Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 42) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Energy relating to "Energy Conservation Program for Appliance Standards: Certification Requirements, Labeling Requirements, and Enforcement Provisions for Certain Consumer Products and Commercial Equipment"; providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 61) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing"; and providing for consideration of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 11) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management relating to "Protection of Marine Archaeological Resources".

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hres/177
Last Updated: May 26, 2025

Sponsored by

Rep. Langworthy, Nicholas A. [R-NY-23]

ID: L000600

Follow the money

The bill

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 42) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Energy relating to "Energy Conservation Program for Appliance Standards: Certification Requirements, Labeling Requirements, and Enforcement Provisions for Certain Consumer Products and Commercial Equipment"; providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 61) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing"; and providing for consideration of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 11) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management relating to "Protection of Marine Archaeological Resources".

HRES. 177, 119th Congress — read as touching Oil & Gas.

The sponsor

Rep. Langworthy, Nicholas A. [R-NY-23]

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

The money

$141,700 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Environmental Protection Agency" section, p. 479-481 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

March 3, 2025

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. Let's dissect the symptoms of this regulatory abomination.

**Diagnosis:** HRES 177 is a classic case of "Regulatory Capture Syndrome," where industries with deep pockets and influential lobbyists manipulate lawmakers to roll back environmental regulations that cramp their style.

**Symptoms:**

1. **New regulations being created or modified:** This bill is actually about disapproving existing rules, not creating new ones. It's a clever trick to make it seem like they're doing something productive while actually gutting environmental protections. 2. **Affected industries and sectors:** The usual suspects are involved: energy, manufacturing, and fossil fuel extraction. These industries have been whining about the costs of complying with regulations that protect public health and the environment. 3. **Compliance requirements and timelines:** By disapproving these rules, Congress is essentially giving industries a free pass to pollute more and ignore safety standards. The compliance timeline? Non-existent. 4. **Enforcement mechanisms and penalties:** Ha! Don't make me laugh. With this bill, enforcement will be as toothless as a politician's promise. Penalties? What penalties? 5. **Economic and operational impacts:** Let's just say that the economic benefits of deregulation will be enjoyed by the industries themselves, while the operational costs (i.e., environmental degradation, public health problems) will be borne by the rest of us.

**Treatment:** More of the same old snake oil: "We're creating jobs" and "We're promoting economic growth." Meanwhile, the real treatment is a healthy dose of campaign finance reform, stricter lobbying regulations, and politicians with spines that aren't made of Jell-O.

**Prognosis:** This bill will pass, because who needs clean air, water, or a stable climate when you can have more profits? The American people will be left to suffer the consequences of this regulatory malpractice. Mark my words: we'll be back here soon, diagnosing another case of "Regulatory Capture Syndrome" and wondering why our politicians are so eager to poison us for profit.

In conclusion, HRES 177 is a textbook example of how to write a bill that sounds good but does nothing except line the pockets of special interests. Bravo, Congress! You've managed to create a regulatory Frankenstein's monster that will haunt us all for years to come.

Related Topics

Water & Air Quality RegulationsClimate Change & Sustainability
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Langworthy, Nicholas A. [R-NY-23]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$141,700
24 donors
PACs
$9,800
Organizations
$2,500
Committees
$0
Individuals
$125,400
1
SENECA NATION OF INDIANS
2 transactions
$4,800
2
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
1
THE CHICKASAW NATION
1 transaction
$1,000
2
BARCLAY DAMON LLP
2 transactions
$750
3
2504 NIAGARA FALLS BOULEVARD LLC
1 transaction
$500
4
BARRY ZEPLOWITZ & ASSOCIATES
1 transaction
$250

No committee contributions found

1
DEGEORGE, JOSEPH R.
3 transactions
$19,800
2
FISCHER, JOHN
1 transaction
$6,600
3
MEHTA, JETT
1 transaction
$6,600
4
CATSIMATIDIS, JOHN
1 transaction
$6,600
5
GRANT, CHRIS M.
1 transaction
$6,600
6
MURPHY, JOHN R.
1 transaction
$6,600
7
BERMAN, WAYNE
1 transaction
$6,600
8
CHEN, THOMAS
1 transaction
$6,600
9
SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE
1 transaction
$6,600
10
SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN
1 transaction
$6,600
11
WILLIAMS, JEFFREY D.
1 transaction
$6,600
12
FISCHER, ROBERT
1 transaction
$6,600
13
ATWAL, EPHRAIM
1 transaction
$6,600
14
CALORICO, CARLY
1 transaction
$6,600
15
DOHENY, MATT
1 transaction
$6,600
16
EISEN, JOSH
1 transaction
$6,600
17
GALANIS, TERRY
1 transaction
$6,600

Donor Network - Rep. Langworthy, Nicholas A. [R-NY-23]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 57 nodes and 30 connections (72 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $141,700

Top Donors - Rep. Langworthy, Nicholas A. [R-NY-23]

Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount

2 PACs4 Orgs1 Committee17 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped, 1 harmed.

  • +Oil & Gasconfidence 0.90

    Section 3 waives points of order against S.J. Res. 11, which provides for congressional disapproval of a Bureau of Ocean Energy Management rule on 'Protection of Marine Archaeological Resources'. Disapproval of this rule would reduce regulatory constraints on offshore oil and gas activities, benefiting the oil and gas industry.

  • Section 3's waiver of points of order for S.J. Res. 11 facilitates disapproval of a BOEM rule protecting marine archaeological resources, which could streamline permitting for offshore energy infrastructure such as pipelines and platforms, benefiting midstream operators.

  • Section 2 waives points of order against H.J. Res. 61, which provides for congressional disapproval of an EPA rule on 'National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing'. Disapproval would weaken air pollution controls for tire manufacturing, a source of hazardous emissions that could increase regulatory burden on chemical and plastics producers if the rule is seen as a baseline for similar standards.

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.

Environmental Protection Agency

Strong
Vector: 63%
Pages: 479-481AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HRES 177 seeks to disapprove an EPA hazardous air pollutants rule for rubber tire manufacturing, directly aligning with Project 2025's EPA-focused objective of limiting agency overreach and rolling back burdensome regulations."

Key themes:EPA regulation rollbackClean Air Acthazardous air pollutantsregulatory reductionagency overreach

— 447 — Environmental Protection Agency 19. 42 U.S. Code § 7426(b), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7426 (accessed January 26, 2023). 20. 42 U.S. Code § 7410(k)(5)–(6), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7410 (accessed January 26, 2023). 21. 42 U.S. Code § 7601(a), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7601 (accessed January 26, 2023). 22. 42 U.S. Code § 7675, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7675 (accessed January 26, 2023). 23. 42 U.S. Code § 7411, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7411 (accessed January 26, 2023). 24. 42 U.S. Code § 7411(d). 25. 42 U.S. Code § 7412, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7412 (accessed January 26, 2023). 26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. (1972),” last updated July 6, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act (accessed January 26, 2023). 27. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. §300f et seq, (1974),” last updated September 12, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-safe-drinking- water-acthttps://www.epa.gov/sdwa (accessed January 26, 2023). 28. Memorandum from David P. Ross, Assistant Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, to Office of Water Program Directors, “Subject: Office of Water Policy for Draft Documents,” August 6, 2019, https:// www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/documents/ow_policy_for_draft_documents_to_ow_program_ directors_signed_002.pdf (accessed January 26, 2023). 29. 33 U.S. Code § 1341, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/1341 (accessed January 26, 2023). 30. Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/04-1034/ index.pdf (accessed January 25, 2023). 31. 33 U.S. Code § 1318, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/1318 (accessed January 26, 2023). 32. 33 U.S. Code § 1342, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/1342 (accessed January 26, 2023). 33. 33 U.S. Code § 1344, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/1344 (accessed January 26, 2023). 34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq. (1976),” last updated September 12, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary- resource-conservation-and-recovery-act (accessed January 27, 2023). 35. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund), 42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq. (1980),” last updated September 12, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-comprehensive-environmental-response- compensation-and-liability-act (accessed January 27, 2023). 36. 42 U.S. Code § 7412(r), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7412 (accessed January 27, 2023). 37. 42 U.S. Code § 6924(n), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/6924 (accessed January 27, 2023). 38. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. §2601 et seq. (1976),” last updated October 4, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-toxic-substances- control-act (accessed January 27, 2023). 39. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. §136 et seq. (1996),” last updated September 12, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/ summary-federal-insecticide-fungicide-and-rodenticide-act (accessed January 27, 2023). 40. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §301 et seq. (2002),” last updated September 12, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-federal- food-drug-and-cosmetic-act (accessed January 27, 2023). 41. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act,” last updated March 24, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/frank-r- lautenberg-chemical-safety-21st-century-act (accessed January 27, 2023), and “Highlights of Key Provisions in the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century,” last updated February 12, 2020, https:// www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/highlights-key-provisions-frank-r-lautenberg- chemical (accessed January 27, 2023). 42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq. (1973),” last updated September 12, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-endangered- species-act (accessed January 27, 2023). 43. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “PRIA Overview and History,” last updated July 19, 2022, https://www. epa.gov/pria-fees/pria-overview-and-history (accessed January 27, 2023). — 448 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 44. Table, “EPA Budget by National Program Manager and Major Office,” in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, United States Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal Year 2023 Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations, p. 1076. 45. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “All Federal Advisory Committees at EPA,” last updated March 10, 2023, https://www.epa.gov/faca/all-federal-advisory-committees-epa (accessed March 20, 2023). 46. For example, EPA has steadfastly refused to follow Clean Air Act requirements that the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee provide, in the words of the U.S. Supreme Court, “unquestionably pertinent” advice on the “relative contribution to air pollution concentrations of natural… activity” as well as “any adverse public health, welfare, social, economic, or energy effects which may result from various strategies for attainment and maintenance” of the NAAQS. Memorandum from E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, to Assistant Administrators, “Subject: Back-to-Basics Process for Reviewing National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” May 9, 2018, p. 4, https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-05/documents/ image2018-05-09-173219.pdf (accessed January 25, 2023) (cited hereafter as Pruitt Memorandum, May 9, 2018), and Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457, 470 n.2 (2001), https://supreme. justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/457/case.pdF (accessed January 25, 2023). Similarly, EPA has refused to follow legal requirements dating to the late 1970s regarding congressional requests for scientific advice. Pruitt Memorandum, May 9, 2018; U.S. Government Accountability Office, “EPA Science and Advisory Panels: Preliminary Observations on the Processes for Providing Scientific Advice,” testimony of J. Alfredo Gómez, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, GAO, before the Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, GAO-15-636T, May 20, 2015, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-15-636t (accessed January 25, 2023); and U.S. Government Accountability Office, “EPA Science Advisory Board: Policy Statement on Science Quality and Integrity,” GAO-17-526R, June 8, 2017, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-17-526r.pdf (accessed January 25, 2023). 47. 31 U.S. Code § 3729 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/3729 (accessed March 20, 2023). 48. See Pruitt Memorandum, May 9, 2018. 49. H.R. 4383, Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, 92nd Congress, October 6, 1972, https://www. congress.gov/92/statute/STATUTE-86/STATUTE-86-Pg770.pdf (accessed March 20, 2023). 50. 15 U.S. Code Chapter 56A, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-56A (accessed January 27, 2023). 51. Indian Environmental General Assistance Act of 1992, 42 U.S. Code § 4368b, https://www.law.cornell.edu/ uscode/text/42/4368b (accessed January 27, 2023). 52. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of General Counsel, EPA Legal Tools to Advance Environmental Justice, May 2022, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-05/EJ%20Legal%20 Tools%20May%202022%20FINAL.pdf (accessed January 25, 2023), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of General Counsel, Office of Policy, “Interim Environmental Justice and Civil Rights in Permitting Frequently Asked Questions,” August 2022, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-08/EJ%20 and%20CR%20in%20PERMITTING%20FAQs%20508%20compliant.pdf (accessed January 25, 2023). 53. 2 U.S. Code §§ 2000d–2000d-7, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21/subchapter-V (accessed January 27, 2023). 54. Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, No. 1:14CV954 (M.D.N.C. Sep. 30, 2019), https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20191008j38 (accessed January 27, 2023). 55. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 2 Environmental Justice Action Plan, p. 24, https://www. epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-03/documents/region_2_environmental_justice_action_plan.pdf (accessed January 27, 2023). 56. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq. (1969),” last updated September 12, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-national- environmental-policy-act (accessed January 27, 2023). 57. 31 U.S. Code § 1115, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/1115 (accessed January 27, 2023).

Environmental Protection Agency

Moderate
Vector: 64%
Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill targets EPA regulations on hazardous air pollutants from rubber tire manufacturing, which aligns with Project 2025's goal of limiting EPA's overreach under the Clean Air Act, particularly regarding error correction authority and general rulemaking abuse. However, the bill does not explicitly address the specific mechanisms or broader reforms outlined in the policy, such as streamlining NAAQS processes or revising the endangerment finding."

Key themes:EPA regulatory reformClean Air Act oversightrulemaking authority limitsair pollution standards

— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment.

Environmental Protection Agency

Moderate
Vector: 64%
Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HRES 177 seeks to disapprove EPA regulations on hazardous air pollutants from rubber tire manufacturing, which aligns with Project 2025's goal of limiting EPA's regulatory overreach under the Clean Air Act, particularly regarding emissions standards and abuse of authority. However, the bill does not explicitly address the specific reforms outlined in Project 2025, such as streamlining NAAQS demonstrations or reforming GHG reporting, resulting in moderate rather than strong alignment."

Key themes:EPA regulatory reformClean Air Act oversightemissions standardsrulemaking authority limits

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

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