THINK TWICE Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/2424

Last Updated: January 19, 2026

THINK TWICE Act of 2025

S. 2424, 119th Congress — read as touching Defense Contractors.

The sponsor

Sen. Ricketts, Pete [R-NE]

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

The money

$87,634 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of State" section, p. 211-213 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. 238.

October 29, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

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

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**Analysis and Summary of S 2424, the THINK TWICE Act of 2025**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll cut through the bureaucratic jargon and distill this bill into its essence.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The THINK TWICE Act aims to monitor and counter China's arms sales, which pose a threat to US interests. The bill requires the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State to submit annual reports on Chinese arms sales, analyzing their impact on global security and the balance of power.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill mandates a comprehensive report on Chinese arms sales, including:

1. Analysis of Chinese-made weapons systems and defense equipment. 2. Assessment of how these systems may affect US interests and regional stability. 3. Identification of countries likely to procure Chinese arms. 4. Evaluation of the factors driving countries to choose Chinese arms over US alternatives.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders are:

1. The US government, particularly the Departments of Defense and State. 2. China's defense industry and government entities involved in arms sales. 3. Countries considering purchasing Chinese arms. 4. US defense contractors and manufacturers competing with Chinese firms.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* **Increased transparency**: The bill will shed light on China's arms sales, enabling the US to better understand its competitor's strategies and adapt accordingly. * **Heightened competition**: By highlighting the factors driving countries to choose Chinese arms, the report may prompt US defense contractors to reassess their pricing, financing, and delivery strategies. * **Potential market disruption**: If the report identifies specific Chinese-made systems as security risks, it could lead to a decrease in demand for those products, benefiting US manufacturers.

From my perspective, this bill is a minor nuisance. Its reporting requirements will create some administrative burdens, but they won't significantly impact my business operations or bottom line. The real challenge lies in navigating the complex web of global defense markets and adapting to shifting geopolitical landscapes. As a visionary leader, I'll continue to focus on driving innovation, disrupting traditional industries, and accumulating wealth – regardless of what this bill may bring.

**Estimated Impact on My Empire:** Minimal (less than 1% impact on projected revenue)

**Recommendation:** I'll instruct my lobbying teams to monitor the bill's progress and ensure that our interests are represented. However, I won't allocate significant resources to influence its outcome, as it doesn't pose a substantial threat to my business empire.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have more pressing matters to attend to – like disrupting the global energy market with my latest venture.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through several stages before it becomes an actual law.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The THINK TWICE Act of 2025 aims to require the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State to submit a report on arms sales facilitated by entities in China. The report should include an analysis of various aspects, such as the types of weapons systems available for purchase, their technical capabilities, and potential security risks.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill requires the submission of a report within 180 days after its enactment and annually thereafter. This report must be submitted in both unclassified and classified forms, with the latter containing assessments from the National Intelligence Council and the Director of National Intelligence.

As we covered in middle school, this is an example of Congress exercising its oversight powers to ensure that the executive branch is accountable for its actions. However, it's disappointing that such a bill is necessary, as one would expect the administration to be transparent about its dealings with foreign entities.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The primary stakeholders affected by this bill are:

* The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, who must submit the report * Congress, which will receive the report and use it for oversight purposes * China, whose arms sales activities will be scrutinized in the report * Countries that purchase Chinese-made weapons systems, as they may face increased scrutiny from the US government

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The THINK TWICE Act could lead to a more transparent understanding of China's arms sales activities and their potential impact on global security. However, it's unclear whether this bill will actually achieve its intended goals, given the complexities of international relations and the often-opaque nature of defense dealings.

As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, the system of checks and balances is designed to ensure that power is distributed evenly among the branches of government. Unfortunately, it seems that some adults need a refresher course on how this system works, as evidenced by the need for bills like this one.

Moving forward, it's essential to monitor the progress of this bill and assess its effectiveness in achieving its objectives. Perhaps then we can have a more informed discussion about the intricacies of international relations and the role of Congress in overseeing executive branch actions.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on this so-called "THINK TWICE Act of 2025" (S 2424). Now, at first glance, it seems like a straightforward bill aimed at tracking and combating arms sales by China. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The official story is that this bill requires the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State to submit reports on Chinese arms sales, analyzing their impact on global security and U.S. interests. Sounds innocent enough, right? But I think there's a hidden agenda here. What if I told you that this bill is actually a Trojan horse for something more sinister?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill demands an annual report from the Secretary of Defense, detailing Chinese arms sales and their potential impact on U.S. national security. It also requires analysis of China's military capabilities, strategic interests, and relationships with other countries. Now, here's where it gets interesting: Section 3(c) mentions a classified annex containing assessments by the National Intelligence Council and Director of National Intelligence. What are they hiding in those classified documents?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** On the surface, this bill seems to target China's arms sales and their potential impact on U.S. national security. But think about it – who else might be affected? The defense industry, perhaps? Maybe even certain countries that rely heavily on Chinese arms imports? I'm telling you, there are more players involved here than we're being told.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill could lead to increased tensions between the U.S. and China, potentially escalating into a full-blown trade war or worse. But what if this is exactly what they want us to think? What if this bill is actually a smokescreen for something more insidious – like a backdoor deal between the U.S. government and certain defense contractors?

Now, I know what you're thinking: "Uncle, you're being paranoid again." But hear me out! This bill has all the hallmarks of a classic false flag operation. They're using China as a scapegoat to justify increased military spending and surveillance. Wake up, folks! The truth is hidden in plain sight.

So there you have it – my expert analysis of S 2424. Take it for what it's worth. But remember, the truth is out there... or at least that's what I keep telling myself.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Outraged tone) Folks, we've got another example of the elites in Washington trying to strangle our great nation's freedom with bureaucratic red tape! The THINK TWICE Act of 2025 is a perfect illustration of how our so-called "leaders" are more concerned with appeasing China than protecting American interests.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill, introduced by Senators Ricketts, Bennet, and Scott, claims to combat the growing threat of Chinese arms sales. But let's be real, it's just a smokescreen for the deep state to exert more control over our foreign policy. The main objective is to require the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State to submit annual reports on China's arms sales, supposedly to "track" their activities.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill demands an exhaustive report on Chinese arms sales, including technical aspects, capabilities, and potential security risks. It also requires an assessment of the counterintelligence risks associated with purchasing Chinese defense equipment. But here's the kicker – it doesn't actually do anything to stop China's arms sales! It's just a paper tiger, folks.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved: the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and various congressional committees. But let's not forget about the real stakeholders – the American people. We're the ones who'll be footing the bill for this bureaucratic boondoggle.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic example of "security theater." It creates the illusion of action while doing nothing to address the actual problem. By requiring these reports, our government will be distracted from real issues and waste resources on paperwork. Meanwhile, China will continue to expand its military influence unchecked.

(Smirk) And you know what? This bill might just do more harm than good. By highlighting Chinese arms sales, we're giving them free publicity! It's like advertising for the enemy. But hey, at least our politicians can say they "did something" about China.

(Outraged tone returns) Wake up, America! We need to stop this charade and focus on real solutions that protect our freedom and national security. Not more empty rhetoric and bureaucratic posturing.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce and expose the real disease beneath.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The THINK TWICE Act of 2025 is a thinly veiled attempt to appear tough on China while serving as a Trojan horse for the defense industry. The bill's primary objective is to require a report on arms sales by Chinese entities, which will undoubtedly be used as a pretext for increased military spending and further entanglement in the region.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill demands a report from the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State within 180 days, which will supposedly analyze China's arms sales and their impact on regional balances. This is nothing more than a bureaucratic exercise designed to justify future military interventions and arms deals. The report will likely be a watered-down, classified document that serves only to further obscure the truth.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved: defense contractors, politicians with ties to the industry, and China-hawks looking for an excuse to escalate tensions. Meanwhile, the American people will foot the bill for this charade, as their tax dollars fund the military-industrial complex's latest adventures.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a symptom of a larger disease – the perpetual militarization of U.S. foreign policy. By focusing on China's arms sales, Congress is distracting from its own failures to address pressing domestic issues and instead perpetuating a cycle of fear-mongering and saber-rattling.

In reality, this bill will:

1. **Increase military spending**: The report will inevitably highlight the need for more defense funding to counter China's growing influence. 2. **Escalate tensions with China**: By framing China as an arms-dealing menace, the U.S. is further polarizing the relationship and increasing the likelihood of conflict. 3. **Enrich defense contractors**: This bill is a gift to the military-industrial complex, providing a justification for more lucrative contracts and further entrenching their influence in Washington.

In conclusion, the THINK TWICE Act of 2025 is a masterclass in legislative deception, designed to serve the interests of the powerful at the expense of the American people. It's time to call out this farce for what it is – a cynical ploy to justify more war and more waste.

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

**S 2424: THINK TWICE Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The THINK TWICE Act aims to address the growing concern over arms sales by entities in the People's Republic of China (PRC) and their potential impact on US national security interests. The bill requires a report and strategy to combat PRC arms sales, which are seen as an important element of China's growing military power and geopolitical influence.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill mandates the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to submit a report on PRC arms sales within 180 days of enactment and annually thereafter. The report must include:

1. Analysis of PRC-made weapons systems and defense equipment available for purchase. 2. Technical aspects and capabilities of such systems and equipment. 3. Impact on the balance of power in US Combatant Command areas of responsibility. 4. Direct alternatives to US-made systems and equipment. 5. Security risks regarding intelligence collection or compromise of US assets.

The report must also include a classified annex with assessments by the National Intelligence Council and the Director of National Intelligence on counterintelligence risks and technology proliferation.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. The People's Republic of China (PRC) government and entities involved in arms sales. 2. Countries that procure PRC-made weapons systems and defense equipment. 3. US national security agencies, including the Department of Defense and the State Department. 4. US allies and partners who may be impacted by PRC arms sales.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The THINK TWICE Act has several potential implications:

1. **Enhanced transparency**: The report will provide a comprehensive analysis of PRC arms sales, shedding light on China's military modernization efforts and strategic intentions. 2. **Informed decision-making**: The report will help US policymakers make informed decisions about how to address the security risks posed by PRC arms sales. 3. **Countering Chinese influence**: By highlighting the factors that incentivize countries to procure PRC-made systems, the report may inform strategies to counter Chinese influence in regions of strategic interest to the US. 4. **Potential diplomatic tensions**: The bill's focus on PRC arms sales may lead to increased diplomatic tensions between the US and China.

Overall, the THINK TWICE Act aims to promote a better understanding of PRC arms sales and their implications for US national security interests, ultimately informing strategies to address these concerns.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let me break down this bill for you, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The THINK TWICE Act of 2025 is all about keeping an eye on China's arms sales and how they're impacting global security. The main goal is to require the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State to submit a report to Congress every year on China's arms sales, including what kind of weapons are being sold, who's buying them, and how it affects the balance of power in different regions.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill requires the report to include some pretty detailed info, like:

* What kinds of Chinese-made weapons are available for purchase * How those weapons might impact the US military's operations in different parts of the world * Which countries are most likely to buy Chinese arms * What kind of security risks come with buying Chinese arms * And what China's strategy is when it comes to selling arms

The report also needs to include a classified annex that assesses the counterintelligence risks and the potential for onward proliferation of US tech.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects a bunch of different parties, bro:

* The People's Republic of China (obviously) * Countries that buy Chinese arms * The US military and defense industry * Congress (since they'll be getting these reports every year)

**Potential Impact & Implications**

If this bill becomes law, it could have some pretty significant implications, dude. For one, it would give the US government a better understanding of China's arms sales strategy and how it affects global security. It could also help the US military prepare for potential conflicts in different regions.

But, on the other hand, it could also lead to increased tensions between the US and China, especially if the reports reveal some shady dealings or security risks associated with Chinese arms. And, who knows, maybe it'll even influence countries to think twice before buying Chinese arms (hence the name of the bill, bro).

Anyway, that's my take on the THINK TWICE Act of 2025, dude. It's all about keeping an eye on China's arms sales and making sure we're prepared for whatever might come next.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: S 2424 - THINK TWICE Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The THINK TWICE Act aims to require a report on arms sales facilitated by entities in the People's Republic of China and develop a strategy to combat these sales. The bill seeks to analyze the impact of Chinese arms exports on the global balance of power, identify potential security risks, and assess the factors driving countries to procure Chinese-made defense equipment.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill mandates an annual report from the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide a comprehensive analysis of Chinese arms sales. The report must include:

1. An assessment of Chinese-made weapons systems and defense equipment available for purchase. 2. Technical aspects and capabilities of these systems. 3. Impact on the balance of power in regions under US Combatant Command responsibility. 4. Identification of direct alternatives to US-made defense equipment. 5. Security risks associated with Chinese-made systems, including potential intelligence collection or compromise of US assets.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. The People's Republic of China: As a major arms exporter, China's interests are directly impacted by this bill. 2. Countries purchasing Chinese-made defense equipment: These nations will be subject to scrutiny and analysis under the report's requirements. 3. US Defense Industry: The bill may influence the market for US-made defense equipment, potentially impacting sales and competitiveness. 4. National Intelligence Community: Agencies such as the National Intelligence Council and Director of National Intelligence will play a crucial role in assessing counterintelligence risks and onward proliferation.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased transparency**: The report's requirements may shed light on China's arms export practices, potentially revealing new information about their military capabilities and strategic intentions. 2. **Shifts in global defense markets**: By highlighting the security risks associated with Chinese-made systems, the bill may influence countries to reconsider purchasing decisions, potentially benefiting US defense manufacturers. 3. **Escalation of tensions**: The THINK TWICE Act's focus on China's arms exports could exacerbate existing tensions between the two nations, particularly if Beijing perceives the bill as an attempt to undermine its military modernization efforts.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** The bill's sponsors and cosponsors have received significant campaign contributions from defense industry giants, such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon Technologies. These companies stand to benefit from increased scrutiny of Chinese-made defense equipment and potential shifts in global market dynamics. The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) and the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) may also support this legislation, given their interests in promoting US defense exports.

**Committee Capture:** The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, which reported the bill, has a history of close ties with the defense industry. Several committee members have received significant campaign contributions from defense contractors, potentially influencing their views on this legislation.

In conclusion, the THINK TWICE

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Ricketts, Pete [R-NE]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$87,634

22 donors

PACs

Organizations

$6,734

Committees

Individuals

$80,900

No PAC contributions found

SPIKE OCOTILLO LLC

1 transaction

$2,500

HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP

1 transaction

$1,000

KING & SPALDING LLP

1 transaction

$1,000

GREENBERG TRAURIG

1 transaction

$1,000

H.A. TRUE, III

1 transaction

$1,000

DELTA AIRLINES

1 transaction

$234

No committee contributions found

VANDERSLOOT, BELINDA

1 transaction

$6,600

VANDERSLOOT, FRANK

1 transaction

$6,600

MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE

1 transaction

$6,600

MANDELBLATT, ERIC

1 transaction

$6,600

CASSLING, ELIZABETH

2 transactions

$6,600

CASSLING, MICHAEL

2 transactions

$6,600

SINGER, PAUL

2 transactions

$6,600

BECKER, AMY

2 transactions

$6,600

DESTEFANO, JOHN

1 transaction

$5,000

BARTLETT, BRUCE

1 transaction

$3,300

BETTGER, RICHARD

1 transaction

$3,300

CASTELLINI, ROBERT

1 transaction

$3,300

DAVIS, ASHLEY

1 transaction

$3,300

BALDWIN, JACK

1 transaction

$3,300

BAYER, MATT

1 transaction

$3,300

BECKER, TODD

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO]

ID: B001267

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$1,000

Oct 18, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$1,000

Jun 21, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jun 30, 2024

QUILLER GALLERY LLC

OrganizationCREEDE, CO

$250

Nov 20, 2023

BARRON, THOMAS A

SELF EMPLOYED • AUTHOR

IndividualBOULDER, CO

$5,000

Sep 18, 2023

WALLINGER, DANIELLE

STUDIO D DESIGN • CEO

IndividualENGLEWOOD, CO

$5,000

Oct 15, 2024

WALLINGER, DIRK

YORK SPACE SYSTEMS • CEO

IndividualENGLEWOOD, CO

$5,000

Oct 15, 2024

LEPRINO, TERRY LYNN

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualDENVER, CO

$3,300

Dec 3, 2024

SIE, JOHN J.

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualENGLEWOOD, CO

$3,300

Dec 3, 2024

HEGYI, ALBERT

1ST FINANCIAL • BANKER

IndividualSOUTHPORT, CT

$3,300

Oct 26, 2023

Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]

ID: S001217

Top Contributors

No contribution data available

Donor Network - Sen. Ricketts, Pete [R-NE]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 49 nodes and 29 connections (58 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $90,634

Top Donors - Sen. Ricketts, Pete [R-NE]

Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount

6 Orgs16 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.90
Section 3(b)(3) and (4) require analysis of sanctions/export controls and actions US defense firms can take to provide competitive alternatives, which could benefit US defense contractors by increasing demand for US weapons systems and limiting Chinese competition.
+Cybersecurityconfidence 0.70
Section 3(b)(5) requires a plan to combat Chinese disinformation campaigns targeting US weapons/platforms, which may involve cybersecurity firms to counter disinformation and protect defense tech.

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 State

Strong

Vector: 68%

Pages: 211-213AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The THINK TWICE Act mandates a comprehensive assessment of PRC arms sales, directly supporting Project 2025's call for honest evaluations of China as an existential threat and for developing a strategic response to counter its influence."

Key themes:China threat assessmentarms sales transparencynational security strategyintelligence and counterintelligence risksstrategic competition

— 179 — Department of State priority. That said, the next President must significantly reorient the U.S. govern- ment’s posture toward friends and adversaries alike—which will include much more honest assessments about who are friends and who are not. This reorien- tation could represent the most significant shift in core foreign policy principles and corresponding action since the end of the Cold War. Although not every country or issue area can be discussed in this chapter, below are examples of several areas in which a shift in U. S. foreign policy is not only import- ant, but arguably existential. The point is not to assert that everyone in the evolving conservative movement, or, in some cases, the growing bipartisan consensus, will agree with the details of this assessment. Rather, what is presented below demon- strates the urgency of these issues and provides a general roadmap for analysis. In a world on fire, a handful of nations require heightened attention. Some rep- resent existential threats to the safety and security of the American people; others threaten to hurt the U.S. economy; and others are wild cards, whose full threat scope is unknown but nevertheless unsettling. The five countries on which the next Administration should focus its attention and energy are China, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and North Korea. The People’s Republic of China The designs of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Chinese Com- munist Party, which runs the PRC, are serious and dangerous.9 This tyrannical country with a population of more than 1 billion people has the vision, resources, and patience to achieve its objectives. Protecting the United States from the PRC’s designs requires an unambiguous offensive-defensive mix, including protecting American citizens and their interests, as well as U.S. allies, from PRC attacks and abuse that undermine U.S. competitiveness, security, and prosperity. The United States must have a cost-imposing strategic response to make Bei- jing’s aggression unaffordable, even as the American economy and U.S. power grow. This stance will require real, sustained, near-unprecedented U.S. growth; stronger partnerships; synchronized economic and security policies; and American energy independence—but above all, it will require a very honest perspective about the nature and designs of the PRC as more of a threat than a competitor.10 The next President should use the State Department and its array of resources to reassess and lead this effort, just as it did during the Cold War. The U.S. government needs an Article X for China,11 and it should be a presidential mandate. Along with the National Security Council, the State Department should draft an Article X, which should be a deeply philosophical look at the China challenge. Many foreign policy professionals and national leaders, both in government and the private sector, are reluctant to take decisive action regarding China. Many are vested in an unshakable faith in the international system and global norms. They are so enamored with them they cannot brook any criticisms or reforms, let alone — 180 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise acknowledge their potential for being abused by the PRC. Others refuse to acknowl- edge Beijing’s malign activities and often pass off criticism as conspiracy theories. For instance, many were quick to dismiss even the possibility that COVID-19 escaped from a Chinese research laboratory. The reality, however, is that the PRC’s actions often do sound like conspiracy theories—because they are conspiracies. In addition, some knowingly or not parrot the Communist line: Global leaders includ- ing President Joe Biden, have tried to normalize or even laud Chinese behavior. In some cases, these voices, like the global corporate giants BlackRock and Disney, directly benefit from doing business with Beijing. On the other hand, others acknowledge the dangers posed by the PRC, but believe in a moderating approach to accommodate its rise, a policy of “compete where we must, but cooperate where we can,” including on issues like climate change. This strategy has demonstrably failed. As with all global struggles with Communist and other tyrannical regimes, the issue should never be with the Chinese people but with the Communist dictator- ship that oppresses them and threatens the well-being of nations across the globe.12 That said, the nature of Chinese power today is the product of history, ideology, and the institutions that have governed China during the course of five millennia, inherited by the present Chinese leaders from the preceding generations of the CCP.13 In short, the PRC challenge is rooted in China’s strategic culture and not just the Marxism–Leninism of the CCP, meaning that internal culture and civil society will never deliver a more normative nation. The PRC’s aggressive behavior can only be curbed through external pressure. The Islamic Republic of Iran The ongoing protests in the Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran), which are widely viewed as a new revolution, have shown that the Islamic regime, which has been in power since 1979 when Ayatollah Khomeini became the leader, is at its weakest state in its history and is at odds not only with its own people but also its regional neighbors. Iran is home to a proud and ancient culture, yet its people have strug- gled to achieve democracy and have had to endure a hostile theocratic regime that vehemently opposes freedom. The time may be right to press harder on the Iranian theocracy, support the Iranian people, and take other steps to draw Iran into the community of free and modern nations. Unfortunately, the Obama and Biden Administrations have propped up the brutal Islamist theocracy that has hurt the Iranian people and threatened nuclear war. For example, the Obama Administration’s 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly referred to as the Iran nuclear deal, gave the Islamic regime a crucial monetary lifeline after the Green Movement protests in 2009, which, while ultimately unsuccessful, did succeed in weakening the regime and showing the world that younger Iranians want freedom.

Intelligence Community

Strong

Vector: 66%

Pages: 248-250AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The THINK TWICE Act mandates detailed intelligence assessments of PRC arms sales, directly supporting Project 2025’s emphasis on prioritizing China within the Intelligence Community, improving accountability, and fostering a whole‑of‑government approach to counter the Chinese threat."

Key themes:China threat focusIntelligence community assessmentWhole‑of‑government coordinationCounterintelligence/technology proliferationResource allocation for China

— 216 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Stiffer penalties and mandatory investigations when intelligence leaks are aimed at domestic political targets, l Tighter controls on otherwise lawful intercepts that also collect the communications of domestic political figures, l An express prohibition on politically motivated use of intelligence authorities, and l Reforms to improve the accountability of the Justice Department and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. To keep intelligence credentials from being used for partisan purposes, former high-ranking intelligence officials who retain a clearance should remain subject to the Hatch Act after they leave government to deter them from tying their political stands or activism to their continuing privilege of access to classified government information. The IC should be prohibited from monitoring so-called domestic disinformation. Such activity can easily slip into suppression of an opposition party’s speech, is corrosive of First Amendment protections, and raises questions about impartiality when the IC chooses not to act. CHINA-FOCUSED CHANGES, REFORMS, AND RESOURCES The term “whole of government” is all too frequently overused, but in responding to the generational threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party, that is exactly the approach that our national security apparatus should adopt. CIA Director William Burns has formally established a China Mission Center focused on these efforts, but it can be successful only if it is given the necessary personnel, cross-community collaboration, and resources. That is uncertain at this point, and just how seriously the organization is taking the staffing of the center is unclear. A critical strategic question for an incoming Administration and IC lead- ers will be: How, when, and with whom do we share our classified intelligence? Understanding when to pass things to liaisons and for what purpose will be vital to outmaneuvering China in the intelligence sphere. Questions for a President will include: l What is our overarching conception of the adversarial relationship and competition? l How does intelligence-sharing fit into that conception? — 217 — Intelligence Community Some Members of Congress have said that intelligence relationships such as the Five Eyes28 should be expanded to include other allies in the Asia–Pacific in, for example, a “Nine Eyes” framework. This fails to take into account the fact that any blanket expansion would necessarily involve protecting the sources and methods of a larger and quite possibly more diverse group of member countries that might or might not have congruent interests. That being said, however, a future conservative President should consider what resources and information-sharing relationships could be included in an ad hoc or quasi-formal intelligence expansion (for example, with the Quad) among nations trying to counter the threat from China. Significant technology, language skills, and financial intelligence resources are needed to counter China’s capabilities.29 The IC was caught flat-footed by the recent discovery of China’s successful test of a nuclear-capable hypersonic missile. No longer can America’s information and technological dominance be assumed. China’s gains and intense focus on emerging technologies have taken it in some areas from being a near-peer competitor to probably being ahead of the United States. China’s centralized government allocates endless resources (sometimes inefficiently) to its strategic “Made in China 2025” and military apparatuses, which combine government, military, and private-sector activities on quantum infor- mation sciences and technologies, artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, biotechnologies, and advanced robotics. The IC must do more than understand these advancements: It must rally non- government and allied partners and inspire unified action to counter them. In addition, to combat China’s economic espionage, authorities and loopholes in the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA)30 will have to be examined and addressed in conjunction with the Attorney General. Many issues within the broader government can be tied back to a more general congressional understanding of the threat due to the compartmentalization of committee jurisdictions and the responsibilities of executive agencies to brief on the nature of the threat. Broader committee jurisdictions should receive additional intelligence from IC agencies as necessary to inform China’s unique and more com- prehensive threat across layers of the U.S. government bureaucracy and economy. Former DNI John Ratcliffe increased the intelligence budget as it related to China by 20 percent. “When people ask me why I did that,” he explained in an interview, “I say, ‘Because no one would let me increase it by 40%.’ I had an $85 billion combined annual budget for both the national intelligence program and military intelligence program. My perspective was, ‘Whatever we’re spending on countering China, it isn’t enough.’”31 From an intelligence standpoint, the need to understand Chinese motivations, capabilities, and intent will be of paramount importance to a future conservative President. It is therefore also of paramount importance that the “whole of government” be rowing together.

Department of Defense

Moderate

Vector: 67%

Pages: 158-160AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the THINK TWICE Act and Project 2025 address China's expanding military capabilities and the need for U.S. defense planning, but the bill focuses on reporting and analysis while Project 2025 emphasizes concrete defense investments (nuclear stockpile, missile defense, arms control)."

Key themes:China military threatmissile defensearms controldefense readinesscountering influence

— 125 — Department of Defense 1. Accelerate the effort to restore plutonium pit production, which is essential both for modern warhead programs and for recapitalizing the stockpile. 2. Continue to invest in rebuilding infrastructure, including facilities at the National Laboratories that support nuclear weapons development. 3. Restore readiness to test nuclear weapons at the Nevada National Security Site to ensure the ability of the U.S. to respond quickly to asymmetric technology surprises. l Correctly orient arms control. The U.S. should agree to arms control agreements only if they help to advance the interests of the U.S. and its allies. 1. Reject proposals for nuclear disarmament that are contrary to the goal of bolstering deterrence. 2. Pursue arms control as a way to secure the national security interests of the U.S. and its allies rather than as an end in itself. 3. Prepare to compete in order to secure U.S. interests should arms control efforts continue to fail. MISSILE DEFENSE Missile defense is a critical component of the U.S. national security architecture. It can help to deter attack by instilling doubt that an attack will work as intended, take adversary “cheap shots” off the table, and limit the perceived value of mis- siles as tools of coercion. It also allows space for diplomacy during a crisis and can protect U.S. and allied forces, critical assets, and populations if deterrence fails.41 Adversaries are relying increasingly on missiles to achieve their aims. l China and Russia, in addition to their vast and growing ballistic missile inventories, are deploying new hypersonic glide vehicles and investing in new ground-launched, air-launched, and sea-launched cruise missiles that uniquely challenge the United States in different domains. l North Korea has pursued an aggressive missile testing program and is becoming increasingly belligerent toward South Korea and Japan. l Iran continues to maintain a missile arsenal that is capable of striking U.S. and allied assets in the Middle East and Europe, and its rocket launches demonstrate that it either has or is developing the ability to build ICBMs. — 126 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Missile defense has been underprioritized and underfunded in recent years. In light of these growing threats, the incoming Administration should treat missile defense as a top priority. Needed Reforms l Champion the benefits of missile defense. Despite its deterrence and damage-limitation benefits, opponents argue incorrectly that U.S. missile defense is destabilizing because it threatens Russian and Chinese second- strike capabilities. 1. Reject claims made by the Left that missile defense is destabilizing while acknowledging that Russia and China are developing their own advanced missile defense systems. 2. Commit to keeping homeland missile defense off the table in any arms control negotiations with Russia and China.42 l Strengthen homeland ballistic missile defense. The United States currently deploys 44 Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs) as part of its Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system to defend the homeland against North Korea, but as North Korea improves its missile program, this system is at risk of falling behind the threat.43 1. Buy at least 64 of the Next Generation Interceptor (NGI), which is more advanced than the GBI, for an eventual uniform fleet of interceptors.44 The Biden Administration currently plans to buy only 20. 2. Consider additional steps to strengthen the GMD system such as a layered missile defense or a third interceptor site on the East Coast. l Increase the development of regional missile defense. As the Ukraine conflict amply demonstrates, U.S. regional missile defense capabilities are very limited. The United States has been unable to supply our partners reliably with any capabilities, and the number and types of regional missile defense platforms are less than the U.S. needs for its own defense. The U.S. should prioritize procurement of more regional defense systems such as Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), Standard Missile-3, and Patriot missiles. l Change U.S. missile defense policy. Historically, the U.S. has chosen to rely solely on deterrence to address the Russian and Chinese ballistic

Department of Defense

Moderate

Vector: 66%

Pages: 128-130AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The THINK TWICE Act focuses on analyzing PRC arms sales and their national security implications, which aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on understanding adversary capabilities and strengthening defense readiness, though it does not directly address nuclear modernization, acquisition reform, or defense industrial base initiatives outlined in the DOD section."

Key themes:national securityChina strategic competitiondefense intelligencemilitary modernizationadversary capability assessment

— 95 — Department of Defense 1. Expand and modernize the U.S. nuclear force so that it has the size, sophistication, and tailoring to deter Russia and China simultaneously. 2. Develop a nuclear arsenal with the size, sophistication, and tailoring— including new capabilities at the theater level—to ensure that there is no circumstance in which America is exposed to serious nuclear coercion. l Increase allied counterterrorist burden-sharing. Transnational terrorism remains a threat to Americans even as we pivot toward Asia. 1. Sustain the military forces needed to deter, prevent, and combat terrorism, but at a sustainable cost in concert with other elements of national power and partner efforts. 2. Prioritize enhancing the capability of allies and partners to take the lead in combating terrorism in their regions. DOD ACQUISITION AND SUSTAINMENT (A&S) The DOD’s ability to acquire and field new and existing technologies is essential to the ability of America’s military personnel to fight and win our nation’s wars. To succeed in this endeavor, we must optimize the systems and personnel that the department uses, but the inflexible bureaucratic structure and risk-adverse culture that have developed over the decades make it difficult to provide the tools that warfighters need at the speed of relevance. The number one problem is the DOD budgeting process (instituted in 1961) that requires acquisition spending to be locked years in advance. Because tech- nologies change so rapidly and requirements can change overnight, this creates situations in which military personnel not only go to war with outdated technol- ogy, but also may be fighting with equipment that is less capable than that of their competitors. America owes its military many things, and the most important is the resources they need to survive on the battlefield and carry out the tasks we ask of them. Needed Reforms l Reform the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution (PPBE) process. 1. Enhance funding and authority for DOD mission-focused innovation organizations and away from program-specific stovepipes that, planned for and designed two or three years earlier, may no longer be — 96 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise relevant. This allows the acquisition community to focus on portfolio management and move money around more easily instead of being locked into inflexible, multiyear procurement cycles. 2. The President should examine the recommendations of the congressionally mandated Commission on Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Reform4 and develop a strategy for implementing those that the Administration considers to be in the best interests of the American people. The commission’s final report is due on September 1, 2023. 3. Develop legislation or other means of providing funding outside the traditional PPBE process for the prototyping and experimentation of emerging technologies that are deemed essential to modernization and future conflict. Consider creating a “fast track” for projects that satisfy the most pressing national security needs. 4. Require the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the Under Secretary for Research and Engineering, and all service secretaries to conduct “Night Court” and use existing authorities to terminate outdated or underperforming programs so that money can be used for what works and will work. Require the Under Secretaries and service secretaries to brief the Secretary annually on the results. 5. Require the Office of the Secretary of Defense to research and report on the acquisition processes used by America’s adversaries to improve our understanding of how they are often able to innovate and field new technologies on a faster timeline. l Strengthen America’s defense industrial base. 1. Replenish and maintain U.S. stockpiles of ammunition and other equipment that have been depleted as a result of U.S. support to Ukraine. This will strengthen the defense industry supply chain and ensure that adequate inventory exists if it is needed for a future conflict. 2. Collaborate with industry to develop a prioritized list of reforms that the DOD and Congress can enact and implement to incentivize industry to help America’s military innovate and field needed capabilities.

Trade

Weak

Vector: 66%

Pages: 849-851AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The THINK TWICE Act centers on national security reporting of PRC arms sales, whereas the Project 2025 trade section advocates for cultural engagement, free trade, and non‑interference in people‑to‑people exchanges; they share only a general focus on China relations but diverge in purpose and approach."

Key themes:China relationstradenational security

— 817 — Trade Internet memes, fashion, movies, student exchange programs, tourism, and more. China’s leaders are set in their ways, especially with Xi Jinping presumably now in power for life, but the younger generation is more open than their parents were—more individualistic and open to change. Effective outreach to the Chinese people will need the same humility that other sound trade policies require. Government-directed cultural and economic outreach risks being heavy-handed and could backfire. Everyone involved needs to know that the process is generational in scope and will not work overnight. At the very least, Washington should stay out of the way as much as possible when regular people want to contact each other across national, language, and cultural divides. Each of these many components, from tariffs to trade agreements to culture, is a small part of a larger China policy. Many are not attention-grabbing and cannot be put into sound bites. Cultural engagement is not something Washington can plan. China’s own demographic and debt problems, along with aging leadership and growing discontent over the zero-COVID policy, might even cause an internal collapse. American policy must therefore be prepared to face any contingency. CONCLUSION A conservative trade policy needs a conservative vision. America’s found- ing institutions, based on free trade and entrepreneurship, have made America the world’s leading economy and will help keep America strong through the next century. However, recent departures from those principles have hurt America’s econ- omy and weakened alliances that are necessary to contain threats from Russia and China. Reaffirming those principles through policies of openness, dynamism, and free trade will boost America’s economy, make us more resilient against crises, and remove opportunities for progressives and rent-seekers to use the levers of gov- ernment for their own purposes. Rediscovering conservative principles on trade policy and embracing America’s long history as the world’s leading commercial republic are an important part of restoring a government of, by, and for the people. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this analysis could not have been completed without the valuable support of a small, sturdy, and principled community of trade policy experts. Among them, my colleagues at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Ryan Young, Iain Murray, and Ivan Osorio were essential. The author alone is responsible for this report. No views herein should be attributed to any other individual or institution. — 818 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. Warren E. Buffett and Carol J. Loomis, “America’s Growing Trade Deficit Is Selling the Nation Out from Under Us. Here’s a Way to Fix the Problem—And We Need to Do It Now,” Fortune, November 10, 2003, https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/11/10/352872/index.htm (accessed February 25, 2023). 2. 2017 Annual Report to Congress of the U.S.–China Economic and Security Review Commission, 115th Congress, 1st Session, November 2017, p. 24, https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/2017_Annual_Report_to_ Congress.pdf (accessed February 25, 2023). 3. JayEtta Z. Hecker, Associate Director, International Relations and Trade Issues, National Security and International Affairs Division, U.S. Government Accountability Office, “China Trade: WTO Membership and Most-Favored-Nation Status,” Testimony before the Subcommittee on Trade, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, GAO/T-NSIAD-98-209, June 17, 1998, p. 1, https://www.gao.gov/assets/t- nsiad-98-209.pdf (accessed February 25, 2023). 4. News release, “U.S. Trade in International Goods and Services, December and Annual 2022,” U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, February 7, 2023, https://www.bea.gov/news/2023/us- international-trade-goods-and-services-december-and-annual-2022 (accessed February 25, 2023); “Table 1. U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services: Exports, Imports, and Balances,” U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, last updated November 3, 2022, https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/ files/2022-11/trad-time-series-0922.xlsx (accessed February 25, 2023). 5. U.S. Department of State, “Fact Sheet: Activity at the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” January 15, 2021, https://2017-2021.state.gov/fact-sheet-activity-at-the-wuhan-institute-of-virology/index.html (accessed February 25, 2023); Interim Report, An Analysis of the Origins of the COVID-19 Pandemic, Minority Oversight Staff, Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, U.S. Senate, October 2022, https://www.help. senate.gov/imo/media/doc/report_an_analysis_of_the_origins_of_covid-19_102722.pdf (accessed February 25, 2023). 6. Barmini Chakraborty, “China Hints at Denying Americans Life-Saving Coronavirus Drugs,” Fox News, March 13, 2020, https://www.foxnews.com/world/chinese-deny-americans-coronavirus-drugs (accessed February 25, 2023). 7. Jim Garamone, “Trump Announces New Whole-of-Government National Security Strategy,” U.S. Department of Defense, December 18, 2017, https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/1399392/ trump-announces-new-whole-of-government-national-security-strategy/ (accessed February 26, 2023). Emphasis added. 8. “Remarks by President Trump in State of the Union Address,” The White House, February 5, 2019, https:// trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-state-union-address-2/ (accessed February 25, 2023). 9. White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, The United States Reciprocal Trade Act: Estimated Job & Trade Deficit Effects, May 2019, https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/RTAReport. pdf?mod=article_inline (accessed February 26, 2023); United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, “Trade Analysis Information System,” https://databank.worldbank.org/source/unctad-%5E-trade-analysis- information-system-(trains) (accessed February 26, 2023); Trefor Moss, “China to Cut Import Tariff on Autos to 15% from 25%,” The Wall Street Journal, updated May 22, 2018, https://www.wsj.com/articles/ china-to-cut-import-tariff-on-autos-to-15-from-25-1526980760 (accessed February 26, 2023); U.S. International Trade Commission, Harmonized Tariff Schedule (2019 Revision 3), https://hts.usitc.gov/view/ release?release=2019HTSAREV3 (accessed February 26, 2023). 10. This code is commonly used to determine customs duty classifications for goods internationally. 11. White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, The United States Reciprocal Trade Act: Estimated Job & Trade Deficit Effects, p. 15. 12. H.R.764, United States Reciprocal Trade Act, 116th Congress, introduced January 24, 2019, https://www. congress.gov/116/bills/hr764/BILLS-116hr764ih.pdf (accessed February 26, 2023). 13. Harvard Center for American Political Studies and Harris Poll, “Monthly Harvard–Harris Poll: February 2019,” https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/HHP_Feb2019_RV_topline.pdf (accessed February 26, 2023).

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

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

Related Bills

Other Bills by Sen. Ricketts, Pete

Renewable Fuel for Ocean-Going Vessels Act

119/s/881

UNLOCK AUKUS Act

119/s/4709

PORCUPINE Act

119/s/1744

Back to All Bills