Protecting American Competition Act of 2026

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/8285
Last Updated: July 28, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Issa, Darrell [R-CA-48]

ID: I000056

Follow the money

The bill

Protecting American Competition Act of 2026

HR. 8285, 119th Congress — read as touching Semiconductors & Hardware.

The sponsor

Rep. Issa, Darrell [R-CA-48]

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

The money

$88,150 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 Commerce" section, p. 705-707 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 44 - 0.

April 21, 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 119th Congress. The "Protecting American Competition Act of 2026" - because, you know, that's exactly what it does (insert eye-roll). Let me dissect this farce for you.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to require a competitive market review of applications for export licenses, re-exports, or in-country transfers of certain technologies. Or, in simpler terms, to create a bureaucratic hurdle that will inevitably favor large corporations with deep pockets and lobbying power. The real purpose? To line the pockets of politicians and their cronies, while pretending to care about American competition.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 by adding a new section (f) to Section 1756. This section requires the Under Secretary for Industry and Security to consider whether an initial license or authorization would be granted for the export, re-export, or in-country transfer of controlled items. Because, you know, this wasn't already being done - or rather, because it was being done, but not with enough red tape. The bill also requires annual reports to Congress on the number of initial licenses granted and the details of subsequent applications. How thrilling.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: large corporations, defense contractors, and their lobbying firms. Oh, and let's not forget the politicians who will benefit from the campaign contributions and "generous" donations that will inevitably follow. As for the actual American people? Ha! They're just pawns in this game of corporate welfare.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The bill will likely lead to increased bureaucratic delays, favoritism towards large corporations, and a further erosion of transparency in the export licensing process. But hey, who needs transparency when you have lobbying power and money? The real impact will be felt by small businesses and startups, which will struggle to navigate the complex web of regulations and compete with their larger counterparts. And, of course, the American people will foot the bill - literally.

In conclusion, this bill is a textbook example of legislative malpractice. It's a symptom of a deeper disease: corruption, greed, and a complete disregard for the well-being of the American people. The diagnosis? Terminal stupidity, with a healthy dose of cynicism and a complete lack of accountability. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than watch this train wreck unfold.

Related Topics

Trade & International Commerce
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Issa, Darrell [R-CA-48]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$88,150
25 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$35,350
Committees
$0
Individuals
$52,800

No PAC contributions found

1
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
2 transactions
$6,600
2
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS
2 transactions
$6,600
3
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
4
MASHANTUCKET (WESTERN) PEQUOT TRIBE
1 transaction
$3,300
5
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIVOK INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
6
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
1 transaction
$3,300
7
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
8
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIWOK INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,000
9
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,500
10
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000
11
WINRED
2 transactions
$150

No committee contributions found

1
KUTRIEH, TAREK
2 transactions
$6,600
2
DE MARTINO, MICHAEL
2 transactions
$6,600
3
ALTMAN, SAM
1 transaction
$3,300
4
GIBSON, JOSEPH H.
1 transaction
$3,300
5
FITZPATRICK, JENNIFER
1 transaction
$3,300
6
RAGHAVAN, PRABHAKAR
1 transaction
$3,300
7
GLAZIER, MITCH
1 transaction
$3,300
8
FRAZEE, ELIZABETH
1 transaction
$3,300
9
LEVY, EDWARD C
1 transaction
$3,300
10
FISHER, KENNETH
1 transaction
$3,300
11
FISHER, SHERRILYN
1 transaction
$3,300
12
DRESNER, LINDA
1 transaction
$3,300
13
MATHENY, DAVID
1 transaction
$3,300
14
KASSOUF, JAMES
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 6 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Meeks, Gregory W. [D-NY-5]

ID: M001137

Top Contributors

23

1
AGUA CALIENTE BAN OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Jul 19, 2023
2
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Mar 30, 2023
3
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$2,500
Sep 30, 2024
4
CROWN, LESTER
N/A • RETIRED
IndividualCHICAGO, IL
$6,600
Jul 18, 2024
5
LIPPMAN, MARIE C.
IndividualMIAMI BEACH, FL
$5,000
Mar 7, 2023
6
CUKIERMAN, JORAM
CITADEL • FINANCE
IndividualSCARSDALE, NY
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024
7
SILVERMAN, DOUG
SENATOR INVESTMENT GROUP LP • MANAGING PARTNER
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
8
SHAMAH, ALAN
FIT FOR LIFE LLC • BUSINESS EXECUTIVE
IndividualBROOKLYN, NY
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
9
SHAMAH, JOSEPH
FIT FOR LIFE LLC • CO-FOUNDER & CEO
IndividualBROOKLYN, NY
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
10
ARMSTRONG, BRIAN
COINBASE • CEO
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Aug 29, 2023

Rep. McCormick, Richard [R-GA-7]

ID: M001218

Top Contributors

20

1
OGLESBY, CHARLES
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSUWANEE, GA
$10,000
Jan 18, 2024
2
OGLESBY, CHARLES
IndividualSUWANEE, GA
$10,000
Jan 22, 2024
3
HAMILTON, ANNE
THORNBRIAR CAPITAL LLC • BUSINESS OWNER
IndividualCUMMING, GA
$10,000
Feb 13, 2023
4
VERMA, VIKAS
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualATLANTA, GA
$6,600
Oct 28, 2024
5
KLINGENSTEIN, THOMAS
COHEN KLINGENSTEIN • INVESTMENT ADVISOR
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Oct 28, 2023
6
LUKE, DEBRA
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualPHOENIX, AZ
$6,600
Feb 6, 2024
7
BATMASIAN, JAMES H
INVESTMENTS LIMITED • OWNER
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$6,600
May 25, 2023
8
KOLLAR, CLINT
SIXTH STREET PARTNERS • INVESTOR
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$6,600
May 28, 2023
9
KOLLAR, HEATHER
SELF • MOTHER
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$6,600
May 28, 2023
10
STEBBINS, ROBERT
WILLKIE FARR GALLAGHER • ATTORNEY
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Apr 1, 2023

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

ID: J000310

Top Contributors

21

1
HPUL PROJECT OPERATIONS
OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA
$3,300
Dec 31, 2023
2
HILL, DERRALL
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$6,600
Nov 30, 2023
3
PACK, TONY
SAM PACK AUTOMOTIVE • VICE PRESIDENT
IndividualSOUTHLAKE, TX
$6,600
Dec 28, 2023
4
BLACK, ALBERT
ON-TARGET SUPPLIES & LOGISTICS • EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$6,600
Jan 5, 2024
5
SEDIGHI, HOOMAN
SELF-EMPLOYED • PHYSICIAN
IndividualFARMERS BRANCH, TX
$6,600
Jan 23, 2024
6
STEINGLASS, DAVID
AMERICAN CAPITAL • FINANCE
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$6,600
Feb 12, 2024
7
STEINGLASS, ELIZABETH
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$6,600
Jan 30, 2024
8
BURNS, DEIADRA
UDR INC. • CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$6,600
Jun 19, 2023
9
COX, MORGAN
MARQUIS GROUP • REAL ESTATE INVESTOR
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$6,600
Jun 19, 2023
10
FREY, DANIEL
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualCOPPELL, TX
$6,600
Jun 23, 2023

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

ID: B001307

Top Contributors

21

1
TORCHBEARER PUBLIC AFFAIRS
OrganizationCARMEL, IN
$1,000
Apr 10, 2024
2
NICOSON, JON
NICOSON FARMING INC • FARMER
IndividualCORY, IN
$6,600
Aug 25, 2023
3
BAIRD, BEAU
SELF • RANCHER
IndividualGREENCASTLE, IN
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023
4
GOODRICH, CHARLES D
GAYLOR ELECTRIC, INC. • VICE PRESIDENT
IndividualNOBLESVILLE, IN
$3,300
Jun 30, 2024
5
CARRIER, JAMISON
RELENTLESS DEALER SERVICES • FOUNDER
IndividualGREENWOOD, IN
$3,300
Mar 11, 2024
6
WALTON, ROBERT S
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualBENTONVILLE, AR
$3,300
Mar 31, 2024
7
NICOSON, BARBRA
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualCORY, IN
$3,300
Jul 8, 2024
8
NICOSON, JON
NICOSON FARMING INC • FARMER
IndividualCORY, IN
$3,300
Jul 8, 2024
9
NESSEL, ARIEL
ENTREPRENEUR • ENTREPRENEUR
IndividualROSS, CA
$2,500
Apr 14, 2023
10
LANGLEY, THOMAS
LANGLEY CONSULTING • CONSULTANT
IndividualATHENS, AL
$2,000
Sep 29, 2023

Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17]

ID: L000599

Top Contributors

21

1
MURTAGH, COSSU, VENDITTI & CASTRO-BLANCO, LLP
OrganizationWHITE PLAINS, NY
$1,000
Feb 24, 2024
2
BATMASIAN, JAMES
INVESTMENTS LIMITED • OWNER
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$6,600
Sep 27, 2023
3
BATMASIAN, JAMES
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$6,600
Sep 29, 2023
4
AUSTIN, ROBERT
UNAKA CO., INC. • BUSINESSMAN
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$6,600
Jul 18, 2024
5
SILVERMAN, JEFFREY
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSURFSIDE, FL
$6,534
Feb 15, 2024
6
SILVERMAN, JEFFREY
IndividualSURFSIDE, FL
$6,534
Feb 22, 2024
7
SCALA, MARY ELLEN
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualPORT CHESTER, NY
$5,300
Aug 27, 2023
8
DEUTSCH, SHMULEY
SELF • PRESIDENT
IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY
$3,900
Jun 24, 2024
9
DEUTSCH, SHMULEY
IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY
$3,900
Jun 25, 2024
10
PERLMUTTER, RAFUEL
GOLDEN TASTE • CEO
IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY
$3,400
Jun 24, 2024

Rep. Sherman, Brad [D-CA-32]

ID: S000344

Top Contributors

26

1
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$2,000
Oct 30, 2023
2
MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS
$2,000
Oct 5, 2023
3
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$2,000
Sep 30, 2024
4
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$1,300
Oct 21, 2024
5
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA
$1,000
Oct 28, 2024
6
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$700
Oct 21, 2024
7
AHMED, TAIMOOR
MARKHOR LOGISTICS • CEO
IndividualSACRAMENTO, CA
$3,300
Mar 30, 2023
8
GARHWAL, HARI
GARHWAL, CHAN & WILLIAMS • CPA
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Mar 23, 2023
9
GARHWAL, HARI
GARHWAL, CHAN & WILLIAMS • CPA
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Mar 23, 2023
10
GARHWAL, SANJEEV
WWMG • PHYSICIAN
IndividualSEATTLE, WA
$3,300
Mar 29, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Issa, Darrell [R-CA-48]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 64 nodes and 71 connections

Total contributions: $71

Top Donors - Rep. Issa, Darrell [R-CA-48]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

11 Orgs14 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 4 harmed.

  • Section 2(a) adds subsection (f) to Section 1756 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, requiring a competitive market review of license applications for export, reexport, or in-country transfer of certain technology. This could delay or restrict licensing for semiconductor technology exports, imposing a regulatory burden on the semiconductor industry.

  • Section 2(a) adds subsection (f) to Section 1756 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, requiring a competitive market review of license applications for export, reexport, or in-country transfer of certain technology. This could delay or restrict licensing for AI and cloud technology exports, imposing a regulatory burden on the AI & Cloud Infrastructure industry.

  • −Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.70

    Section 2(a) adds subsection (f) to Section 1756 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, requiring a competitive market review of license applications for export, reexport, or in-country transfer of certain technology. This could delay or restrict licensing for defense-related technology exports, imposing a regulatory burden on defense contractors.

  • −Cybersecurityconfidence 0.70

    Section 2(a) adds subsection (f) to Section 1756 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, requiring a competitive market review of license applications for export, reexport, or in-country transfer of certain technology. This could delay or restrict licensing for cybersecurity technology exports, imposing a regulatory burden on the cybersecurity industry.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Issa, Darrell [R-CA-48])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 HARMS

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 Commerce

Moderate
Vector: 68%
Pages: 705-707AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 policy seek to enhance transparency and oversight of the Bureau of Industry and Security's export licensing process, but the bill focuses on competitive fairness while Project 2025 emphasizes tightening controls, expanding technology listings, and revising procedural rules."

Key themes:export licensingtransparencycongressional oversightBIS proceduresnational security

— 672 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise regulate exports of emerging and foundational technologies. Although the scope of such technologies is vast, to date BIS has only controlled just over 40 of these technologies. This does not meet the clear statutory intent of Congress that ECRA be leveraged to ensure that the United States maintains a technological advantage in technologies bearing upon national security interests. Currently, BIS self-identifies technologies that merit control under the EAR with minimal input from other federal agencies. This mechanism should be improved. BIS should create an open, transparent rulemaking process by which any industry participant, private entity, or branch of the government may, at any time, submit nominations for emerging/foundational technologies for control. Then, on a quarterly basis, BIS should make public such recommendations (while holding the identity of the submitter confidential) for public input, followed by an explanation about its ultimate decision to control or not control the items, its reasons, the level of controls applied (stringent or permissive), and the relevant Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) under the Commerce Control List. Commerce should also institute a mechanism whereby its decisions can be challenged, including on a confidential basis. Licensing Procedures: Adjudication and Transparency. Currently, if the Departments of Defense, State, Commerce, and Energy disagree on an export license decision, the disagreement may be escalated to the Operating Commit- tee—and subsequently to the Advisory Committee on Export Policy led by BIS’s Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. The Assistant Secretary does not need to lead the dispute resolution, and this process should be revised by giving lead authority to BIS’s Under Secretary, who is better able to account for diverging views. Moreover, BIS’s authority to overrule other agency votes should be changed. Each agency should have one equal vote and, if a licensing dispute remains unre- solved, the final decision should be elevated to the National Security Advisor and the Secretaries of Defense, State, Commerce, and Energy. Additionally, to improve congressional oversight of BIS’s license adjudication process, BIS should provide specific congressional committees with data from the Automated Export System on a quarterly basis. Electronic files should contain U.S. exporter by name; product description (e.g., harmonized system code and ECCN/U. S. Munitions List designation); end user and destination country; and when a license was required, whether the license was granted or denied. BIS cur- rently denies just 1.2 percent of export licenses. These data reporting requirements can help Congress better determine whether BIS is adequately protecting national security through appropriate use of export controls or whether additional direction from Congress is required. Improve End-Use Checks. The integrity of the export control system may be validated only through adequate end-use checks. BIS must deny export licenses to countries that do not permit adequate end-use checks (e.g., China/Russia) by U.S. authorities. BIS should also strengthen the forensic audit capabilities of its — 673 — Department of Commerce Export Enforcement officers through improved and frequent training so they are able to detect export-control violations. EAR Revisions. The U.S. Government needs a new export control moderniza- tion effort to tighten the EAR policies governing licenses to countries of concern, including China and Russia (specifically, revise and/or reverse the 2008 through 2016 policies). When authoritarian governments explain what they plan to do, believe them unless hard evidence demonstrates otherwise. Case in point: China’s and Russia’s stated civil–military fusion policies demand central government command-and-control style systems in which every private entity serves the interests of the state and is forced to provide technology, services, capacity, and data to the central govern- ment and the military. Through this structure, commercial activities are routinely weaponized by authoritarian regimes that repeatedly identify the U.S. as an enemy. Accordingly, U.S. export control policies must be updated to reflect these realities and the associated threats to national security. Key priorities for EAR modernization for countries of concern should be: l Eliminating the “specially designed” licensing loophole; l Redesignating China and Russia to more highly prohibitive export licensing groups (country groups D or E); l Eliminating license exceptions; l Broadening foreign direct product rules; l Reducing the de minimis threshold from 25 percent to 10 percent—or 0 percent for critical technologies; l Tightening the deemed export rules to prevent technology transfer to foreign nationals from countries of concern; l Tightening the definition of “fundamental research” to address exploitation of the open U.S. university system by authoritarian governments through funding, students and researchers, and recruitment; l Eliminating license exceptions for sharing technology with controlled entities/countries through standards-setting “activities” and bodies; and l Improving regulations regarding published information for technology transfers.

Department of Commerce

Moderate
Vector: 66%
Pages: 705-707AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's focus on improving transparency and oversight in export licensing, particularly through enhanced reporting and competitive review processes, but does not address the core Project 2025 proposals for expanding technology controls, interagency voting reforms, or end-use check enforcement."

Key themes:export licensing transparencycongressional oversightcompetitive market reviewBIS accountabilitylicensing procedures

— 672 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise regulate exports of emerging and foundational technologies. Although the scope of such technologies is vast, to date BIS has only controlled just over 40 of these technologies. This does not meet the clear statutory intent of Congress that ECRA be leveraged to ensure that the United States maintains a technological advantage in technologies bearing upon national security interests. Currently, BIS self-identifies technologies that merit control under the EAR with minimal input from other federal agencies. This mechanism should be improved. BIS should create an open, transparent rulemaking process by which any industry participant, private entity, or branch of the government may, at any time, submit nominations for emerging/foundational technologies for control. Then, on a quarterly basis, BIS should make public such recommendations (while holding the identity of the submitter confidential) for public input, followed by an explanation about its ultimate decision to control or not control the items, its reasons, the level of controls applied (stringent or permissive), and the relevant Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) under the Commerce Control List. Commerce should also institute a mechanism whereby its decisions can be challenged, including on a confidential basis. Licensing Procedures: Adjudication and Transparency. Currently, if the Departments of Defense, State, Commerce, and Energy disagree on an export license decision, the disagreement may be escalated to the Operating Commit- tee—and subsequently to the Advisory Committee on Export Policy led by BIS’s Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. The Assistant Secretary does not need to lead the dispute resolution, and this process should be revised by giving lead authority to BIS’s Under Secretary, who is better able to account for diverging views. Moreover, BIS’s authority to overrule other agency votes should be changed. Each agency should have one equal vote and, if a licensing dispute remains unre- solved, the final decision should be elevated to the National Security Advisor and the Secretaries of Defense, State, Commerce, and Energy. Additionally, to improve congressional oversight of BIS’s license adjudication process, BIS should provide specific congressional committees with data from the Automated Export System on a quarterly basis. Electronic files should contain U.S. exporter by name; product description (e.g., harmonized system code and ECCN/U. S. Munitions List designation); end user and destination country; and when a license was required, whether the license was granted or denied. BIS cur- rently denies just 1.2 percent of export licenses. These data reporting requirements can help Congress better determine whether BIS is adequately protecting national security through appropriate use of export controls or whether additional direction from Congress is required. Improve End-Use Checks. The integrity of the export control system may be validated only through adequate end-use checks. BIS must deny export licenses to countries that do not permit adequate end-use checks (e.g., China/Russia) by U.S. authorities. BIS should also strengthen the forensic audit capabilities of its

Department of Commerce

Weak
Vector: 66%
Pages: 717-719AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on export licensing fairness and competitive market review under the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security, while the Project 2025 policy emphasizes minority business development, IP rights, NIST reforms, and trade practices affecting minority-owned enterprises. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address MBDA, patent reform, NIST privatization, or unfair trade impacts on minority businesses."

Key themes:Department of Commercecompetitiontrade

— 685 — Department of Commerce l Establishing MBDA as a data and research clearinghouse for minority business enterprises and policymakers; l Coordinating amongst Cabinet agencies, state and local government, and trade associations to best leverage resources and encourage growth and innovation; and l Evaluating the harmful effects of unfair trade practices on minority-owned businesses and their employees. U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office carries out a core constitutional man- date from Section 8, Article 1: “The Congress shall have Power...[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discover- ies.” Strong intellectual property (IP) protections form the bedrock of American business and are a key factor in making the U.S. economy the most innovative in the world. As such, a conservative Administration must constantly work to strengthen IP rights and combat the incorrect view that strong IP rights some- how limit innovation. Political leadership in a new conservative Administration should: l Support like-minded countries as candidates for leadership in the World Intellectual Property Organization and build strong relationships with international partners to strengthen intellectual property rights. l Re-examine patent eligibility requirements in Section 101 of the Patent Act7 and support internal and/or legislative reforms to enable U.S. leadership in critical and emerging technologies such as quantum computing, 5G, and artificial intelligence. l Take a balanced approach to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and prioritize rapid and transparent processing of applications and appeals. l Work with Administration partners and Congress to find and punish trademark infringers and counterfeiters. l Oppose efforts to provide intellectual property waivers for cutting-edge technologies, including for COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics, through the World Trade Organization’s Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights agreement or any other mechanism. — 686 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY The National Institute of Standards and Technology is charged with promoting U.S. innovation and competitiveness by “advancing measurement science, standards, and technology.”8 NIST carries out cutting edge research, helps industry establish standards and best practices, and is the nation’s foremost authority on measurements. NIST’s atomic clock, for instance, maintains the official time of the United States. An incoming Administration should evaluate the federal government’s civilian research footprint and consolidate those functions while ensuring that any research conducted with taxpayer dollars serves the national interest in a concrete way in line with conservative principles. Beyond this, an incoming Administration should: l Privatize the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership. The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) establishes and manages a network of centers focused on advising small- and medium-sized manufacturers in order to improve processes and thereby strengthen the U.S. industrial base. When Congress created the program, MEP centers were intended to transition to self-sustaining private institutions after using government funds to begin operations, but the prohibition on long-term funding was abolished in 1998. MEP’s business advisory services would be more properly carried out by the private sector. The next Administration should propose legislation to zero out this $150 million program and fully privatize existing MEP centers. l Transfer the Baldridge Performance Excellence Program. This program’s “process” assists companies in improving management and operations, a function more properly and effectively carried out by the private sector. This program operates at a cost to taxpayers, despite thousands of dollars in fees charged to each participating company or entity and long-term plans to make the program self-sufficient. Maintenance and operation of the program should be entirely handed over to the Baldridge Award Foundation to be run by non-government staff via fees. l Increase value to taxpayers. NIST should reinvigorate the Technology Transfer and ROI (return on investment) initiatives begun under the Trump Administration. These initiatives help speed the process of commercializing science funded by the federal government. l Reestablish U.S. dominance in international standards. NIST should explore ways to incentivize broader U.S. participation in standards-setting bodies and the exclusion of participants from adversaries like China. Standards are set to facilitate trade in countries that utilize those standards: Countries

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