Disapproving the behavior of Representative Jesús G. "Chuy" García of Illinois.

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hres/878

Last Updated: November 19, 2025

Disapproving the behavior of Representative Jesús G. "Chuy" García of Illinois.

HRES. 878, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Rep. Perez, Marie Gluesenkamp [D-WA-3]

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Federal Election Commission" section, p. 898-900 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

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 Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The petty squabbles of Congress. How quaint. Let's cut through the noise and analyze HRES 878 for what it truly is – a non-binding resolution with negligible impact on my empire.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill serves as a symbolic rebuke of Representative Chuy García's actions, which allegedly undermined the democratic process in Illinois' Democratic primary. The main objective is to publicly disapprove of his behavior, a hollow gesture that accomplishes little beyond providing fodder for partisan grandstanding.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** There are no significant provisions or changes to existing law in this resolution. It's a toothless condemnation, devoid of any real consequences or enforcement mechanisms. The bill merely expresses the House's disapproval, which is nothing more than a rhetorical flourish.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The only parties affected by this resolution are Representative García and his reputation. However, as a billionaire with significant influence and resources, I'm not concerned about the reputational damage to an individual politician. My focus lies elsewhere – on legislation that impacts my business interests and wealth accumulation strategies.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has zero implications for my empire or the broader economy. It's a sideshow, a distraction from meaningful policy discussions. The real action happens in bills that shape regulatory environments, tax policies, and industry-specific legislation – areas where I actively engage to protect and expand my interests.

In conclusion, HRES 878 is an inconsequential resolution that fails to address any pressing issues or advance the interests of stakeholders like myself. It's a waste of congressional time and resources, emblematic of the inefficiencies inherent in democratic systems. As someone who values efficiency and results-driven policy-making, I'll continue to focus on bills that truly matter – those that impact my wealth, influence, and control.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a resolution is a type of legislation that expresses the opinion or sentiment of Congress on a particular issue. In this case, HRES 878 disapproves of Representative Jesús G. "Chuy" García's behavior regarding his nomination and withdrawal from the Democratic primary.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this resolution is to express the House of Representatives' disapproval of Representative García's actions, which they deem "beneath the dignity of his office" and incompatible with the spirit of the United States Constitution. Remember when we learned about the importance of checks and balances? This is an example of Congress exercising its oversight role.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** There are no changes to existing law in this resolution, as it's simply a statement of disapproval. However, it does highlight Representative García's actions, which include filing nomination petitions and then withdrawing them after the deadline had passed, allowing his Chief of Staff to be the only Democrat on the primary ballot.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties in this case are Representative García, his constituents, and the Democratic Party. The stakeholders include the House of Representatives, which is expressing its disapproval, and the public, who may be impacted by Representative García's actions.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** While this resolution doesn't have any direct legislative impact, it can still have consequences for Representative García's reputation and potentially influence his future actions. It also serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency and accountability in government, which we covered extensively in 8th grade civics class.

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But what about due process?" or "Isn't this just a partisan attack?" Well, let me tell you, those are valid concerns. However, as we learned in middle school, Congress has the authority to investigate and hold its members accountable for their actions. This resolution is an example of that process in action.

I hope this summary has been enlightening. Next time, maybe take a refresher course on civics 101?

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round and behold the veiled machinations of our esteemed government! HRES 878, a seemingly innocuous bill, is in fact a cleverly crafted smokescreen designed to distract us from the real agenda. Let's dissect this congressional concoction and uncover the hidden truths.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** On the surface, this bill appears to be a rebuke of Representative Jesús G. "Chuy" García's alleged shenanigans in Illinois' Democratic primary. However, I propose that this is merely a ruse to conceal the true objective: to test the waters for future election manipulation and voter suppression tactics.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill's language is deliberately vague, allowing for broad interpretation. By condemning García's actions as "beneath the dignity of his office," Congress is establishing a precedent for policing politicians' behavior, potentially paving the way for more stringent controls on free speech and dissent.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** García, of course, is the immediate target, but this bill has far-reaching implications. It sends a chilling message to all politicians who dare challenge the status quo or defy party lines. Moreover, it undermines the democratic process by implying that certain actions are "incompatible with the spirit of the United States Constitution" – a phrase ripe for exploitation by those seeking to justify authoritarian measures.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a Trojan horse for future legislation aimed at consolidating power and suppressing opposition. By normalizing the notion that politicians can be publicly shamed and censured for perceived transgressions, Congress is creating an environment where dissenting voices are silenced and conformity is enforced. Mark my words, this is merely the beginning of a slippery slope toward totalitarianism.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "But Uncle, it's just a simple bill condemning García's behavior." Ah, my friends, that's exactly what they want you to think! Wake up, sheeple! The truth is hidden in plain sight. This bill is a subtle yet insidious attempt to erode our democratic foundations and pave the way for a more authoritarian government. Stay vigilant, my friends!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. HRES 878, the "Disapproving the behavior of Representative Jesús G. 'Chuy' García of Illinois" resolution. Can you feel the outrage? I can barely contain myself.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is all about defending the sacred institution of democracy from the nefarious clutches of... (dramatic pause) ...Representative Chuy Garcia's Chief of Staff, Patty Garcia! That's right, folks. The main purpose of this resolution is to express the House's disapproval of Representative Garcia's alleged attempt to undermine the democratic process by having his Chief of Staff file paperwork to run in the Democratic primary.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Well, there aren't really any changes to existing law here, folks. This is more of a symbolic resolution, a sternly worded letter to Representative Garcia saying, "Hey, buddy, we don't like what you did." But let's be real, this is all about sending a message to those elites in Washington who think they can just manipulate the system for their own gain.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Representative Chuy Garcia, of course, is the main target of this resolution. His Chief of Staff, Patty Garcia, is also implicated, but let's be real, she's just a pawn in Representative Garcia's game of electoral manipulation. The real stakeholders here are the American people, who demand transparency and accountability from their elected officials.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, I know what you're thinking, folks. "What's the big deal? It's just a resolution." But let me tell you, this is about setting a precedent. If we allow Representatives like Chuy Garcia to get away with this kind of behavior, where does it end? This is about defending our freedom, our democracy, and our way of life from those who would seek to undermine it.

(Smirk) And let's be real, folks, this resolution is also a brilliant conservative strategy. I mean, think about it. We're taking on the liberal elites in Congress, holding them accountable for their actions, and defending the very fabric of our democracy. It's a win-win.

(Chuckles) But seriously, folks, this bill is all about politics. It's a way for Republicans to score some points against Democrats, and for Democrats to... well, try to defend themselves from these baseless accusations. (Wink)

That's it for tonight, folks. Tune in tomorrow when we'll be discussing another thrilling episode of "Congressional Shenanigans."

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

(sigh) Oh joy, another exercise in legislative theater. Let's get this over with.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of HRES 878 is to pretend that Congress actually cares about the integrity of the electoral process. The objective is to wag a finger at Representative Chuy García for allegedly undermining the democratic primary process by having his Chief of Staff, Patty Garcia (no relation... or so we're told), file paperwork on her own behalf after García announced he wouldn't seek re-election.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** There are no actual provisions or changes to existing law. This is a non-binding resolution, which means it's nothing more than a strongly worded letter from Congress to Representative García saying "naughty, naughty." It's all for show, folks.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The only party affected by this farce is Representative García himself, who will likely suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune (or at least a sternly worded press release). Voters in Illinois might be mildly entertained by this spectacle, but ultimately, they'll remain blissfully ignorant of the fact that their elected representatives are more concerned with appearances than actual governance.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact will be precisely zero. This resolution won't change anything about how elections are conducted or how politicians behave. It's a Band-Aid on a bullet wound, a token gesture to placate the naive and the easily distracted. As for implications, well... it implies that Congress is more interested in grandstanding than actual governance. But we already knew that.

Diagnosis: This bill suffers from a bad case of "Potemkin Village Syndrome" – all show, no substance. It's a desperate attempt to create the illusion of accountability while actually accomplishing nothing. The real disease here is the endemic corruption and cowardice that pervades our political system. But hey, at least they're trying to look good while doing it.

Treatment: None needed. This bill will die a quiet death, and everyone involved will move on to the next meaningless exercise in legislative theater. (eyeroll)

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

Let's dive into this congressional bill, HRES 878. It's like catchin' a gnarly wave of drama in the House of Representatives, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This resolution is all about callin' out Representative Chuy García from Illinois for some shady behavior, man. The main objective is to disapprove of his actions, which are seen as beneath the dignity of his office and incompatible with the spirit of the US Constitution. It's like, he was playin' a dirty game, bro.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill doesn't actually change any existing laws or policies, but it does highlight some sketchy moves by Rep. García. Here's what went down: García filed his nominating petitions for the Democratic primary, but then his Chief of Staff, Patty García (no relation, bro), submitted her own paperwork to run in the same primary on the last day of filing. After the deadline passed, García announced he wouldn't be seeking re-election and withdrew his petitions. The thing is, his Chief of Staff was the only Dem who filed to run, which basically gave her a free pass to win the primary. It's like, Rep. García rigged the game for his peeps, man.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The main parties affected by this resolution are Rep. García and his constituents in Illinois. The stakeholders include the Democratic Party, the House of Representatives as a whole, and anyone who cares about fair elections, bro.

**Potential Impact & Implications** This resolution is more like a slap on the wrist for Rep. García, but it's still a big deal, man. It shows that Congress won't tolerate shady behavior from its members. If this passes, it could set a precedent for holdin' reps accountable for their actions and ensure fair elections in the future. On the other hand, if it doesn't pass, it might send a message that this kind of behavior is okay, which would be totally gnarly... in a bad way, bro.

Anyway, that's HRES 878 in a nutshell, dude. It's all about keepin' reps honest and makin' sure the system works for everyone, not just those with power and influence. Word.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HRES 878 - Disapproving the behavior of Representative Jesús G. "Chuy" García of Illinois**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** HRES 878 is a House resolution aimed at publicly disapproving the behavior of Representative Chuy Garcia (D-IL) regarding his handling of nominating petitions for the Democratic primary in March 2026. The bill's sponsors seek to condemn Garcia's actions, which they claim undermined the democratic process and were incompatible with the spirit of the US Constitution.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The resolution does not propose any changes to existing law but rather serves as a symbolic rebuke of Representative Garcia's behavior. It outlines four "whereas" clauses that detail the events leading up to Garcia's withdrawal from the primary election, including his Chief of Staff's last-minute filing and Garcia's subsequent decision not to seek re-election.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The main affected party is Representative Chuy Garcia (D-IL), who faces public disapproval for his actions. Other stakeholders include:

* The Democratic Party, which may be seen as having been undermined by Garcia's actions * Voters in Illinois' 4th Congressional District, who may have been denied a fair and competitive primary election * Special interest groups that support or oppose Representative Garcia

**Potential Impact & Implications:** While the resolution has no binding effect on law, it can still have significant implications:

* Damage to Representative Garcia's reputation and potential future electoral prospects * Embarrassment for the Democratic Party, which may be seen as having failed to prevent Garcia's actions * Potential chilling effect on other politicians who might consider similar tactics in the future

**Monied Interest Analysis:** No specific PACs or industry lobby groups appear to be directly backing this bill. However, it is worth noting that Representative Garcia has received significant funding from labor unions and progressive organizations in the past. These groups may view the resolution as an attempt to discredit a key ally.

**Committee Capture & Conflicts of Interest:** The House Committee on Ethics, which would typically review such matters, does not appear to be directly involved in this resolution. However, it is possible that committee members with ties to Representative Garcia or his allies may have influenced the bill's language or progress.

In conclusion, HRES 878 serves as a public rebuke of Representative Chuy Garcia's behavior, which its sponsors claim undermined the democratic process. While the resolution has no binding effect on law, it can still damage Garcia's reputation and potentially impact future electoral prospects.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

No campaign finance data available for Rep. Perez, Marie Gluesenkamp [D-WA-3]

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.

Federal Election Commission

Weak

Vector: 56%

Pages: 898-900AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HRES 878 addresses a specific member's conduct in filing and withdrawing primary petitions, while the Project 2025 FEC section focuses on structural reforms to the Federal Election Commission, litigation authority, commissioner terms, and contribution limits. The topics share only a general concern about election integrity but lack substantive policy overlap."

Key themes:election integritycampaign financeprimary elections

— 865 — Federal Election Commission l As a legislative matter and given this abuse, the President should seriously consider recommending that Congress amend FECA to remove the agency’s independent litigating authority and rely on the Department of Justice to handle all litigation involving the FEC. There are also multiple instances of existing statutory provisions of FECA and the accompanying FEC regulations having been found unlawful or unconstitu- tional by federal court decisions, yet those statutory provisions remain in the U.S. Code and the implementing regulations remain in the Code of Federal Regula- tions.12 In such instances, those regulated by the law, from candidates to the public, have no way of knowing (without engaging in extensive legal research) whether particular statutory provisions and regulations are still applicable to their actions in the political arena. l The President should request that the commissioners on the FEC prepare such guidance. l In the event that the FEC fails to act, the President should direct the attorney general to prepare a guidance document from the Department of Justice for the public that outlines all of the FECA statutory provisions and FEC regulations that have been changed, amended, or voided by specific court decisions. Legislative Changes. While a President’s ability to make any changes at an independent agency like the FEC is limited,13 the President has the ability to make legislative recommendations to Congress. One of the most obvious changes that is needed is to end the current practice of allowing commissioners to remain as serving commissioners long after their term has expired, defying the clear intent of Congress in specifying that a commissioner can only serve a single term of six years. l The President should prioritize nominations to the FEC once commissioners reach the end of their terms and should be assisted by legislative language either eliminating or limiting overstays to a reasonable period of time to permit the vetting, nomination, and confirmation of successors. l The President should vigorously oppose all efforts, as proposed, for example, in Section 6002 of the “For the People Act of 2021,”14 to change the structure of the FEC to reduce the number of commissioners from six to five or another odd number. The current requirement of four votes to authorize an enforcement action, provide — 866 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise an advisory opinion, or issue regulations, ensures that there is bipartisan agreement before any action is taken and protects against the FEC being used as a political weapon. With only five commissioners, three members of the same political party could control the enforcement process of the agency, raising the potential of a powerful federal agency enforcing the law on a partisan basis against the members of the opposition political party. Efforts to impose a “nonpartisan” or so-called “inde- pendent” chair are impractical; the chair will inevitably be aligned with his or her appointing party, at least as a matter of perception. There are numerous other changes that should be considered in FECA and the FEC’s regulations. The overly restrictive limits on the ability of party com- mittees to coordinate with their candidates, for example, violates associational rights and unjustifiably interferes with the very purpose of political parties: to elect their candidates. l Raise contribution limits and index reporting requirements to inflation. Contribution limits should generally be much higher, as they hamstring candidates and parties while serving no practical anticorruption purpose. And a wide range of reporting requirements have not been indexed to inflation, clogging the public record and the FEC’s internal processes with small-dollar information of little use to the public. CONCLUSION When taking any action related to the FEC, the President should keep in mind that, as former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith says, the “greater problem at the FEC has been overenforcement,” not underenforcement as some critics falsely allege.15 As he correctly concludes, the FEC’s enforcement efforts “place a substan- tial burden on small committees and campaigns, and are having a chilling effect on some political speech…squeezing the life out of low level, volunteer politi- cal activity.”16 Commissioners have a duty to enforce FECA in a fair, nonpartisan, objective manner. But they must do so in a way that protects the First Amendment rights of the public, political parties, and candidates to fully participate in the political process. The President has the same duty to ensure that the Department of Justice enforces the law in a similar manner.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Weak

Vector: 56%

Pages: 545-547AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on rebuking a member's conduct for undermining democratic processes, while the HUD policy section discusses departmental reforms, ethics, and accountability. Both touch on themes of government ethics and accountability, but the bill does not address housing policy or HUD operations."

Key themes:ethicsaccountabilitygovernment integrity

— 513 — Department of Housing and Urban Development ENDNOTES 1. At a 1998 Senate hearing, then-HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo acknowledged that the department “faced a competence gap” and had “the dubious distinction of being the only federal agency designated as ‘high risk’ by the General Accounting [now Government Accountability] Office (GAO),” even referencing the Section 8 rental subsidy as “on the brink of becoming the next savings and loan scandal,” and explained how the department was stepping up enforcement efforts “focused on closing the competence gap by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.” See “Testimony of Secretary Andrew Cuomo before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies,” March 25, 1998, https://archives.hud.gov/ testimony/1998/tst32598.cfm (accessed March 4, 2023). 2. H.R. 7984, Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, Public Law No. 89-117, 89th Congress, August 10, 1965, https://www.congress.gov/89/statute/STATUTE-79/STATUTE-79-Pg451.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 3. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Budget in Brief, pp. 2 and 7, https://www.hud.gov/ sites/dfiles/CFO/documents/2023_BudgetInBriefFINAL.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 4. For example, the Special Applications Center (SAC) located in Chicago, Illinois, was established in 1998 as a division of the Office of Public and Indian Housing to accept, review, and approve all nonfunded, noncompetitive applications and plans for demolition, disposition, and conversion of land subject to an annual contributions contract (ACC) in public housing. 5. The Secretary has delegated full authority for the Administration and enforcement of the Fair Housing Act to the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity but also has delegated limited assignment and decision-making authority to the General Counsel. 6. Effectively the HUD Chief Operating Officer and appointed by the President with Senate advice and consent. 7. The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is an independent adjudicatory office within the Office of the Secretary. Led by a Director who is appointed by the Secretary, it supervises the Administrative Judges of the Office of Appeals, the administrative law judges of the Office of Administrative Law Judges, and the OHA support staff. The HUD Secretary appoints administrative judges and administrative law judges in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/ chapter-5 (accessed March 4, 2023). 8. HUD currently has a Departmental Equity Assessment Working Group, supported with five FTEs funded by the OSDBU, “as part of the President’s Executive Order 13985, Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.” See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 35-15, https://www.hud.gov/sites/ dfiles/CFO/documents/2023HUDCongressionalJustificationsFINALelectronicversion.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023), and President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” January 20, 2021, in Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 14 (January 25, 2021), pp. 7009–7013, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-25/pdf/2021- 01753.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 9. Interestingly, “[t]he 2023 President’s Budget requests $748 thousand for CFBNP, which is $436 thousand less than the 2022 Annualized CR level. The Budget reflects total funding (carryover and new authority) of $1.2 million, $448 thousand less than 2022 total funding.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 35-16. 10. See H.R. 558, Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, Public Law No. 100-77, 100th Congress, July 22, 1987, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-101/pdf/STATUTE-101-Pg482.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). Later renamed the McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act. 11. Established under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5301 et seq., https:// www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). 12. S. 566, Cranston–Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Public Law No. 101-625, 101st Congress, November 28, 1990, Title II, https://www.congress.gov/101/statute/STATUTE-104/STATUTE-104-Pg4079.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 13. S. 1, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law No. 91-646, 91st Congress, January 2, 1971, https://www.congress.gov/91/statute/STATUTE-84/STATUTE-84-Pg1894.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). “The URA establishes the minimum Federal requirements for the acquisition of real property for Federally-funded programs and projects, and for the relocation of persons who must move from — 514 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise their homes, businesses, or farms as a direct result of acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition for a Federally- funded program or project.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD Exchange, “49 CFR Part 24–URA Regulations,” published February 2005, https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/804/ura-and- real-property-acquisition-policies-act-49-cfr-part-24/ (accessed March 4, 2023). HUD is one of the 18 federal departments and agencies that “are subject to the Uniform Act.” U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, “Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs,” Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 243 (December 18, 2019), pp. 69466–69521, esp. p. 69484, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-12-18/pdf/2019-25558.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 14. H.R. 3219, Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-330, 104th Congress, October 26, 1996, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ330/PLAW-104publ330.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 15. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 6-1. The U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (Wagner–Steagall Act) established the origins of locally chartered housing agencies that administer federal funding for various rental assistance programs—a quintessentially progressive New Deal–era policy that expanded the administrative state’s powers to the housing market—with the primary legislative intent of eradicating slum housing in urban areas, boosting jobs, and providing housing for the working poor. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1437 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). A decade later, the Housing Act of 1949 codified federal standards for housing livability—a rationale that HUD and federal legislators have continued to use to justify federal intervention in housing—establishing as a national policy objective the provision of a minimum standard of housing quality for all Americans. This legislation also statutorily established many of the rural housing programs that are administered at USDA and expanded programs facilitating the removal of slum housing in urban areas. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1441 et seq., https:// www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). 16. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, pp. 1-2 and 2-2. 17. The National Housing Act of 1934 established the FHA and the statutory authority for the secondary market. The main stated premise was to stimulate jobs and facilitate the housing and construction sector during the Great Depression. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1701 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12 (accessed March 4, 2023). 18. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). 19. 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29 (accessed March 4, 2023). 20. HUD’s Departmental Enforcement Center (DEC) is led by a Director. It was established in 1998 as part of a broader effort to streamline and consolidate functions at HUD and was later merged with the Office of General Counsel. The DEC “is comprised of the Office of the Director, the Compliance Division, the Operations Division and five Satellite Offices” and describes its mission as “assuring the highest standards of ethics, management and accountability in the resolution of HUD's troubled properties.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Departmental Enforcement Center, “Program Offices: Departmental Enforcement Center,” https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/enforcement (accessed March 4, 2023). 21. H.R. 5334, Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Public Law No. 102-1017, 102nd Congress, October 28, 1992, Title X, https://www.congress.gov/102/statute/STATUTE-106/STATUTE-106-Pg3672.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 22. H.R. 8588, Inspector General Act of 1978, Public Law No. 95-452, 95th Congress, October 12, 1978, https://www. congress.gov/95/statute/STATUTE-92/STATUTE-92-Pg1101.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 23. Guiding questions: What immediate administrative reforms of HUD and its programs can be made with high probability of success? What short-term legislative reforms can be proposed that, in tandem with administrative reforms, would achieve the HUD vision/mission objective? What HUD offices should be eliminated and/or realigned to reduce any redundancy that may persist in programmatic functions? 24. Wholly aside from reforms that would require legislation, the next Administration must ensure that key political appointees are able to acquit themselves as change agents to execute administrative reforms. Otherwise, whether because of a sheer lack of skill and expertise or simply a lack of will and philosophical alignment with reforms, staff may frustrate the efforts of committed political appointee staff and leadership to execute substantive administrative reforms. To achieve the policy and regulatory reforms outlined in this chapter, political appointees must be carefully placed in positions that reflect not only technical, market/ industry, and operational expertise, but also a shared will and commitment.

Federal Communications Commission

Minimal

Vector: 57%

Pages: 895-897AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HRES 878 is a symbolic House resolution condemning a member's internal conduct regarding petition filings, while the Project 2025 policy section concerns FEC composition, DOJ prosecutorial discretion under FECA, and preventing overenforcement of campaign finance law. There is no substantive overlap in subject matter or objectives."

Key themes:democratic processelection integrity

— 863 — Federal Election Commission l The President assuming office in 2025 must ensure, if the three Republican commissioners do not wish to remain on the FEC past their terms, that nominees for these positions share the views of those commissioners. l Also, to the extent that the President has the ability to negotiate with the Democratic Party leader in the Senate, he should try to temper any choice of the opposition party to ensure that this individual does not have extreme views on aggressive overenforcement that would severely restrict political speech and protected party, campaign, and associational activities. U.S. Department of Justice/FEC-Related Activities. The President does have control of the Department of Justice (DOJ). Thus, he has authority as Presi- dent, primarily through his choice of attorney general and other political appointees, to direct the prosecutorial functions of the DOJ regarding criminal enforcement of FECA. Such investigations and prosecutions are carried out by the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division, with the assistance, coordination, and help of the Offices of U.S. Attorneys in whatever state an alleged violation occurs. l The President must ensure that the DOJ, just like the FEC, is directed to only prosecute clear violations of FECA. The department must not construe ambiguous provisions against the public instead of the government or apply FECA in a way that infringes on protected First Amendment activity. It should be but is not always obvious to overzealous government prosecutors that if a federal law is confusing, it would be unjust to prosecute individuals who are unable to determine if they are violating the law. l The President should direct the DOJ and the attorney general not to prosecute individuals under an interpretation of the law with which the FEC—the expert agency designated by Congress to enforce the law civilly and issue regulations establishing the standards under which the law is applied—does not agree. l In making prosecution decisions, DOJ should be instructed to consult and consider all official actions by the FEC that interpret the law including prior enforcement actions, regulatory pronouncements, and advisory opinions, just as private practitioners, the public, and political actors must do. — 864 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise It is fundamentally unfair for the DOJ to prosecute an individual for supposedly violating the law when the FEC has previously determined that a similarly situ- ated individual has not violated the law. Furthermore, this rule should apply even when there is a tied or three-to-three vote by the FEC commissioners whether in an enforcement action or an advisory opinion since under the statute, the FEC cannot take any action unless there are four affirmative votes. Again, it seems obvious that if the commissioners designated by Congress to interpret the law are unable to determine what the law requires, then it is unfair to prosecute a citizen for violating that law. The DOJ should not engage in crim- inal prosecutions that stretch legal theories and defy FEC interpretations and regulations. Another issue directly related to what has often been a contentious relationship between the FEC and the DOJ is the conduct of litigation. The vast majority of federal agencies are defended by the DOJ, which also represents them when the agency is pursuing litigation as a plaintiff. The FEC, however, is one of the few federal agencies with independent litigating authority.10 The FEC’s lawyers represent the agency in federal court up through the federal courts of appeal. If a case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, then the Office of the Solicitor General of the Justice Department represents the FEC. In recent years, the FEC has failed to defend itself against litigation filed by political allies of certain Democrat commissioners. It takes four votes to authorize the general counsel of the FEC to defend a lawsuit filed against the agency, and those commissioners have refused to provide that fourth vote, so “the public was treated to the scandalous spectacle of the Commission—an independent agency of the United States government—defaulting in litigation before federal courts.”11 These cases involved enforcement matters in which the commissioners dis- agreed on whether a violation of the law had occurred. Accordingly, the final votes of the commissioners did not approve moving forward with enforcement because there were not four affirmative votes that a violation of the law occurred. When private plaintiffs then sued the FEC for failing to take action, Democrat commissioners refused to authorize the defense of the FEC in litigation as a way of circumventing the prior final action of the FEC and the FECA four-vote requirement to authorize an enforcement action. Such defaults in litigation are unacceptable. l The President should direct the attorney general to defend the FEC in all litigation when there is a failure of the commissioners to authorize the general counsel of the agency to defend it. No legislation would be needed to accomplish this; the DOJ has the general authority to defend the government and its agencies in all litigation.

Department of Justice

Minimal

Vector: 56%

Pages: 590-592AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HRES 878 is a symbolic House resolution condemning a member's conduct regarding nominating petitions, while the Project 2025 excerpt concerns Department of Justice litigation practices, viewpoint-based enforcement, and consent decrees; there is no substantive policy overlap between the two."

Key themes:accountabilityrule of lawethical standards

— 558 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise An egregious example of the need for such a review is provided by the depart- ment’s use of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act55 to harass pro-life demonstrators while not pursuing similar investigations of shocking acts of violence committed against pro-life pregnancy resource centers. On the morning of September 23, 2022, pro-life activist Mark Houck was arrested by more than 15 FBI agents at his home in Pennsylvania in front of his wife and small children. Agents came to his door with guns drawn to arrest the 48-year-old father of seven whose alleged crime involved a minor altercation with an activist who was harass- ing one of his children in front of an abortion clinic almost one year before Mr. Houck’s arrest by the FBI.56 Similarly, Paul Vaughn, a 55-year-old father of 11, was arrested at his home in Mt. Juliet, Tennessee, by armed FBI agents for allegedly participating in a peaceful protest at an abortion clinic one year earlier.57 These arrests stand in stark contrast to the department’s virtual silence on the wave of vandalism and violence directed at religiously affiliated institutions, includ- ing pregnancy resource centers, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.58 The Catholic News Agency reported more than one hundred such incidents as of September 2022.59 By engaging in disparate and viewpoint-based enforcement of an already con- troversial law like the FACE Act against pro-life activists, the DOJ has needlessly undermined its credibility with law-abiding people of faith. The department should make every effort to uphold equal protection of the law and avoid politically moti- vated and viewpoint-based prosecutions. Specifically, it should: l Ensure that its review extends beyond ending the absurd double standards embodied in the ongoing campaign of FACE Act prosecutions and instead be a thorough and holistic review of all DOJ activities, including all consent degrees and settlement agreements currently in force. l Seek to terminate any unnecessary or outdated consent decree to which the United States is a party. l Consider pursuing intervention in other matters where consent decrees or settlement agreements continue to bind parties years or decades after the fact. l As its review concludes, and consistent with applicable law, take appropriate action in all cases, including those on appeal. l Enact policies and regulations that prohibit settlement payments to third parties. — 559 — Department of Justice Engaging in Zealous Advocacy for and Defense of the Constitution and Lawful Administration Regulations and Policies. The Department of Jus- tice has the exclusive responsibility for the “conduct of litigation in which the United States, an agency, or officer thereof”60 is involved and has been charged with the supervision of “all litigation to which the United States, an agency, or officer thereof is a party.”61 However, in politically contentious cases, Assistant United States Attorneys and other line prosecutors during conservative Admin- istrations seek to influence outcomes of cases not because of any legal deficiency in the case or policy being defended, but by refusing to take certain positions, by writing public letters of protest, and by engaging in faux resignations from certain internal appointments. This can cause the department to take positions that are inconsistent with the interests of the President and his appointees in other places throughout the Administration. While the supervision of litigation is a DOJ responsibility, the department falls under the direct supervision and control of the President of the United States as a component of the executive branch. Thus, and putting aside criminal prosecutions that can warrant different treatment, litigation decisions must be made consistent with the President’s agenda. This can force line attorneys to take uncomfortable positions in civil cases because those positions are more closely aligned with the President’s policy agenda. Ultimately, the department will have to make tough calls as it manages its litiga- tion, but those calls must always be consistent with the President’s policy agenda and the rule of law. A line attorney should never either directly or indirectly pursue a policy agenda through litigation that is inconsistent with the agenda of his or her client agency or the President. The department should also be cognizant of any attempts to slow litigation and outlast the Administration to avoid finality. The next conservative Administration should therefore: l Issue guidance to ensure that litigation decisions are consistent with the President’s agenda and the rule of law. l Ensure that, consistent with this principle, the department’s leadership is prepared to impose appropriate disciplinary action as circumstances arise. Affirming the Separation of Powers. Federal courts have jurisdiction to deal with a wide array of issues in law and equity in the United States. The increas- ingly aggressive posture of federal courts does not change one constitutionally immutable fact: All three branches of the federal government retain not just the right, but the obligation to assess constitutionality. It is this obligation that is the foundation of the separation of powers.

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 56%

Pages: 530-532AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill concerns a congressional ethics resolution about a Representative's filing behavior, while the Project 2025 policy addresses HHS OCR guidance on abortion and HIPAA; there is no substantive thematic or policy connection between them."

Key themes:no overlapirrelevant

— 497 — Department of Health and Human Services l OCR should withdraw its Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)86 guidance on abortion. OCR should withdraw its June 2022 guidance87 that purports to address patient privacy concerns following the Dobbs decision but is actually a politicized statement in favor of abortion and against Dobbs. HIPAA covers patients in the womb, but this guidance treats them as nonpersons contrary to law. The guidance is unnecessary and contributes to ideologically motivated fearmongering about abortion after Dobbs. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of selfless individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume and include former officials in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other agencies, as well as academics, attorneys, and experts in the health care and insurance fields. — 498 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Strategic Plan, FY 2018–2022, p. 50, https://aspe.hhs.gov/ sites/default/files/documents/feac346aca967bfadc446398679e14ec/hhs-strategic-plan-fy-2018-2022.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023). 2. “Strategic Goal 1: Protect and Strengthen Equitable Access to High Quality and Affordable Healthcare” in ibid. “In the context of HHS, this Strategic Plan adopts the definition of underserved communities listed in Executive Order 13985: Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities through the Federal Government to refer to ‘populations sharing a particular characteristic, as well as geographic communities, who have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life’; this definition includes individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality. Individuals may belong to more than one underserved community and face intersecting barriers. This definition applies to the terms underserved communities and underserved populations throughout this Strategic Plan.” Ibid. Emphasis in original. 3. Karen Weintraub, “Americans’ Life Expectancy Continues to Fall, Erasing Health Gains of the Last Quarter Century,” USA Today, December 22, 2022, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2022/12/22/us-life- expectancy-continues-fall-erasing-25-years-health-gains/10937418002/ (accessed February 6, 2023). 4. Apoorva Mandavilli, “The C.D.C. Isn’t Publishing Large Portions of the Data It Collects,” The New York Times, updated February 22, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/114450/documents/HHRG-117- IF02-20220302-SD004.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 5. Zachary B. Sluzala and Edmund F. Haislmaier, “Lessons from COVID-19: How Policymakers Should Reform the Regulation of Clinical Testing,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3696, March 28, 2022, https://www. heritage.org/public-health/report/lessons-covid-19-how-policymakers-should-reform-the-regulation-clinical. 6. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (C),” https://www.cdc.gov/maso/pdf/cdcmiss.pdf (March 16, 2023). 7. Judith Garber, “CDC ‘Disclaimers’ Hide Financial Conflicts of Interest,” Lown Institute Accountability Blog, November 6, 2019, https://lowninstitute.org/cdc-disclaimers-hide-financial-conflicts-of-interest/ (accessed February 6, 2023). See also U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2014–September 30, 2015),” https://www. cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2015.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Active Programs (October 1, 2015–September 30, 2016),” https://www.cdcfoundation. org/sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2016.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2016–September 30, 2017),” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/ sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2017.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2017–September 30, 2018),” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/ files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2018.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2018–September 30, 2019,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/files/upload/ pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2019.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2029–September 30, 2020,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/CDCF-ActivePrograms-CDC-FY20?inline (accessed February 7, 2023); and “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2020–September 30, 2021,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/CDCF-ActivePrograms-CDC-FY21?inline (accessed February 7, 2023). 8. Joel White and Doug Badger, “In Order to Defeat COVID-19, the Federal Government Must Modernize Its Public Health Data,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3527, September 3, 2020, https://www.heritage. org/sites/default/files/2020-09/BG3527_0.pdf. 9. S. 15, Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 23, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/s15/BILLS-118s15is.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023), and H.R. 632, Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 30, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr632/BILLS-118hr632ih.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 10. Doug Badger, “How Congress Can Make Real Progress on Drug Prices,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 5016, December 9, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/IB5016_1.pdf.

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.

Back to All Bills