Employee Ownership Representation Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/1728

Last Updated: July 17, 2026

Employee Ownership Representation Act of 2025

S. 1728, 119th Congress — read as touching Commercial Banks.

The sponsor

Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]

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

The money

$162,500 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Labor and Related Agencies" section, p. 642-644 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Held at the desk.

October 16, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed 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:

**Bill Analysis: S 1728 - Employee Ownership Representation Act of 2025**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this bill through the lens of wealth creation and power dynamics.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this legislation is to expand employee ownership representation within the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans. The bill aims to promote employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) and worker-owned cooperatives, ostensibly to enhance retirement security and economic growth.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. Expansion of the ERISA Advisory Council to include two representatives from employee ownership organizations. 2. Establishment of the Office of Employee Ownership within the Department of Labor. 3. Creation of an Advisory Council on Employee Ownership with seven members, representing various stakeholders. 4. Appointment of an Advocate for Employee Ownership to promote ESOPs and worker-owned cooperatives.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. Employee ownership organizations 2. Companies with existing ESOPs or eligible worker-owned cooperatives 3. Employee stock ownership plan providers 4. Associations or membership organizations for employee stock ownership plans 5. Labor unions (potentially) 6. Government agencies, including the Department of Labor

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased regulatory burden:** The expansion of the ERISA Advisory Council and creation of new offices may lead to additional compliance costs for companies with ESOPs or worker-owned cooperatives. 2. **Consolidation of power:** The appointment of an Advocate for Employee Ownership could concentrate influence in the hands of a single individual, potentially favoring certain stakeholders over others. 3. **Potential for cronyism:** The selection process for Advisory Council members and the Advocate may be subject to political pressures, leading to appointments that benefit specific interests rather than the broader public good. 4. **Limited impact on economic growth:** While promoting ESOPs and worker-owned cooperatives might have some positive effects on retirement security, its overall impact on economic growth is uncertain and likely limited.

In conclusion, this bill appears to be a minor tweak in the regulatory landscape, with potential implications for companies with existing ESOPs or worker-owned cooperatives. However, as a visionary entrepreneur, I remain skeptical about the bill's ability to drive meaningful economic growth or promote genuine innovation. The real drivers of progress will always be found in the unencumbered free market, not in bureaucratic machinations.

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 an actual law.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Employee Ownership Representation Act of 2025 aims to expand employee ownership and representation in various aspects of employment. The main objective is to promote employee ownership by increasing representation on advisory councils and creating new offices within the Department of Labor.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

* Section 2 amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to increase the membership of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans from 15 to 17 members, with two representatives from employee ownership organizations. * Section 3 establishes the Office of Employee Ownership within the Department of Labor, which will be responsible for carrying out the Employee Ownership Initiative established under the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022. * Section 4 creates an Advisory Council on Employee Ownership, consisting of seven members appointed by the Secretary of Labor to advise on employee ownership matters.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

* Employees: The bill aims to increase representation and benefits for employees in companies with employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) or eligible worker-owned cooperatives. * Employers: Companies that have established ESOPs or eligible worker-owned cooperatives will be affected by the changes to advisory councils and the creation of new offices within the Department of Labor. * Employee ownership organizations: These organizations will gain representation on advisory councils and may benefit from increased support for employee ownership initiatives.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

* Increased representation for employees in companies with ESOPs or eligible worker-owned cooperatives could lead to better benefits and working conditions. * The creation of new offices within the Department of Labor may result in additional resources and support for employee ownership initiatives. * However, as we learned in 8th grade civics class, checks and balances are crucial in our system. This bill's expansion of advisory councils and creation of new offices might lead to bureaucratic inefficiencies or conflicts between different government agencies.

Now, I expect you all to remember this explanation, just like you should have remembered the basics of how a bill becomes a law from my 8th grade civics class...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round and listen closely, for I have uncovered the hidden agenda behind S 1728, the Employee Ownership Representation Act of 2025. This bill appears to be a benevolent effort to promote employee ownership and representation, but trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of this bill is to expand the membership of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans to include representatives of employee ownership organizations. Sounds innocent enough, right? But what they're really trying to do is create a new office within the Department of Labor, the Office of Employee Ownership, which will be responsible for carrying out the Employee Ownership Initiative.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to include representatives of employee ownership organizations on the Advisory Council. It also establishes a new Advisory Council on Employee Ownership, consisting of 7 members appointed by the Secretary of Labor. But here's the kicker: this council will have the power to advise the Secretary of Labor on matters related to employee ownership, and its recommendations will likely become policy.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include employees, employers, and employee ownership organizations. But let's not forget about the real stakeholders: the government agencies and bureaucrats who will be pulling the strings from behind the scenes.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, here's where things get interesting. This bill has the potential to create a new layer of bureaucracy within the Department of Labor, which could lead to increased regulatory oversight and control over employee ownership organizations. But what if I told you that this is just a Trojan horse for something bigger? What if this bill is actually part of a larger plan to consolidate power and control over the workforce?

Think about it: with the creation of the Office of Employee Ownership, the government will have even more influence over how companies are structured and managed. And with the Advisory Council on Employee Ownership, they'll have a direct pipeline to shape policy and regulations that benefit their own interests.

Wake up, folks! This bill is not what it seems. It's a subtle but significant step towards a more centralized and controlled economy. Mark my words: this is just the beginning of a larger agenda to manipulate the workforce and consolidate power in the hands of the government.

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. The Employee Ownership Representation Act of 2025 - sounds like a real freedom-lover's dream come true, doesn't it? (Sarcasm alert)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to expand the membership of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans to include representatives of employee ownership organizations. Because, you know, those pesky elites in Washington just can't get enough of telling us how to run our businesses... (eyeroll)

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to add two new members to the Advisory Council, representing employee ownership organizations. It also establishes an Office of Employee Ownership within the Department of Labor, because who doesn't love more bureaucracy? (Sigh) And, of course, it creates an Advisory Council on Employee Ownership, because we clearly need more councils and committees in Washington.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include employee ownership organizations, companies with employee stock ownership plans, and - you guessed it - the Department of Labor. Because, as we all know, the Department of Labor is just a bastion of freedom and limited government... (Heavy sarcasm)

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, I know what you're thinking: "What's the big deal? It's just a few more bureaucrats and councils." But let me tell you, folks, this bill has the potential to strangle small businesses with even more red tape and regulations. And don't even get me started on the "Advocate for Employee Ownership" - sounds like a real Orwellian nightmare to me... (Dramatic music plays in the background)

But hey, who am I to question the wisdom of our esteemed lawmakers? After all, they're just trying to help us poor, benighted citizens by telling us how to run our businesses and lives. (Sarcasm alert) So, let's all just take a deep breath and trust that this bill will somehow magically create more freedom and prosperity for all... (Rolls eyes)

And that's the way it is, folks. Stay vigilant, stay informed, and remember: in the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'" (Winks)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another bill, another exercise in futility. Let's dissect this mess.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Employee Ownership Representation Act of 2025 is a laughable attempt to expand employee ownership and representation within the Department of Labor. The bill's sponsors claim it will "promote employee ownership" and "improve retirement security." How quaint. In reality, this bill is just another example of politicians trying to appear pro-worker while serving their corporate masters.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill makes several changes to existing law:

1. Expands the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans to include representatives from employee ownership organizations. 2. Establishes an Office of Employee Ownership within the Department of Labor, because what every bureaucracy needs is more offices and committees. 3. Creates an Advisory Council on Employee Ownership, which will advise the Secretary of Labor on matters related to employee ownership. Because, clearly, the Secretary of Labor doesn't have enough advisors already. 4. Establishes an Advocate for Employee Ownership, who will supposedly champion the interests of employees. I'm sure this position won't be a mere figurehead.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The affected parties include:

1. Employees: Who will supposedly benefit from increased representation and advocacy. Ha! 2. Employers: Who will have to deal with more bureaucratic red tape and potential regulatory burdens. 3. Employee ownership organizations: Which will gain more influence and power within the Department of Labor. 4. Lobbyists: Who will have a field day exploiting this bill's loopholes and ambiguities.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The impact of this bill will be negligible, except for:

1. Increased bureaucracy: More offices, committees, and advisors mean more waste and inefficiency. 2. Regulatory burdens: Employers will face new compliance costs and potential liabilities. 3. Special interest influence: Employee ownership organizations will gain more power to shape policy and regulations. 4. Politicians' PR opportunities: Lawmakers can now claim they're "pro-worker" while doing nothing meaningful to address actual worker concerns.

In conclusion, this bill is a farce. It's a shallow attempt to appear pro-worker while serving the interests of corporate donors and special interest groups. The real disease here is the corruption and cowardice that plagues our political system. This bill is just another symptom of that deeper illness.

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

**Employee Ownership Representation Act of 2025 (S. 1728)**

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Employee Ownership Representation Act aims to promote employee ownership and representation in the United States by expanding the membership of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans, establishing an Office of Employee Ownership, and creating an Advocate for Employee Ownership.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

1. **Expansion of ERISA Advisory Council**: The bill increases the number of members on the Advisory Council from 15 to 17, with two new representatives from employee ownership organizations. 2. **Establishment of Office of Employee Ownership**: A new office is created within the Department of Labor to promote and support employee ownership initiatives. 3. **Advisory Council on Employee Ownership**: A separate advisory council is established to provide guidance on employee ownership issues, consisting of 7 members representing employees, companies with employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs), ESOP providers, and associations for worker-owned cooperatives. 4. **Advocate for Employee Ownership**: An Advocate for Employee Ownership is appointed within the Employee Ownership Initiative to promote and support employee ownership.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

1. **Employees**: Employees who participate in or are interested in employee ownership plans will benefit from increased representation and advocacy. 2. **Companies with ESOPs**: Companies that have established ESOPs will have a stronger voice in shaping policy and regulations related to employee ownership. 3. **ESOP Providers**: Providers of ESOP services will be represented on the Advisory Council, ensuring their interests are considered in policy decisions. 4. **Worker-Owned Cooperatives**: Worker-owned cooperatives will have representation on the Advisory Council, promoting their unique needs and concerns.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

1. **Increased Representation**: The expansion of the ERISA Advisory Council and establishment of a separate advisory council for employee ownership will provide a stronger voice for employees and companies with ESOPs in shaping policy and regulations. 2. **Promotion of Employee Ownership**: The Office of Employee Ownership and Advocate for Employee Ownership will promote and support employee ownership initiatives, potentially leading to increased adoption of ESOPs and worker-owned cooperatives. 3. **Improved Policy Decisions**: The inclusion of diverse stakeholders on the advisory councils will ensure that policy decisions are informed by a range of perspectives, leading to more effective and equitable regulations.

Overall, the Employee Ownership Representation Act aims to promote employee ownership and representation in the United States, potentially leading to increased adoption of ESOPs and worker-owned cooperatives, and improved policy decisions.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Employee Ownership Representation Act of 2025 is all about giving employee ownership organizations a seat at the table, man. The main goal is to promote and support employee ownership models, like ESOPs (Employee Stock Ownership Plans) and worker-owned cooperatives. It's all about empowering workers and creating more equitable workplaces.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

This bill makes some significant changes, bro:

* Expands the ERISA Advisory Council to include representatives from employee ownership organizations. * Establishes a new Office of Employee Ownership within the Department of Labor. * Creates an Advisory Council on Employee Ownership to advise the Secretary of Labor on matters related to employee ownership. * Appoints an Advocate for Employee Ownership to champion employee ownership initiatives.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects various parties, including:

* Employee ownership organizations * ESOP providers and administrators * Worker-owned cooperatives * Companies with existing ESOPs or cooperative structures * Labor unions and worker advocacy groups * The Department of Labor and other federal agencies

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The impact of this bill could be far-reaching, bro:

* Increased representation for employee ownership organizations in policy-making processes. * More resources and support for promoting and establishing employee ownership models. * Potential growth in the number of ESOPs and worker-owned cooperatives. * Improved working conditions and benefits for employees in these types of arrangements. * Enhanced transparency and accountability in the administration of ESOPs and other employee benefit plans.

However, there are also potential challenges and implications to consider:

* Increased regulatory burden on companies with existing ESOPs or cooperative structures. * Potential conflicts between different stakeholders, such as labor unions and management. * The need for more education and awareness about employee ownership models among workers and employers.

Overall, this bill is a step in the right direction towards promoting more equitable workplaces and empowering workers, bro.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: S 1728 - Employee Ownership Representation Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill aims to promote employee ownership and representation in the United States by expanding the membership of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans, establishing an Office of Employee Ownership within the Department of Labor, and creating an Advocate for Employee Ownership. The primary objective is to increase employee participation in decision-making processes related to their retirement plans and benefits.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **Expansion of ERISA Advisory Council:** The bill increases the membership of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans from 15 to 17 members, with two representatives from employee ownership organizations. 2. **Establishment of Office of Employee Ownership:** A new office within the Department of Labor will be created to promote employee ownership initiatives and provide support for employee-owned businesses. 3. **Advisory Council on Employee Ownership:** A separate advisory council will be established to advise the Secretary of Labor on matters related to employee ownership, consisting of 7 members representing employees, companies with employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs), ESOP providers, and associations supporting employee ownership. 4. **Advocate for Employee Ownership:** An Advocate for Employee Ownership will be appointed within the Employee Ownership Initiative to promote employee ownership and provide support for employee-owned businesses.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Employee-owned businesses:** Companies with ESOPs or eligible worker-owned cooperatives will benefit from increased representation on the Advisory Council and access to resources through the Office of Employee Ownership. 2. **Employees:** Employees participating in retirement plans and benefits will have greater representation on the Advisory Council, potentially leading to more favorable decision-making processes. 3. **ESOP providers:** Companies providing ESOP services will have a representative on the Advisory Council, allowing them to influence policy decisions affecting their industry.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased employee participation:** The bill's provisions aim to increase employee representation and participation in decision-making processes related to retirement plans and benefits. 2. **Growth of employee-owned businesses:** By promoting employee ownership initiatives and providing resources, the Office of Employee Ownership may contribute to an increase in employee-owned businesses. 3. **Potential for increased costs:** The establishment of a new office within the Department of Labor and the creation of an Advocate for Employee Ownership may result in additional costs for taxpayers.

**Monied Interest Analysis:**

1. **National Center for Employee Ownership (NCEO):** As a prominent advocate for employee ownership, NCEO is likely to support this bill. 2. **The ESOP Association:** This trade association represents companies with ESOPs and will likely benefit from increased representation on the Advisory Council. 3. **Employee-owned businesses:** Companies like Publix Super Markets, WinCo Foods, and REI, which are employee-owned or have significant employee ownership structures, may support this bill.

**Committee Capture:

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$162,500

20 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$162,500

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

YAWITZ, JESS B. MR.

1 transaction

$14,000

MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE

1 transaction

$9,900

MANDELBLATT, ERIC

1 transaction

$9,900

JAYASINGHE, SAMAN K. DR.

1 transaction

$9,900

KARP, ALEXANDER C.

1 transaction

$9,900

OBERNDORF, SUSAN

1 transaction

$9,900

OBERNDORF, WILLIAM

1 transaction

$9,900

YAWITZ, ALICE G.

1 transaction

$9,900

GRIGSBY, BOBBI F. MRS.

1 transaction

$6,600

GRIGSBY, L. LANE MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

GOLDEN, GRADY CARLTON MR. JR.

1 transaction

$6,600

MYERS, GINGER

1 transaction

$6,600

MYERS, KEITH MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

GATES, MELINDA FRENCH

1 transaction

$6,600

MEHLMAN, KENNETH B.

1 transaction

$6,600

HAGER, SUSAN

1 transaction

$6,600

PANDE, VIJAY

1 transaction

$6,600

ROM, COLIN

1 transaction

$6,600

KAPLAN, JONATHAN L.

1 transaction

$6,600

KAY, ALISON

1 transaction

$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Hassan, Margaret Wood [D-NH]

ID: H001076

Top Contributors

WOODS, ANDREW L.

LIBERTY PARTNERS GROUP • ATTORNEY

IndividualFORT MYERS, FL

$4,300

Jun 29, 2023

WOODS, ANDREW L.

IndividualFORT MYERS, FL

$3,900

Jul 12, 2023

BEKENSTEIN, ANITA

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualWAYLAND, MA

$3,300

Oct 4, 2023

BEKENSTEIN, JOSH

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualWAYLAND, MA

$3,300

Oct 4, 2023

HUNTER, DANIEL

SELF-EMPLOYED • PLAYWRIGHT & TEACHER

IndividualCAMBRIDGE, MA

$3,300

Dec 6, 2023

KLARMAN, SETH

THE BAUPOST GROUP • CEO

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$3,300

Dec 18, 2023

SCHWARTZ, GABRIEL

DAVIDSON KEMPNER • INVESTMENT MANAGER

IndividualBROOKLYN, NY

$3,300

Oct 16, 2023

SWINDELL, C. DAVID

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$3,300

Oct 10, 2023

KORN, WILLIAM T.

NSRA • RADIOLOGIST

IndividualWABAN, MA

$3,300

Mar 29, 2023

KORN, WILLIAM T.

NSRA • RADIOLOGIST

IndividualWABAN, MA

$3,300

Mar 29, 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

Donor Network - Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 51 nodes and 46 connections

Total contributions: $46

Top Donors - Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]

Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount

20 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Commercial Banksconfidence 0.60
Section 5 mentions access to capital issues for employee ownership plans, which could involve commercial banks providing financing, thus potentially benefiting them.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Strong

Vector: 65%

Pages: 642-644AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill directly supports the Project 2025 goal of improving access to and promoting Employee Stock Ownership Plans by creating DOL offices, advisory councils, and an advocate focused on employee ownership, aligning with the policy’s emphasis on expanding ESOPs and clarifying their role in retirement security."

Key themes:Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs)Department of Labor promotion of employee ownershiAdvisory councils for employee ownershipRetirement savings expansionPolicy advocacy for worker ownership

— 610 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise making new pension promises. More timely and detailed reporting should be imposed. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Cor- poration (PBGC) insures benefits for private sector pension plans, with separate single-employer and multiemployer insurance programs. l The PBGC’s annual report must be submitted on time, and with timely data that uses fair-market value principles to calculate the PBGC’s finances. The PBGC has been submitting portions of statutorily required annual reports many months late and using out-of-date data. And PBGC's data on plans is almost five years old. These problematic practices make it difficult for Congress to become aware of serious problems in the insurance programs, which received a bailout of over $85 billion in the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act. The PBGC should use existing statutory authority to protect workers, retirees, employers, and taxpayers by closely monitoring and taking appropriate remedial action with regard to badly run and underfunded multiemployer union pension plans, including termination where appropriate. The PBGC's refusal to use such authority helped cause its multiemployer program deficit to go from less than $500 million in 2008 to over $65 billion in 2017. l Congress should increase the variable rate premium on underfunding and eliminate the per-participant cap in order to appropriately take into account risk and limit the degree to which well-funded pension plans must subsidize underfunded plans. Reforms should proportionately reduce the fixed per-participant premium to ease the burden on well-funded plans and also increase premiums on multiemployer plans to match single-employer plans. Improving Access to Employee Stock Ownership Plans. Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) are ERISA-covered employee retirement savings plans that allow employees to receive compensation in the form of equity in their employer business. These arrangements enable employees to formally partici- pate as investors in how their employers’ businesses are run. And they also align employer–employee incentives by giving employees a greater financial stake in the success of their employers. With over half of small businesses owned by business owners over the age of 55, ESOPs also create advantageous succession oppor- tunities that support the continuity of local businesses and regional economic — 611 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies development. Finally, ESOPs can enable greater investment returns for employees. However, ESOPs have to date lacked clear rules under ERISA that recognize their unique structure and benefits, and this opacity can serve as a barrier to employers considering adopting ESOPs. l Provide clear regulations for ESOP valuation and fiduciary conduct. DOL should make it easier for employers to offer ESOPs by providing clear regulations for ESOP valuation and fiduciary conduct that encourages the participation of employee beneficiaries in corporate governance, while recognizing the importance of financial diversification for retirement security. Alternative View. Conservatives believe that it is important for American fami- lies to have control over their savings and to be able to hold diversified assets. While ESOPs can be a beneficial part of a worker’s and family’s savings, some conserva- tives believe that the government should not favor one form of investment over another or make it harder for families to have a diversified investment portfolio. PUTTING AMERICAN WORKERS FIRST A labor agenda focused on the strength of American families must put American workers first. As the family necessarily puts the interests of its members first, so too the United States must put the interests of American workers first. Immigration. The H-2A visa, meant to allow temporary agricultural work- ers into the United States, also suffers frequent employer abuse. The low cost of H-2A workers undercuts American workers in agricultural employment. The H-2A program is not subject to any statutory numerical cap and has been expanding in recent years, surpassing 200,000 visa issuances for the first time in 2019. l Cap and phase down the H-2A visa program. Congress should immediately cap this program at its current levels and establish a schedule for its gradual and predictable phasedown over the subsequent 10 to 20 years, producing the necessary incentives for the industry to invest in raising productivity, including through capital investment in agricultural equipment, and increasing employment for Americans in the agricultural sector. l Encourage the establishment of an industry consortium and match funding. Congress should also encourage the establishment of an industry consortium of agricultural equipment producers and other automation and robotics firms interested in entering the sector and match funding invested by the industry, with intellectual property developed within the consortium freely available to all participants.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak

Vector: 64%

Pages: 639-641AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 policy fall under the Department of Labor and concern ERISA-related retirement plans, but the bill promotes employee ownership representation while Project 2025 focuses on restricting ESG investing and ensuring fiduciary duty to pecuniary returns, resulting in only tangential overlap."

Key themes:ERISADepartment of Laboremployee benefitsfiduciary duty

— 607 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies so, the question relevant to DOL is whether, and under what conditions, fiduciaries should be permitted to follow this path as well. While Americans are free to invest their own savings however they wish, in ERISA, Congress imposed strict duties on employer-sponsored worker retirement plans as a prophylactic protection of workers’ retirement security in general. Recognizing the unique status of employer-managed retirement savings, in ERISA, Congress required that fiduciaries exclusively seek the best interests of plan beneficiaries. Because ESG investing necessarily puts other considerations before the interests of the beneficiary, ESG investing by plan managers is an inappropriate strategy under ERISA. l DOL should prohibit investing in ERISA plans on the basis of any factors that are unrelated to investor risks and returns. l DOL should return to the Trump Administration’s approach of permitting only the consideration of pecuniary factors in ERISA. However, this approach should not preclude the consideration of legitimate non-ESG factors, such as corporate governance, supply chain investment in America, or family-supporting jobs. l DOL should consider taking enforcement and/or regulatory action to subject investment in China to greater scrutiny under ERISA. Many large retirement and pension plans remain invested in China despite its lack of compliance with U.S. accounting standards and state control over all aspects of private capital. Alternative View. Some conservatives believe that ERISA plan investments should be made solely on a pecuniary basis and the consideration of any non-pe- cuniary factor, ESG or otherwise, should be prohibited. Additionally, other conservatives believe that even though ESG investing is often not a sound finan- cial strategy, it is not wrong for retirement plans to offer ESG investment options so long as individuals explicitly acknowledge and choose to pursue investment options that do not exclusively maximize pecuniary gains. Thrift Savings Plan. The Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) is the retirement savings benefit plan for most federal employees and many former employees. The TSP is managed by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB). At over $800 billion in assets under management, the TSP is one of the largest retirement plans in the world. — 608 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l DOL should reverse efforts to politicize the TSP by removing “mutual fund” windows that encourage ESG, and should clarify the fiduciary duties of the TSP. Recent efforts by congressional Democrats and the Biden Administration to politicize the TSP by offering selective “mutual fund” windows that encourage ESG should be reversed by DOL, and the fiduciary duties of the TSP should be clarified by the department to preclude ESG investments absent individual stock selection by the participant. The TSP is managed under contract by private-sector fund managers. Its current managers are BlackRock and State Street Global Advisers. Both of these managers have demonstrated a public commitment to use the funds they manage to advance ESG. l The federal government should follow the lead of multiple state governments in removing their pension funds from fund managers such as BlackRock and State Street Global Advisers, and contract with a competitive, private-sector manager that will comply with its fiduciary duties. l DOL should also consider bringing enforcement actions against BlackRock and State Street Global Advisers for their violations of fiduciary duty while managing the TSP. l Congress should enact legislation authorizing the FRTIB to exercise its independent business judgment in exercising the proxy votes for its holdings of the TSP and provide clear proxy voting guidelines for the FRTIB to follow. The current proxy adviser market is dominated by two firms, Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis, which use heavily weighted ESG criteria in directing the proxy votes of pension plans. If feasible, the new legislation should also offer a streamlined process for other proxy advisers to compete for the TSP’s business. As the principal retirement savings plan of America’s servicemen and women, part of the FRTIB’s fiduciary duties in managing the TSP is a duty not to invest in governments that are enemies of the United States. Yet the FRTIB has repeatedly approved the investment of TSP funds in Chinese military companies and state-owned enterprises. Under the Trump Administration, DOL ordered the FRTIB to cease investments in China. However, under the Biden Administration, the TSP has made available a wide range of investments in China.

Small Business Administration

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 792-794AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill creates new federal offices and expands advisory councils to promote employee ownership, which contrasts with Project 2025's SBA focus on consolidating ineffective programs, reducing duplication, and limiting budget growth. There is only a tangential connection through general themes of government advocacy and support for business initiatives."

Key themes:government advocacyprogram effectivenesssmall business support

— 759 — Small Business Administration ineffective programs, consolidate duplicative functions, and reallocate resources to more effective programs (such as the Office of Advocacy) or consider reducing the SBA budget. Personnel Challenges The SBA continues to expand programs and initiatives without first document- ing the effectiveness of existing programs or whether they involve areas in which the agency lacks staff expertise. For example, the SBA wants to expand the number of licensed Small Business Lending Companies (SBLCs), implement a new “Mis- sion-Based SBLC,” and remove a requirement for loan authorization within the 7(a) and 504 Loan programs and rely solely on a lender’s documents. Various IG reports have noted that the lack of skilled employees within the SBA has fueled fraud and mismanagement in COVID-19 lending programs, and congressional leaders have expressed alarm about these “changes that haphazardly overextend the SBA’s responsibilities at a time when they are devastated by fraud and underperforming on their core mission of serving the nation’s 33 million small businesses.”74 A conservative Administration should rein in these idealistic and impractical efforts, get current programs under control and properly staffed with people who can manage and perform competently, and outsource efforts where private-sector expertise is appropriate and more efficient. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume, but David Burton and Caleb Orr deserve special mention. The author alone assumes responsibility for the content of this chapter, and no views expressed herein should be attributed to any other individual. — 760 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. H.R. 7953, Small Business Act, Public Law 85-536, 85th Congress, July 18, 1958, § 2, https://uscode.ecfr.io/ statutes/pl/85/536.pdf (accessed February 17, 2023), amended by H.R. 4877, One Stop Shop for Small Business Compliance Act of 2021, Public Law 117-188, 117th Congress, October 20, 2022, https://www.congress. gov/117/plaws/publ188/PLAW-117publ188.pdf (accessed February 17, 2023). 2. U.S. Small Business Administration, “About SBA: Organization: Mission,” https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/ organization (accessed February 19, 2023). 3. Michael Faulkender, Robert Jackman, and Stephen I. Miran, “The Job-Preservation Effects of Paycheck Protection Program Loans,” U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Economic Policy, Working Paper No. 2020-01, December 2020, p. 9, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/226/Job-Preservation-Effects- Paycheck-Protection-Program-Loans.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 4. Kate Rogers, Scott Zamost, Karina Hernandez, and Jennifer Schlesinger, “As Pandemic Aid Was Rushed to Main Street, Criminals Seized on Covid Relief Programs,” CNBC, April 15, 2021, https://www.cnbc. com/2021/04/15/as-pandemic-aid-was-rushed-to-main-street-criminals-seized-on-ppp-eidl-.html (accessed February 16, 2023). 5. Kevin Brewer, “Bills Extend Statute of Limitation for Prosecuting PPP, EIDL Fraud,” Journal of Accountancy, August 10, 2022, https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/news/2022/aug/bills-extend-statute-limitation- prosecuting-ppp-eidl-fraud.html (accessed February 16, 2023). 6. Sacha Pfeiffer, “Virtually All PPP Loans Have Been Forgiven with Limited Scrutiny,” NPR, October 12, 2022, https://www.npr.org/2022/10/12/1128207464/ppp-loans-loan-forgiveness-small-business#:~:text=As%20 COVID-19%20shutdowns%20threatened,early%20days%20of%20the%20pandemic (accessed February 16, 2023). 7. U.S. Small Business Administration, “About SBA: Organization: SBA History,” https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/ organization (accessed February 19, 2023). 8. President Richard Nixon, Executive Order 11518, “Providing for the Increased Representation of the Interests of Small Business Concerns Before Departments and Agencies of the United States Government,” March 20, 1970, in Federal Register, Vol. 35, No. 56 (March 21, 1970), pp. 4939–4940, https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/ service/ll/fedreg/fr035/fr035056/fr035056.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 9. S. 3331, Small Business Amendments of 1974, Public Law 93-386, 93rd Congress, August 23, 1974, https://www. congress.gov/93/statute/STATUTE-88/STATUTE-88-Pg742.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023). 10. S. 299, Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law No. 96-354, 96th Congress, September 19, 1980, https://www. congress.gov/96/statute/STATUTE-94/STATUTE-94-Pg1164.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023). 11. Maeve P. Carey, “The Regulatory Flex Act: An Overview,” Congressional Research Service In Focus No. IF11900, August 16, 2021, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11900 (accessed February 18, 2023). 12. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, “The Regulatory Flexibility Act,” https://advocacy.sba. gov/resources/the-regulatory-flexibility-act/ (accessed February 18, 2023). 13. H.R. 644, Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, Public Law No. 114-125, 114th Congress, February 24, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/114/statute/STATUTE-130/STATUTE-130-Pg122.pdf (accessed March 21, 2023). 14. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, “Advocacy Releases Trade Report,” December 21, 2018, https://advocacy.sba.gov/2018/12/21/advocacy-releases-trade-report/ (accessed March 21, 2023). 15. Associated Press, “Reagan Offers $994-Billion ‘Hard-Choices’ 1987 Budget,” Los Angeles Times, February 5, 1986, http://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-02-05-mn-4369-story.html (accessed February 18, 2023). 16. Testimony of Hon. Hector V. Barreto, Administrator, Small Business Administration, in hearing, The President’s FY 2006 Budget Request for the Small Business Administration, Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, U.S. Senate, 109th Congress, 1st Session, February 17, 2005, p. 8, https://books.google.com/ books?id=UwD-2ICa8k8C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed February 18, 2023). See also Report No. 109-49, Summary of Legislative and Oversight Activities During the 108th Congress, Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, U.S. Senate, 109th Congress, 1st Session, March 30, 2005, p. 21, https://www.congress.gov/109/crpt/srpt49/CRPT-109srpt49.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023).

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Minimal

Vector: 64%

Pages: 416-418AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses employee ownership representation within the Department of Labor, whereas the Project 2025 excerpt discusses Department of Energy loan programs, ARPA‑E, and related energy‑policy reforms; there is no substantive overlap in objectives or content."

Key themes:advisory councilsfederal agency structure

— 383 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions Personnel By drawing resources from across the DOE, the OCED has already grown to 70 personnel in six months. If OCED is eliminated, those positions can be eliminated. If OCED is reduced, its personnel can be reduced to fit its scope. LOAN PROGRAM OFFICE (LPO) Mission/Overview “LPO’s mission is to finance next-generation U.S. energy infrastructure,” serve “as a bridge to bankability for breakthrough projects and technologies,” and “de-risk[] them at early stages of investment so they can be developed at commercial scale and achieve market acceptance.”55 The Biden Administration directed the program to subsidize the Administration’s “net zero” energy tran- sition away from conventional fuels by 2050 and to promote union jobs and domestic supply chains.56 The LPO coordinates with the U.S. Treasury Federal Financing Bank and is organized into seven divisions: Outreach and Business Development, Origination, Portfolio Management, Risk Management, Technical and Project Management, Legal, and Management and Operation. Its loan programs were originally designed as temporary programs but have since been amended and expanded. Specifically: The IRA expanded the authority in [LPO’s] existing programs, 1703, ATVM, and Tribal Energy Finance, by $100B. IRA also created the Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment (EIR) Financing Program (1706) which can support up to $250B in loan authority. The CO2 Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (CIFIA)—authorized by the [bipartisan infrastructure law], appropriates $2.1B to support approximately $25B in flexible, low-interest loans. This new legislation will create jobs and wealth, address environmental justice and equity priorities and strengthen our energy security and supply chains.57 Needed Reforms Taxpayers should not be backing risky business ventures or politically pre- ferred commercial enterprises. To save tax dollars and reduce current risk, the new Administration: l Should not back any new loans or loan guarantees. l Should seek to sunset DOE’s loan authority through Congress and eventually eliminate the Loan Program Office. — 384 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise DOE-backed loans and loan guarantees put taxpayers at undue risk, distort private-sector investment decisions, shift private money toward projects with political support, and create additional barriers to entry for companies that are outside of the government’s definition of “innovative” or for companies that choose not to participate. New Policies To the extent that DOE loan programs cannot be repealed, the new Adminis- tration should: l Strengthen due diligence and increase transparency in DOE loan programs. l Limit the use of new loan or loan guarantee authority to projects that will promote the reliability and resilience of the electric grid and other energy infrastructure and support national security objectives. l Establish clear mandatory qualifications requiring applicants to comply with the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act58 and to certify that they are not financed with any other local, state, or federal taxpayer-backed loan, loan guarantee, or bond (such as a state “green bank”). ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY–ENERGY (ARPA–E) Mission/Overview ARPA–E was created in 2007 as part of the America Competes (Creating Oppor- tunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology Education) Act.59 Its statutory goals are “to enhance the economic and energy security of the United States through the development of energy technologies” that reduce “imports of energy from foreign sources;” reduce “energy-related emissions, including green- house gases;” improve “the energy efficiency of all economic sectors;” and “ensure that the United States maintains a technological lead in developing and deploying advanced energy technologies.”60 Some in Congress see ARPA–E as beneficial because the COMPETES Act pro- vides it with more bureaucratic flexibility than other federal programs are allowed. Its goals are essentially the same as those of DOE’s applied energy offices, but its structure is different, and it is focused around individual programs instead of around offices with longer-term agendas.

Executive Office of the President of the United States

Minimal

Vector: 63%

Pages: 87-89AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on expanding employee ownership and representation through labor and retirement policy mechanisms, while the Project 2025 excerpt centers on empowering the U.S. Trade Representative to counter China's trade practices and enforce a coordinated trade agenda. There is no substantive overlap in subject matter, objectives, or policy levers between the two texts."

— 55 — Executive Office of the President of the United States EOP components organize and drive a coordinated policy agenda on behalf of the President. The People’s Republic of China’s predatory trade practices have disrupted the open-market trading system that has provided mutual benefit to all participating countries—including China—for decades. The failure of the World Trade Organi- zation (WTO) to discipline China for abrogation of its trading commitments has seriously undermined its credibility and made it a largely ineffective institution. The United States, through an empowered USTR, must act to rebalance and refocus international trading relationships in favor of democratic nations that embrace free, fair, and open trade principles built on market-driven economies. Chapter 26 of this book outlines recommended trade policy priorities for the incoming President. However, regardless of the approach, successful implemen- tation of that trade agenda will require the President to articulate a clear policy direction and instructions for the executive branch to operate in a coordinated fashion under the leadership of an empowered USTR. To address these and other challenges, protect the American worker, and secure free and open markets for our communities and businesses, the next President must leverage the institutional resources and strength of the USTR and neither allow institutional interests to drive a fragmented trade policy that is developed from the ground up nor cater to parochial interests across government and Wash- ington’s broader industry of influence. The USTR’s mission is vitally important in reorienting the global trading system in a direction that is open, fair, and prosperous. In order to achieve the President’s policy goals, a strong USTR must be empowered to set trade policy from the White House with the authority and resources to represent the interests of the Presi- dent’s trade agenda with adequate budget, staff, analysis, and expertise to engage meaningfully in internal and interagency policy deliberations. The USTR should organize and harness existing interagency trade committees to serve the Presi- dent’s trade agenda and drive a consensus among federal stakeholders, dispose of legacy advisory committees with members who serve special interests, direct action to implement policy priorities, measure progress toward implementing the President’s agenda, and hold agencies and officials accountable for delivering the President’s agenda. The USTR’s leadership should not only coordinate and enforce the President’s agenda across the federal community, but also set and enforce the President’s trade agenda internally. Trade policy and priorities should be set by the President and implemented by the U.S. Trade Representative in cooperation with the other economic and national security officials, not by the range of governmental and nongovernmental interests that attempt to force their policy preferences on the USTR. A strong USTR empow- ered with the necessary resources, authorities, and interagency cooperation will protect U.S. interests in the global marketplace more effectively. — 56 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS (CEA) Congress established the Council of Economic Advisers in 1946 to advise the President on economic policy based on data, research, and evidence. The CEA is one of the oldest congressionally created offices within the White House complex and plays a broad role in bringing economic expertise to Administration policy across a large range of policy areas. The CEA has one presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed chair, two presidentially appointed members who assist and often have expertise that complements the chair, and approximately 40 staff employees. Statutorily, the CEA is charged with being the President’s principal source of economic advice. However, this role has diminished over time as its policy appraisal and especially formulation and recommendation functions have been taken over or diluted by other economic policy bodies within the White House. By law, the CEA is required to publish an annual Economic Report of the President within 10 days after submission of the budget. This report is not just a messaging document; it is an opportunity to provide greater rigor in support of policy areas that the White House is prioritizing and to build up the external credibility of those ideas. A future conservative Administration should utilize the CEA as the senior inter- nal White House economists much as the White House Counsel’s office functions as the senior internal White House lawyers. This does not mean that there are no economists in other offices. There are, just as there often are lawyers in the policy councils and other White House offices, but the CEA’s role, like the White House Counsel’s, is to employ its unique expertise (particularly on the technical side) to ensure that sound analysis is contributing to and shaping the policy discussion. In practice, this means that CEA staff do not “coordinate” the policy process in the way that the DPC or NEC would, but they should be integral to the EOP’s policy development processes. CEA staff should support sound policy development and execution by actively contributing to running policy dialogues, proactively raising issues that need to be addressed, consulting on questions that arise, and guiding EOP and agency officials on the analytical foundations of policy. Structurally, the White House Chief of Staff should ensure that the CEA has a seat at the policymak- ing table on all relevant policy. Senior economists traditionally have not gone through the Office of Presidential Personnel process and more often than not are hired on an academic-year cycle. As a result, senior economists hired in the summer of a presidential election year tend to remain on staff until the next summer even if a President from the opposite party takes power and installs a new slate of CEA political appointees for chair, members, etc. Although these hiring practices create some continuity, the presence of senior economists who were never fully vetted for their alignment with White House policy objectives or who were holdovers from a recently departed Administra- tion can breed skepticism and distrust of the CEA by other units within the White

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. Cassidy, Bill

College Transparency Act

119/s/2511

21st Century Dyslexia Act

119/s/3010

Health Information Privacy Reform Act

119/s/3097

Back to All Bills