Ralph David Abernathy, Sr., National Historic Site Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/2102

Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Ralph David Abernathy, Sr., National Historic Site Act

S. 2102, 119th Congress — read as touching Real Estate.

The sponsor

Sen. Ossoff, Jon [D-GA]

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

The money

$81,800 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Health and Human Services" section, p. 530-532 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 482.

July 22, 2026

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:

**Summary of S. 2102: Ralph David Abernathy, Sr., National Historic Site Act**

**1. Main Purpose & Objectives** The primary purpose of S. 2102 is to establish the Ralph David Abernathy, Sr., National Historic Site in Georgia as a unit of the National Park System. The bill aims to preserve, protect, and interpret the historic West Hunter Street Baptist Church—where Abernathy served as pastor during the civil rights movement—and to honor his legacy as an internationally recognized civil rights leader. The objective is to ensure long-term federal stewardship of the site for educational, cultural, and historical benefit, aligning with the National Park Service’s mission of conservation and public interpretation.

**2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill creates a new National Historic Site under the authority of the Secretary of the Interior. Key provisions include: - Authorization for the Secretary to acquire land within the proposed boundary (per Map P99/184,019, dated August 2022) via donation, purchase from willing sellers, or exchange. - A restriction prohibiting the use of eminent domain or compulsory acquisition for state or municipal lands—such interests may only be acquired by donation. - Mandate for the Secretary to administer the site in accordance with existing National Park System laws (Title 54, U.S.C.), including sections related to land acquisition, management, and preservation. - Requirement to develop a management plan within three years of initial funding. - Authority to enter into cooperative agreements with the State of Georgia or other entities for interpretive services, signage, exhibits, parking, technology-based interpretation, and preservation efforts—both within and outside the site boundaries. - The site will not be officially established until the Secretary determines sufficient land has been acquired to form a manageable unit, followed by Federal Register notice.

**3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders** - **Federal Government (National Park Service):** Assumes administrative, financial, and managerial responsibility for the site, including land acquisition, maintenance, and public programming. - **State of Georgia and Local Governments:** May participate via cooperative agreements but cannot be compelled to transfer land; retain influence over adjacent land use and potential partnerships. - **Private Landowners:** May sell or donate land within the boundary; subject to market dynamics and federal appraisal processes. - **Civil Rights Organizations, Historians, Educators:** Gain a federally recognized platform for interpreting Abernathy’s legacy and the broader civil rights movement. - **Taxpayers:** Bear long-term operational and maintenance costs, though initial funding may rely on donations or appropriations. - **Tourism Industry:** Potential for increased heritage tourism in the Atlanta area, benefiting local businesses.

**4. Potential Impact & Implications** The bill represents a symbolic and institutional investment in civil rights history, expanding the National Park System’s narrative beyond natural conservation to include social justice landmarks. While the direct fiscal impact is modest—land acquisition likely relies on donations and limited appropriations—the precedent reinforces federal involvement in commemorating African American leadership. From a libertarian or market-oriented perspective, the bill exemplifies inefficient allocation of public resources to symbolic projects that could be managed by private foundations, state entities, or nonprofit trusts. The requirement for federal management introduces bureaucratic overhead and long-term liability, whereas interpretive and preservation goals could be achieved more efficiently through public-private partnerships or charitable endowments. Moreover, restricting acquisition of state-owned land to donation only reflects political compromise but limits federal flexibility. Ultimately, the bill serves more as a cultural affirmation than a functional necessity, diverting attention and capital from higher-yield infrastructure or innovation-driven initiatives. Its true value lies in legacy consolidation—not economic or governance efficiency.

Related Topics

Public Lands & Natural Resources

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

As I taught you in 8th grade civics—*remember when we learned how bills become laws?*—this is a straightforward piece of legislation that follows the basic process we covered. It establishes a national historic site, which, as we discussed, is one of the ways Congress exercises its power to preserve significant pieces of American history through the National Park System.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The bill’s purpose is explicitly stated in the title: to establish the Ralph David Abernathy, Sr., National Historic Site in Georgia. As we covered when discussing civil rights history, this site would preserve and interpret two key elements: the West Hunter Street Baptist Church, where Dr. Abernathy served as pastor during the height of the modern civil rights movement, and his broader legacy as an internationally recognized civil rights leader who worked alongside Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The objective is to ensure these historically significant resources are protected for present and future generations—a core function of the National Park System we reviewed when studying federal land management.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** This bill creates a new unit of the National Park System, which, as I explained when we covered the Organic Act of 1916, adds to the portfolio of sites managed by the Secretary of the Interior. Key provisions include: defining the historic site’s boundaries based on a specific map (P99/184,019, dated August 2022); authorizing the Secretary to acquire land through donation, purchase, or exchange (with state-owned land only acquirable by donation); requiring a management plan within three years of funding availability; and mandating administration in accordance with existing National Park Service laws found in Title 54 of the U.S. Code. Notably, the site won’t be officially established until the Secretary determines sufficient land has been acquired to form a "manageable unit"—a standard procedural safeguard we discussed when learning about how new parks are actually implemented.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The primary affected party is the Secretary of the Interior, who assumes responsibility for land acquisition, administration, and planning. The State of Georgia and its political subdivisions are affected insofar as they can only transfer land to the site via donation. Local communities near the West Hunter Street Baptist Church in Atlanta will be impacted through potential preservation efforts, interpretive programming, and increased tourism. The general public, particularly those interested in civil rights history, gains access to a new educational resource. As we learned when discussing cooperative federalism, the bill also allows for agreements with state and other entities to provide services like signage, exhibits, and tours.

**Potential Impact & Implications** If enacted, this bill would formally recognize Dr. Abernathy’s indispensable role in the civil rights movement—often overshadowed in popular narratives—by creating a dedicated space for his story within the National Park System. Economically, it could stimulate heritage tourism in Atlanta. Educationally, it expands opportunities for public interpretation of civil rights history beyond the more commonly sites. Legally, it reinforces Congress’s authority to expand the National Park System through specific legislation, a process we reviewed when studying how parks like Yellowstone or the Statue of Liberty were established. The requirement for a management plan ensures thoughtful development, while the land acquisition provisions balance federal preservation goals with respect for state property rights—a federalism principle we spent considerable time on, if you’ll recall.

Honestly, this is Civics 101 stuff. If you’d paid attention in my class, none of this would need explaining.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

**Conspiracy Theorist Uncle’s Take on S. 2102: The Ralph David Abernathy, Sr., National Historic Site Act**

Alright, settle in, pass the sweet potato pie, and let me tell you what *they* don’t want you to see in this seemingly innocent bill to honor a civil rights giant. On the surface? Yeah, it’s about establishing a National Historic Site for Ralph David Abernathy Sr.—MLB’s right-hand man, often erased from the mainstream narrative while they put King on every stamp and street sign. But dig deeper, and you’ll see the *real* game.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** Officially, this bill creates a National Park Service unit in Georgia centered on West Hunter Street Baptist Church, where Abernathy pastored during the civil rights movement’s peak. It aims to preserve, protect, and interpret his legacy—and the broader struggle—for future generations. Sounds noble, right? But why *now*, in 2025–2026? Why not during Obama’s admin? Or Trump’s first term? Coincidence? I think not.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill lets the Secretary of the Interior acquire land via donation, purchase, or exchange—but crucially, *state-owned land can only be taken by donation*. That’s a loophole big enough to drive a Fed convoy through. It also mandates a management plan within 3 years of funding and allows cooperative agreements with the state for signage, exhibits, tech-based interpretation (hello, surveillance-adjacent tech?), and parking. Parking? Since when do historic sites need *federal-funded parking lots* unless they’re expecting crowds… or controlling access?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Looks like it’s for Abernathy’s family, Georgians, historians, tourists. But follow the money: the National Park Service gets a new unit—more budget, more federal footprint in Atlanta. Contractors get land surveys, construction, exhibit design. Tech firms get contracts for “interpretive devices.” And the state? They can “donate” land—meaning they offload maintenance costs to the feds while still influencing operations via cooperative agreements. Classic unfunded mandate in reverse.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This isn’t just about history. It’s about *narrative control*. Abernathy was more radical than King—linked to labor, anti-war, and economic justice movements. By enshrining him in the NPS, they sanitize his legacy, make him safe for school trips and Fourth of July picnics. Meanwhile, the map (P99/184,019, August 2022—*suspiciously precise*) defines a boundary. Who drew it? What’s *just outside* that line? Eminent domain creep? Federal zoning disguised as preservation? And why require a Federal Register notice *after* establishment? Feels like a rubber stamp on a fait accompli.

So yeah—honor Abernathy? Sure. But ask yourself: when the government rushes to canonize a rebel, are they preserving history… or neutralizing it? Pass the gravy, and keep your eyes on the map.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

**Summary of S. 2102: Ralph David Abernathy, Sr., National Historic Site Act**

**1. Main Purpose & Objectives** The primary purpose of S. 2102 is to establish the Ralph David Abernathy, Sr., National Historic Site in Georgia as a unit of the National Park System. The bill aims to preserve, protect, and interpret the legacy of Reverend Dr. Ralph David Abernathy, Sr., a pivotal figure in the American civil rights movement. Specifically, it seeks to safeguard the historic West Hunter Street Baptist Church—where Abernathy served as pastor during the movement’s peak—and to educate the public about his national and international leadership in advancing civil rights. The overarching objective is to ensure that Abernathy’s contributions are recognized and preserved for present and future generations through federal stewardship and public interpretation.

**2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill establishes a new National Historic Site under the National Park Service, defining its boundaries via a specified map (Map P99/184,019, dated August 2022). It authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire land within the boundary through donation, purchase from willing sellers (using donated or appropriated funds), or exchange—though state or municipal land may only be acquired by donation. The site will not be officially established until the Secretary determines sufficient land has been acquired to form a manageable unit, followed by a Federal Register notice within 30 days. The Secretary must administer the site in accordance with National Park System laws and complete a management plan within three years of funding availability. The bill also permits cooperative agreements with the State of Georgia and other entities for interpretation, education, signage, exhibits, parking, technology-based tours, and preservation efforts—both inside and outside the site’s boundaries.

**3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders** Key stakeholders include the National Park Service (responsible for administration and land management), the Secretary of the Interior (who oversees implementation), and the State of Georgia (particularly local governments in Atlanta, where the site is located). Affected parties also include private landowners within the proposed boundary (who may sell or donate land), the Abernathy family and civil rights organizations (who may collaborate on interpretation), educators and students (who will benefit from expanded historical resources), and the general public (who gain access to a new site for reflection and learning). Additionally, tourism-dependent businesses in Atlanta may see economic benefits from increased visitation.

**4. Potential Impact & Implications** The designation would elevate Abernathy’s historical profile alongside contemporaries like Martin Luther King Jr., ensuring his role in the civil rights movement receives sustained federal recognition. It could stimulate heritage tourism in Atlanta, promote educational programming, and encourage preservation of related civil rights sites. By requiring a management plan and allowing flexible land acquisition, the bill balances federal oversight with local cooperation. Symbolically, it affirms the national importance of grassroots religious leadership in social justice movements. While the bill carries minimal fiscal impact initially (dependent on future appropriations and land donations), its long-term implication is the permanent institutionalization of Abernathy’s legacy within America’s narrative of freedom and equality—though critics might argue such designations risk politicizing historical memory, even as they expand inclusive representation in the National Park System.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

**Summary of S. 2102: Ralph David Abernathy, Sr., National Historic Site Act**

**1. Main Purpose & Objectives** The bill’s stated purpose is to honor Reverend Dr. Ralph David Abernathy, Sr.—Martin Luther King Jr.’s indispensable but historically overshadowed lieutenant in the civil rights movement—by establishing a National Historic Site at West Hunter Street Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia. Ostensibly, it aims to preserve, protect, and interpret Abernathy’s legacy and the church’s role in the modern civil rights struggle for public education and national remembrance. In reality, this is legislative virtue signaling: a low-cost, high-visibility way for Senators Ossoff and Warnock (both Georgia Democrats) to burnish their civil rights credentials ahead of elections, while doing nothing substantive about voting rights, economic inequality, or systemic racism still plaguing Georgia. It’s the political equivalent of putting a bandaid on a gangrenous wound and calling it healing.

**2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill creates a new unit of the National Park System—the Ralph David Abernathy, Sr., National Historic Site—centered on the West Hunter Street Baptist Church and its surrounding area, as defined by a 2022 map (P99/184,019). The Secretary of the Interior may acquire land via donation, purchase (with donated/appropriated funds), or exchange—but crucially, state or local government-owned land can only be acquired by donation, a poison pill designed to appease states’ rights ideologues who fear federal overreach. The Secretary must wait until sufficient land is acquired to form a “manageable unit” before officially establishing the site, then publish notice in the Federal Register. Within three years of funding, a management plan must be completed. The Secretary may also enter cooperative agreements with Georgia or other entities for interpretation, education, signage, exhibits, parking, tech-based tours, and preservation—standard NPS boilerplate that adds nothing novel. No funding is authorized in the bill itself; appropriations will come later, if at all, making this a classic unfunded mandate dressed up as tribute.

**3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders** - **Beneficiaries (nominal):** The National Park Service (gets a new feather in its cap, albeit unfunded), local Georgia historians and civil rights advocates (who may finally get resources to tell Abernathy’s story), and tourists interested in civil rights history. - **Interested Parties:** The State of Georgia and City of Atlanta (who may be pressured to donate land or coordinate with NPS), Abernathy’s estate and family (who gain symbolic recognition), and civil rights organizations (who can use the site for advocacy, though access depends on NPS cooperation). - **Losers:** Taxpayers (who may eventually fund maintenance and staffing without clear public demand), and critics who see this as a distraction from urgent civil rights legislation. The bill does nothing to address contemporary struggles—it’s a monument to the past that lets politicians pretend they’re fighting injustice while ignoring the present.

**4. Potential Impact & Implications** If funded and implemented, the site could become a meaningful educational resource, correcting historical narratives that marginalize Abernathy’s contributions. However, given the lack of appropriations, the “sufficient land” loophole, and the donation-only restriction on state land, this risks becoming a perpetual paper park—authorized but unrealized, like so many NPS projects stuck in limbo. Politically, it’s a win for Ossoff and Warnock: they get to tout a civil rights achievement without alienating moderates or taking on powerful interests. For the public, it’s a hollow gesture—commemorating courage while avoiding the hard work of justice. In short: another expensive tombstone for a movement that’s still alive, and still being buried alive.

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

**Summary of S. 2102: Ralph David Abernathy, Sr., National Historic Site Act**

**1. Main Purpose & Objectives** The primary purpose of S. 2102 is to establish the Ralph David Abernathy, Sr., National Historic Site in Georgia as a unit of the National Park System. The bill aims to preserve, protect, and interpret the historic West Hunter Street Baptist Church—where Reverend Dr. Ralph David Abernathy, Sr. served as pastor during the peak of the modern civil rights movement—and to honor his legacy as an internationally recognized civil rights leader. The site will serve to educate present and future generations about Abernathy’s contributions to the struggle for racial justice and equality in the United States.

**2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill establishes the historic site upon the Secretary of the Interior’s determination that sufficient land and interests in land have been acquired to form a manageable unit, with the boundary defined by a specific map (P99/184,019, dated August 2022). Land acquisition may occur through donation, purchase from willing sellers using donated or appropriated funds, or exchange, though state or local government-owned land may only be acquired by donation. The Secretary of the Interior will administer the site in accordance with National Park System laws, including provisions in Title 54 of the U.S. Code. Within three years of funding availability, a management plan must be completed. The Secretary may also enter into cooperative agreements with the State of Georgia or other entities to support interpretive, educational, administrative, and preservation activities, including signage, exhibits, parking, technology-based interpretation, public tours, and resource preservation.

**3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders** Key stakeholders include the National Park Service (responsible for administration), the Secretary of the Interior, the State of Georgia and its political subdivisions, the West Hunter Street Baptist Church congregation, civil rights historians and educators, local communities in Atlanta, and the general public. African American communities and civil rights organizations may particularly benefit from the site’s recognition and educational programming. Federal funding and land management policies will be directly affected upon establishment.

**4. Potential Impact & Implications** The designation would elevate the historical significance of Abernathy’s leadership and the West Hunter Street Baptist Church within the national narrative of the civil rights movement. It could stimulate heritage tourism, support local economic development, and enhance public access to civil rights history through improved interpretation and preservation. The bill reinforces federal commitment to recognizing diverse voices in American history. However, successful implementation depends on timely land acquisition, adequate funding, and effective coordination between federal, state, and local entities. The requirement that state-owned land be acquired only by donation may pose challenges if such lands are critical to the site’s boundaries. Overall, the act has the potential to create a lasting educational and commemorative resource that fosters reflection on civil rights struggles and progress.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Ossoff, Jon [D-GA]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$81,800

14 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$81,800

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

THOMAS, TORI

4 transactions

$19,000

MCCLURE, RODERICK

2 transactions

$13,200

HOLLANDER, ELLEN

2 transactions

$10,000

RECHNITZ, JOAN

2 transactions

$6,600

MILLER, KRISTIE

1 transaction

$3,300

HOPPER, HEIDI

1 transaction

$3,300

BRASCH, JOHN

1 transaction

$3,300

ARNOLD, JOHN

1 transaction

$3,300

BREA, JUDITH

1 transaction

$3,300

FINNELL, ROBERT

1 transaction

$3,300

FAIVUS, HARRY

1 transaction

$3,300

GOLDSTEIN, DIANA

1 transaction

$3,300

ALLEN, BRUCE

1 transaction

$3,300

UHRHANE, ERIC

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Warnock, Raphael G. [D-GA]

ID: W000790

Top Contributors

JME GROUP

OrganizationSTONE MOUNTAIN, GA

$2,900

Jun 30, 2023

JME GROUP

OrganizationSTONE MOUNTAIN, GA

$2,900

Jul 18, 2024

PORTFOLIO ONE

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$1,250

Mar 17, 2023

MCKENNEY HOUSE LLC

OrganizationFORT WASHINGTON, MD

$1,000

Jun 30, 2023

WATKINS WATKINS & WATKINS LLC

OrganizationCARROLLTON, GA

$1,000

Feb 17, 2023

SCR CONSULTING LLC

OrganizationATLANTA, GA

$500

Feb 17, 2023

GIBSON, DAVID H.

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$26,750

Mar 31, 2023

ROBBINS, BONNIE

IndividualSEATTLE, WA

$12,118

Mar 31, 2023

ROBBINS, BONNIE

IndividualSEATTLE, WA

$12,118

Jul 18, 2024

KERR, WILLIAM G.

IndividualOKLAHOMA CITY, OK

$9,625

Mar 31, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Ossoff, Jon [D-GA]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 43 nodes and 58 connections

Total contributions: $58

Top Donors - Sen. Ossoff, Jon [D-GA]

Showing top 14 donors by contribution amount

14 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Real Estateconfidence 0.80
Section 3(d) allows the Secretary to acquire land and interests in land within the boundary of the Historic Site by donation, purchase, or exchange, which may benefit real estate developers and property managers in the area.
+Construction & Engineeringconfidence 0.60
Section 3(f) requires the Secretary to complete a management plan for the Historic Site, which may involve construction and engineering projects to preserve and protect the site, potentially benefiting construction firms and engineering services.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Ossoff, Jon [D-GA])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Construction & Engineering$120
from 12 contributions
- THOMPSON, JANICE$120

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 Health and Human Services

Moderate

Vector: 56%

Pages: 530-532AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on preserving civil rights history and honoring a Black leader, which supports the HHS strategic goal of advancing racial equity and addressing underserved communities, though it does not directly address healthcare access or services."

Key themes:racial equityunderserved communitiescivil rightshistorical preservationcommunity engagement

— 498 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Strategic Plan, FY 2018–2022, p. 50, https://aspe.hhs.gov/ sites/default/files/documents/feac346aca967bfadc446398679e14ec/hhs-strategic-plan-fy-2018-2022.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023). 2. “Strategic Goal 1: Protect and Strengthen Equitable Access to High Quality and Affordable Healthcare” in ibid. “In the context of HHS, this Strategic Plan adopts the definition of underserved communities listed in Executive Order 13985: Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities through the Federal Government to refer to ‘populations sharing a particular characteristic, as well as geographic communities, who have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life’; this definition includes individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality. Individuals may belong to more than one underserved community and face intersecting barriers. This definition applies to the terms underserved communities and underserved populations throughout this Strategic Plan.” Ibid. Emphasis in original. 3. Karen Weintraub, “Americans’ Life Expectancy Continues to Fall, Erasing Health Gains of the Last Quarter Century,” USA Today, December 22, 2022, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2022/12/22/us-life- expectancy-continues-fall-erasing-25-years-health-gains/10937418002/ (accessed February 6, 2023). 4. Apoorva Mandavilli, “The C.D.C. Isn’t Publishing Large Portions of the Data It Collects,” The New York Times, updated February 22, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/114450/documents/HHRG-117- IF02-20220302-SD004.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 5. Zachary B. Sluzala and Edmund F. Haislmaier, “Lessons from COVID-19: How Policymakers Should Reform the Regulation of Clinical Testing,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3696, March 28, 2022, https://www. heritage.org/public-health/report/lessons-covid-19-how-policymakers-should-reform-the-regulation-clinical. 6. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (C),” https://www.cdc.gov/maso/pdf/cdcmiss.pdf (March 16, 2023). 7. Judith Garber, “CDC ‘Disclaimers’ Hide Financial Conflicts of Interest,” Lown Institute Accountability Blog, November 6, 2019, https://lowninstitute.org/cdc-disclaimers-hide-financial-conflicts-of-interest/ (accessed February 6, 2023). See also U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2014–September 30, 2015),” https://www. cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2015.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Active Programs (October 1, 2015–September 30, 2016),” https://www.cdcfoundation. org/sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2016.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2016–September 30, 2017),” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/ sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2017.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2017–September 30, 2018),” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/ files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2018.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2018–September 30, 2019,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/files/upload/ pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2019.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2029–September 30, 2020,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/CDCF-ActivePrograms-CDC-FY20?inline (accessed February 7, 2023); and “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2020–September 30, 2021,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/CDCF-ActivePrograms-CDC-FY21?inline (accessed February 7, 2023). 8. Joel White and Doug Badger, “In Order to Defeat COVID-19, the Federal Government Must Modernize Its Public Health Data,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3527, September 3, 2020, https://www.heritage. org/sites/default/files/2020-09/BG3527_0.pdf. 9. S. 15, Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 23, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/s15/BILLS-118s15is.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023), and H.R. 632, Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 30, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr632/BILLS-118hr632ih.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 10. Doug Badger, “How Congress Can Make Real Progress on Drug Prices,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 5016, December 9, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/IB5016_1.pdf. — 499 — Department of Health and Human Services 11. Sluzala and Haislmaier, “Lessons From COVID-19: How Policymakers Should Reform the Regulation of Clinical Testing.” 12. Ibid. 13. H.R. 5471, Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, Public Law No. 100-578, 100th Congress, October 31, 1988, https://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/100/578.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 14. Sluzala and Haislmaier, “Lessons From COVID-19: How Policymakers Should Reform the Regulation of Clinical Testing.” 15. Edmund F. Haislmaier, “Ensuring Americans’ Access to Pharmaceuticals: A Primer and Road Map for Policymakers,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3545, October 20, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/ sites/default/files/2020-10/BG3545.pdf. 16. 18 U.S.C. 1461, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1461 (accessed March 16, 2023), and 18 U.S.C. 1462, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1462 (accessed March 16, 2023). 17. H.R. 1308, Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Public Law No. 103-141, 103rd Congress, November 16, 1993, https://www.congress.gov/103/statute/STATUTE-107/STATUTE-107-Pg1488.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 18. Charles Piller, “Is FDA’s Revolving Door Open Too Wide?” Science, Vol. 361, No. 6397 (July 6, 2018), p. 21, https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/science.361.6397.21 (accessed February 6, 2023). 19. Joel Achenbach, “NIH Halts $100 Million Study of Moderate Drinking That Is Funded by Alcohol Industry,” The Washington Post, May 17, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/05/17/nih- halts-controversial-study-of-moderate-drinking/ (accessed February 6, 2023). 20. Alexander Tin, “Moderna Offers NIH Co-ownership of COVID Vaccine Patent amid Dispute with Government,” CBS News, November 15, 2021, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/moderna-covid-vaccine-patent-dispute- national-institutes-health/ (accessed February 6, 2023). 21. Informed Consent Action Network, “NIH Officials Profiting from COVID-19 Vaccine,” June 3, 2021, https://www. icandecide.org/nih-officials-profiting-from-covid-19-vaccine/ (accessed February 6, 2023). 22. Adam Andrzejewski, “Substack Investigation: Fauci’s Royalties and the $350 Million Royalty Payment Stream HIDDEN by NIH,” Open the Books Substack, May 9, 2022, https://openthebooks.substack. com/p/faucis-royalties-and-the-350-million?utm_source=/profile/24758236-adam-andrzejewski&utm_ medium=reader2&s=w (accessed February 6, 2023). 23. Robert E. Moffit, “Time to Reverse Hospital Market Consolidation,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, January 5, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/commentary/time-reverse-hospital-market-consolidation. 24. H.R. 3590, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law No. 111-148, 111th Congress, March 23, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ148/PLAW-111publ148.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 25. Brian J. Miller, Robert E. Moffit, James Ficke, Joseph Marine, and Jesse Ehrenfeld, “Reversing Hospital Consolidation: The Promise of Physician-Owned Hospitals,” Health Affairs Forefront, April 12, 2021, https:// www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20210408.980640/ (accessed February 13, 2023). 26. Robert E. Moffit, “Medicare’s Future: Challenges and Opportunities,” testimony before the Special Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate, November 21, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/testimony/medicares-future-challenges- and-opportunities. 27. 42 U.S. Code § 256b, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/256b (accessed March 16, 2023). 28. H.R. 3590, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, § 3022. 29. H.R. 5376, Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-169, 117th Congress, August 16, 2022, https:// www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ169/PLAW-117publ169.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 30. Robert E. Moffit, “Reducing Patient Access to New Medications Is the Left’s Latest Medicare Price-Fixing Scheme,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, July 22, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/medicare/commentary/ reducing-patient-access-new-medications-the-lefts-latest-medicare-price-fixing, and Badger, “How Congress Can Make Real Progress on Drug Prices.” 31. Nina Owcharenko Schaefer, “Medicaid at 55: Understanding the Design, Trends, and Reforms Needed to Improve the Health Care Safety Net,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3604, April 14, 2021, https:// www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/BG3604_0.pdf, and Brian C. Blase, “Punishing Conservative States: Payment Cuts to Hospitals Where Federal Spending Is Already Low,” Paragon Health Institute, December 2021, https://paragoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Punishing-Conservative-States- HTML.html (accessed February 13, 2023).

Department of the Interior

Weak

Vector: 55%

Pages: 575-577AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill establishes a national historic site to preserve civil rights heritage, which is unrelated to Project 2025's Department of the Interior focus on land use, resource development, and opposition to conservation initiatives like 30x30. There is no meaningful alignment in objectives or policy direction."

Key themes:Department of the Interiorland managementNational Park System

— 542 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 53. Alaska’s request for an injunction was denied. State of Alaska v. Carter, 462 F. Supp. 1155, 1156 (D. Alaska 1978) (NEPA does not apply to presidential proclamations under the Antiquities Act). Alaska’s lawsuit was similar to one filed by Wyoming challenging use of the Antiquities Act to designate the Grand Teton National Monument. Wyoming v. Franke, 58 F. Supp. 890 (D. Wyo. 1945). See generally Carol Hardy Vincent and Kristina Alexander, “National Monuments and the Antiquities Act,” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, R41330, July 20, 2010, https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc813640/m2/1/high_res_d/ R41330_2011Aug22.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). In December 1980, President Carter signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservations Act; subsequently, during the Reagan Administration, Alaska dropped its lawsuit. 54. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Public Law 96–487 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 16 U.S.C., 43 U.S.C., 48 U.S.C.), and Joseph J. Perkins, Jr., The Great Land Divided But Not Conquered: The Effects of Statehood, ANCSA, and ANILCA on Alaska, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 34, Ch. 6, 1988, § 6.02. 55. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1983: A Year Of Enrichment: Improving The Quality Of Life For All Americans, October 1983, p. 25, https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/public/digitallibrary/smof/publicliaison/blackwell/box- 006/40_047_7006969_006_022_2017.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 56. Ibid. The conveyances by the Reagan Administration to Alaska and Native Alaskans greatly exceeded the amount of land transferred to each during the Carter Administration. See U.S. Department of the Interior, 1983: A Year Of Enrichment, pp. 86–87. 57. Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 252 (December 31, 1971), pp. 25410–25412. “On December 28, 1971, ten days after enactment of ANCSA, the Secretary of Interior through his Assistant Secretary issued Public Land Order (PLO) 5150 which withdrew and reserved various federal public lands, subject to valid existing rights, as a utility and transportation corridor for the Alaska oil pipeline. 36 Fed. Reg. 25410 (December 31, 1971). The land order was issued ‘by virtue of the authority vested in the President and pursuant to Executive Order 10355 of May 26, 1952 (17 Fed. Reg. 4831)….PLO 5150 established a corridor extending from the North Slope of Alaska (Prudhoe Bay) south to Valdez on Prince William Sound.’” Wisenak, Inc. v. Andrus, 471 F. Supp. 1004, 1006 (D. Alaska 1979). 58. Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act, Public Law 108–452. 59. Philip Elliott, “Biden May Be About to Sign Off on a Huge Alaska Oil Drilling Project,” Time, December 13, 2022, https://time.com/6240733/biden-alaska-oil-drilling-willow-project/ (accessed March 16, 2023). A Biden approval of the bare minimum three pads for ConocoPhillips disincentivized the ability of any other oil and gas company to make the huge investment necessary to operate in NPRA. 60. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water, “Ambler Road Project,” https:// dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/ambler-road/ (accessed March 17, 2023). 61. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ambler Road: Environmental Impact Statement: Vol. 1, March 2020, https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/nepa/57323/20015364/250020506/Ambler_ FEIS_Volume_1-_Chp_1-3_&__Appendices_A-F_.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 62. 5 U.S. Code § 801(a)(1)(A). 63. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Master Memorandum of Understanding Between the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska and the U.S. National Park Service,” October 14, 1982; U.S. Department of the Interior, “Master Memorandum of Understanding Between the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Survey,” March 13, 1982; and U.S. Department of the Interior, “Master Memorandum of Understanding Between the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska and the Bureau of Land Management,” August 3, 1983, https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/ lup/66967/84127/100727/Memorandum_of_Understanding_BLM_and_ADFG.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 64. Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 210 (October 29, 2020), pp. 68668–68703. 65. Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 18 (January 27, 2023), pp. 5252–5272. 66. E. Dinerstein et al., “A Global Deal For Nature: Guiding Principles, Milestones, and Targets,” Science Advances, Vol. 5, No. 4 (April 19, 2019), https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw2869 (accessed March 18, 2023). 67. Joseph R. Biden, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” Executive Order 14008, https://www. whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/executive-order-on-tackling-the-climate- crisis-at-home-and-abroad/ (accessed March 17, 2023). — 543 — Department of the Interior 68. Karen Budd Falen, “Biden’s ‘30 By 30 Plan’: A Slap at American Private Property Rights,” Cowboy State Daily, April 15, 2021, https://cowboystatedaily.com/2021/04/15/bidens-30-by-30-plan-a-slap-at-american-private- property-rights/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 69. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3396: Rescission of Secretary’s Order 3388, ‘Land and Water Conservation Fund Implementation by the U.S. Department of the Interior,’” February 11, 2021, https://www. doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3396-signed-2-11-21-final.pdf (accessed March 17, 2021). 70. Ibid. 71. Associated Press, “Ute Indian Tribe Criticizes Biden’s Camp Hale Monument Designation,” KUER 90.1, October 13, 2022. 72. William Perry Pendley, “Trump Wants to Free Up Federal Lands, His Interior Secretary Fails Him,” National Review Online, September 25, 2017, https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/09/secretary-interior-ryan-zinke- monuments-review-trump-executive-order-antiquities-act-environmentalists/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 73. The Oregon and California Revested Lands Sustained Yield Management Act of 1937, Public Law 75-405, 43 U.S. Code § 2601. 74. Ibid., and American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d 184, 187 (D.D.C. 2019). 75. American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d, pp. 187–188. 76. Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 26 (June 26, 1990), p. 26114–26194. 77. Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 114 (June 13, 2000), pp. 37249–37252. 78. Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 11 (January 18, 2017), pp. 6145–6150. 79. American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d 184 (D.D.C. 2019). 80. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Final Consent Decrees/Settlement Agreements,” https://www.doi.gov/ solicitor/transparency/final (accessed March 16, 2023). 81. Michael Doyle, “Interior Order Erases Litigation Website,” E&E News, June 17, 2022, https://www.eenews.net/ articles/interior-order-erases-litigation-website/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 82. Rob Roy Ramey, On the Origin of Specious Species (Lexington Books 2012), pp. 77–97. 83. William Perry Pendley, “Killing Jobs to Save the Sage Grouse: Junk Science, Weird Science, and Plain Nonsense,” Washington Times, May 31, 2012, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/31/killing- jobs-to-save-the-sage-grouse/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 84. Michael Lee, “Wyoming’s Push to Delist Grizzly Bears from Endangered Species List Faces Opposition from Anti-Hunting Group,” Fox News, January 21, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wyoming-delist-grizzly- endangered-species-list-opposition-anti-hunting-group (accessed March 18, 2023). 85. News release, “Trump Administration Returns Management and Protection of Gray Wolves to States and Tribes Following Successful Recovery Efforts,” October 29, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/trump- administration-returns-management-and-protection-gray-wolves-states-and-tribes (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. 50 Code of Federal Regulations §17, and Sean Paige, “‘Rewilding’ Will Backfire on Colorado,” The Gazette, June 19, 2022, https://gazette.com/opinion/guest-column-rewilding-will-backfire-on-colorado/article_ d0016672-ed79-11ec-b027-abe62ba840a1.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. Madeleine C. Bottrill et al., “Is Conservation Triage Just Smart Decision Making?” Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 23, No. 12 (December 2008), pp. 649–654, https://karkgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/Bottrill-et-al-2008. pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 88. Rob Roy Ramey II, testimony before the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, April 8, 2014, https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/rameytestimony4_8.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 89. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95–87. 90. Pennsylvania is the nation’s third-largest coal producer, and its state program was the model for SMCRA. 91. Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 207 (October 26, 2020), pp. 67631–67635. 92. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, “Approximate Original Contour,” INE–26, June 23, 2020, https://www.osmre.gov/sites/default/files/pdfs/directive1003.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 93. Tim Gallaudet and Timothy R. Petty, “Federal Action Plan for Improving Forecasts of Water Availability,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, October 2019, https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/ legacy/document/2019/Oct/Federal%20Action%20Plan%20for%20Improving%20Forecasts%20of%20 Water%20Availability.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023).

Department of the Interior

Weak

Vector: 57%

Pages: 572-574AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on establishing a national historic site to honor civil rights leader Ralph David Abernathy and preserve related history, which is unrelated to Project 2025's Department of the Interior priorities centered on energy development, regulatory streamlining, and reducing federal land management for conservation or climate goals. There is no substantive overlap in policy objectives."

Key themes:Department of the Interiorfederal land management

— 539 — Department of the Interior ENDNOTES 1. See generally William Perry Pendley, Sagebrush Rebel: Reagan’s Battle with Environmental Extremists and Why It Matters Today (Regnery, 2013), preface, pp. xvi-xxii. 2. U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” 3. In Wyoming, the federal government owns 48 percent of the land; in Wyoming’s Teton County, the federal government owns 97 percent of the land. 4. Pendley, Sagebrush Rebel. 5. Keith Schneider, “The 1992 Campaign; Bush on the Environment: A Record of Contradictions,” New York Times, July 4, 1992, https://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/04/us/the-1992-campaign-bush-on-the-environment-a- record-of-contradictions.html (accessed March 15, 2023). 6. William Perry Pendley, War on the West: Government Tyranny on America’s Great Frontier (Regnery, 1995). 7. William Perry Pendley, “Bureau of Land Management Yesterday and Today: Energy Independence,” Cowboy State Daily, April 5, 2022, https://cowboystatedaily.com/2022/04/05/bureau-of-land-management- yesterday-and-today-energy-independence/ (accessed March 15, 2023). 9. Ibid. 9. William Perry Pendley, “Perspective: Biden’s War on Western Energy,” The Gazette, November 6, 2022, https:// gazette.com/opinion/perspective-biden-s-war-on-western-energy/article_3823a584-5bb2-11ed-a598- 235c22e34687.html (accessed March 15, 2023). 10. Ibid. 11. Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, Public Law 86–517. 12. Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 159 (August 20, 2021), pp. 46873–46877. 13. Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 19 (February 1, 2021), pp. 7619–7633, and White House, “Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis,” January 20, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order- protecting-public-health-and-environment-and-restoring-science-to-tackle-climate-crisis/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 14. National Environmental Policy Act, Public Law 91–160. 15. Antiquities Act of 1906, Public Law 59–209. 16. “You know what there’s not is a shall for? ‘I shall manage the land to stop climate change,’ or something similar to that,” Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt testified. “You guys come up with the shalls.” Chris D’Angelo, “Interior Secretary Blames Congress for His Inaction on Climate Change,” High Country News, May 9, 2019. 17. Federal Land Policy and Land Management Act of 1976, Public Law 94–579; Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Public Law 95–372; and 30 U.S.C. § 21 et seq. 18. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3398: Revocation of Secretary’s Orders Inconsistent with Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis,” April 16, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3398-508_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 19. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3348: Concerning the Federal Coal Moratorium,” March 29, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/so_3348_coal_moratorium.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 20. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3349: American Energy Independence,” March 29, 2017, https:// www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/so_3349_-american_energy_independence.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 21. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3350: America First Offshore Energy Strategy,” May 1, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/press-release/secretarial-order-3350-offshore-508.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 22. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3351: Strengthening the Department of the Interior’s Energy Portfolio,” May 1, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/press-release/secretarial-order-3351-energy- counselor-508.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 23. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3352: National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska,” May 31, 2017, https:// www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/so-3352.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). — 540 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 24. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3354: Supporting and Improving the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program and Federal Solid Mineral Leasing Program, July 6, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/uploads/so_-_3354_signed.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 25. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3355: Streamlining National Environmental Policy Reviews and Implementation of Executive Order 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” August 31, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/elips/documents/3355_-_streamlining_national_environmental_policy_reviews_and_implementation_ of_executive_order_13807_establishing_discipline_and_accountability_in_the_environmental_review_ and_permitting_process_for.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 26. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3358: Executive Committee for Expedited Permitting,” October 25, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so_3358_executive_committee_for_ expedited_permitting_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 27. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3360: Rescinding Authorities Inconsistent with Secretary’s Order 3349, “American Energy Independence,” December 22, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/3360_-_rescinding_authorities_inconsistent_with_secretarys_order_3349_american_energy_ independence.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 28. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3380: Public Notice of the Costs Associated with Developing Department of the Interior Publications and Similar Documents,” March 10, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/ doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3398-508_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 29. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3385: Enforcement Priorities,” September 14, 2020, https:// www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed-so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 30. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order 3389: Coordinating and Clarifying National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Reviews,” September 14, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed- so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 31. Bureau of Land Management, “Updating Oil and Gas Leasing Reform: Land Use Planning and Lease Parcel Reviews,” IM 2018–034, January 31, 2018, https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-2018-034 (accessed March 16, 2023). 32. Lease Now Act, S. 4228, 117th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2022). 33. ONSHORE Act, S. 218, 116th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2019). https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate- bill/218/text (accessed March 18, 2023). 34. Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 130 (July 8, 2022), pp. 40859–40863. 35. The Biden Administration’s 2023–2028 proposed program is fatally flawed. Katie Tubb, “Comment for the 2023–2028 National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Program,” BOEM–2022–0031, October 6, 2022, http:// thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/Regulatory_Comments/BOEM%202023-2028%20lease%20plan%20 comment%20KTubb.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 36. See Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117–169, §§ 50261–50263. 37. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Public Law No. 115–97, § 20001, and U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3401: Comprehensive Analysis and Temporary Halt on All Activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Relating to the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program,” June 1, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/so-3401-comprehensive-analysis-and-temporary-halt-on-all-activitives-in-the-arctic-national- wildlife-refuge-relating-to-the-coastal-plain-oil-and-gas-leasing-program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 38. In 2016, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell instituted a moratorium on new coal leases while conducting a programmatic environmental impact statement under NEPA to address concerns about competition and inconsistency with the Obama Administration’s climate policy. In 2017, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke lifted the moratorium and ended development of a programmatic environmental impact statement. In April 2021, Interior Secretary Debra Haaland rescinded Zinke’s order and initiated a new review of the coal-leasing program. See U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3338: Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to Modernize the Federal Coal Program,” January 15, 2016, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi. gov/files/elips/documents/archived-3338_-discretionary_programmatic_environmental_impact_statement_ to_modernize_the_federal_coal_program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023); U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3348”; U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3398”; and Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 159 (August 20, 2021), pp. 46873–46877.

Department of Agriculture

Minimal

Vector: 57%

Pages: 344-346AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill establishes a national historic site to honor civil rights leader Ralph David Abernathy and preserve civil rights history, which is unrelated to the Department of Agriculture's focus on agricultural policy, food systems, and farming subsidies outlined in the Project 2025 excerpt."

— 311 — Department of Agriculture ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p.1, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/2023-usda-budget-summary.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 2. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Transforming the U.S. Food System,” https://www.usda. gov/fst (accessed December 14, 2022). 3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p.1. 4. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “USDA Celebrates 150 Years,” https://www.usda.gov/our-agency/about-usda/ history (accessed December 16, 2022). 5. The law stated, “[T]here is hereby established at the seat of government of the United States a Department of Agriculture, the general designs and duties of which shall be to acquire and to diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture in the most general and comprehensive sense of that word, and to procure, propagate, and distribute among the people new and valuable seeds and plants.” Gladys L. Baker et al., Century of Service: The First 100 Years of the United States Department of Agriculture, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963) p. 13, https://babel. hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4254098&view=1up&seq=33 (accessed December 16, 2022). 6. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p. 2. 7. Ibid., p. 2. 8. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2022–2026, p. 3, https://www.usda.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/usda-fy-2022-2026-strategic-plan.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 9. News release, “USDA Announces Framework for Shoring Up the Food Supply Chain and Transforming the Food System to Be Fairer, More Competitive, More Resilient,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 1, 2022, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/06/01/usda-announces-framework-shoring-food-supply- chain-and-transforming (accessed December 14, 2022). 10. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Transforming the U.S. Food System.” 11. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2022–2026, pp. 1–2. 12. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Background on the U.S. Approach to the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit,” August 4, 2021, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Background-on-US-approach-2021-UN- Food-Systems-Summit.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 13. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “UN Food Systems Summit,” https://www.usda.gov/oce/sustainability/un- summit (accessed December 14, 2022). 14. Mark Bittman et al., “How a National Food Policy Could Save Millions of American Lives,” The Washington Post, November 7, 2014, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-a-national-food-policy-could- save-millions-of-american-lives/2014/11/07/89c55e16-637f-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html (accessed December 14, 2022); Daren Bakst and Gabriella Beaumont-Smith, “No, We Don’t Need to Transform the American Food System,” The Daily Signal, February 26, 2021, https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/02/26/ no-we-dont-need-to-transform-the-american-food-system/ (accessed December 14, 2022); and Daren Bakst, “Biden’s Food Conference Should Put People First, Not Environmental Extremism,” The Daily Signal, September 22, 2022, https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/09/22/bidens-food-conference-should-put-people- first-not-environmental-extremism/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 15. News release, “USDA to Invest Up to $300 Million in New Organic Transition Initiative,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 22, 2022, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/08/22/usda-invest-300- million-new-organic-transition-initiative (accessed December 14, 2022). 16. Gary Baise, “Sri Lanka’s Green New Deal Was a Disaster,” Farm Futures, November 14, 2022, https://www. farmprogress.com/commentary/sri-lankas-green-new-deal-was-disaster (accessed December 16, 2022). 17. See, for example, Catherine Greene et al., “Growing Organic Demand Provides High-Value Opportunities for Many Types of Producers,” Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, February 6, 2017, https://www. ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/januaryfebruary/growing-organic-demand-provides-high-value-opportunities- for-many-types-of-producers/#:~:text=ERS%20research%20shows%20that%20many,flavor%20desired%20 by%20the%20consumer (accessed December 14, 2022), and Andrea Carlson, “Investigating Retail Price Premiums for Organic Foods,” Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, May 24, 2016, https://www.ers. usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/may/investigating-retail-price-premiums-for-organic-foods/ (accessed December 16, 2022). Further, there are many myths, such as those regarding the alleged health benefit of organic food. One — 312 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise meta study found that “[t]he published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.” Crystal Smith-Spangler et al., “Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives,” Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 157, No. 5 (September 4, 2012), pp. 348–366, https:// www.acpjournals.org/doi/epdf/10.7326/0003-4819-157-5-201209040-00007 (accessed December 16, 2022). 18. Steve Savage, “USDA Data Confirm Organic Yields Significantly Lower Than With Conventional Farming,” Genetic Literacy Project, February 16, 2018, https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/02/16/usda-data-confirm- organic-yields-dramatically-lower-conventional-farming/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 19. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program, Request for Comments,” USDA–2021–0010, October 21, 2021, https://www.regulations. gov/document/USDA-2021-0010-0001 (accessed December 16, 2022). 20. Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law 117–169. 21. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Productivity Growth in U.S. Agriculture (1948–2019),” https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/agricultural-productivity-in-the-u-s/productivity- growth-in-u-s-agriculture-1948-2019/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 22. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Total Food Budget Share Increased from 9.4 Percent of Disposable Income to 10.3 Percent in 2021,” July 15, 2022, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=76967 (accessed December 14, 2022). 23. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Quintiles of Income Before Taxes: Annual Expenditure Means, Shares, and Standard Errors, and Coefficients of Variation, Consumer Expenditure Surveys,” 2021, Table 1101, https://www.bls.gov/cex/tables/calendar-year/mean-item-share-average-standard-error/cu- income-quintiles-before-taxes-2021.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022), and Daren Bakst and Patrick Tyrrell, “Big Government Policies That Hurt the Poor and How to Address Them,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No.176, April 5, 2017, p. 7, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-04/SR176.pdf. 24. Daren Bakst and Joshua Sewell, “Congress Should Stop Abrogating Its Spending Power and Rein in the USDA Slush Fund,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 6052, February 19, 2021, p. 2, https://www.heritage.org/ budget-and-spending/report/congress-should-stop-abrogating-its-spending-power-and-rein-the-usda. 25. Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act of 1948, Public Law 80–806. 26. Bakst and Sewall, “Congress Should Stop Abrogating Its Spending Power.” 27. Ibid., p. 3. 28. Daren Bakst, “Comment from Bakst, Darren” on “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program, Request for Comments,” USDA–2021–0010, October 21, 2021,” November 1, 2021, https://www. regulations.gov/document/USDA-2021-0010-0001/comment?filter=bakst (accessed December 16, 2022). 29. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program.” 30. Megan Stubbs, “The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC),” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, updated January 14, 2021, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44606 (accessed December 16, 2022). 31. “Overall, 34 percent of all farms reported receiving some type of Government payment in 2021,” and “[o]verall, 14 percent of U.S. farms participated in Federal crop insurance programs.” Christine Whitt, Noah Miller, and Ryan Olver, “America’s Farms and Ranches at a Glance: 2022 Edition,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, pp. 24 and 26, https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/105388/eib-247. pdf?v=527.4 (accessed March 18, 2023). This data, which apparently does not cover crop insurance, included payments beyond just commodity payments, such as conservation payments. 32. Randy Schnepf, “Farm Safety-Net Payments Under the 2014 Farm Bill: Comparison by Program Crop,” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, August 11, 2017, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44914.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 33. Although livestock and specialty crop producers do receive some subsidies, former American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman captured the subsidy issue well. He “dismisse[d] outright the claim that farmers couldn’t survive without subsidy money. ‘Why does the livestock industry survive without subsidies?’ he ask[ed]. ‘Why does the specialty crop [fruit and vegetable] industry survive?’” Tamar Haspel, “Why Do Taxpayers Subsidize Rich Farmers?” The Washington Post, March 15, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost. com/lifestyle/food/why-do-taxpayers-subsidize-rich-farmers/2018/03/15/50e89906-27b6-11e8-b79d- f3d931db7f68_story.html (accessed March 18, 2023).

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal

Vector: 57%

Pages: 545-547AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill establishes a national historic site to honor a civil rights leader and preserve African American history, while the Project 2025 HUD section focuses on administrative reforms, accountability, and structural changes within the Department of Housing and Urban Development. There is no substantive overlap in subject matter, objectives, or policy mechanisms between the two."

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

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. Ossoff, Jon

Ocmulgee Mounds National Park and Preserve Establishment Act

119/s/1131

Preventing Child Trafficking Act of 2025

119/s/1049

Rural Veterans Transportation to Care Act

119/s/784

Back to All Bills