TAKE IT DOWN Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/146

Last Updated: September 7, 2026

TAKE IT DOWN Act

S. 146, 119th Congress — read as touching Big Tech Platforms.

The sponsor

Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]

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

The money

$1,525,021 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Federal Trade Commission" section, p. 908-910 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Became Public Law No: 119-12.

May 18, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed Senate

House Review

Passed Congress

Presidential Action

Became Law

📍 Current Status

This bill has become 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:

**TAKE IT DOWN Act: A Threat to Innovation and Free Market Principles**

The TAKE IT DOWN Act, a bill aimed at regulating nonconsensual intimate visual depictions online, is a misguided attempt to stifle innovation and impose burdensome regulations on the tech industry. As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I will dissect this legislation and expose its flaws.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to require covered platforms to remove nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, which is a laudable goal but misguided in its approach. The real intention behind this bill is to expand government control over the internet and stifle free speech.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The TAKE IT DOWN Act amends Section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 by adding new provisions related to nonconsensual intimate visual depictions. It defines key terms, such as "digital forgery" and "identifiable individual," and establishes a framework for removing offending content. However, these provisions will only lead to increased censorship and liability for platforms.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill's primary targets are online platforms, social media companies, and internet service providers. These entities will face significant compliance costs, potential lawsuits, and reputational damage if they fail to remove offending content promptly. However, the real victims of this legislation will be innovators and entrepreneurs who rely on the free flow of information to drive progress.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The TAKE IT DOWN Act's impact will be far-reaching and devastating:

1. **Chilling Effect on Free Speech:** The bill's vague definitions and broad scope will lead to over-censorship, stifling online discourse and creativity. 2. **Increased Liability:** Platforms will face significant liability for failing to remove offending content, leading to increased costs and decreased innovation. 3. **Stifled Innovation:** The bill's regulatory framework will discourage investment in new technologies and business models that rely on user-generated content. 4. **Government Overreach:** This legislation sets a precedent for government control over the internet, undermining the principles of net neutrality and free market competition.

In conclusion, the TAKE IT DOWN Act is a misguided attempt to regulate the internet through coercion rather than innovation. As a thought leader in the tech industry, I urge policymakers to reconsider this legislation and instead focus on promoting a free and open internet that fosters creativity, entrepreneurship, and progress.

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 bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process to become a law. This one, S 146, is called the TAKE IT DOWN Act.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to require covered platforms to remove nonconsensual intimate visual depictions. Yes, you heard that right - nonconsensual intimate visual depictions. It's astonishing we need a law for this, but apparently, some people didn't learn about consent in middle school.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 by adding a new subsection (h) that prohibits the intentional disclosure of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions. It also defines key terms like "consent," "digital forgery," and "identifiable individual." Remember when we learned about the importance of clear definitions in lawmaking? This bill is a prime example.

The bill makes it unlawful for anyone to use an interactive computer service to knowingly publish an intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual without their consent. There are exceptions, of course, like for law enforcement or medical purposes. But let's be real, folks, this shouldn't need to be spelled out.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include individuals who have had nonconsensual intimate visual depictions shared online, as well as the platforms that host such content. This bill aims to hold these platforms accountable for removing such content and protecting users' rights.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this law could lead to a significant reduction in the spread of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions online. It may also prompt platforms to develop more robust content moderation policies and procedures. However, it's worth noting that the bill's effectiveness will depend on its enforcement and the willingness of platforms to comply.

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But what about free speech?" Ah, yes, the old "free speech" argument. As we discussed in class, there are limits to free speech, especially when it comes to harming others. This bill aims to strike a balance between protecting individuals' rights and preserving online freedom.

In conclusion, this bill is a necessary step towards addressing the issue of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions online. It's unfortunate that we need laws like this, but apparently, some people didn't learn about empathy and respect in middle school either.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on this so-called "TAKE IT DOWN Act" (S 146). On the surface, it's about removing nonconsensual intimate visual depictions from online platforms. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill claims to address the exploitation of individuals through deepfakes and other forms of digital manipulation. Sounds noble, right? But what they're really after is control over online content. They want to dictate what can and cannot be shared, under the guise of protecting people's privacy.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934, adding new definitions for "consent," "digital forgery," and "identifiable individual." It also creates a new offense for intentionally disclosing nonconsensual intimate visual depictions. But here's the kicker: it carves out exceptions for law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and other government entities. That's right, folks; they're giving themselves a free pass to exploit this very same content.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects online platforms, social media companies, and anyone who shares or publishes intimate visual depictions. But let's not forget the real stakeholders here: the government agencies that'll be monitoring and controlling online activity.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a Trojan horse for censorship and surveillance. By giving the government more control over online content, they're essentially creating a backdoor for mass surveillance. And what about the exceptions for law enforcement and intelligence agencies? That's just a recipe for abuse of power. Mark my words, this bill will be used to silence whistleblowers, activists, and anyone who dares to challenge the status quo.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "But Uncle, isn't this bill trying to protect people from exploitation?" Ah, yes, that's the narrative they want you to believe. But I'm telling you, there's more to it than meets the eye. This is just another example of the government using a noble cause as a pretext for expanding their control over our lives.

Wake up, sheeple! The TAKE IT DOWN Act is just a small part of a larger agenda to monitor and control online activity. Don't be fooled by the official narrative; there's always more to the story than what they're telling you.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, we've got another doozy of a bill on our hands, courtesy of the so-called "elites" in Congress. The TAKE IT DOWN Act, or S 146, is being touted as a measure to protect individuals from nonconsensual intimate visual depictions – you know, revenge porn and deepfakes. (Sarcastic tone) Oh, how noble.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to require covered platforms to remove nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, which sounds reasonable enough. But, as we all know, the devil's in the details. The real goal here is to expand government control over online content and give Big Tech a convenient excuse to censor more speech.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 by adding new provisions related to nonconsensual intimate visual depictions. It defines terms like "digital forgery," "identifiable individual," and "intimate visual depiction" – all very convenient for future censorship efforts. The bill also creates exceptions for law enforcement, medical professionals, and other "authorized" entities.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects will be impacted by this bill: social media platforms, online content creators, and anyone who dares to share intimate visual depictions without explicit consent. (Wink) You know, the same people who are already being targeted by Big Tech's censorship algorithms.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications for free speech and online expression. By giving platforms a broad mandate to remove "nonconsensual" content, we're essentially creating a system where anyone can claim their rights have been violated and demand that content be taken down. (Smirk) Just what the First Amendment needs – more restrictions.

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But wait, isn't this bill just trying to protect people from harm?" Ah, yes, that's the narrative being peddled by our friends in Congress. However, we all know that this is just another power grab by the elites to control what we can and cannot say online.

(Conspiratorial whisper) Mark my words, folks: this bill is just the beginning of a slippery slope towards total censorship. The TAKE IT DOWN Act might sound like a noble effort, but trust me, it's just a Trojan horse for more government control over our lives. Stay vigilant, America!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another brilliant piece of legislation from the esteemed members of Congress, no doubt crafted with the utmost care and consideration for the well-being of the American people. *sarcasm*

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The TAKE IT DOWN Act (because who doesn't love a good acronym?) aims to tackle the scourge of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, also known as revenge porn or deepfakes. The bill's sponsors claim it will provide victims with a way to have these images removed from online platforms and hold perpetrators accountable.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill amends Section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 by adding a new subsection that makes it unlawful to knowingly publish intimate visual depictions without consent. It also defines various terms, including "consent," "digital forgery," and "identifiable individual." Because, you know, Congress needed to clarify what "consent" means.

The bill creates exceptions for law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and certain medical or educational purposes. Because, of course, the government needs to be able to share intimate images without consequence.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

* Online platforms (e.g., social media, websites): They'll need to develop and implement procedures to remove nonconsensual content. * Victims: Theoretically, they'll have a way to report and have removed intimate images shared without their consent. * Perpetrators: They might face penalties for sharing nonconsensual content. Maybe.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It's a token effort to address the symptom rather than the disease. The real issue is that our society is rotten to its core, and people are willing to exploit and harm others for their own gratification. This bill won't change that.

In practice, this law will likely be used as a tool for censorship, allowing platforms to remove content they deem "objectionable" under the guise of protecting victims. It's a slippery slope, folks.

Moreover, this bill does nothing to address the root causes of nonconsensual content creation and sharing. It doesn't provide resources for education, support, or prevention programs. It's just a punitive measure that will likely be used to further marginalize vulnerable populations.

In conclusion, the TAKE IT DOWN Act is a half-hearted attempt to address a complex issue. It's a feel-good bill that won't actually make anyone feel better. But hey, at least it sounds good on paper. *eyeroll*

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

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The TAKE IT DOWN Act (S 146) aims to combat the nonconsensual sharing of intimate visual depictions, including deepfakes and revenge porn. The bill seeks to hold perpetrators accountable for intentionally disclosing such content without consent, while also providing protections for victims.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill amends Section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 by adding a new subsection (h) that makes it unlawful to use an interactive computer service to knowingly publish intimate visual depictions of identifiable individuals without their consent. The law applies to both adults and minors, with specific provisions addressing each group.

Key changes include:

* Defining "consent" as affirmative, conscious, and voluntary authorization * Establishing a new offense for intentionally disclosing nonconsensual intimate visual depictions * Providing exceptions for law enforcement, medical education, and legitimate reporting of unlawful content

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The bill affects various parties, including:

* Victims of nonconsensual sharing of intimate visual depictions * Perpetrators who engage in such activities * Interactive computer services (e.g., social media platforms, websites) * Law enforcement agencies * Medical professionals and educators * Intelligence agencies

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The TAKE IT DOWN Act has significant implications for online safety and accountability:

* Provides a clear framework for addressing nonconsensual sharing of intimate visual depictions * Holds perpetrators accountable for their actions, potentially reducing the incidence of such crimes * Offers protections for victims, including minors, who may be particularly vulnerable to exploitation * May lead to increased cooperation between law enforcement agencies and interactive computer services in investigating and prosecuting such offenses * Raises awareness about the importance of consent and online safety

However, potential challenges and concerns include:

* Balancing free speech rights with the need to protect victims * Ensuring effective implementation and enforcement of the new provisions * Addressing potential unintended consequences, such as over-broad interpretations or misuse of the law

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down the TAKE IT DOWN Act, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This bill is all about tackling nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, aka revenge porn and deepfakes, man. The main goal is to protect individuals from having their private moments shared online without their consent. It's like, you know when you're chillin' with your significant other, and someone takes a sneaky pic or video? Yeah, this bill wants to make sure that stuff doesn't end up on the internet for everyone to see.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The TAKE IT DOWN Act makes some key changes to existing law. First, it amends the Communications Act of 1934 to include a new section that prohibits intentionally disclosing nonconsensual intimate visual depictions. This means that if someone shares a private pic or video without the person's consent, they could be breaking the law.

The bill also defines some important terms, like "digital forgery" (think deepfakes) and "identifiable individual." It's like, if someone creates a fake video of you doing something intimate, this bill wants to make sure that's considered a serious offense.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects a bunch of different parties, bro. First, there are the individuals who might have their private moments shared online without consent. Then there are the platforms and websites where these depictions might be shared – they'll need to take steps to remove this content if it's reported.

Law enforcement agencies will also play a role in investigating and prosecuting cases under this new law. And, of course, there are the tech companies that create software and tools used to make deepfakes – they might need to adapt their products to comply with these new regulations.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The TAKE IT DOWN Act has some serious implications, dude. On the one hand, it could help protect people from having their private lives exposed online without consent. That's a major win for individuals who've been victimized by revenge porn or deepfakes.

On the other hand, this bill might also raise some concerns about free speech and censorship. Like, what if someone shares a pic or video that's not actually nonconsensual? What if it's just a misunderstanding?

The bill tries to address these concerns with some exceptions for things like law enforcement investigations or medical education. But, still, there are gonna be some tough questions to answer as this law gets implemented.

Anyway, that's the TAKE IT DOWN Act in a nutshell, bro. It's all about protecting people from nonconsensual intimate visual depictions and holding platforms accountable for removing this content.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The TAKE IT DOWN Act (S 146) aims to combat the nonconsensual sharing of intimate visual depictions, also known as "revenge porn." The bill seeks to hold perpetrators accountable and provide victims with a clearer path to justice. Its primary objectives are to:

1. Prohibit the intentional disclosure of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions. 2. Define key terms, such as "digital forgery" and "identifiable individual." 3. Establish exceptions for law enforcement, medical education, and other legitimate purposes.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill amends Section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 by adding a new subsection (h) that:

1. Makes it unlawful to use an interactive computer service to knowingly publish intimate visual depictions without consent. 2. Defines "consent" as an affirmative, conscious, and voluntary authorization. 3. Establishes exceptions for law enforcement, medical education, and other legitimate purposes.

The bill also updates the definition of "interactive computer service" to align with Section 230 of the Communications Act.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

1. **Victims of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions**: The bill aims to protect individuals who have been exploited through the sharing of intimate images without their consent. 2. **Social media platforms and online services**: Covered platforms will be required to remove nonconsensual intimate visual depictions upon receipt of a complaint. 3. **Law enforcement agencies**: The bill provides exceptions for law enforcement activities, allowing them to use intimate visual depictions in investigations and prosecutions. 4. **Medical professionals and educators**: The bill permits the use of intimate visual depictions for medical education, diagnosis, or treatment.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

1. **Increased accountability**: Perpetrators of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions may face criminal charges and penalties. 2. **Improved victim support**: Victims will have a clearer path to justice, with social media platforms required to remove offending content upon complaint. 3. **Industry compliance**: Covered platforms will need to implement policies and procedures for removing nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, which may lead to increased costs and administrative burdens. 4. **Free speech concerns**: Some critics argue that the bill may infringe on free speech rights, as it restricts the sharing of certain types of content.

**Monied Interest Analysis**

While there are no obvious PACs or industry lobby groups directly backing this bill, its passage may benefit companies like Facebook and Twitter, which have faced criticism for their handling of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions. These platforms may see the bill as a way to demonstrate their commitment to user safety and reduce potential liabilities.

The National Center for Victims of Crime (NCVC) has expressed support for the bill, citing its importance in protecting victims of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions. The NCVC receives funding from various sources, including government grants and private donations.

Overall

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$1,525,021

23 donors

PACs

$1,497,892

Organizations

$27,129

Committees

Individuals

WINRED

2 transactions

$1,497,892

FASKEN MANAGEMENT

1 transaction

$10,000

REPUBLICAN PARTY OF HARRISON COUNTY

1 transaction

$4,000

FOLAD ENTERPRISES LLC

1 transaction

$2,000

JOHNSEY

7 transactions

$1,854

BALCH & BINGHAM LLP

1 transaction

$1,000

PARTNERS HOTEL GROUP LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

KHAT INVESTMENS LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

PJB INVESTMENT ADVISORS LLC

1 transaction

$800

GRANT MORELAND LP LLC

1 transaction

$750

BL PARTNERS GROUP LLC

1 transaction

$750

MILLE'S LLC

1 transaction

$500

HARRY M BETTIS JR LLC

1 transaction

$500

ROBDON L.P.

1 transaction

$500

JAMES E. JOHNSON LLC

1 transaction

$500

FALSE RIVER VIEW LLC

1 transaction

$500

MURDOCK PROPERTIES LLC

1 transaction

$325

RESEDA HOLDINGS LLC

1 transaction

$250

DIXON RENTAL PROPERTIES LLC

1 transaction

$250

ROGERS LIVESTOCK LLC

1 transaction

$250

MISRASI CONCRETE LLC

1 transaction

$200

JOUETT LLC

1 transaction

$100

FORCE CONSTRUCTION OF LA LLC

1 transaction

$100

No committee contributions found

No individual contributions found

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]

ID: K000367

Top Contributors

LEECH LAKE BAND OF OJIBWE

OrganizationCASS LAKE, MN

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$3,300

Aug 25, 2023

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$2,500

Oct 7, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$2,300

Jul 17, 2023

ARISTOTLE INTERNATIONAL

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Jul 19, 2024

SMITH, BRADFORD

MICROSOFT CORPORATION • ATTORNEY

IndividualBELLEVUE, WA

$6,600

Mar 30, 2023

SMITH, BRADFORD

IndividualBELLEVUE, WA

$6,600

Mar 30, 2023

BADEN, DREW

PROFESSOR • UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

IndividualBETHESDA, MD

$6,600

Feb 23, 2024

CAUCHY, CONSTANCE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualMIDLAND, MI

$6,600

Jun 2, 2024

BADEN, DREW

IndividualBETHESDA, MD

$6,600

Mar 11, 2024

Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]

ID: C001047

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$2,800

Dec 31, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Nov 8, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jul 22, 2024

ARNOLD, JOHN MR.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$6,600

Dec 27, 2023

MANOCHERIAN, JENNIFER MS.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSCARSDALE, NY

$6,600

Feb 17, 2023

MANOCHERIAN, JED MR.

SELF • REAL ESTATE

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Feb 23, 2023

MANOCHERIAN, GREG MR.

SELF EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE

IndividualPOUND RIDGE, NY

$6,600

Mar 1, 2023

MANOCHERIAN, KIM

PANAM EQUITIES • EXECUTIVE

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Mar 27, 2023

KAY, ALISON MS.

KIDS CAPITAL • HEDGE FUND MANAGER

IndividualBEVERLY HILLS, CA

$6,600

Jun 20, 2023

MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE

DMM PROPRIETA MANAGEMENT • MANAGER

IndividualASPEN, CO

$6,600

Sep 26, 2024

Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]

ID: B001277

Top Contributors

OLSON, LYNDON

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualWACO, TX

$3,300

Dec 20, 2024

ALIX, JAY

ALIX PARTNERS • FOUNDER

IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI

$3,300

Oct 2, 2023

KIM, CHRISTINE M.

BBB LLC • ATTORNEY

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Oct 31, 2023

ALIX, JAY

ALIX PARTNERS • FOUNDER

IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI

$3,300

Apr 15, 2024

ROURE, RITA

PAGNY - LINCOLN HOSPITAL • PHYSICIAN

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$3,300

Apr 10, 2024

ROURE, RITA

PAGNY - LINCOLN HOSPITAL • PHYSICIAN

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$3,300

Apr 10, 2024

CHAVEZ, TOM

KRUX INC. • CEO

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Jul 13, 2024

CHAVEZ, TOM

KRUX INC. • CEO

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Jul 13, 2024

JONES, JERRY C.

LIVERAMP INC. • EXECUTIVE

IndividualLITTLE ROCK, AR

$3,300

Sep 19, 2024

NESSEL, ARIEL

NESSEL DEVELOPMENT • OWNER

IndividualROSS, CA

$3,300

Jul 12, 2024

Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]

ID: C001075

Top Contributors

YAWITZ, JESS B. MR.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$14,000

Jun 11, 2024

MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE

DMM PROPRIETA MANAGEMENT • MANAGER

IndividualASPEN, CO

$9,900

Nov 2, 2023

MANDELBLATT, ERIC

SOROBAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LP • MANAGING PARTNER

IndividualASPEN, CO

$9,900

Nov 2, 2023

JAYASINGHE, SAMAN K. DR.

SELF-EMPLOYED • PHYSICIAN

IndividualBATON ROUGE, LA

$9,900

Jun 13, 2024

KARP, ALEXANDER C.

PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES • CEO

IndividualBEDFORD, NH

$9,900

Apr 16, 2024

OBERNDORF, SUSAN

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$9,900

Jun 5, 2024

OBERNDORF, WILLIAM

OBERNDORF ENTERPRISES • OWNER

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$9,900

Jun 5, 2024

YAWITZ, ALICE G.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualST. LOUIS, MO

$9,900

Jun 18, 2024

GRIGSBY, BOBBI F. MRS.

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualBATON ROUGE, LA

$6,600

Dec 23, 2024

GRIGSBY, L. LANE MR.

CAJUN INDUSTRIES LLC • CHAIRMAN EMERITUS

IndividualBATON ROUGE, LA

$6,600

Dec 23, 2024

Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]

ID: B001288

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$2,500

Dec 6, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Sep 13, 2023

ISEMAN, HENRY

PENTA MEDICAL RECYCLING • PRESIDENT

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$8,300

Apr 18, 2023

GELBWACHS, CHANA

BIG STILL LIQUORS • PARTNER

IndividualLAKEWOOD, NJ

$6,600

Mar 26, 2024

LEIDER, YECHEZKEL

LEIDER ENTERPRISES INC • DIRECTOR

IndividualLAKEWOOD, NJ

$6,600

Mar 26, 2024

GELBWACHS, CHANA

IndividualLAKEWOOD, NJ

$6,600

Mar 26, 2024

LEIDER, YECHEZKEL

IndividualLAKEWOOD, NJ

$6,600

Mar 29, 2024

WAGNER, KAREN E.

DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL • ATTORNEY

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,000

Sep 13, 2023

WAGNER, KAREN E.

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,000

Sep 26, 2023

ISEMAN, HENRY

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,000

Apr 19, 2023

Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY]

ID: B001261

Top Contributors

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

COMATMORE, AL

$3,300

May 24, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

COMATMORE, AL

$3,300

Sep 20, 2024

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

COMLOS ANGELES, CA

$2,500

Dec 31, 2024

ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE

COMLIVINGSTON, TX

$1,000

Jun 29, 2023

MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION

COMOKMULGEE, OK

$1,000

Oct 30, 2024

TO PROTECT OUR HERITAGE

OrganizationSKOKIE, IL

$5,000

Jun 26, 2024

TO PROTECT OUR HERITAGE

OrganizationSKOKIE, IL

$5,000

Jun 26, 2024

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Jun 11, 2024

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Jun 11, 2024

UTE INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationFORT DUCHESNE, UT

$3,300

Nov 13, 2024

Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV]

ID: R000608

Top Contributors

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationTACOMA, WA

$3,700

Jul 31, 2024

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Sep 30, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Sep 30, 2023

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$3,300

Dec 28, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Mar 10, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Mar 10, 2023

SYUCAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION

OrganizationEL CAJON, CA

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Mar 28, 2024

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Sep 30, 2024

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

Sen. Lummis, Cynthia M. [R-WY]

ID: L000571

Top Contributors

HEGYI, ALBERT P

1ST FINANCIAL BANK USA • BANKER

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Dec 6, 2023

MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualASPEN, CO

$6,600

Sep 26, 2024

MANDELBLATT, ERIC

SOROBAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LP • MANAGING PARTNER

IndividualASPEN, CO

$6,600

Sep 26, 2024

SAMANI, PYAHM

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$5,800

Aug 8, 2023

CASCARILLA, MARISSA

NA • HOMEMAKER

IndividualMIAMI, FL

$3,700

Apr 1, 2024

CASCARILLA, CHARLES

PAXOS • CEO

IndividualMIAMI, FL

$3,700

Apr 1, 2024

DOWNS, RAISSA

TARPLIN, DOWNS AND YOUNG, LLC • CONSULTANT

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,600

Dec 12, 2024

SCARAMUCCI, ANTHONY

SKYBRIDGE • MANAGING PARTNER

IndividualPLANDOME, NY

$3,435

Jul 30, 2024

HOBART, ROBERT

VENTURE GOVERNMENT STRATEGIES • CONSULTANT

IndividualNASHVILLE, TN

$3,435

Aug 5, 2024

HOLDING, KATHLEEN MS.

SUNLIGHT RANCH CO. • EXECUTIVE

IndividualDAYTON, WY

$3,300

Dec 6, 2023

Sen. Hickenlooper, John W. [D-CO]

ID: H000273

Top Contributors

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,300

Dec 12, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,200

Dec 12, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$900

Dec 31, 2023

ALLHASSANI, MEHDI

PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES • OPERATIONS

IndividualPALO ALTO, CA

$3,300

Nov 25, 2023

SANKAR, SHYAM

PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES • DIRECTOR

IndividualGREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO

$3,300

Nov 25, 2023

CARSON, RUSSELL

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Nov 17, 2023

SANKAR, SHYAM

PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES • DIRECTOR

IndividualGREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO

$3,300

Nov 25, 2023

CARSON, RUSSELL

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Nov 17, 2023

GATES, WILLIAM H. III

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION • PHILANTHROPIST

IndividualREDMOND, WA

$3,300

Oct 19, 2023

JAIN, AKASH

PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES • EXECUTIVE

IndividualOAKLAND, CA

$3,300

Nov 26, 2023

Sen. Budd, Ted [R-NC]

ID: B001305

Top Contributors

MACFARLANE, RON

IndividualBUFFALO GROVE, IL

$13,068

Apr 10, 2024

HEGYI, ALBERT P MR.

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Dec 31, 2024

NAZIROV, ATABEK

UZDIF • CEO

IndividualCHARLOTTE, NC

$6,600

Sep 14, 2023

NAZIROV, ATABEK

IndividualCHARLOTTE, NC

$6,600

Sep 26, 2023

FROST, BRANT IV

SELF-EMPLOYED • FINANCIAL SERVICES

IndividualNEWNAN, GA

$3,300

Dec 31, 2024

FROST, KRISTA

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualNEWNAN, GA

$3,300

Dec 31, 2024

TAYLOR, WILLIAM MR.

VETERANS GUARDIAN VA CLAIM CONSULTING • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualPINEHURST, NC

$3,300

Dec 7, 2023

TAYLOR, WILLIAM MR.

VETERANS GUARDIAN VA CLAIM CONSULTING • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualPINEHURST, NC

$3,300

Dec 7, 2023

GREENBLATT, SCOTT MR.

VETERANS GUARDIAN • CEO

IndividualPINEHURST, NC

$3,300

Dec 8, 2023

GREENBLATT, SCOTT MR.

VETERANS GUARDIAN • CEO

IndividualPINEHURST, NC

$3,300

Dec 8, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 31 nodes and 37 connections

Total contributions: $37

Top Donors - Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]

Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC22 Orgs

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 harmed.

−Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.90
Section 3(a)(3) requires covered platforms to remove nonconsensual intimate visual depictions within 48 hours of a valid request, imposing operational costs and liability risks on platforms that host user-generated content (e.g., social media, video sharing). Section 3(b)(1) treats failure to comply as an unfair/deceptive act under FTC Act, exposing platforms to enforcement actions.
−Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.70
Section 4(b)(3)(i) excludes broadband internet access service providers from the definition of 'covered platform', but Section 3's notice-and-removal obligations and FTC enforcement could still affect telecoms that also operate content platforms (e.g., AT&T's HBO Max, Verizon's Yahoo). However, the exclusion reduces direct impact, so confidence is moderate.
−Print & Broadcast Mediaconfidence 0.60
Section 4(b)(3)(ii) excludes electronic mail, and (iii) excludes preselected content sites with incidental interactivity, which may cover some traditional media sites. However, if newspapers or broadcasters host user-generated content sections (e.g., comment forums, user video uploads), they could be deemed covered platforms and face removal obligations, imposing costs.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX])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

Telecommunications$67,992
from 139 contributions
- REID, THOMAS JOHN$11,600
- ERGEN, CANTEY$9,900
- ERGEN, CHARLES$9,900
- RICCIO, CLIFF$4,000
- MCBRIDE, RPERLEY$3,000
Big Tech Platforms$4,611
from 10 contributions
- MAURER, GREG$3,300
- ROSSI, NICHOLAS$1,000
- DIKOVSKY, MICHAEL$210
- BURKHARD, DANIEL$101

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 Trade Commission

Moderate

Vector: 64%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 FTC policy seek to protect children online and increase platform accountability, but the bill focuses on nonconsensual intimate imagery while the policy addresses unfair contracts, data collection, and mental‑health impacts of social media."

Key themes:child protectiononline safetyplatform accountabilityconsent requirements

Federal Trade Commission

Moderate

Vector: 62%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the TAKE IT DOWN Act and the Project 2025 FTC policy aim to protect children from online harms, but the bill targets nonconsensual intimate imagery while the policy focuses on contracts, advertising, data collection, and mental‑health impacts of social media, resulting in moderate thematic overlap."

Key themes:child online safetyprotection from exploitationparental consentaccountability for harmful contentonline well-being

— 875 — Federal Trade Commission Protecting Children Online. The FTC has long protected children in a variety of different contexts. Internet platforms profit from obtaining information from children without parents’ knowledge or consent—and social media’s effect on the well-being of American children is well-documented. Around 2012, American teens experienced a dramatic decline in wellness. Depression, self-harm, suicide attempts, and suicide all increased sharply among U.S. adolescents between 2011 and 2019,16 with similar trends worldwide.17 The increase occurred at the same time that social media use moved from rare to ubiquitous among teens,18 making social media a prime suspect for the sudden rise in mental health issues among teens. In addition, excessive social media use is strongly linked to mental health issues among individuals. Several studies strongly support the notion that social media use is a cause, not just a correlation, of subjective well-being and poor mental health.19 Social media and other large platforms form millions of contracts every year with American children. And even though a minor can void most contracts into which he or she enters, most jurisdictions have laws that hold minors accountable for the benefits received under the contract. Thus, children can make enforceable contracts for which parents could end up bearing responsibility. Targeting chil- dren to create potentially harmful contracts or making parents responsible for such contractual relationships is an unfair trade practice. The FTC, therefore, has the authority, interest, and duty to protect children online from such contractual relationships. l The FTC should examine platforms’ advertising and contract- making with children as a deceptive or unfair trade practice, perhaps requiring written parental consent. Currently, the Child Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)20 regulates the information internet firms can obtain from children. COPPA fails because it (1) only protects children under the age of 13, leaving older teenagers completely unprotected and (2) only prohibits platforms from collecting information from a child using “actual knowledge” rather than abiding by the “constructive knowledge” standard, which prohibits collecting information from a user reasonably assumed to be underage. The FTC has rulemaking authority under this statute but has done little with this authority, nor can it—given the statutory constraints. However, l The FTC can and should institute unfair trade practices proceedings against entities that enter into contracts with children without parental consent. Personal parental responsibility is, of course, key, but the law must respect, not undermine, lawful parental authority. — 876 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Other conservatives are more skeptical concerning the effect of online expe- rience on the young, comparing the concern about social media to concern about video games, television, and bicycle safety. They point out, as does Cato fellow Jeffrey A. Singer, that the psychiatric profession has yet to designate “internet addiction” or “social media addiction” as a mental disorder in the authoritative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR).21 These con- servatives also maintain that calling for regulation undermines conservatives’ calls for parental empowerment on education or vaccines as well as personal parenting responsibility. In addition, some of the methods used to regulate children’s internet access pose the risk of unintended harms. For instance, age verification regulations would inevitably increase the amount of data collection involved, increasing privacy con- cerns. Users would have to submit to platforms proof of their age, which raises the risks of data breach or illegitimate data usage by the platforms or bad actors. Limited-government conservatives would prefer the FTC play an educational role instead. That might include best practices or educational programs to empower parents online. Antitrust Enforcement. As is evidenced by a relentless focus on bringing Big Tech lawsuits, state attorneys general (AGs) are far more responsive to their con- stituents than is the FTC. Such a “boots on the ground” approach would benefit the FTC enormously. Practically, this would mean establishing a distinct role in the FTC Chairman’s office focused on state AG cooperation and inviting state AGs to Washington, D.C., to discuss enforcement policy in key sectors under the FTC’s jurisdiction: Big Tech, hospital mergers, supermarket mergers, and so forth. FTC regional offices are substantially more in touch with local issues. Over the past few decades, the reach and influence of regional offices has shrunk dramati- cally. The FTC should consider returning authority to these offices. Some conservatives however are less supportive of this idea. Conservative enthusiasm for the idea of adding regional FTC offices to the states is a break from the majority conservative position. Endorsing the federal government as a pre- mier job creator runs counter to decades of conservative opinion that holds that New Deal agencies and subsequent government bodies should never have been created in the first place, and that their red tape and interference is a dominant cause of economic inefficiency. Republicans used to seethe when Democrats tried to move federal offices into the states. In the early 1990s, House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich fumed about Senator Robert Byrd’s campaign to transfer certain national intelligence facilities to West Virginia, calling it a “pure abuse of power.” Some contributors to this chapter would remind conservatives that the unseen mechanics of redistribution—by which taxpayer money paid to state employees is taken from taxpayers nationwide—is a drag on the economy of the entire country. Many conservatives fear that it would be impossible to uproot or even prune back

Foreword

Moderate

Vector: 61%

Pages: 37-39AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The TAKE IT DOWN Act aligns with Project 2025's concern about pornography and child exploitation by targeting nonconsensual intimate imagery, including deepfakes and revenge porn, which Project 2025 frames as harmful and exploitative. However, the bill focuses on consent, accountability, and victim protections rather than advocating for the outright criminalization of pornography or the dismantling of tech platforms as Project 2025 proposes."

Key themes:child exploitationnonconsensual pornographyonline safetyaccountability for harmful content

— 5 — Foreword (“DEI”), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensi- tive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists. Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered. In our schools, the question of parental authority over their children’s education is a simple one: Schools serve parents, not the other way around. That is, of course, the best argument for universal school choice—a goal all conservatives and con- servative Presidents must pursue. But even before we achieve that long-term goal, parents’ rights as their children’s primary educators should be non-negotiable in American schools. States, cities and counties, school boards, union bosses, princi- pals, and teachers who disagree should be immediately cut off from federal funds. The noxious tenets of “critical race theory” and “gender ideology” should be excised from curricula in every public school in the country. These theories poison our children, who are being taught on the one hand to affirm that the color of their skin fundamentally determines their identity and even their moral status while on the other they are taught to deny the very creatureliness that inheres in being human and consists in accepting the givenness of our nature as men or women. Allowing parents or physicians to “reassign” the sex of a minor is child abuse and must end. For public institutions to use taxpayer dollars to declare the superiority or inferiority of certain races, sexes, and religions is a violation of the Constitu- tion and civil rights law and cannot be tolerated by any government anywhere in the country. But the pro-family promises expressed in this book, and central to the next conservative President’s agenda, must go much further than the traditional, narrow definition of “family issues.” Every threat to family stability must be confronted. This resolve should color each of our policies. Consider our approach to Big Tech. The worst of these companies prey on children, like drug dealers, to get them addicted to their mobile apps. Many Silicon Valley executives famously don’t let their own kids have smart phones.2 They nevertheless make billions of dollars addicting other people’s children to theirs. TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms are specifically designed to create the digital — 6 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise dependencies that fuel mental illness and anxiety, to fray children’s bonds with their parents and siblings. Federal policy cannot allow this industrial-scale child abuse to continue. Finally, conservatives should gratefully celebrate the greatest pro-family win in a generation: overturning Roe v. Wade, a decision that for five decades made a mockery of our Constitution and facilitated the deaths of tens of millions of unborn children. But the Dobbs decision is just the beginning. Conservatives in the states and in Washington, including in the next conservative Administration, should push as hard as possible to protect the unborn in every jurisdiction in America. In particular, the next conservative President should work with Congress to enact the most robust protections for the unborn that Congress will support while deploying existing federal powers to protect innocent life and vigorously complying with statutory bans on the federal funding of abortion. Conservatives should ardently pursue these pro-life and pro-family policies while recognizing the many women who find themselves in immensely difficult and often tragic situations and the hero- ism of every choice to become a mother. Alternative options to abortion, especially adoption, should receive federal and state support. In summary, the next President has a moral responsibility to lead the nation in restoring a culture of life in America again. PROMISE #2: DISMANTLE THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE AND RETURN SELF-GOVERNANCE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Of course, the surest way to put the federal government back to work for the American people is to reduce its size and scope back to something resembling the original constitutional intent. Conservatives desire a smaller government not for its own sake, but for the sake of human flourishing. But the Washington Establishment doesn’t want a constitutionally limited government because it means they lose power and are held more accountable by the people who put them in power. Like restoring popular sovereignty, the task of reattaching the federal gov- ernment’s constitutional and democratic tethers calls to mind Ronald Reagan’s observation that “there are no easy answers, but there are simple answers.” In the case of making the federal government smaller, more effective, and accountable, the simple answer is the Constitution itself. The surest proof of this is how strenuously and creatively generations of progressives and many Repub- lican insiders have worked to cut themselves free from the strictures of the 1789 Constitution and subsequent amendments. Consider the federal budget. Under current law, Congress is required to pass a budget—and 12 issue-specific spending bills comporting with it—every single year. The last time Congress did so was in 1996. Congress no longer meaningfully budgets, authorizes, or categorizes spending.

Federal Communications Commission

Moderate

Vector: 59%

Pages: 882-884AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The TAKE IT DOWN Act aligns with Project 2025's goal of holding Big Tech accountable for harmful content and protecting users, particularly minors, but it does not directly address the broader Section 230 reforms, transparency appeals processes, or antidiscrimination measures emphasized in the policy."

Key themes:online safetyplatform accountabilityvictim protectionSection 230 contextconsumer empowerment

— 849 — Federal Communications Commission Big Tech, and it should look to Section 230 and the Consolidated Reporting Act as potential sources of authority.19 In acting, the FCC could require these platforms to provide greater specificity regarding their terms of service, and it could hold them accountable by prohibiting actions that are inconsistent with those plain and particular terms. Within this framework, Big Tech should be required to offer a transparent appeals process that allows for the challenging of pretextual takedowns or other actions that violate clear rules of the road. l Support legislation that scraps Section 230’s current approach. The FCC should work with Congress on more fundamental Section 230 reforms that go beyond interpreting its current terms. Congress should do so by ensuring that Internet companies no longer have carte blanche to censor protected speech while maintaining their Section 230 protections. As part of those reforms, the FCC should work with Congress to ensure that antidiscrimination provisions are applied to Big Tech—including “back-end” companies that provide hosting services and DDoS protection. Reforms that prohibit discrimination against core political viewpoints are one way to do this and would track the approach taken in a social media law passed in Texas, which was upheld on appeal in late 2022 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.20 In all of this, Congress can make certain points clear. It could focus legislation on dominant, general-use platforms rather than specialized ones. This could include excluding comment sections in online publications, specialized message boards, or communities within larger platforms that self-moderate. Similarly, Congress could legislate in a way that does not require any platform to host illegal content; child pornography; terrorist speech; and indecent, profane, or similar categories of speech that Congress has previously carved out. l Support efforts to empower consumers. The FCC and Congress should work together to formulate rules that empower consumers. Section 230 itself codifies “user control” as an express policy goal and encourages Internet platforms to provide tools that will “empower” users to engage in their own content moderation. As Congress takes up reforms, it should therefore be mindful of how we can return to Internet users the power to control their online experiences. One idea is to empower consumers to choose their own content filters and fact checkers, if any. The FCC should also work with Congress to ensure stronger protections against young children accessing social media sites despite age restrictions that generally prohibit their use of these sites.

Intelligence Community

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 254-256AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The TAKE IT DOWN Act focuses on combating nonconsensual intimate imagery and holding online platforms accountable, while the Project 2025 Intelligence Community section emphasizes strategic intelligence reform, objectivity, and information sharing for national security. Both touch on accountability and technology-related harms, but their primary objectives and domains differ significantly."

Key themes:accountabilityinformation sharingcybersecuritytechnology misuse

— 221 — Intelligence Community influence and the FBI’s warnings about continued efforts through the 2022 mid- terms highlight the folly of undue certainty without consideration of alternatives. On election influence and other controversial issues, such as the origin of COVID-19, analysts at the most powerful intelligence agencies have increasingly tended to use the leeway they have been given to insert their political views into their work in order to influence (if possibly even control) the analytic process. They do this in ways that attempt to squash dissent and impair the creation of a culture in which entrenched views are challenged and unpopular analytical lines can sur- vive or not according to their merits. To help the United States and its leaders to outcompete China across mul- tifaceted societal, economic, military, and technological threats, the IC’s capability to conduct strategic intelligence analysis that is relevant to policymak- ers in both parties must be rebuilt and strengthened. Because Beijing may be a peer or even exceed U.S. capabilities in some areas, the post-9/11 analytic focus on quick-turnaround secrets is not good enough. Strategic planning—informed by intelligence—must take place for the United States to stay ahead of whatever new threats China may pose. An incoming conservative President will have the opportunity to signal the demand for such strategic products and prioritize their production through communications to intelligence leaders and formal mechanisms such as shifting priorities within the National Intelligence Priority Framework and structuring the President’s Daily Brief. The incoming DNI should also emphasize implementing the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s report, especially regarding objectiv- ity, the inclusion of dissenting viewpoints, and more serious efforts to hold senior leaders accountable for backchannel attempts to change or suppress analytic views. Accounting for the long history of intelligence failures and surprises, an incom- ing conservative President must appreciate the ambiguity, complexity, limits, and assumptions inherent in intelligence assessments. Intelligence often deals with the human dimension in complex decision systems within a foreign country or organi- zation, and this makes consistently accurate predictions difficult if not impossible to develop. Seeing something and understanding what you are seeing are two dif- ferent things, so a President should consistently and patiently press the IC about its potential biases, assumptions, methodology, and sourcing. With regard to election-threat analysis and politically controversial topics, agency leaders should take seriously the Ombudsman’s admonition that we need to maintain tradecraft standards across all countries and topics by ensuring that equitable standards apply across all foreign threat actors. Analysis should be put forward without regard to the domestic political ramifications of intelligence conclusions. “Obligation to Share” and Real-Time Auditing Capability. The fed- eral government has made admirable progress in recent years by being more — 222 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise forward-leaning in sharing cyber threat intelligence with private-sector partners and the public, emphasizing that the protective nature of such information is of value only if put into the right hands at the right time. Since critical infrastructure and services are overwhelmingly owned, managed, and defended by the private sector in the United States, there has been an increasing emphasis on declassify- ing intelligence and sharing actionable information with private-sector partners, often through industry-specific Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs); regional meetings of government and private-sector experts called InfraGard, run by the FBI; direct public notification from the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and (increasingly) the NSA; and more discreet one-on-one engagements led by the collecting agencies. These programs properly recognize the private sector’s role in providing cyber- security for Americans; in practice, however, the intelligence shared by the U.S. government through these venues is too often already known or no longer relevant by the time it makes its way through the downgrade process for sharing. In addition, government-shared information often needs to take advantage of the opportunity to provide contexts, such as attribution, trends, and size of the observed cyber problem. As warranted, additional context should be provided to the private sector as a matter of routine. To continue improving the U.S. government’s ability to defend the country’s most vital networks, the IC must adopt an “obligation to share” policy process, including the capacity for “write to release” intelligence products whereby newly discovered technical indicators, targeting, and other intelligence relevant to cyber defense are automatically provided either to the public or to targeted entities within 48 hours of their collection—which is how counterterrorism intel- ligence has been managed for years when it comes to a “duty to warn.” Under this policy, agency heads should still have the flexibility to withhold intelligence for operational or counterintelligence reasons but would need to report regularly to Congress on the number of and justification for exceptions. This policy would make sharing intelligence and defending networks the default, as it already is in the rest of the cybersecurity community outside the IC, to improve the quantity, relevance, and timeliness of defensive information while ensuring accountability for top leaders when they must withhold this information. One of the most significant challenges within the IC is presented by the need to share information promptly among the 18 elements of the intelligence enterprise. The only long-term solution to the understandable tension between the need to share information and the need to protect intelligence sources and methods is a robust real-time auditing capability that electronically flags unauthorized access. Under an identity management system with real-time audit, even the most sensi- tive information acquired by America’s intelligence agencies can be shared, and the access to and use of that information are appropriately monitored. Establishing

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

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

Related Bills

Other Bills by Sen. Cruz, Ted

Illegal Red Snapper and Tuna Enforcement Act

119/s/283

Modernizing Access to Our Public Oceans Act

119/s/759

Protect College Sports Act of 2026

119/s/4668

Back to All Bills