Restoring Confidence in the World Anti-Doping Agency Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/233
Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]

ID: B001243

Follow the money

The bill

Restoring Confidence in the World Anti-Doping Agency Act of 2025

S. 233, 119th Congress — read as touching Pharmaceuticals.

The sponsor

Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]

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

The money

$166,000 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Environmental Protection Agency" section, p. 470-472 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. 340.

February 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

Another exercise in legislative theater, courtesy of our esteemed Congress. Let's dissect this farce and get to the real diagnosis.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Restoring Confidence in the World Anti-Doping Agency Act of 2025 is a masterclass in Orwellian doublespeak. Its primary objective is to "restore confidence" in the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) by... wait for it... giving the US more control over WADA's governance and decision-making processes. Because, you know, what WADA really needed was more American exceptionalism.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This bill amends the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006 to grant the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) more authority over WADA. The changes include:

* Redefining terms like "United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee" and "independent athlete" * Expanding ONDCP's responsibilities with respect to WADA, including ensuring a "credible and independent governance model" that provides for fair representation of the US * Mandating that WADA implement governance reforms, including conflict-of-interest policies and decision-making roles for independent athletes

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects:

* The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) * The United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee * The Team USA Athletes' Commission * Independent athletes from the US and other democratic countries

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a thinly veiled attempt to exert American influence over WADA, under the guise of "restoring confidence." In reality, it's about consolidating power and control. The potential impact includes:

* Further politicization of anti-doping efforts * Increased tensions between the US and other countries with differing interests in WADA * Potential marginalization of independent athletes and smaller nations within WADA

In short, this bill is a classic case of "legislative lupus" – it's a disease that masquerades as a cure. The real motivation behind this bill is not to restore confidence in WADA but to advance American interests at the expense of others. It's a cynical power play, and we should all be skeptical of its true intentions.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than watch our esteemed lawmakers pretend to care about clean sports while they're actually just jockeying for position on the world stage.

Related Topics

Public Health & Pandemic Response
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$166,000
23 donors
PACs
$5,000
Organizations
$7,900
Committees
$0
Individuals
$153,100
1
FRIENDS OF COMMUNITY ONCOLOGY PAC
1 transaction
$5,000
1
THE COGGIN GROUP
2 transactions
$5,400
2
DOSS BROTHERS FARM
2 transactions
$2,000
3
BL PARTNERS GROUP LLC
1 transaction
$500

No committee contributions found

1
KING, RODNEY W.
1 transaction
$13,200
2
KINNEY, CHRIS
2 transactions
$13,200
3
BEAN, BILL G.
1 transaction
$10,000
4
SMITH, THOMAS
1 transaction
$10,000
5
GAMBLE, KATHRYN
1 transaction
$9,900
6
NEWVERRY, KARMA
1 transaction
$9,900
7
WETHERINGTON, WILLIAM MICHAEL MR.
1 transaction
$7,600
8
HAMPTON, GEORGE
1 transaction
$6,700
9
HARWELL, SAMUEL K. MR. IV
1 transaction
$6,600
10
HARWELL, SAMUEL K.
1 transaction
$6,600
11
KING, MARY L.
1 transaction
$6,600
12
SENSING, LUCY T. MRS.
1 transaction
$6,600
13
VITAL, GREG A.
1 transaction
$6,600
14
BRADLEY, JACQUELINE
1 transaction
$6,600
15
PRESTON, CASEY MS.
1 transaction
$6,600
16
DEVOS, BETSY
1 transaction
$6,600
17
DEVOS, DANIEL G. MR.
1 transaction
$6,600
18
DEVOS, DOUGLAS L. MR.
1 transaction
$6,600
19
DEVOS, RICHARD M. JR.
1 transaction
$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 6 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD]

ID: V000128

Top Contributors

22

1
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jun 3, 2023
2
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Apr 25, 2024
3
BROE, PATRICK
FOUNDER • BROE GROUP
IndividualDENVER, CO
$5,000
Sep 17, 2024
4
BROE, PAULA
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualDENVER, CO
$5,000
Sep 17, 2024
5
FUSTOK, OMAR
SELF EMPLOYED • HEALTHCARE
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$3,300
Dec 6, 2024
6
HUSAIN, NOMAAN K.
HUSAIN LAW • ATTORNEY
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$3,300
Dec 5, 2024
7
HUSAIN, NOMAAN K.
HUSAIN LAW • ATTORNEY
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$3,300
Dec 5, 2024
8
JAVED, MOHAMMAD SHAHID
TRUE INSURANCE SOLUTIONS • REAL ESTATE
IndividualBEAUMONT, TX
$3,300
Dec 4, 2024
9
JAVED, MOHAMMAD SHAHID
TRUE INSURANCE SOLUTIONS • REAL ESTATE
IndividualBEAUMONT, TX
$3,300
Dec 4, 2024
10
JAVED, MUHAMMAD TAHIR
RICELAND HEALTHCARE • CEO
IndividualBEAUMONT, TX
$3,300
Dec 4, 2024

Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]

ID: C001047

Top Contributors

23

1
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$2,800
Dec 31, 2024
2
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Nov 8, 2023
3
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jul 22, 2024
4
ARNOLD, JOHN MR.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$6,600
Dec 27, 2023
5
MANOCHERIAN, JENNIFER MS.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSCARSDALE, NY
$6,600
Feb 17, 2023
6
MANOCHERIAN, JED MR.
SELF • REAL ESTATE
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Feb 23, 2023
7
MANOCHERIAN, GREG MR.
SELF EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE
IndividualPOUND RIDGE, NY
$6,600
Mar 1, 2023
8
MANOCHERIAN, KIM
PANAM EQUITIES • EXECUTIVE
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Mar 27, 2023
9
KAY, ALISON MS.
KIDS CAPITAL • HEDGE FUND MANAGER
IndividualBEVERLY HILLS, CA
$6,600
Jun 20, 2023
10
MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE
DMM PROPRIETA MANAGEMENT • MANAGER
IndividualASPEN, CO
$6,600
Sep 26, 2024

Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]

ID: B001277

Top Contributors

20

1
OLSON, LYNDON
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualWACO, TX
$3,300
Dec 20, 2024
2
ALIX, JAY
ALIX PARTNERS • FOUNDER
IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI
$3,300
Oct 2, 2023
3
KIM, CHRISTINE M.
BBB LLC • ATTORNEY
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Oct 31, 2023
4
ALIX, JAY
ALIX PARTNERS • FOUNDER
IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI
$3,300
Apr 15, 2024
5
ROURE, RITA
PAGNY - LINCOLN HOSPITAL • PHYSICIAN
IndividualGREENWICH, CT
$3,300
Apr 10, 2024
6
ROURE, RITA
PAGNY - LINCOLN HOSPITAL • PHYSICIAN
IndividualGREENWICH, CT
$3,300
Apr 10, 2024
7
CHAVEZ, TOM
KRUX INC. • CEO
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Jul 13, 2024
8
CHAVEZ, TOM
KRUX INC. • CEO
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Jul 13, 2024
9
JONES, JERRY C.
LIVERAMP INC. • EXECUTIVE
IndividualLITTLE ROCK, AR
$3,300
Sep 19, 2024
10
NESSEL, ARIEL
NESSEL DEVELOPMENT • OWNER
IndividualROSS, CA
$3,300
Jul 12, 2024

Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]

ID: W000437

Top Contributors

25

1
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$25,000
Sep 13, 2024
2
MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS
$15,000
Nov 5, 2024
3
WT CONSULTANTS LLC
OrganizationJACKSON, MS
$2,500
Jan 12, 2023
4
WAYPOINT CONSULTING, LLC
OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC
$1,000
Mar 26, 2024
5
HEDERMAN BROTHERS, LLC
OrganizationMADISON, MS
$1,000
Oct 9, 2024
6
CHOUEST, GARY
EDISON CHOUEST OFFSHORE, LLC • CEO
IndividualGALLIANO, LA
$100,000
Dec 1, 2023
7
HALE, ROBERT T. JR.
GRANITE TELECOM • CEO
IndividualBOSTON, MA
$100,000
Jun 28, 2023
8
BLUE, J. NEAL
GENERAL ATOMICS • CEO
IndividualLA JOLLA, CA
$50,000
Dec 21, 2023
9
HALE, ROBERT T. JR.
GRANITE TELECOM • CEO
IndividualBOSTON, MA
$50,000
Apr 12, 2024
10
DUFF, THOMAS M.
SOUTHERN TIRE MART • PRESIDENT
IndividualHATTIESBURG, MS
$50,000
Sep 30, 2024

Sen. Blunt Rochester, Lisa [D-DE]

ID: B001303

Top Contributors

36

1
PHAROS CAPITAL GROUP LLC
OrganizationBRENTWOOD, TN
$3,300
Dec 15, 2023
2
TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA
OrganizationMARKSVILLE, LA
$3,300
Dec 29, 2023
3
POMO BAND OF THE HABEMOTOLEL INDIANS
OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA
$3,300
May 17, 2024
4
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationMADILL, OK
$3,300
May 30, 2024
5
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationMADILL, OK
$3,300
May 30, 2024
6
THE DANIEL INITIATIVE, LLC
OrganizationSTAFFORD, VA
$3,300
Jul 24, 2023
7
TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA
OrganizationMARKSVILLE, LA
$2,500
Sep 30, 2024
8
PHAROS CAPITAL GROUP LLC
OrganizationBRENTWOOD, TN
$2,300
Dec 15, 2023
9
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$2,000
Mar 31, 2024
10
1634 ASSOCIATES
OrganizationPHILADELPHIA, PA
$2,000
Sep 30, 2023

Sen. Luján, Ben Ray [D-NM]

ID: L000570

Top Contributors

45

1
LYTTON BAND OF POMO INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA ROSA, CA
$3,300
Dec 5, 2023
2
OTOE-MISSOURIA TRIBE
OrganizationRED ROCK, OK
$3,300
Dec 7, 2023
3
LYTTON BAND OF POMO INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA ROSA, CA
$3,300
Dec 5, 2023
4
TAOS PUEBLO GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
OrganizationTAOS, NM
$3,300
Dec 2, 2024
5
OHKAY OWINGEH TRIBE
OrganizationOHKAY OWINGEH, NM
$3,300
Dec 2, 2024
6
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA
$3,300
Apr 18, 2023
7
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA
$3,300
May 22, 2024
8
MESCALERO APACHE TRIBE
OrganizationMESCALERO, NM
$3,300
Sep 25, 2023
9
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC
$2,500
Jun 25, 2024
10
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$2,000
Mar 21, 2024

Donor Network - Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 47 nodes and 55 connections

Total contributions: $55

Top Donors - Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]

Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC3 Orgs19 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • −Pharmaceuticalsconfidence 0.80

    Section 2(d)(1)(C) implies stricter standards for countering doping, which could lead to increased regulatory scrutiny on pharmaceutical companies involved in producing performance-enhancing substances.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

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

Industries this bill HARMS

  • from 17 contributions
    • DAVIS, ROBERT M.$3,300
    • BOURLA, ALBERT$3,300
    • RHEE, HELEN$2,500
    • BRADWAY, ROBERT$2,500
    • UBL, STEPHEN$2,000

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.

Environmental Protection Agency

Moderate
Vector: 64%
Pages: 470-472AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 EPA section focus on reforming advisory bodies to ensure independence, balanced representation, and transparency, though they apply to different policy domains (anti-doping vs. environmental regulation)."

Key themes:advisory body reformindependencebalanced representationtransparencyconflict-of-interest policy

— 437 — Environmental Protection Agency l Suspend and review the activities of EPA advisory bodies, many of which have not been authorized by Congress or lack independence, balance, and geographic and viewpoint diversity. l Retract delegations for key science and risk-assessment decisions from Assistant Administrators, regional offices, and career officials. l Eliminate the use of Title 42 hiring authority that allows ORD to spend millions in taxpayer dollars for salaries of certain employees above the civil service scale. l Announce plans to streamline and reform EPA’s poorly coordinated and managed laboratory structure. Budget: Back-to-Basics Rejection of Unauthorized or Expired Science Activities A top priority should be the immediate and consistent rejection of all EPA ORD and science activities that have not been authorized by Congress. In FY 2022, according to EPA’s opaque budgeting efforts, science and technology activ- ities totaled nearly $730 million. EPA’s FY 2023 budget request for the Office of Research and Development seeks funds for more than 1,850 employees—a dramatic increase for what is already the largest EPA office with well above 10 percent of the agency’s workforce.44 ORD conducts a wide-ranging series of science and peer review activities, some in support of regulatory programs established by our envi- ronmental laws, but often lacks authority for these specific endeavors. Several ORD offices and programs, many of which constitute unaccountable efforts to use scientific determinations to drive regulatory, enforcement, and legal decisions, should be eliminated. The Integrated Risk Information System, for example, was ostensibly designed by EPA to evaluate hazard and dose-response for certain chemicals. Despite operating since the 1980s, the program has never been authorized by Congress and often sets “safe levels” based on questionable science and below background levels, resulting in billions in economic costs. The program has been criticized by a wide variety of stakeholders: states; Congress; the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM); and the U.S. Govern- ment Accountability Office (GAO), among others. EPA has failed to implement meaningful reforms, and this unaccountable program threatens key regulatory processes as well as the integrity of Clean Air Act and TSCA implementation. Needed EPA Advisory Body Reforms EPA currently operates 21 federal advisory committees.45 These committees often play an outsized role in determining agency scientific and regulatory policy, — 438 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and their membership has too often been handpicked to achieve certain politi- cal positions. In the Biden Administration, key EPA advisory committees were purged of balanced perspectives, geographic diversity, important regulatory and private-sector experience, and state, local, and tribal expertise. Contrary to con- gressional directives and recommendations from the GAO and intergovernmental associations, these moves eviscerated historic levels of participation on key com- mittees by state, local, and tribal members from 2017 to 2020. As a result, a variety of EPA regulations lack relevant scientific perspectives, increasing the risks of economic fallout and a failure of cooperative federalism. EPA also has repeatedly disregarded legal requirements regarding the role of these advisory committees and the scope of scientific advice on key regulations.46 Needed Science Policy Reforms Instead of allowing these efforts to be misused for scaremongering risk com- munications and enforcement activities, EPA should embrace so-called citizen science and deputize the public to subject the agency’s science to greater scrutiny, especially in areas of data analysis, identification of scientific flaws, and research misconduct. In addition, EPA should: l Shift responsibility for evaluating misconduct away from its Office of Scientific Integrity, which has been overseen by environmental activists, and toward an independent body. l Work (including with Congress) to provide incentives similar to those under the False Claims Act47 for the public to identify scientific flaws and research misconduct, thereby saving taxpayers from having to bear the costs involved in expending unnecessary resources. l Avoid proprietary, black box models for key regulations. Nearly all major EPA regulations are based on nontransparent models for which the public lacks access or for which significant costs prevent the public from understanding agency analysis. l Reject precautionary default models and uncertainty factors. In the face of uncertainty around associations between certain pollutants and health or welfare endpoints, EPA’s heavy reliance on default assumptions like its low-dose, linear non-threshold model bake orders of magnitude of risk into key regulatory inputs and drive flawed and opaque decisions. Given the disproportionate economic impacts of top-down solutions, EPA should implement an approach that defaults to less restrictive regulatory outcomes.

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak
Vector: 64%
Pages: 470-472AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on reforming WADA's governance, conflict‑of‑interest policies, and athlete representation, while the Project 2025 EPA section concerns advisory committee independence, scientific transparency, and public participation in environmental regulation. Both share themes of governance reform, transparency, and accountability, but they apply to entirely different policy domains, resulting only a weak, tangential alignment."

Key themes:governance reformtransparencyaccountabilityconflict‑of‑interest policyindependent representation

— 438 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and their membership has too often been handpicked to achieve certain politi- cal positions. In the Biden Administration, key EPA advisory committees were purged of balanced perspectives, geographic diversity, important regulatory and private-sector experience, and state, local, and tribal expertise. Contrary to con- gressional directives and recommendations from the GAO and intergovernmental associations, these moves eviscerated historic levels of participation on key com- mittees by state, local, and tribal members from 2017 to 2020. As a result, a variety of EPA regulations lack relevant scientific perspectives, increasing the risks of economic fallout and a failure of cooperative federalism. EPA also has repeatedly disregarded legal requirements regarding the role of these advisory committees and the scope of scientific advice on key regulations.46 Needed Science Policy Reforms Instead of allowing these efforts to be misused for scaremongering risk com- munications and enforcement activities, EPA should embrace so-called citizen science and deputize the public to subject the agency’s science to greater scrutiny, especially in areas of data analysis, identification of scientific flaws, and research misconduct. In addition, EPA should: l Shift responsibility for evaluating misconduct away from its Office of Scientific Integrity, which has been overseen by environmental activists, and toward an independent body. l Work (including with Congress) to provide incentives similar to those under the False Claims Act47 for the public to identify scientific flaws and research misconduct, thereby saving taxpayers from having to bear the costs involved in expending unnecessary resources. l Avoid proprietary, black box models for key regulations. Nearly all major EPA regulations are based on nontransparent models for which the public lacks access or for which significant costs prevent the public from understanding agency analysis. l Reject precautionary default models and uncertainty factors. In the face of uncertainty around associations between certain pollutants and health or welfare endpoints, EPA’s heavy reliance on default assumptions like its low-dose, linear non-threshold model bake orders of magnitude of risk into key regulatory inputs and drive flawed and opaque decisions. Given the disproportionate economic impacts of top-down solutions, EPA should implement an approach that defaults to less restrictive regulatory outcomes. — 439 — Environmental Protection Agency l Refocus its research activities on accountable real-world examinations of the efficacy of its regulations with a heavy emphasis on characterizing and better understanding natural, background, international, and anthropogenic contributions for key pollutants. It should embrace concepts laid out in the 2018 “Back-to-Basics Process for Reviewing National Ambient Air Quality Standards” memo48 to ensure that any science and risk assessment for the NAAQS matches congressional direction. Legislative Reforms While some reforms can be achieved administratively (especially in areas where EPA clearly lacks congressional authorization for its activities), Congress should prioritize several EPA science activity reforms: l Use of the Congressional Review Act for Congress to disapprove of EPA regulations and other quasi-regulatory actions and prohibit “substantially similar” actions in the future. l Reform EPA’s Science Advisory Board and other advisory bodies to ensure independence, balance, transparency, and geographic diversity. l Build on recent bipartisan proposals to increase transparency for advisory bodies, subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act49 as well as recommendations from the Administrative Conference of the U.S., to strengthen provisions for independence, accountability, geographic diversity, turnover, and public participation. This should include a prohibition on peer review activities for unaccountable third parties that lack independence or application of these same principles to non- governmental peer review bodies (including NASEM). l Add teeth to long-standing executive orders, memoranda, recommendations, and other policies to require that EPA regulations are based on transparent, reproducible science as well as that the data and publications resulting from taxpayer-funded activities are made immediately available to the public. l Reject funds for programs that have not been authorized by Congress (like IRIS) as well as peer review activities that have not been authorized by Congress. l Revisit and repeal or reform outdated environmental statutes. A high priority should be the repeal or reform of the Global Change Research Act of 1990,50 which has been misused for political purposes.

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal
Vector: 64%
Pages: 527-529AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on reforming World Anti-Doping Agency governance and ONDCP authority, whereas the Project 2025 policy deals with HHS OCR enforcement of religious exemptions, vaccine conscience, and Section 1557 anti-discrimination rules; there is no substantive thematic overlap."

— 495 — Department of Health and Human Services l HHS should restore OCR authority to review requests for and render opinions on the application of RFRA to requests for religious accommodation of people, families, and doctors who cannot in good conscience take or administer vaccines, including those made or tested with aborted fetal cell lines. l HHS should restore Section 1557, Section 504, and other OCR regulations and fix guidance documents. In 2020, the Trump Administration’s OCR published regulations under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act that restored the agency’s enforcement of that law to the limits of its statutory text, deferred to the ACA’s widespread use of a binary biological conception of sex discrimination, and specified that the regulation must comply with the religious exemption and abortion neutrality clauses in Title IX from which it is derived as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and other laws. Courts blocked core provisions of that rule from going into effect. In 2022, the Biden Administration proposed to reinstate a rule contradicting the scope of the statute and imposing nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. It is expected that this rule will be finalized in 2023 even though several courts have issued rulings against the interpretation on which it is based. l OCR should return its enforcement of sex discrimination to the statutory framework of Section 1557 and Title IX. Specifically, it should: 1. Remove all guidance issued under the Biden Administration concerning sexual orientation and gender identity under Section 1557, particularly the May 2021 announcement of enforcement82 and March 2022 statement threatening states that protect minors from genital mutilation.83 2. Issue a general statement of policy specifying that it will not enforce any prohibition on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in the Section 1557 regulation and that it will prioritize compliance with the First Amendment, RFRA, and federal conscience laws in any case implicating those claims. DOJ should commit to defending these actions aggressively against inevitable court challenges, including under cases such as Heckler v. Chaney.84 — 496 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Issue a proposed rule to restore the Trump regulations under Section 1557, explicitly interpreting the law not to include sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination based on the textual approach to male and female biology taken by Congress in the ACA, the need to recognize biological distinctions as part of the sound practice of health care, and the need to ensure protections of medical judgment and conscience. DOJ should agree to defend this rule to the Supreme Court if necessary. 4. Issue a general statement of policy announcing that it plans to enforce Section 1557 discrimination bans by refocusing on serious cases of race, sex, and disability discrimination. In particular, OCR should highlight its 2019 investigation and voluntary resolution agreement with Michigan State University based on the sexual abuse of gymnasts by Larry Nassar. OCR should also coordinate with the Department of Education on a public education and civil rights enforcement campaign to ensure that female college athletes who become pregnant are no longer pressured to obtain abortions; pursue race discrimination claims against entities that adopt or impose racially discriminatory policies such as those based on critical race theory; and announce its intention to enforce disability rights laws to protect children born prematurely, children with disabilities, and children born alive after abortions. 5. Issue and finalize the Trump-era draft disability rights regulations concerning crisis standards of care and use of Quality of Life Adjusted Years (QALYs), and reissue and finalize a disability regulation (withdrawn by the Biden Administration) that prohibited discriminatory application of assisted suicide and denial of life-saving treatments for disabled newborns. l OCR should withdraw its pharmacy abortion mandate guidance. OCR should withdraw its “Obligations Under Federal Civil Rights Laws to Ensure Access to Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Services” guidance for retail pharmacies,85 which purports to address nondiscrimination obligations of pharmacies under federal civil rights laws and in fact orders them to stock and dispense first-trimester abortion drugs. The guidance invents this so-called requirement and fails to acknowledge that pharmacies and pharmacists have the right not to participate in abortions, including pill-induced abortions, if doing so would violate their sincere moral or religious objections. Moreover, no federal civil rights laws preempt state pro-life statutes.

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.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills