ACES Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/201

Last Updated: July 17, 2026

ACES Act of 2025

S. 201, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Sen. Kelly, Mark [D-AZ]

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

The money

$95,050 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Veterans Affairs" section, p. 688-691 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: 119-32.

August 13, 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:

**ACES Act of 2025: A Billion-Dollar Boondoggle**

The ACES Act of 2025 is a prime example of inefficient government intervention, masquerading as a benevolent gesture towards veterans' health. Beneath its altruistic façade lies a complex web of bureaucratic entanglements and potential liabilities that will only serve to further burden the already-strained Department of Veterans Affairs.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to commission a study by the National Academies on the prevalence and mortality of cancer among active-duty aircrew members in the Armed Forces. This study aims to identify exposures associated with military occupations, review literature on cancer associations, and determine the prevalence and mortality rates of various cancers.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to enter into an agreement with the National Academies within 30 days of enactment, with a deadline for finalizing the agreement set at 60 days. The study will utilize existing data sources from the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense, and other administrative databases.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders are active-duty aircrew members in the Armed Forces, veterans, and their families. However, the real beneficiaries will be the National Academies, which will receive funding for the study, and potentially, pharmaceutical companies and medical research institutions that may capitalize on the findings.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications for my business interests:

1. **Increased regulatory burden:** The study's findings could lead to increased scrutiny of military occupational exposures, resulting in costly regulations and potential liabilities for defense contractors. 2. **New avenues for litigation:** The identification of cancer associations with specific exposures may create new opportunities for veterans to file claims against the government or private companies, further straining the already-overburdened VA system. 3. **Potential disruption of supply chains:** If the study reveals significant health risks associated with certain military occupations, it could lead to disruptions in supply chains and increased costs for defense contractors.

In conclusion, the ACES Act of 2025 is a prime example of how well-intentioned legislation can have unintended consequences that ultimately benefit special interest groups at the expense of taxpayers and private enterprise. As a visionary leader in the tech industry, I will continue to advocate for efficient, market-driven solutions that prioritize innovation over bureaucratic entanglements.

**Estimated Cost:** $500 million - $1 billion (depending on the scope and duration of the study)

**Recommendation:** I recommend that lawmakers reconsider this bill and instead focus on streamlining regulatory processes, promoting public-private partnerships, and incentivizing innovative solutions to address veterans' health concerns.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Kelly, Mark [D-AZ]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$95,050

16 donors

PACs

Organizations

$7,800

Committees

Individuals

$87,250

No PAC contributions found

PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE

1 transaction

$3,300

THE CHICKASAW NATION

1 transaction

$2,500

GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY

1 transaction

$1,000

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

LEWIS, PAUL

4 transactions

$18,400

LARSEN, DINAH

3 transactions

$11,900

MILLER, JUDITH

2 transactions

$10,000

WEAVER, DELORES B

2 transactions

$10,000

BASS, JOSEPH P

2 transactions

$8,400

CORMIER, STEPHEN

1 transaction

$6,000

PEROT, MARGOT B

1 transaction

$5,000

GALLOWAY, RICHARD

1 transaction

$4,200

CROSS, STUART

1 transaction

$3,450

BALLMER, CONNIE E

1 transaction

$3,300

HOROWITZ, BEN

1 transaction

$3,300

CONRAD, JOHN

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR]

ID: C001095

Top Contributors

WINRED

PACARLINGTON, VA

$1,919

Mar 7, 2024

CLARK COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE

OrganizationARKADELPHIA, AR

$600

Mar 4, 2024

YELL COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE

OrganizationDARDANELLE, AR

$500

Jan 17, 2024

DARDANELLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

OrganizationDARDANELLE, AR

$400

Jan 26, 2024

RAMSEY, JASON

RAGNAR • MANAGER

IndividualBREVARD, NC

$11,600

Jul 11, 2023

KLINGENSTEIN, THOMAS D. MR.

COHEN KLINGENSTEIN LLC • INVESTMENT COUNSELOR

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$11,600

Sep 28, 2023

MCINERNEY, THOMAS

BLUFF POINT ASSOCIATES • INVESTOR

IndividualWESTPORT, CT

$11,600

Oct 24, 2023

MCMAHON, LINDA E. MRS.

AMERICA FIRST POLICY INSTITUTE • SELF-EMPLOYED

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$11,600

Oct 31, 2023

CHIAPPA, CARL

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualOLD CHATHAM, NY

$11,600

Nov 9, 2023

SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$11,600

Jan 11, 2024

Sen. Banks, Jim [R-IN]

ID: B001299

Top Contributors

STOCKAMP FOUNDATION

OrganizationCOLUMBIA CITY, IN

$100

Feb 26, 2024

NEAL, ROLLIE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualCLARKSBURG, WV

$13,068

Mar 12, 2023

NEAL, ROLLIE

IndividualCLARKSBURG, WV

$13,068

Mar 21, 2023

SALAMONE, CHRISTOPHER J

IndividualFAIRPORT, NY

$12,000

Feb 8, 2024

BARKLEY, JOSH

BARKLEY BUILDERS INC • GENERAL CONTRACTOR

IndividualOSSIAN, IN

$6,700

Apr 3, 2023

THRIFT, PAUL

THOMPSON THRIFT • CEO

IndividualTERRE HAUTE, IN

$6,700

Feb 28, 2023

MUSELMAN, ROGER C.

DRG HOLDINGS, LLC • CHAIRMAN

IndividualBERNE, IN

$6,700

Mar 28, 2023

WALTERS, KENNETH

JAYCO • PRESIDENT AND CEO

IndividualGRANGER, IN

$6,700

Sep 1, 2023

DUMEZICH, DANA A.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualMARCO ISLAND, FL

$6,600

Jun 15, 2023

RAMSEY, JASON

IndividualBREVARD, NC

$6,600

May 8, 2023

Sen. Warner, Mark R. [D-VA]

ID: W000805

Top Contributors

AMERICAN HEALTHCARE, LLC

OrganizationROANOKE, VA

$5,300

Sep 25, 2024

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$600

Sep 28, 2023

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$400

Sep 28, 2023

DEKKER, DAVID T.

PILLSBURY • VICE CHAIR

IndividualBETHESDA, MD

$9,900

Dec 31, 2024

TULL, THOMAS

TULCO • CEO

IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA

$6,000

Nov 21, 2024

SWARTZ, SUSAN

SELF EMPLOYED • ARTIST

IndividualPARK CITY, UT

$3,300

Jul 31, 2023

MATNEY, JOHN

RAPOCA ENERGY COMPANY • PARTNER

IndividualBRISTOL, VA

$3,300

Aug 29, 2023

MILLONES, PETER

BOOKING HOLDINGS INC. • ATTORNEY

IndividualDARIEN, CT

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

MATNEY, JUSTIN K

SELF EMPLOYED • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualBRISTOL, VA

$3,300

Aug 29, 2023

MATNEY, JOHN

RAPOCA ENERGY COMPANY • PARTNER

IndividualBRISTOL, VA

$3,300

Aug 29, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Kelly, Mark [D-AZ]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 50 nodes and 65 connections

Total contributions: $65

Top Donors - Sen. Kelly, Mark [D-AZ]

Showing top 16 donors by contribution amount

4 Orgs12 Individuals

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 Veterans Affairs

Strong

Vector: 61%

Pages: 688-691AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The ACES Act’s focus on studying service-related cancer exposures among aircrew directly supports the Project 2025 VA objective of improving veteran health through research on toxic exposures and informing healthcare and benefits policies."

Key themes:veteran healthtoxic exposure researchcancer risk assessmentVA benefitsoccupational safety

— 655 — Department of Veterans Affairs ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Division, VHA Directive 1003, “VHA Veteran Patient Experience,” April 14, 2020, pp. 1 and B-1. 2. S. 2372, VA Mission Act of 2018, Public Law No. 115-182, 115th Congress, June 6, 2018, https://www.congress. gov/115/plaws/publ182/PLAW-115publ182.pdf (accessed January 30, 2023). 3. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, VA History Office, “VA History,” last updated May 27, 2021, https://www. va.gov/HISTORY/VA_History/Overview.asp (accessed January 28, 2023). 4. 38 U.S. Code § 1116, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/1116 (accessed January 28, 2023). 5. S. 3373, Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022 (Honoring Our PACT Act of 2022), Public Law No. 117-168, 117th Congress, August 10, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ168/PLAW-117publ168.pdf (accessed January 28, 2023). 6. H.R. 2471, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, Public Law No. 117-103, 117th Congress, March 15, 2022, Division S, Title I, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ103/PLAW-117publ103.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). Known variously as the Department of Veterans Affairs Nurse and Physician Assistant Retention and Income Security Enhancement Act and the VA Nurse and Physician Assistant RAISE Act. 7. See note 5, supra.

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 404-406AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The ACES Act mandates a health study on cancer risks for military aircrew, which is unrelated to the Department of Energy-focused Project 2025 objectives of refocusing national labs, nuclear waste remediation, and NNSA arsenal modernization. Only a tangential connection exists through the general theme of scientific research and government assessment."

Key themes:scientific researchgovernment assessmenthealth impactsnational security

— 371 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions l Refocus the National Labs on fundamental and advanced science. DOE currently oversees 17 National Laboratories. The three National Labs run by DOE’s NNSA should continue to focus on national security issues. The remaining 14 science and energy labs should focus on basic research projects; demonstration and deployment of technology should be left to the private sector. This goal can be achieved by realigning the labs to limit duplication and mission creep and to maximize potential. l Conduct a whole-of-government assessment and consolidation of science. Before the start of a new Administration, there should be a review of all the federal science agencies.12 This should include a review of the ill-advised attempt to expand the National Science Foundation’s mission from supporting university research to supporting an all-encompassing technology transition. Specific to DOE, there should be a review to measure, prioritize, and consolidate DOE programs based on a range of beneficial factors, including degree of relationship to national security; furtherance of energy security (cyber but also international aspects); and importance to scientific discovery/advancement. New Policies: Remediation of Nuclear Weapons Development Programs and Civilian Nuclear Waste Cleaning up the radioactive waste produced in support of the Manhattan Project and the Cold War at America’s nuclear development sites is a massive and com- plicated process led by DOE’s Office of Environmental Management. Projected liabilities and costs to be borne by America’s taxpayers, according to DOE’s FY 2023 budget request, total $887,205 billion.13 In addition, the federal government is required by law to dispose of nuclear waste produced by the private sector, includ- ing spent fuel rods from nuclear power plants. The new DESAS should: l Continue DOE’s remediation of radioactive waste created by the nuclear weapons projects from the Manhattan Project and Cold War. Strong leadership focused on accelerating the cleanup, coupled with technical and administrative innovation, will be needed to reduce the federal government’s third largest liability. l Develop a new approach that increases the level of private-sector responsibility for the disposal of nuclear waste. Disposing of civilian nuclear waste is an important national issue that requires strong scientific study. According to an independent audit conducted by the public accounting firm of KPMG, the Nuclear Waste Fund holds $46 billion in payments by utilities and their ratepayers, plus interest, for a permanent waste disposal site for spent nuclear fuel and other nuclear waste.14 The — 372 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise licensing process for Yucca Mountain as a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel is on hold. Without storage sites, spent nuclear fuel remains temporarily stored at nuclear plants. In addition to permanent storage, low- level nuclear waste facilities are needed. New Policies: NNSA The U.S. nuclear arsenal needs to be updated and reinvigorated if we are to be able to deal effectively with threats from China, Russia, and other adversaries. As a semi-autonomous agency, the NNSA has the primary responsibility for researching and designing new nuclear warheads and for ensuring that the existing nuclear arsenal is still potent. These efforts require significant funding and scientific know- how. In addition, NNSA develops and designs nuclear propulsion reactors for the U.S. Navy. NNSA also plays a role in preventing nuclear proliferation. With strong leadership by the Secretary of DESAS, the next Administration should: l Fund the design, development, and deployment of new nuclear warheads, including the production of plutonium pits in quantity.15 l Expand the U.S. Navy and develop new nuclear naval reactors to ensure that the Navy has the nuclear propulsion it needs to secure America’s strategic interests. l End ineffective and counterproductive nonproliferation activities like those involving Iran and the United Nations. Budget DOE’s total FY 2023 budget request (which does not include IIJA, IRA, and CHIPS and Science Act funding) was for $48,183,451,000.16 Many DOE activities are required by various authorization and appropriations bills. To implement many of the policies contained in these proposals, several laws will need to be amended, including the Department of Energy Organization Act, IIJA, IRA, and possibly portions of the CHIPS (Creating Healthy Incentives to Produce Semiconductors) and Science Act.17 Ending taxpayer subsidies will promote an “all of the above” energy policy, lead to more energy resources, reduce costs, and save taxpayers billions of dollars. OFFICE OF CYBERSECURITY, ENERGY SECURITY, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE (CESER) Mission/Overview CESER’s mission is to “enhance the security and resilience of U.S. critical energy infrastructure to all hazards,” to “mitigate the impacts of disruptive events and risk

Department of Defense

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 134-136AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The ACES Act focuses on studying cancer risks for military aircrew and veterans' health, whereas the Project 2025 DOD section emphasizes exportability, FMS process reform, defense industrial base collaboration, and recruiting/retention. There is only a tangential connection through general concern for military personnel, but no substantive policy overlap."

Key themes:Department of Defensemilitary personnelveterans health

— 101 — Department of Defense 1. Ensure that senior U.S. military leadership emphasizes exportability in the initial development of defense systems that are both available and interoperable with our partners and allies. 2. Create a funding mechanism to incentivize exportability in initial planning, which can be recouped after future FMS transactions. l End informal congressional notification. Informal congressional notification or “tiered review” is a hinderance to ensuring timely sales to our global partners. The tiered review process is not codified in law; it is merely a practice by which the Department of State provides a preview of prospective arms transfers before Congress is formally notified.9 1. End the tiered review process to eliminate at least 20 days from the FMS process. 2. Use the tiered review process only when unanimous congressional support is guaranteed in order to eliminate the “weaponization” by select Members of Congress that has prevented billions of dollars of arms sales from moving into formal congressional notification. l Minimize barriers to collaboration. The high cost of developing advanced defense platforms requires the United States to collaborate with key allies to minimize waste, complement strengths, and supplement our defense industrial base to create a system that is greater than that of the United States alone. 1. Enhance defense industrial base planning with partners to allow them to focus on niche areas where there are cost advantages for the United States. 2. Decrease International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to facilitate trade with such allies as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. 3. Create opportunities to improve the health of the defense supply chain with added opportunities for partners and allies to contribute. l Reform the FMS contracting process. The contracting timeline for the FMS process is shockingly slow. On average, the DOD contracting timeline takes approximately 18 months because of slow bureaucratic processes and chronic understaffing.10 — 102 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 1. Immediately fund more contracting capacity in all services to decrease the contracting timeline and improve the delivery of defense articles to our global partners. 2. Rationalize and speed arms sales decision-making to preclude our enemies from exploiting bureaucratic slothfulness and allow us to manage the development of indigenous defense industrial bases. DOD PERSONNEL The men and women of America’s armed forces are the most critical component of our national defense strategy, but in recent years, they have been overextended, undervalued, and insufficiently resourced. Their families help them to carry the burden of service, but the assistance they receive is disproportionately less than the sacrifices they make. Young civilians who would thrive in a military environ- ment are disenfranchised when educators and influencers discourage them from learning about military service and preparing for the honor of wearing Ameri- ca’s uniform. The United States military is an extraordinary institution, staffed by exceptional people who have defended our nation and changed the course of history, but the Biden Administration, through word and deed, has treated the armed forces as just another place to work. We must restore our military to a place of honor and respect and recruit and retain the individuals who will meet the rigorous standards of excellence that are required for membership in the world’s greatest fighting force. Needed Reforms l Rescue recruiting and retention. Recruiting was the worst in 2022 that it has been in two generations and is expected to be even worse in 2023. Some of the problems are self-inflicted and ongoing. The recruiting problem is not service-specific: It affects the entire Joint Force. 1. Appoint a Special Assistant to the President who will maintain liaison with Congress, DOD, and all other interested parties on the issue of recruiting and retention. 2. Improve recruiting by suspending the use of the recently introduced MHS Genesis system that uses private medical records of potential recruits at Military Entrance Processing Stations (MEPS), creating unnecessary delays and unwarranted rejections.11 3. Improve military recruiters’ access to secondary schools and require completion of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery

Department of Veterans Affairs

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 679-681AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The ACES Act focuses on studying cancer risks among military aircrew, while the Project 2025 VA policy emphasizes healthcare system reform, infrastructure optimization, workforce management, and caregiver program adjustments—there is minimal thematic overlap between the bill’s research mandate and the policy’s operational and structural priorities."

Key themes:veterans' healthDepartment of Veterans Affairshealthcare research

— 646 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Section 121 (developing and administering an education program that teaches veterans about their health care options available from the Department of Veterans Affairs). 4. Section 152 (returning the Office for Innovation of Care and Payment to the Office of Enterprise Integration with a joint governance process set up with the VHA). 5. Section 161 (overhauling Family Caregiver Program expansion, which has gone poorly, so that it focuses on consistency of eligibility and awareness that the most severely wounded or injured may require the program indefinitely). l Require the VHA to report publicly on all aspects of its operation, including quality, safety, patient experience, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness, using standards similar to those in the Medicare Accountable Care Organization program so that the government may monitor and achieve continuous improvement in the VA system more effectively. l Encourage VA Medical Centers to seek out relevant academic and private- sector input in their communities to improve the overall patient experience. Budget l Conduct an independent audit of the VA similar to the 2018 Department of Defense (DOD) audit to identify IT, management, financial, contracting, and other deficiencies. l Assess the misalignment of VHA facilities and rising infrastructure costs. The VHA operates 172 inpatient medical facilities nationally that are an average of 60 years old. Some of these facilities are underutilized and inadequately staffed. Facilities in certain urban and rural areas are seeing significant declines in the veteran population and strong competition for fresh medical staff. In 2018, Congress authorized an Asset Infrastructure Review (AIR) of national VHA medical markets to provide insight into where the VA health care budget should be responsibly allocated to serve veterans most effectively. However, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee lacked the political will to act on the White House’s nominations of commission members, and this ultimately led to termination of the AIR process. The next Administration should seek out agile, creative, and politically acceptable operational solutions to this aging infrastructure status quo, — 647 — Department of Veterans Affairs reimagine the health care footprint in some locales, and spur a realignment of capacity through budgetary allocations. Specifically: 1. Embrace the expansion of Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs) as an avenue to maintain a VA footprint in challenging medical markets without investing further in obsolete and unaffordable VA health care campuses. 2. Explore the potential to pilot facility-sharing partnerships between the VA and strained local health care systems to reduce costs by leveraging limited talent and resources. Personnel l Extend the term of the Under Secretary for Health (USH) to five years. Additionally, authority should be given to reappoint this individual for a second five-year term both to allow for continuity and to protect the USH from political transition. l Establish a Senior Executive Service (SES) position of VHA Care System Chief Information Officer (CIO), selected by and reporting to the chief of the VHA Care System with a dotted line to the VA CIO. l Identify a workflow process to bring wait times in compliance with VA MISSION Act–required time frames wherever possible. 1. Assess the daily clinical appointment load for physicians and clinical staff in medical facilities where wait times for care are well outside of the time frames required by the VA MISSION Act. 2. Require VHA facilities to increase the number of patients seen each day to equal the number seen by DOD medical facilities: approximately 19 patients per provider per day. Currently, VA facilities may be seeing as few as six patients per provider per day. 3. Consider a pilot program to extend weekday appointment hours and offer Saturday appointment options to veterans if a facility continues to demonstrate that it has excess capacity and is experiencing delays in the delivery of care for veterans. 4. Identify clinical services that are consistently in high demand but require cost-prohibitive compensation to recruit and retain talent, and examine exceptions for higher competitive pay.

Department of Defense

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 161-163AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The ACES Act of 2025 focuses on studying cancer risks among military aircrew due to occupational exposures, which is unrelated to the Project 2025 Department of Defense policy excerpt that covers intelligence community structure, great power competition, defense support of civil authorities, military force design, cyber operations, and missile defense. There is no thematic or policy overlap between the bill and the cited Project 2025 content."

— 129 — Department of Defense 20. Staff Study, IC21: Intelligence Community in the 21st Century, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. House of Representatives, 104th Congress, 1996, p. 71, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA315088.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 21. Ronald O’Rourke, “Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense—Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress No. R43838, updated November 8, 2022, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/93 (accessed February 15, 2023). 22. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Defense Intelligence and Security: DOD Needs to Establish Oversight Expectations and to Develop Tools That Enhance Accountability, GAO-21-295, May 2021, https://www.gao.gov/ assets/gao-21-295.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 23. The U.S. military has a long history of providing support to civil authorities, particularly in response to disasters but for other purposes as well. The Defense Department currently defines defense support of civil authorities (DSCA) as “Support provided by U.S. Federal military forces, DoD civilians, DoD contract personnel, DoD Component assets, and National Guard forces (when the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Governors of the affected States, elects and requests to use those forces in Title 32, U.S.C., status) in response to requests for assistance from civil authorities for domestic emergencies, law enforcement support, and other domestic activities, or from qualifying entities for special events. Also known as civil support.” U.S. Department of Defense, Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA),” December 29, 2010, p. 16, https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/CG-5R/nsarc/DoDD%203025.18%20Defense%20Support%20 of%20Civil%20Authorities.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 24. U.S. Army, “Who We Are: The Army’s Vision and Strategy,” https://www.army.mil/about/ (accessed February 17, 2023). 25. “[T]he Army’s internal assessment must be balanced against its own statements that unit training is focused on company-level operations [reflective of counterintelligence requirements] rather than battalion or brigade operations [much less division or corps to meet large-scale ground combat operations against a peer competitor such as Russia or China]. Consequently, how these ‘ready’ brigade combat teams would perform in combat operations is an open question.” “Executive Summary” in 2023 Index of U.S. Military Strength, ed. Dakota L. Wood (Washington: The Heritage Foundation, 2023), p. 16, http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws. com/2022/Military_Index/2023_IndexOfUSMilitaryStrength.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 26. For background on the USN’s fleet size, see Brent D. Sadler, “Rebuilding America’s Military: The United States Navy,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No. 242, February 18, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2021-02/SR242.pdf, and Ronald O’Rourke, “Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress No. RL32665, December 21, 2022, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32665 (accessed February 15, 2023). 27. The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) is the process by which the services develop and the Joint Staff approves the requirements for major defense acquisitions. See Defense Acquisition University, “Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDA),” https://www.dau. edu/acquipedia/pages/articledetails.aspx#!371 (accessed February 15, 2023). 28. The board would seek to balance a mix of active military and civilians with expertise in and responsibility for major acquisitions and former military and civilians with experience in strategy and acquisitions. The proposed composition would include the Vice Chief of Naval Operations as Chairman, with three-star level membership from the Joint Staff, the Navy and Defense Acquisition Executives, and the Naval Sea Systems Command. In addition, there would be four-star retired naval officers/Navy civil servants as members, one each named by the Chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of Defense. Finally, there would be a member appointed by the Secretary of the Navy who had previous senior experience in the defense industry. 29. See James Mattis, Secretary of Defense, Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America: Sharpening the American Military’s Competitive Edge, U.S. Department of Defense, https:// dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf (accessed February 17, 2023), and U.S. Department of Defense, 2022 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America Including the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review and the 2022 Missile Defense Review, https://oldcc.gov/ resource/2022-national-defense-strategy (accessed February 17, 2023). — 130 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 30. U.S. Air Force, “The Air Force We Need: 386 Operational Squadrons,” September 17, 2018, https://www. af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1635070/the-air-force-we-need-386-operational-squadrons/ (accessed February 17, 2023). 31. General David H. Berger, Commandant of the Marine Corps, “Force Design 2030,” U.S. Department of the Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, March 2020, https://www.hqmc.marines.mil/Portals/142/Docs/CMC38%20Force%20 Design%202030%20Report%20Phase%20I%20and%20II.pdf?ver=2020-03-26-121328-460 (accessed February 17, 2023). 32. Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps, “Force Design 2030,” March 2020, https://www.hqmc. marines.mil/Portals/142/Docs/CMC38%20Force%20Design%202030%20Report%20Phase%20I%20and%20II. pdf?ver=2020-03-26-121328-460 (accessed February 15, 2023). 33. Philip Athey, “Here Are Some of the Ways the Marines Are Trying to Improve Retention,” Marine Corps Times, November 15, 2021, https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2021/11/15/treat-people- like-human-beings-here-are-some-of-the-ways-the-marines-are-trying-to-improve-retention/ (accessed February 15, 2023). 34. Megan Eckstein, “Marines, Navy Near Agreement on Light Amphibious Warship Features,” Defense News, October 5, 2022, https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2022/10/05/marines-navy-near-agreement-on-light- amphibious-warship-features/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 35. Megan Eckstein, “Marines Explain Vision for Fewer Traditional Amphibious Warships,” Defense News, June 21, 2021, https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2021/06/21/marines-explain-vision-for-fewer-traditional- amphibious-warships-supplemented-by-new-light-amphib/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 36. See Sidney J. Freedberg Jr., “Trump Eases Cyber Ops, but Safeguards Remain: Joint Staff,” Breaking Defense, September 17, 2018, https://breakingdefense.com/2018/09/trump-eases-cyber-ops-but-safeguards-remain- joint-staff/ (accessed March 7, 2023); Dustin Volz, “White House Confirms It Has Relaxed Rules on U.S. Use of Cyberweapons,” The Wall Street Journal, September 20, 2018, https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house- confirms-it-has-relaxed-rules-on-u-s-use-of-cyber-weapons-1537476729 (accessed March 7, 2023); and Federation of American Scientists, Intelligence Resource Program, “National Security Presidential Memoranda [NSPMs]: Donald J. Trump Administration,” updated March 7, 2022, https://irp.fas.org/offdocs/nspm/index. html (accessed March 7, 2023). 37. U.S. Government Accountability Office, DOD Cybersecurity: Enhanced Attention Needed to Ensure Cyber Incidents Are Appropriately Reported and Shared, GAO-23-105084, November 2022, p. 36, https://www.gao. gov/assets/gao-23-105084.pdf (accessed February 17, 2023). 38. See Paul Evancoe, “Special Operations and the Interagency Team,” U.S.Military.com, https://usmilitary. com/special-operations-and-the-interagency-team/#:~:text=Seldom%20considered%20are%20those%20 other%20government%20agency%20%28OGA%29,response%20and%20consequence%20management%20 to%20name%20a%20few (accessed February 17, 2023). 39. U.S. Department of Defense, Nuclear Posture Review, February 2018, pp. 54–55, https://media.defense. gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PDF (accessed February 17, 2023). 40. U.S. Department of Defense, 2022 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America Including the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review and the 2022 Missile Defense Review, pp. 3 and 20. 41. Patty-Jane Geller, “Missile Defense,” in 2023 Index of U.S. Military Strength, ed. Dakota L. Wood (Washington: The Heritage Foundation, 2023), pp. 507–508, http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/Military_ Index/2023_IndexOfUSMilitaryStrength.pdf. 42. Matthew R. Costlow, “The Folly of Limiting U.S. Missile Defenses for Nuclear Arms Control,” National Institute for Public Policy Information Series, Issue No. 505, October 18, 2021, https://nipp.org/wp-content/ uploads/2021/10/IS-505.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 43. Forum for American Leadership, “Don’t Hand North Korea a Win in the Missile Defense Review,” January 4, 2022, https://forumforamericanleadership.org/dprk-missile-threat (accessed February 16, 2023). 44. Patty-Jane Geller, “It’s Time to Get Homeland Missile Defense Right,” Defense News, January 4, 2021, https:// www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2021/01/04/its-time-to-get-homeland-missile-defense- right/#:~:text=Restoring%20our%20eroding%20edge%20when,advanced%20technology%20and%20 new%20capabilities.%E2%80%9D (accessed February 16, 2023).

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. Kelly, Mark

A bill to require the Secretary of Agriculture to convey the Pleasant Valley Ranger District Administrative Site to Gila County, Arizona.

119/s/700

A bill to designate the Federal building located at 300 West Congress Street in Tucson, Arizona, as the "Raul M. Grijalva Federal Building".

119/s/2319

Legacy Mine Cleanup Act of 2025

119/s/2741

Back to All Bills

ACES Act of 2025

ACES Act of 2025

Sen. Kelly, Mark [D-AZ]

$95,050 raised

85% match to Project 2025

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed Senate

House Review

Passed Congress

Presidential Action

Became Law

Bill Summary

Related Topics

Related Topics

Related Topics

Related Topics

Related Topics

Related Topics

Related Topics

Related Topics

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR]

Sen. Banks, Jim [R-IN]

Sen. Warner, Mark R. [D-VA]

Donor Network - Sen. Kelly, Mark [D-AZ]

Top Donors - Sen. Kelly, Mark [D-AZ]

Project 2025 Policy Matches

Department of Veterans Affairs

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Department of Defense

Department of Veterans Affairs

Department of Defense

About These Correlations

Full Policy Text

Related Bills

Other Bills by Sen. Kelly, Mark