Equal Campus Access Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/2859
Last Updated: July 22, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]

ID: L000575

Follow the money

The bill

Equal Campus Access Act of 2025

S. 2859, 119th Congress — read as touching For-Profit Education & Student Loans.

The sponsor

Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]

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

The money

$112,600 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Education" section, p. 389-391 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Hearings held.

March 18, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

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 masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. The "Equal Campus Access Act of 2025" - because who doesn't love a good title that screams "I'm a thinly veiled attempt to push a specific agenda"?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to ensure that public institutions of higher education provide equal access to campus facilities and resources for religious student organizations. Or, in simpler terms, it's a cleverly crafted Trojan horse designed to sneak in some good old-fashioned Christian exceptionalism.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 by adding a new section that prohibits public institutions from denying funding if they don't provide equal access to religious student organizations. Because, you know, the real problem on college campuses is that Christians are being persecuted and need special protection.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: conservative Christian groups, their lobbyists, and the politicians who pander to them for votes and campaign donations. Oh, and let's not forget the poor, beleaguered religious student organizations that just want to spread the good word without being "discriminated" against.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "solution in search of a problem." It's a thinly veiled attempt to push back against LGBTQ+ and secular groups on campus, who have been fighting for equal rights and recognition. By framing this as an issue of "equal access," the sponsors are trying to create a false narrative that Christians are being marginalized.

In reality, this bill will likely lead to more discrimination and exclusion, as it emboldens conservative Christian groups to push their agenda on campus. It's a cleverly crafted Trojan horse, designed to sneak in some good old-fashioned Christian exceptionalism under the guise of "equal access."

Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a severe case of "Christian persecution complex," a disease characterized by an inflated sense of victimhood and a desperate need for special treatment. The sponsors are exhibiting classic symptoms of "legislative Stockholm syndrome," where they're so beholden to their conservative Christian base that they'll do anything to appease them, even if it means undermining the rights of others.

Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism, a strong critical thinking regimen, and a willingness to call out this bill for what it is - a cynical ploy to push a specific agenda under the guise of "equality."

Related Topics

Education & Student Aid
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$112,600
19 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$2,000
Committees
$0
Individuals
$110,600

No PAC contributions found

1
MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION
1 transaction
$1,000
2
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
SAMPLES, RYAN
3 transactions
$16,500
2
KAY, ALISON
1 transaction
$6,600
3
KANADY, CHRISTIAN
1 transaction
$6,600
4
MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE
1 transaction
$6,600
5
MANDELBLATT, ERIC
1 transaction
$6,600
6
ROWAN, CAROLYN
1 transaction
$6,600
7
ROWAN, MARC J.
1 transaction
$6,600
8
ARMSTRONG, SINCLAIR WALKER JR.
1 transaction
$6,600
9
LOWELL OSHMAN, LISHA K.
1 transaction
$6,600
10
MASSEY, GREGORY LEWIS
1 transaction
$6,600
11
VIELEHR, BYRON
2 transactions
$6,600
12
KIMBER, SHELDON
1 transaction
$5,800
13
NATION, THE CHEROKEE
1 transaction
$5,000
14
PACE, CHARLES
1 transaction
$5,000
15
CANTRELL, MIKE
1 transaction
$5,000
16
JONES, BILL
1 transaction
$4,000
17
BODE, DENISE A.
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Scott, Tim [R-SC]

ID: S001184

Top Contributors

26

1
FAIRWAY INVESTMENTS, LLC
OrganizationGREENVILLE, SC
$13,200
May 23, 2023
2
FAIRWAY INVESTMENTS, LLC
OrganizationGREENVILLE, SC
$3,300
May 23, 2023
3
MK INTERNATIONAL LLC
OrganizationSUMTER, SC
$3,300
May 23, 2023
4
OSWALD COOKE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
OrganizationMOUNT PLEASANT, SC
$1,500
May 23, 2023
5
HUDSON CAPITAL ADVISORS LLC
OrganizationJERSEY CITY, NJ
$1,000
Oct 27, 2023
6
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$1,000
May 7, 2024
7
BOLDRICK, JAMES
STATEWIDE MINERALS CO • OWNER
IndividualMIDLAND, TX
$13,200
Jul 3, 2023
8
DUHAMEL, WILLIAM
ROUTE ONE INVESTMENT CO LP • INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$13,200
Jul 7, 2023
9
GROFF, SUSAN
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNORTHRIDGE, CA
$13,200
Aug 3, 2023
10
EMMET, RICHARD
JANE STREET CAPITAL • FINANCE
IndividualLARCHMONT, NY
$13,200
Apr 17, 2023

Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]

ID: C001075

Top Contributors

20

1
YAWITZ, JESS B. MR.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO
$14,000
Jun 11, 2024
2
MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE
DMM PROPRIETA MANAGEMENT • MANAGER
IndividualASPEN, CO
$9,900
Nov 2, 2023
3
MANDELBLATT, ERIC
SOROBAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LP • MANAGING PARTNER
IndividualASPEN, CO
$9,900
Nov 2, 2023
4
JAYASINGHE, SAMAN K. DR.
SELF-EMPLOYED • PHYSICIAN
IndividualBATON ROUGE, LA
$9,900
Jun 13, 2024
5
KARP, ALEXANDER C.
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES • CEO
IndividualBEDFORD, NH
$9,900
Apr 16, 2024
6
OBERNDORF, SUSAN
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$9,900
Jun 5, 2024
7
OBERNDORF, WILLIAM
OBERNDORF ENTERPRISES • OWNER
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$9,900
Jun 5, 2024
8
YAWITZ, ALICE G.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualST. LOUIS, MO
$9,900
Jun 18, 2024
9
GRIGSBY, BOBBI F. MRS.
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualBATON ROUGE, LA
$6,600
Dec 23, 2024
10
GRIGSBY, L. LANE MR.
CAJUN INDUSTRIES LLC • CHAIRMAN EMERITUS
IndividualBATON ROUGE, LA
$6,600
Dec 23, 2024

Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]

ID: S001217

Top Contributors

22

1
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA
OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL
$3,300
Aug 22, 2023
2
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA
OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL
$3,300
Aug 12, 2024
3
SCOTT, RICK SENATOR
US SENATE • US SENATOR
IndividualTAMPA, FL
$90,795
May 31, 2024
4
SCOTT, RICK SEN
US SENATE • US SENATOR
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$77,714
May 31, 2023
5
SCOTT, RICK SENATOR
US SENATE • US SENATOR
IndividualTAMPA, FL
$69,607
Apr 30, 2024
6
SCOTT, RICK SENATOR
US SENATE • US SENATOR
IndividualTAMPA, FL
$68,538
Aug 31, 2023
7
SCOTT, RICK SENATOR
US SENATE • US SENATOR
IndividualTAMPA, FL
$53,187
Sep 30, 2023
8
SCOTT, RICK SEN
US SENATE • US SENATOR
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$49,992
Jun 30, 2023
9
SCOTT, RICK SENATOR
US SENATE • US SENATOR
IndividualTAMPA, FL
$39,695
Jun 30, 2024
10
SCOTT, RICK
US SENATE • US SENATOR
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$34,494
Jan 31, 2023

Sen. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND]

ID: C001096

Top Contributors

26

1
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Sep 29, 2023
2
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Jun 14, 2024
3
SISSETON-WAHPETON OYATE
OrganizationAGENCY VILLAGE, SD
$2,500
Jun 21, 2024
4
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jun 18, 2024
5
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$600
Jun 6, 2023
6
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$400
Jun 6, 2023
7
WALSH, RICHARD
IndividualLAKE WORTH BEACH, FL
$6,700
Oct 16, 2024
8
JORDAN, BORIS
CURALEAF • EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$6,600
Sep 15, 2023
9
SMITH, BRAD
MICROSOFT CORPORATION • ATTORNEY
IndividualBELLEVUE, WA
$6,600
Sep 29, 2023
10
KAPLAN, DAVID
ARES MANAGEMENT • CO-FOUNDER
IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA
$6,600
Oct 11, 2023

Sen. Hawley, Josh [R-MO]

ID: H001089

Top Contributors

24

1
R&W TOWING & RECOVERY
OrganizationST JOSEPH, MO
$3,300
Sep 18, 2024
2
SOUTHERN MISSOURI REAL ESTATE LLC
OrganizationAURORA, MO
$1,000
Jun 28, 2023
3
ST LOUIS CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP PAC
OrganizationCHESTERFIELD, MO
$914
Oct 31, 2024
4
MARK FAUGHN CONSTRUCTION LLC
OrganizationPOPLAR BLUFF, MO
$250
May 22, 2023
5
SCHELL, MARK CHRISTOPHER
DIAMOND PET FOOD • MANAGER
IndividualLOHMAN, MO
$13,200
Apr 13, 2023
6
CARR, GEORGE T.
THE DURHAM CO • MANAGEMENT
IndividualSPRINGFIELD, MO
$12,200
Apr 21, 2023
7
RUSSELL, DOUG MR.
DURHAM COMPANY • PRESIDENT
IndividualLEBANON, MO
$7,400
Apr 21, 2023
8
SHELTON, GREGORY P. MR.
SHELTON WHOLESALE • OWNER
IndividualEAGLEVILLE, MO
$6,600
Mar 11, 2024
9
WALDEN, MICHAEL
SHOOK HARDY BACON • ATTORNEY
IndividualMISSION HILLS, KS
$6,600
Mar 31, 2023
10
WILLARD, BRADLEY
WILLARD ASPHALT PAVING • PRESIDENT
IndividualLEBANON, MO
$6,600
Mar 31, 2023

Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA]

ID: G000386

Top Contributors

23

1
SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA
COMTAMA, IA
$2,000
Aug 8, 2023
2
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
COMPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jul 23, 2024
3
WINRED
PACARLINGTON, VA
$25
Jul 4, 2024
4
SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Jan 10, 2024
5
SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN
BLACKSTONE • CEO
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Jan 16, 2024
6
KUMAR, SHALLI
AVG ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY • CHAIR
IndividualBETTENDORF, IA
$6,600
Jun 11, 2024
7
STARRETT, RONALD
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualCENTENNIAL, CO
$5,800
Jan 24, 2023
8
COLLINS, RICHARD
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualMARSHALLTOWN, IA
$5,523
Oct 1, 2024
9
COLLINS, RICHARD
IndividualMARSHALLTOWN, IA
$5,523
Oct 7, 2024
10
WEISS, LUKE
HOOVER'S HATCHERY • PRESIDENT
IndividualMASON CITY, IA
$3,300
Dec 11, 2024

Sen. Lummis, Cynthia M. [R-WY]

ID: L000571

Top Contributors

20

1
HEGYI, ALBERT P
1ST FINANCIAL BANK USA • BANKER
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Dec 6, 2023
2
MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualASPEN, CO
$6,600
Sep 26, 2024
3
MANDELBLATT, ERIC
SOROBAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LP • MANAGING PARTNER
IndividualASPEN, CO
$6,600
Sep 26, 2024
4
SAMANI, PYAHM
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$5,800
Aug 8, 2023
5
CASCARILLA, MARISSA
NA • HOMEMAKER
IndividualMIAMI, FL
$3,700
Apr 1, 2024
6
CASCARILLA, CHARLES
PAXOS • CEO
IndividualMIAMI, FL
$3,700
Apr 1, 2024
7
DOWNS, RAISSA
TARPLIN, DOWNS AND YOUNG, LLC • CONSULTANT
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,600
Dec 12, 2024
8
SCARAMUCCI, ANTHONY
SKYBRIDGE • MANAGING PARTNER
IndividualPLANDOME, NY
$3,435
Jul 30, 2024
9
HOBART, ROBERT
VENTURE GOVERNMENT STRATEGIES • CONSULTANT
IndividualNASHVILLE, TN
$3,435
Aug 5, 2024
10
HOLDING, KATHLEEN MS.
SUNLIGHT RANCH CO. • EXECUTIVE
IndividualDAYTON, WY
$3,300
Dec 6, 2023

Sen. Hyde-Smith, Cindy [R-MS]

ID: H001079

Top Contributors

24

1
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$2,900
Feb 28, 2023
2
MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS
$1,500
May 31, 2023
3
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jun 20, 2024
4
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$250
Mar 11, 2024
5
LUROS, HILARY
HOUSEWIFE • HOUSEWIFE
IndividualSUGAR LAND, TX
$6,600
Oct 21, 2024
6
LUROS, HILARY
HOUSEWIFE • HOUSEWIFE
IndividualSUGAR LAND, TX
$6,600
Oct 21, 2024
7
BESSENT, SCOTT
KEY SQUARE GROUP • INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT
IndividualCHARLESTON, SC
$6,600
Dec 31, 2024
8
FREEMAN, JOHN
HIGH PLAINS ACRES LLP • ATTORNEY/AGRICULTURE
IndividualCHARLESTON, SC
$6,600
Dec 31, 2024
9
CASTLE, JOHN
CASTLE HARLAN • MERCHANT BANKER
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Mar 26, 2024
10
SEEMANN, WILLIAM III
SEEMANN COMPOSITES • CHAIRMAN
IndividualPASS CHRISTIAN, MS
$6,600
Jun 20, 2024

Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]

ID: C001098

Top Contributors

52

1
WINRED
PACARLINGTON, VA
$1,167,293
Nov 1, 2024
2
WINRED
PACARLINGTON, VA
$330,599
Nov 5, 2024
3
FASKEN MANAGEMENT
OrganizationMIDLAND, TX
$10,000
May 24, 2023
4
REPUBLICAN PARTY OF HARRISON COUNTY
OrganizationMARSHALL, TX
$4,000
Oct 16, 2024
5
FOLAD ENTERPRISES LLC
OrganizationPINELLAS PARK, FL
$2,000
May 20, 2024
6
BALCH & BINGHAM LLP
OrganizationBIRMINGHAM, AL
$1,000
May 20, 2024
7
PARTNERS HOTEL GROUP LLC
OrganizationMURPHY, TX
$1,000
Jun 7, 2023
8
KHAT INVESTMENS LLC
OrganizationMIDLAND, TX
$1,000
Jun 30, 2023
9
PJB INVESTMENT ADVISORS LLC
OrganizationADDISON, TX
$800
May 1, 2024
10
GRANT MORELAND LP LLC
OrganizationGILMER, TX
$750
Sep 19, 2024

Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR]

ID: C001095

Top Contributors

24

1
WINRED
PACARLINGTON, VA
$1,919
Mar 7, 2024
2
CLARK COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE
OrganizationARKADELPHIA, AR
$600
Mar 4, 2024
3
YELL COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE
OrganizationDARDANELLE, AR
$500
Jan 17, 2024
4
DARDANELLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
OrganizationDARDANELLE, AR
$400
Jan 26, 2024
5
RAMSEY, JASON
RAGNAR • MANAGER
IndividualBREVARD, NC
$11,600
Jul 11, 2023
6
KLINGENSTEIN, THOMAS D. MR.
COHEN KLINGENSTEIN LLC • INVESTMENT COUNSELOR
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$11,600
Sep 28, 2023
7
MCINERNEY, THOMAS
BLUFF POINT ASSOCIATES • INVESTOR
IndividualWESTPORT, CT
$11,600
Oct 24, 2023
8
MCMAHON, LINDA E. MRS.
AMERICA FIRST POLICY INSTITUTE • SELF-EMPLOYED
IndividualGREENWICH, CT
$11,600
Oct 31, 2023
9
CHIAPPA, CARL
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualOLD CHATHAM, NY
$11,600
Nov 9, 2023
10
SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$11,600
Jan 11, 2024

Donor Network - Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 52 nodes and 57 connections

Total contributions: $57

Top Donors - Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs17 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • Section 2 of the bill amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to ensure campus access for religious groups, which may lead to increased scrutiny of for-profit education institutions that deny such access, potentially imposing costs on them (SEC. 124. CAMPUS ACCESS FOR RELIGIOUS GROUPS).

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 Education

Strong
Vector: 62%
Pages: 389-391AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on protecting First Amendment rights in educational settings and preventing discrimination against religious groups, particularly through ensuring equal access to funding and facilities for religious student organizations at public institutions."

Key themes:First Amendment protectionreligious liberty in educationequal access to campus resourcesnondiscrimination based on belief

— 357 — Department of Education NEW EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD ISSUE Guidance Documents l The President should immediately reinstate and reissue Executive Order 13891: Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents, 84 Fed. Reg. 55235 (Oct. 9, 2019), and Executive Order 13892: Promoting the Rule of Law Through Transparency and Fairness in Civil Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication (Oct. 15, 2019). These executive orders required all federal agencies to treat guidance documents as non-binding in law and practice and also forbade federal agencies from imposing new standards of conduct on persons outside the executive branch through guid- ance documents. They required all federal agencies to apply regulations and statutes instead of guidance documents in any enforcement action. President Biden revoked these executive orders on January 20, 2021, demonstrating that these executive orders effectively restrained the abuses of an expansive administrative state. l Require APA notice and comment. The President should issue an executive order requiring the Office for Civil Rights’ Case Processing Manual to go through APA (Administrative Procedures Act) notice and comment. l Protect the First Amendment. The President should issue an executive order requiring grant applications (SF-424 series) to contain assurances that the applicant will uphold the First Amendment in funded programs and work. l Minimize bachelor’s degree requirements. The President should issue an executive order stating that a college degree shall not be required for any federal job unless the requirements of the job specifically demand it. l Eliminate the “list of shame.” Educational institutions can claim a religious exemption with the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education from the strictures of Title IX. In 2016, the Obama Administration published on the Department of Education’s website a list of colleges that had applied for the exemption. This “list of shame” of faith-based colleges, as it came to be known, has since been archived on ED’s website, still publicly available. The President should issue an executive order removing the archived list and preventing such a list from being published in the future. — 358 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise NEW AGENCY POLICIES THAT DON’T REQUIRE NEW LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS TO ENACT Transparency of FERPA and PPRA Complaints l The Department of Education should be transparent about complaints filed on behalf of families regarding the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA). l At the same time, the Department of Education should develop a portal and resources for parents on their rights under FERPA and PPRA. This portal should also contain an explanation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) and public school procedures to demonstrate that the law does not deprive parents of their right to access any school health records. The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program In 2011, Congress added new requirements to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program stating that participating private schools must submit to site visits by the program administrator, inform prospective students about the school’s accreditation status, mandate that teachers of core subjects have bachelor’s degrees, and require participating students to take some form of nationally norm-referenced test. Notably, the 2011 reauthorization also required, for the first time, that participating private schools be accredited or be on a path to accreditation. The 2017 reauthorization went further, requiring that each participating school supply a certificate of accreditation to the administering entity upon program entry, demonstrating that the school is fully accredited before being allowed to participate. The list of approved accreditors is entirely too small to serve the mission of the diverse schools in the nation’s capital. l Although the accreditation regulations should be removed entirely by Congress, in the meantime, the next President should issue an executive order expanding the list of allowable accreditors. Transparency Around Program Performance and DEI Influence The next President should issue a series of executive orders requiring: l An accounting of how federal programs/grants spread DEI/CRT/ gender ideology, l A review of outcomes for GEAR UP and the 21st Century grants programs,

Department of Education

Moderate
Vector: 66%
Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's higher education reform goals by protecting religious institutions from accreditation-driven mandates that conflict with their mission, particularly regarding DEI policies. Both seek to reduce federal overreach in campus governance and uphold institutional autonomy, especially for faith-based entities."

Key themes:religious libertyaccreditation reforminstitutional autonomyDEI policy oppositionfaith-based protections

— 351 — Department of Education as the Educational Choice for Children Act. This bill would create a federal scholarship tax credit that would incentivize donors to contribute to nonprofit scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). Eligible families could then use that funding from the SGOs for their children’s education expenses including private school tuition, tutoring, and instructional materials. ADDITIONAL K–12 REFORMS Allowing States to Opt Out of Federal Education Programs. States should be able to opt out of federal education programs such as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. Much of the red tape and regulations that hinder local school districts are handed down from Washington. This regulatory burden far exceeds the federal government’s less than 10 percent financing share of K–12 education. In the most recent fiscal year (FY 2022), states and localities financed 93 percent of K–12 education costs, and the federal government just 7 percent. That 7 percent share should not allow the federal government to dictate state and local education policy. l To restore state and local control of education and reduce the bureaucratic and compliance burden, Congress should allow states to opt out of the dozens of federal K–12 education programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and instead allow states to put their share of federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law. This policy has been advanced over the years via a proposal known as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM HEA: Accreditation Reform Congress established two primary responsibilities for the U.S. Department of Education in the HEA: 1) to ensure the “administrative capacity and financial responsibility” of colleges and universities that accept Title IV funds; and 2) to ensure the quality of those institutions. Congress did not endow the Department of Education with the authority to involve itself in academic quality issues relating to colleges and universities that participate in the Title IV student aid program; the HEA allows the agency only to recognize accreditors, which are then supposed to provide quality assurance measures. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has followed closely in the footsteps of the Obama Administration by engaging in a politically motivated and incon- sistent administration of the accrediting agency recognition process. As a result, accreditors have transformed into de facto government agents. Despite claims by — 352 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the department and accreditation agencies that accreditation is voluntary, the fact that Americans are denied access to an otherwise widely available entitle- ment benefit if the institution “elects” to not be accredited makes accreditation anything but voluntary. Today, accreditation determines whether Americans can access federal student aid benefits, transfer academic credits, enroll in higher-level degree programs, and even qualify for federal employment. Unnecessarily focused on schools in a specific geographic region, institutional accreditation reviews have also become wildly expensive audits by academic “peers” that stifle innovation and discourage new institutions of higher education. Of par- ticular concern are efforts by many accreditation agencies to leverage their Title IV (student loans and grants) gatekeeper roles to force institutions to adopt policies that have nothing to do with academic quality assurance and student outcomes. One egregious example of this is the extent to which accreditors have forced col- leges and universities, many of them faith-based institutions, to adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies that conflict with federal civil rights laws, state laws, and the institutional mission and culture of the schools. Perhaps more distress- ingly, accreditors, while professing support for academic freedom and campus free speech, have presided over a precipitous decline in both over the past decade. Despite maintaining criteria that demand such policies, accreditors have done nothing to dampen the illiberal chill that has swept across American campuses over the past decade. The current system is not working. A radical overhaul of the HEA’s accreditation requirements is thus in order. The next Administration should work with Congress to amend the HEA and should consider the following reforms: l Prohibit accreditation agencies from leveraging their Title IV gatekeeper role to mandate that educational institutions adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. l Protect the sovereignty of states to decide governance and leadership issues for their state-supported colleges and universities by prohibiting accreditation agencies from intruding upon the governance of state-supported educational institutions. l Protect faith-based institutions by prohibiting accreditation agencies from: 1. Requiring standards and criteria that undermine the religious beliefs of, or require policies or conduct that conflict with, the religious mission or religious beliefs of the institution; and

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Moderate
Vector: 62%
Pages: 618-620AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on protecting religious student organizations in public higher education, which aligns with Project 2025's broader goal of strengthening religious freedom protections, particularly in institutional settings. While the bill does not address workplace or employment-specific religious accommodations emphasized in the Project 2025 Labor section, it shares the theme of safeguarding religious exercise against discrimination."

Key themes:religious freedomnon-discriminationFirst Amendment rightsinstitutional accommodation

— 585 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies l Direct agencies to refocus enforcement of sex discrimination laws. The President should direct agencies to focus their enforcement of sex discrimination laws on the biological binary meaning of “sex.” PRO-LIFE MEASURES l Promote pro-life workplace accommodations for mothers. Federal law should protect life and promote pro-family policies. Current law, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act,3 provides nondiscrimination protections in the workplace for pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA)4 requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for women “to the known limitations related to the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” unless “the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the [employer’s] business.” The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) also provides nondiscrimination and accommodation protections in the workplace for certain pregnancy-related disability.5 None of these laws requires an employer provide health insurance benefits for elective abortion. l Pass a law requiring equal (or greater) benefits for pro-life support for mothers and clarifying abortion exclusions. Congress should pass a law requiring that to the extent an employer provides employee benefits for abortion, it must provide equal or greater benefits for pregnancy, childbirth, maternity, and adoption. That law should also clarify that no employer is required to provide any accommodations or benefits for abortion. l Keep anti-life “benefits” out of benefit plans. Some benefits attorneys and pro-choice advocates have argued since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision6 that the longstanding doctrine of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)7 preemption should block individual states’ efforts to prohibit employers from helping employees procure abortions via offering various kinds of coverage under employee-sponsored benefit plans. ERISA should not be allowed to trump states’ ability to protect innocent human life in the womb. Congress and DOL should clarify that ERISA does not preempt states’ power to restrict abortion, surrogacy, or other anti-life “benefits.” RELIGION l Provide robust protections for religious employers. America’s religious diversity means that workplaces include people of many faiths and that many employers are faith-based. Nevertheless, the Biden Administration has been hostile to people of faith, especially those with traditional beliefs — 586 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise about marriage, gender, and sexuality. The new Administration should enact policies with robust respect for religious exercise in the workplace, including under the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA),8 Title VII, and federal conscience protection laws. l Issue an executive order protecting religious employers and employees. The President should make clear via executive order that religious employers are free to run their businesses according to their religious beliefs, general nondiscrimination laws notwithstanding, and support participation of religious employees and employers as federal contractors and in federal activities and programs. l Clarify Title VII’s religious organization exemptions. Congress should clarify Title VII’s religious organization exemptions to make it more explicit that those employers may make employment decisions based on religion regardless of nondiscrimination laws. l Provide Robust Accommodations for Religious Employees. Title VII requires reasonable accommodations for an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs, observances, or practices unless it poses an undue hardship on the employer’s business. These accommodation protections also apply to issues related to marriage, gender, and sexuality. Unless the Supreme Court overrules its bad precedent, Congress should clarify that undue hardship means “significant difficulty or expenses,” not “more than a de minimis cost” as the Court has previously held. General EEOC Reforms. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commis- sion (EEOC) does not have rulemaking authority under Title VII and other laws it enforces, yet it issues “guidance,” “technical assistance,” and other documents, including some that push new policy positions. EEOC should disclaim its regulatory pretensions and abide by the guidance reforms dis- cussed below. l EEOC should disclaim its regulatory pretensions. l Affirm decision-making via majority vote of Commissioners. EEOC should affirm as policy the Title VII requirement that it exercise substantive power via majority vote of Commissioners, not by unilateral Chair action or by delegation to staff.

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