. Congress should increase funding for facility upgrades at strategic land Ports of Entry (POEs), including expanding state-of-the-art technology such as Non-Intru- sive Inspection equipment. Today, the cartels exploit the aging facilities and lack of adequate technology to smuggle illicit drugs, contraband, and more successfully through our nation’s POEs. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE) Needed Reforms Since the formation of DHS, ICE has increasingly been tasked with auxiliary missions that have little or nothing to do with either immigration or customs

Department of Homeland Security

Weak

Vector: 66%

Pages: 186-188AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill provides general appropriations and oversight mechanisms for DHS but does not contain specific provisions that implement or directly support the Project 2025 DHS policy objectives such as the 287(g) program, HSI refocus, Blackie’s Warrants, FEMA reforms, or CISA reforms."

Key themes:DHS fundingoversight and accountabilitydetention facility inspectionsbudget transparencygrant management

— 153 — Department of Homeland Security l 287(g) program. Issue a memo prohibiting any jurisdiction that applies from being denied access to the program unless good cause is shown. l Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) priorities. Issue Department Management Directive (and ICE companion Directive) to refocus HSI on immigration offenses and criminal offenses typically associated with immigration (for example, human trafficking). All criminal investigative work without a clear nexus to the border or otherwise to Title 8 should be turned over to the appropriate federal agency. l Blackie’s Warrants. ICE OPLA, ERO, and HSI should issue a joint internal memo on operationalizing Blackie’s Warrants for immediate use on worksite enforcement and other appropriate investigations and operations. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) Needed Reforms FEMA is the lead federal agency in preparing for and responding to disasters, but it is overtasked, overcompensates for the lack of state and local preparedness and response, and is regularly in deep debt. After passage of the 1988 Stafford Act,12 the number of declared federal disasters rose dramatically as most disaster costs were shifted from states and local governments to the federal government. In addition, state-friendly FEMA regulations, such as a “per capita indicator,” failed to maintain the pace of inflation and made it easy to meet disaster declaration thresholds. This combination has left FEMA unprepared in both readiness and funding for the truly catastrophic disasters in which its services are most needed. Reform of FEMA requires a greater emphasis on federalism and state and local preparedness, leaving FEMA to focus on large, widespread disasters. Under the Stafford Act, FEMA has the authority to adjust the per capita indi- cator for damages, which creates a threshold under which states and localities are not eligible for public assistance. FEMA should raise the threshold because the per capita indicator has not kept pace with inflation, and this over time has effectively lowered the threshold for public assistance and caused FEMA’s resources to be stretched perilously thin. Alternatively, applying a deductible could accomplish a similar outcome while also incentivizing states to take a more proactive role in their own preparedness and response capabilities. In addition, Congress should change the cost-share arrangement so that the federal government covers 25 per- cent of the costs for small disasters with the cost share reaching a maximum of 75 percent for truly catastrophic disasters. FEMA is also responsible for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), nearly all of which is issued by the federal government. Washington provides — 154 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise insurance at prices lower than the actuarially fair rate, thereby subsidizing flood insurance. Then, when flood costs exceed NFIP’s revenue, FEMA seeks taxpay- er-funded bailouts. Current NFIP debt is $20.5 billion, and in 2017, Congress canceled $16 billion in debt when FEMA reached its borrowing authority limit. These subsidies and bailouts only encourage more development in flood zones, increasing the potential losses to both NFIP and the taxpayer. The NFIP should be wound down and replaced with private insurance starting with the least risky areas currently identified by the program. Budget Issues FEMA manages all grants for DHS, and these grants have become pork for states, localities, and special-interest groups. Since 2002, DHS/FEMA have provided more than $56 billion in preparedness grants for state, local, tribal, and territorial governments. For FY 2023, President Biden requested more than $3.5 billion for federal assistance grants.13 Funds provided under these programs do not provide measurable gains for preparedness or resiliency. Rather, more than any objective needs, political interests appear to direct the flow of nondisaster funds. The principles of federalism should be upheld; these indicate that states better understand their unique needs and should bear the costs of their particularized programs. FEMA employees in Washington, D.C., should not determine how bil- lions of federal tax dollars should be awarded to train local law enforcement officers in Texas, harden cybersecurity infrastructure in Utah, or supplement migrant shelters in Arizona. DHS should not be in the business of handing out federal tax dollars: These grants should be terminated. Accomplishing this, however, will require action by Members of Congress who repeatedly vote to fund grants for political reasons. The transition should focus on building resilience and return on investment in line with real threats. Personnel FEMA currently has four Senate-confirmed positions. Only the Administrator should be confirmed by the Senate; other political leadership need not be con- firmed by the Senate. Additionally, FEMA’s “springing Cabinet position” should be eliminated, as this creates significant unnecessary challenges to the functioning of the whole of DHS at points in time when coordinated responses are most needed. CYBERSECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AGENCY (CISA) Needed Reforms CISA is supposed to have two key roles: (1) protection of the federal civilian government networks (.gov) while coordinating the execution of national cyber defense and sharing information with non-federal and private-sector partners

Department of Homeland Security

Weak

Vector: 65%

Pages: 177-179AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill provides general DHS funding and includes transparency provisions, but does not specifically address USCIS mission realignment, immigration enforcement priorities, fee increases, or regulatory reforms outlined in the Project 2025 policy."

Key themes:Department of Homeland Securityoversight and accountabilityfunding allocations

— 145 — Department of Homeland Security l Management Directives and policies should realign to ensure that the workforce, while adaptable and able to handle the bulk of the USCIS mission, is not allowed to be pulled off mission work to focus on unlawful programs (DACA, mass parole for Afghans, Ukrainians, Venezuelans, etc.), which divert resources away from nuclear family and employment programs. The regulatory agenda should include the immediate submission of notices of proposed rulemaking for the Trump Administration’s public charge rule (includ- ing aspects from its original notice of proposed rulemaking), temporary work visa reform, employment authorization reform rules, asylum bars rule, and a third-country transit rule. At a minimum, an enhanced regulatory agenda should include rules strengthening the integrity of the asylum system, parole reform, and U visa reform that prioritizes relief for victims of heinous crimes and ensures that we protect the truest and most deserving victims of crime. Not all policy changes require formal rulemaking, however, as internal guidance documents are generally exempt under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).7 In this subregulatory space, USCIS policy memos and operational guidance should reduce the validity of employment authorization documents and end the COVID flexibilities, including the reliance on biometrics reuse. USCIS should also enforce existing regulations by rejecting incomplete applications and petitions, ensuring both that they are completed before accepted for filing and that FDNS signs off on all approved applications and petitions before approval notices are sent to the alien or petitioner. Other efforts should be focused on adjudication standards returning to nearly 100 percent interview requirements for all appropriate cases. The incoming Administration should spearhead an immigration legislative agenda focused on creating a merit-based immigration system that rewards high- skilled aliens instead of the current system that favors extended family–based and luck-of-the-draw immigration. To that end, the diversity visa lottery should be repealed, chain migration should be ended while focusing on the nuclear family, and the existing employment visa program should be replaced with a system to award visas only to the “best and brightest.” Internal efforts to limit employment authorization should be matched by con- gressional action to narrow statutory eligibility to work in the United States and mitigate unfair employment competition for U.S. citizens. The oft-abused H-1B program should be transformed into an elite program through which employers are vying to bring in only the top foreign workers at the highest wages so as not to depress American opportunities. Additionally, Congress should: l Improve the integrity of the temporary work visa programs; l Repeal Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations; — 146 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Permanently authorize and make mandatory E-Verify; and l End parole abuse by legislating specific parole standards. USCIS should make it clear that where no court jurisdiction exists, it will not honor court decisions that seek to undermine regulatory and subregulatory efforts. Finally, USCIS still requires access to all relevant national security and law enforce- ment databases in the same vein as any other agency in the intelligence space. This is a key concept that should be addressed as USCIS is returned to functioning primarily as a vetting agency. Budget USCIS is primarily fee-funded, operating on revenue derived by those who are seeking immigration benefits, work permits, and naturalization. The total agency budget requested for fiscal year (FY) 2023, including both fees and a small appropri- ation, is slightly less than $6 billion.8 The bulk of funds are derived from application fees through the Immigrant Examinations Fee Account. As a general principle, adju- dication of applications and petitions should be paid by applicants, not American taxpayers. It is critical that any changes in the budget, even in the wake of a realigned agency combined with ICE and CBP, should retain a fee-funded model. Given the Obama and Biden Administrations’ lack of will, fees should be increased agencywide to keep in step with inflation and the true cost of the adju- dications. The incoming Administration should immediately submit a fee rule that reflects such an increase. Aside from an increase in all fees, the rule should drastically limit the availability for fee waivers and should implement a fee for asylum applications. Additionally, Congress should allow for a 10 percent across- the-board increase in all fees for all fee rules to account for the fact that new fee rules always lag behind budget requirements. USCIS should strive to increase opportunities for premium processing, a ben- efit by which applicants can expedite their processing times. While this places time burdens on adjudicators, it provides an opportunity for a significant influx of money into the agency, which is not currently available. While simply raising fees to the necessary levels to make the agency run efficiently would be prefera- ble, without the need for expanded premium processing, this short-term measure should be utilized, particularly if longer-term fee rules are unsuccessful. At least until USCIS is caught up on all case backlogs, all applicants rejected for any benefit or status adjudication should be required to leave the U.S. immediately. Ordinary process can resume once all case backlogs have been adjudicated. Finally, USCIS should pause the intake of applications in a benefit category when backlogs in that category become excessive. Once USCIS adjudicators can decrease that caseload to a manageable number, application intake should resume.

Department of Defense

Weak

Vector: 65%

Pages: 164-167AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill funds and sustains the current structure of DHS, while Project 2025 calls for dismantling DHS and redistributing its components to other departments, representing opposing approaches."

Key themes:Department of Homeland Securityappropriationsgovernment reorganization

— 133 — 5 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Ken Cuccinelli PRIMARY RECOMMENDATION Our primary recommendation is that the President pursue legislation to dis- mantle the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). After 20 years, it has not gelled into “One DHS.” Instead, its various components’ different missions have outweighed its decades-long attempt to function as one department, rendering the whole disjointed rather than cohesive. Breaking up the department along its mission lines would facilitate mission focus and provide opportunities to reduce overhead and achieve more limited government. In lieu of a status quo DHS, we recommend that: l U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) be combined with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR); and the Department of Justice (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL) into a stand- alone border and immigration agency at the Cabinet level (more than 100,000 employees, making it the third largest department measured by manpower). l The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) be moved to the Department of Transportation. — 134 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) be moved to the Department of the Interior or, if combined with CISA, to the Department of Transportation. l The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) be moved to DOJ and, in time of full-scale war (i.e., threatening the homeland), to the Department of Defense (DOD). Alternatively, USCG should be moved to DOD for all purposes. l The U.S. Secret Service (USSS) be divided in two, with the protective element moved to DOJ and the financial enforcement element moved to the Department of the Treasury. l The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) be privatized. l The Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) be moved to DOD and the Office of Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction be moved to the FBI. All of the remaining supporting components could be dismantled because their functions already exist in the moving components as well as the receiv- ing departments. Cutting these costs would save the American taxpayers significant sums. Unless and until this dismantling recommendation is pursued and achieved, however, DHS will statutorily continue to exist, and it needs many reforms. Accord- ingly, we now turn to recommended changes in DHS as it exists now. MISSION STATEMENT The Department of Homeland Security protects the American homeland from and prepares for terrorism and other hazards in both the physical and cyber realms, provides for secure and free movement of trade and travel, and enforces U.S. immi- gration laws impartially. OVERVIEW The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and subsequent mailings of anthrax spores. The Homeland Security Act of 2002,1 which created the department, states that DHS’s primary mission is to prevent terrorist attacks within the U.S.; reduce the nation’s vulnerability to terrorism; minimize the damage from and assist in the recovery from any terrorist attacks; prepare and respond to natural and manmade crises and emergencies; and monitor connections between illegal drug trafficking and terrorism, coordinate efforts to sever such connections, and interdict illegal drug trafficking.

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. Ciscomani, Juan

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 13355 North Lon Adams Road in Marana, Arizona, as the Mayor Ed Honea Memorial Post Office.

119/hr/6247

FLASH Act

119/hr/1820

Chiricahua National Park Act

119/hr/6380