Revitalizing America’s Offshore Critical Minerals Dominance Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/2860
Last Updated: March 23, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Sheehy, Tim [R-MT]

ID: S001232

Follow the money

The bill

Revitalizing America’s Offshore Critical Minerals Dominance Act

S. 2860, 119th Congress — read as touching Pipelines & Energy Infrastructure.

The sponsor

Sen. Sheehy, Tim [R-MT]

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

The money

$157,251 raised

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

The alignment

65% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 554-556 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 Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held.

February 11, 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 our esteemed Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Revitalizing America's Offshore Critical Minerals Dominance Act (S 2860) claims to "unleash" the United States' offshore critical minerals and resources. In reality, it's a thinly veiled attempt to greenlight reckless exploitation of seabed mineral resources, all while pretending to prioritize national security and economic interests.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill proposes to:

1. Streamline permitting for seabed mineral exploration and extraction, because who needs environmental standards when there's profit to be made? 2. Establish the United States as a global leader in responsible seabed mineral development, which is code for "we'll do whatever it takes to get our hands on those resources." 3. Enhance coordination among executive departments and agencies, because nothing says "efficiency" like more bureaucratic red tape. 4. Create a domestic supply chain for critical minerals, which will undoubtedly be controlled by the same corporations that wrote this bill.

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

1. The fossil fuel industry, which will reap the benefits of lax regulations and increased access to seabed resources. 2. Mining corporations, who will get to exploit the ocean floor with minimal oversight. 3. The Department of Commerce, which will be tasked with rubber-stamping permits and pretending to care about environmental concerns. 4. The American people, who will be left to deal with the consequences of this environmental disaster.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a recipe for ecological catastrophe. By prioritizing profit over sustainability, we can expect:

1. Irreparable damage to marine ecosystems and biodiversity. 2. Increased greenhouse gas emissions from the extraction and processing of seabed minerals. 3. Further concentration of wealth among corporate interests, while the public bears the costs of environmental degradation.

In conclusion, S 2860 is a symptom of a deeper disease: the corrupting influence of corporate power on our legislative process. It's a bill that prioritizes short-term gains over long-term sustainability, and it's a stark reminder that our politicians are more interested in serving their donors than protecting the public interest.

Related Topics

Energy Production & Conservation
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Sheehy, Tim [R-MT]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$157,251
4 donors
PACs
$157,251
Organizations
$0
Committees
$0
Individuals
$0
1
CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC
12 transactions
$83,190
2
SENATE CONSERVATIVES FUND
13 transactions
$45,131
3
REPUBLICAN JEWISH COALITION-POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (RJC-PAC)
3 transactions
$21,000
4
SUSAN B. ANTHONY LIST INC. CANDIDATE FUND (DBA SUSAN B. ANTHONY PRO-LIFE AMERICA CANDIDATE FUND)
2 transactions
$7,930

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

No individual contributions found

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR]

ID: C001095

Top Contributors

10

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
RAGNARMANAGER
IndividualBREVARD, NC
$11,600
Jul 11, 2023
6
KLINGENSTEIN, THOMAS D. MR.
COHEN KLINGENSTEIN LLCINVESTMENT COUNSELOR
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$11,600
Sep 28, 2023
7
MCINERNEY, THOMAS
BLUFF POINT ASSOCIATESINVESTOR
IndividualWESTPORT, CT
$11,600
Oct 24, 2023
8
MCMAHON, LINDA E. MRS.
AMERICA FIRST POLICY INSTITUTESELF-EMPLOYED
IndividualGREENWICH, CT
$11,600
Oct 31, 2023
9
CHIAPPA, CARL
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualOLD CHATHAM, NY
$11,600
Nov 9, 2023
10
SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$11,600
Jan 11, 2024

Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]

ID: B001243

Top Contributors

10

1
FRIENDS OF COMMUNITY ONCOLOGY PAC
PACVIRGINIA BEACH, VA
$5,000
Apr 12, 2023
2
THE COGGIN GROUP
OrganizationMURFREESBORO, TN
$2,900
Mar 9, 2023
3
THE COGGIN GROUP
OrganizationMURFREESBORO, TN
$2,500
Mar 9, 2023
4
DOSS BROTHERS FARM
OrganizationLAWRENCEBURG, TN
$1,000
Apr 17, 2024
5
DOSS BROTHERS FARM
OrganizationLAWRENCEBURG, TN
$1,000
Mar 18, 2024
6
BL PARTNERS GROUP LLC
OrganizationARLINGTON, VA
$500
Mar 17, 2023
7
KING, RODNEY W.
SELF-EMPLOYEDATTORNEY
IndividualGERMANTOWN, TN
$13,200
Apr 4, 2024
8
BEAN, BILL G.
HANNING & BEAN ENTERPRISES INC.REAL ESTATE INVESTOR
IndividualCOLUMBIA CITY, IN
$10,000
May 1, 2024
9
SMITH, THOMAS
PRESCOTT INVESTORS INC.INVESTOR
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$10,000
May 13, 2024
10
GAMBLE, KATHRYN
UNAKA COBUSINESS EXECUTIVE
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$9,900
Jul 15, 2024

Sen. Britt, Katie Boyd [R-AL]

ID: B001319

Top Contributors

10

1
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Sep 14, 2023
2
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Oct 11, 2024
3
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$2,500
Oct 29, 2024
4
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
OrganizationRICHMOND, VA
$1,000
Jul 25, 2024
5
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
May 1, 2024
6
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Nov 9, 2023
7
STRONG, MIRANDA
CALISTADIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
IndividualANCHORAGE, AK
$5,000
Sep 20, 2023
8
STEPHENS, TYLER
FIERCE GOVERNMENT RELATIONSLOBBYIST
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Jul 1, 2023
9
SINGER, PAUL
ELLIOTT INVESTMENT MANAGEMENTCO-CEO, CO-CIO, PRESIDENT
IndividualPALM BEACH, FL
$3,300
Jul 6, 2023
10
SINGER, PAUL
ELLIOTT INVESTMENT MANAGEMENTCO-CEO, CO-CIO, PRESIDENT
IndividualPALM BEACH, FL
$3,300
Jul 9, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Sheehy, Tim [R-MT]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 19 nodes and 39 connections (67 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $179,770

Top Donors - Sen. Sheehy, Tim [R-MT]

Showing top 4 donors by contribution amount

4 PACs

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.

  • Section 4(a)(2) establishes an expedited process for reviewing and approving permits for prospecting and granting leases under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, which supports midstream energy infrastructure development related to offshore mineral resources.

  • +Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.80

    Section 4(c)(2) requires coordination with the Secretary of Defense to determine which critical minerals are essential for defense infrastructure, indicating potential future contracts for defense contractors involved in mineral processing and supply chains.

  • +Electric Utilitiesconfidence 0.75

    Section 4(c)(2) includes energy applications in determining essential critical minerals, suggesting potential benefits for electric utilities that rely on minerals like nickel, cobalt, and rare earths for grid infrastructure and energy storage.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

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

Industries this bill HELPS

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.

Introduction

Moderate64.7%
Pages: 554-556

— 522 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise similar agency actions made in compliance with that order.18 Meanwhile, the new Administration must immediately reinstate the following Trump DOI sec- retarial orders: l SO 3348: Concerning the Federal Coal Moratorium;19 l SO 3349: American Energy Independence;20 l SO 3350: America-First Offshore Energy Strategy;21 l SO 3351: Strengthening the Department of the Interior’s Energy Portfolio;22 l SO 3352: National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska;23 l SO 3354: Supporting and Improving the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program and Federal Solid Mineral Leasing Program;24 l SO 3355: Streamlining National Environmental Policy Reviews and Implementation of Executive Order 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects”;25 l SO 3358: Executive Committee for Expedited Permitting;26 l SO 3360: Rescinding Authorities Inconsistent with Secretary’s Order 3349, “American Energy Independence;”27 l SO 3380: Public Notice of the Costs Associated with Developing Department of the Interior Publications and Similar Documents;28 l SO 3385: Enforcement Priorities;29 and l SO 3389: Coordinating and Clarifying National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Reviews.30 Actions. At the same time, the new Administration must: l Reinstate quarterly onshore lease sales in all producing states according to the model of BLM’s IM 2018–034, with the slight adjustment of including expanded public notice and comment.31 The new Administration should work with Congress on legislation, such as the Lease Now Act32 and — 523 — Department of the Interior ONSHORE Act,33 to increase state participation and federal accountability for energy production on the federal estate. l Conduct offshore oil and natural gas lease sales to the maximum extent permitted under the 2023–2028 lease program,34 with the possibility to move forward under a previously studied but unselected plan alternative.35 l Develop immediately and finalize a new five-year plan, while working with Congress to reform the OCSLA by eliminating five-year plans in favor of rolling or quarterly lease sales. l Review all resource management plans finalized in the previous four years and, when necessary, select studied alternatives to restore the multi-use concept enshrined in FLPMA and to eliminate management decisions that advance the 30 by 30 agenda. l Set rents, royalty rates, and bonding requirements to no higher than what is required under the Inflation Reduction Act.36 l Comply with the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 to establish a competitive leasing and development program in the Coastal Plain, an area of Alaska that was set aside by Congress specifically for future oil and gas exploration and development. It is often referred to as the “Section 1002 Area” after the section of ANILCA that excludes the area from Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’s wilderness designation.37 l Conclude the programmatic review of the coal leasing program, and work with the congressional delegations and governors of Wyoming and Montana to restart the program immediately.38 l Abandon withdrawals of lands from leasing in the Thompson Divide of the White River National Forest, Colorado; the 10-mile buffer around Chaco Cultural Historic National Park in New Mexico (restoring the compromise forged in the Arizona Wilderness Act39); and the Boundary Waters area in northern Minnesota if those withdrawals have not been completed.40 Meanwhile, revisit associated leases and permits for energy and mineral production in these areas in consultation with state elected officials. l Require regional offices to complete right-of-way and drilling permits within the average time it takes states in the region to complete them.

Introduction

Moderate61.3%
Pages: 572-574

— 540 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 24. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3354: Supporting and Improving the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program and Federal Solid Mineral Leasing Program, July 6, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/uploads/so_-_3354_signed.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 25. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3355: Streamlining National Environmental Policy Reviews and Implementation of Executive Order 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” August 31, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/elips/documents/3355_-_streamlining_national_environmental_policy_reviews_and_implementation_ of_executive_order_13807_establishing_discipline_and_accountability_in_the_environmental_review_ and_permitting_process_for.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 26. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3358: Executive Committee for Expedited Permitting,” October 25, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so_3358_executive_committee_for_ expedited_permitting_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 27. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3360: Rescinding Authorities Inconsistent with Secretary’s Order 3349, “American Energy Independence,” December 22, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/3360_-_rescinding_authorities_inconsistent_with_secretarys_order_3349_american_energy_ independence.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 28. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3380: Public Notice of the Costs Associated with Developing Department of the Interior Publications and Similar Documents,” March 10, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/ doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3398-508_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 29. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3385: Enforcement Priorities,” September 14, 2020, https:// www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed-so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 30. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order 3389: Coordinating and Clarifying National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Reviews,” September 14, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed- so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 31. Bureau of Land Management, “Updating Oil and Gas Leasing Reform: Land Use Planning and Lease Parcel Reviews,” IM 2018–034, January 31, 2018, https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-2018-034 (accessed March 16, 2023). 32. Lease Now Act, S. 4228, 117th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2022). 33. ONSHORE Act, S. 218, 116th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2019). https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate- bill/218/text (accessed March 18, 2023). 34. Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 130 (July 8, 2022), pp. 40859–40863. 35. The Biden Administration’s 2023–2028 proposed program is fatally flawed. Katie Tubb, “Comment for the 2023–2028 National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Program,” BOEM–2022–0031, October 6, 2022, http:// thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/Regulatory_Comments/BOEM%202023-2028%20lease%20plan%20 comment%20KTubb.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 36. See Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117–169, §§ 50261–50263. 37. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Public Law No. 115–97, § 20001, and U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3401: Comprehensive Analysis and Temporary Halt on All Activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Relating to the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program,” June 1, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/so-3401-comprehensive-analysis-and-temporary-halt-on-all-activitives-in-the-arctic-national- wildlife-refuge-relating-to-the-coastal-plain-oil-and-gas-leasing-program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 38. In 2016, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell instituted a moratorium on new coal leases while conducting a programmatic environmental impact statement under NEPA to address concerns about competition and inconsistency with the Obama Administration’s climate policy. In 2017, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke lifted the moratorium and ended development of a programmatic environmental impact statement. In April 2021, Interior Secretary Debra Haaland rescinded Zinke’s order and initiated a new review of the coal-leasing program. See U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3338: Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to Modernize the Federal Coal Program,” January 15, 2016, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi. gov/files/elips/documents/archived-3338_-discretionary_programmatic_environmental_impact_statement_ to_modernize_the_federal_coal_program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023); U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3348”; U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3398”; and Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 159 (August 20, 2021), pp. 46873–46877. — 541 — Department of the Interior 39. Katie Tubb, “No More Standoffs: Protecting Federal Employees and Ending the Culture of Anti-Government Attacks and Abuse,” testimony before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, pp. 2–4, October 22, 2019, https://congress. gov/116/meeting/house/110104/witnesses/HHRG-116-II10-Wstate-TubbK-20191022.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 40. News release, “Secretary Haaland Announces Steps to Establish Protections for Culturally Significant Chaco Canyon Landscape,” U.S. Department of the Interior, November 15, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/ secretary-haaland-announces-steps-establish-protections-culturally-significant-chaco (accessed March 16, 2023); News release, “Biden–Harris Administration Proposes Protections for Thompson Divide,” U.S. Department of the Interior, October 12, 2022, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-harris-administration- proposes-protections-thompson-divide (accessed March 16, 2023); News release, “Biden Administration Takes Action to Complete Study of Boundary Waters Area Watershed,” U.S. Department of the Interior, October 20, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-administration-takes-action-complete-study-boundary- waters-area-watershed (accessed March 16, 2023); and News release, “Interior Department Takes Action on Mineral Leases Improperly Renewed in the Watershed of the Boundary Waters Wilderness,” U.S. Department of the Interior, January 26, 2022, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-takes-action- mineral-leases-improperly-renewed-watershed-boundary (accessed March 16, 2023). 41. Endangered Species Act, Public Law 91–135, § 4(b)(2), and Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 244 (December 18, 2020), pp. 82376–82389. 42. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “Governing the Take of Migratory Birds Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.” https://www.fws.gov/regulations/mbta (accessed March 16, 2023). 43. Dino Grandoni and Anna Phillips, “Biden Restores Climate Safeguards in Key Environmental Law, Reversing Trump,” Washington Post, April 19, 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate- environment/2022/04/19/biden-nepa-climate-trump/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 44. Donald Trump, “Executive Order on Creating Schedule F in the Accepted Service,” Executive Order 13957, October 21, 2020, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-creating- schedule-f-excepted-service/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 45. Kathleen Masterson, “Nevada Wild Horse Population Skyrockets To New High,” KUNR Public Radio, July 22, 2019, https://www.kunr.org/energy-and-environment/2019-07-22/nevada-wild-horse-population-skyrockets- to-new-high (accessed March 20, 2023). 46. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, “Report to Congress: An Analysis of Achieving a Sustainable Horse and Burro Program,” Fact sheet, May 8, 2020, https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/ Final%20Fact%20Sheet%20WHB%20Report%20To%20Congress.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 47. Pendley, Sagebrush Rebel, pp. 45–47. 48. James D. Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act At 35: Delivering on the Promise, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 53, Chap. 12 (2007), § 12.03(1)(a)(iv), https://www.guessrudd.com/wp-content/ uploads/sites/1600422/2020/05/The-Alaska-Native-Claims-Settlement-Act-at-35.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 49. Ibid., § 12.03(1)(a)(vii). See generally Richard S. Jones, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (Public Law 92–203): History And Analysis Together With Subsequent Amendments, Report No. 81–127 GOV, June 1, 1981, http://www.alaskool.org/PROJECTS/ANCSA/reports/rsjones1981/ANCSA_History71.htm (accessed March 16, 2023). 50. 43 U.S. Code, Ch. 33. ANCSA also created 12 Native-owned regional corporations and authorized $962 million in “seed money.” Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act At 35, § 12.03(2)(e). 51. ANCSA provided that the withdrawal of the lands would expire in 1978 if Congress had not designated the lands as federal enclaves. John K. Norman Cole and Steven W. Silver, Alaska’s D-2 Lands, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 6B, Ch. 5, September 1978, and Raymond A. Peck, Jr., And Then There Were None: Evolving Federal Restraints on the Availability of Public Lands for Mineral Development, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 25, Ch. 3, 1979. 52. Andrus used purported authority under the FLPMA to withdraw 40 million acres, and Carter used purported authority under the Antiquities Act of to withdraw 56 million acres. James D. Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: The First Twenty Years, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 38 Ch. 2, 1992 at 2.04(8)(c), https://ancsa.lbblawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/ANCSA-Paper-with-Table-of-Contents-1992.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023).

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills