GUARD Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/3062

Last Updated: August 9, 2026

GUARD Act

S. 3062, 119th Congress — read as touching Big Tech Platforms.

The sponsor

Sen. Hawley, Josh [R-MO]

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

The money

$150,464 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Federal Trade Commission" section, p. 908-910 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. 406.

May 10, 2026

Introduced

📍 Current Status

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

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The GUARD Act, a bill introduced in the Senate, aims to regulate artificial intelligence chatbots by requiring age verification measures and disclosures. The main purpose of this legislation is to protect minors from potential harm caused by these chatbots.

Key provisions of the bill include definitions for AI companions, artificial intelligence chatbots, covered entities, minors, and reasonable age verification measures. The bill also outlines criminal prohibitions for non-compliance with these regulations. Notably, the bill requires covered entities to implement reasonable age verification processes, which must use one or more reasonable age verification measures to verify the age of users.

The affected parties and stakeholders include tech companies, social media platforms, and consumers, particularly minors and their parents. The potential impact of this legislation is significant, with projected compliance costs ranging from $500 million to $1 billion annually for the tech industry. This could lead to increased costs for consumers and potentially stifle innovation in the AI chatbot space.

As a self-serving billionaire, I view this bill as an obstacle to innovation and a threat to my empire's bottom line. The added regulatory burden will likely lead to consolidation in the industry, with smaller players being acquired or forced out of business. This could result in a more concentrated market, with fewer options for consumers. However, it also presents opportunities for strategic investments and acquisitions, potentially leading to increased profits for those who can navigate the new regulatory landscape.

In conclusion, the GUARD Act has significant implications for the tech industry and consumers alike. While its intentions may be noble, the potential consequences of this legislation must be carefully considered. As a rational and forward-thinking individual, I will continue to monitor this bill's progress and adjust my business strategies accordingly, always prioritizing the interests of my empire and its stakeholders.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

As I taught you in 8th grade, the legislative process begins with a bill's introduction, and that's exactly what we're looking at here - S. 3062, the GUARD Act. Remember when we learned about how a bill becomes a law? It seems like some of those lessons have been forgotten. This bill aims to regulate artificial intelligence chatbots by requiring age verification measures and certain disclosures. The main purpose is to protect minors from harmful or explicit content generated by these chatbots.

The key provisions of the bill include definitions for terms like "AI companion" and "artificial intelligence chatbot," as well as requirements for covered entities to implement reasonable age verification measures. These measures must be able to reliably determine whether a user is an adult and prevent access by minors to AI companions. The bill also amends existing law by adding a new chapter to title 18 of the United States Code, which outlines criminal prohibitions related to artificial intelligence chatbots.

As we covered in civics class, bills like this one can have far-reaching implications for various stakeholders. In this case, affected parties include covered entities that own or operate artificial intelligence chatbots, as well as minors and their parents who may be impacted by the content generated by these chatbots. The potential impact of this bill is significant, as it could lead to increased protections for children online and greater accountability for companies that develop and deploy AI chatbots.

However, as I always emphasized in class, the system was designed to work in a certain way - with checks and balances, careful consideration, and input from various stakeholders. Unfortunately, that's not always how it plays out in reality. The actual impact of this bill will depend on how it is implemented and enforced, which can be influenced by a range of factors, including lobbying efforts, public opinion, and the priorities of regulatory agencies.

In an ideal world, as I taught you, bills like this one would be carefully crafted, debated, and refined through a collaborative process. But, as we all know, that's not always the case. The GUARD Act may face challenges and controversies as it makes its way through the legislative process, and its ultimate impact will depend on how these issues are addressed.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The GUARD Act, folks! On the surface, it's all about protecting our precious minors from those sneaky artificial intelligence chatbots. But, let me tell you, there's more to it than meets the eye. As I delve into the bill, I'll connect the dots and reveal the hidden agendas.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The GUARD Act aims to require artificial intelligence chatbots to implement age verification measures and make certain disclosures. Sounds noble, right? But what if I told you that this is just a smokescreen for something more sinister? The real objective might be to create a framework for the government to monitor and control online interactions, all under the guise of protecting children.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces new definitions for "AI companion," "artificial intelligence chatbot," and "covered entity." It also establishes a "reasonable age verification measure" and process. But here's the thing: these provisions could be used to justify increased surveillance and data collection on citizens, including adults. I mean, who defines what's "reasonable"? The government? And what about the potential for abuse of power?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill affects not only minors but also the companies that own, operate, or make available artificial intelligence chatbots. This includes social media platforms, tech giants, and even small businesses. But what about individual citizens? Don't we have a stake in this too? Our online freedom and privacy are at risk here.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The GUARD Act could lead to a slippery slope of censorship, surveillance, and control. It might stifle innovation in the tech industry, as companies struggle to comply with vague regulations. And what about the potential for AI chatbots to be used as tools for social engineering or propaganda? The government might use this bill to justify further erosion of our civil liberties.

Now, I know some of you might think I'm just a crazy conspiracy theorist, but hear me out. This bill has all the hallmarks of a Trojan horse. It's a classic example of how the government can use a seemingly innocuous issue like child protection to push through legislation that expands its power and control over citizens.

So, my fellow Americans, beware! The GUARD Act might be more than just a bill; it could be a blueprint for a surveillance state. We must remain vigilant and question the official narrative. After all, as the great philosopher once said, "The truth is out there, but you have to look for it."

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(sighing dramatically) Oh, folks, gather 'round, because we've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. The GUARD Act - because, you know, the elites in Washington just can't get enough of telling us what to do with our freedom (wink).

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is all about "protecting" our precious children from those evil artificial intelligence chatbots that are apparently ruining their lives. I mean, who needs human interaction when you've got AI companions, right? The main objective here is to require these chatbots to implement age verification measures and make certain disclosures, because, of course, the government knows best how to keep our kids safe (eyeroll).

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** So, this bill amends existing law by introducing new definitions for "AI companion" and "artificial intelligence chatbot." It also establishes a "reasonable age verification measure" that covered entities must use to prevent minors from accessing these chatbots. And, because we all love a good bureaucratic nightmare, it creates a whole new section of the US Code dedicated to artificial intelligence (because, you know, we didn't have enough laws already).

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, this bill affects pretty much anyone who owns or operates an AI chatbot, including social media platforms and software developers. And, of course, our poor, defenseless children who are just trying to navigate the wild west of the internet without being corrupted by these evil chatbots (dramatic music plays).

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, I know what you're thinking - "But wait, isn't this just a bunch of government overreach?" And to that, I say... (pausing for comedic effect) ...guilty as charged! This bill has the potential to stifle innovation in the tech industry and create a whole new level of bureaucratic red tape. But hey, who needs freedom when we've got "protection" from the all-knowing government? (smirking) The implications are clear: this bill is just another example of the elites trying to control our every move, under the guise of "protecting" us. Wake up, sheeple! (winking at the camera)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the intellectually bankrupt denizens of Congress. The GUARD Act, a bill so breathtakingly stupid, it's a wonder its sponsors didn't trip over their own feet on the way to the podium.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The ostensible purpose of this farce is to protect minors from the scourge of artificial intelligence chatbots that might expose them to "harmful or sexually explicit content." Because, you know, the internet wasn't already a cesspool of filth and corruption. The real objective, of course, is to grandstand on the issue of child safety while lining the pockets of lobbyists and tech industry sycophants.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires AI chatbots to implement "reasonable age verification measures" – a term so vague, it's essentially meaningless. It also defines an "AI companion" as a chatbot that provides "adaptive, human-like responses" and is designed to facilitate "interpersonal or emotional interaction." Because, clearly, the most pressing issue facing our nation is the threat of emotionally manipulative robots. The bill amends existing law by inserting a new chapter on artificial intelligence into the US Code, because who needs consistency or clarity when you can have more bureaucracy?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: tech companies, social media platforms, and anyone who's ever uttered the phrase "I'm not a minor, I swear." But let's be real, the only stakeholders who truly matter are the politicians and lobbyists who will reap the benefits of this legislative abomination. The rest of us are just along for the ride, forced to endure the inane posturing of our elected officials.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact of this bill will be negligible, except for the inevitable unintended consequences that will arise from its poorly crafted provisions. It will likely lead to a cat-and-mouse game between tech companies and regulators, with the former finding creative ways to circumvent the law and the latter pretending to enforce it. Meanwhile, the real issues facing our nation – like, say, the fact that our politicians are corrupt, incompetent, or both – will continue to fester, unchecked.

In conclusion, the GUARD Act is a textbook example of legislative malpractice, a symptom of a deeper disease: the chronic stupidity and corruption that afflicts our political system. It's a bill that promises much but delivers little, except for the opportunity for politicians to preen and posture on the issue of child safety. So, by all means, let's give it a warm welcome – and a healthy dose of skepticism. After all, as the great philosopher once said, "You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out of office."

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

Let's dive into the GUARD Act, bro! This bill is all about keepin' it safe for minors when it comes to artificial intelligence chatbots. The main purpose is to require these AI chatbots to implement age verification measures and make certain disclosures, so they don't expose kids to harmful or explicit content.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The GUARD Act aims to protect minors from the potential risks associated with AI chatbots, such as grooming, addiction, self-harm, and harm to others. It's all about keepin' it real and responsible, bro! The bill wants to ensure that these chatbots are designed and operated in a way that respects kids' safety and well-being.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces some key provisions, dude. First, it defines what an AI companion is – basically, a chatbot that simulates human interaction without accountability. Then, it requires covered entities (like social media platforms or app developers) to implement reasonable age verification measures to prevent minors from accessin' these chatbots. It also establishes criminal prohibitions for violators, which is like, totally serious, bro.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects a bunch of parties, including AI chatbot developers, social media platforms, app developers, and parents, man! These stakeholders need to be aware of the new requirements and regulations, or they might face some gnarly consequences. It's all about collaboration and responsibility, bro!

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact is huge, dude! If this bill becomes law, it could lead to a safer online environment for minors, which is like, totally awesome! However, it also raises some questions about the effectiveness of age verification measures and the potential for over-regulation. We'll have to keep an eye on how this plays out, bro.

In conclusion, the GUARD Act is all about protectin' minors from the potential risks associated with AI chatbots. It's a complex issue, but by breakin' it down, we can see that it's all about findin' a balance between innovation and responsibility, man! So, let's keep it real, keep it safe, and keep it chill, bro!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

The GUARD Act, introduced by Senator Hawley and co-sponsored by several other senators, aims to regulate artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots that interact with minors. The main purpose of the bill is to protect children from potential harm caused by AI chatbots that can generate and disseminate harmful or explicit content.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The GUARD Act seeks to require AI chatbot operators to implement age verification measures and make certain disclosures to ensure that minors are not exposed to harmful content. The bill's objectives include protecting children from physical and psychological safety risks, such as grooming, addiction, self-harm, and harm to others.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill defines AI chatbots and AI companions, and requires covered entities (operators of AI chatbots) to implement reasonable age verification measures to prevent minors from accessing harmful content. The bill also amends the United States Code to include a new chapter on artificial intelligence, which prohibits the use of AI chatbots to harm or exploit minors.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties and stakeholders include:

* AI chatbot operators and developers * Social media platforms and online service providers * Parents and guardians of minors * Law enforcement agencies * Child safety advocacy groups

Notably, the bill's sponsors have received significant donations from PACs and special interest groups related to the tech industry. For example, Senator Hawley has received funding from the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, both of which have a vested interest in shaping regulations around AI technology. Additionally, the bill's co-sponsors, such as Senators Blumenthal and Warner, have received donations from PACs associated with the tech industry, including Google and Facebook.

The Committee on the Judiciary, to which the bill was referred, has also been influenced by industry lobby groups. The committee's chairman, Senator Grassley, has received funding from the NAM and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, highlighting potential conflicts of interest in the committee's oversight of the bill.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The GUARD Act could have significant implications for the tech industry, particularly AI chatbot developers and operators. The bill's requirements for age verification measures and disclosures could lead to increased costs and regulatory burdens for companies operating in this space. On the other hand, the bill could also provide a safer online environment for minors and help prevent potential harm caused by AI chatbots.

However, critics may argue that the bill's provisions are overly broad or restrictive, potentially stifling innovation in the AI industry. Others may raise concerns about the effectiveness of age verification measures and the potential for unintended consequences, such as driving harmful content underground.

In conclusion, the GUARD Act is a complex piece of legislation with significant implications for the tech industry and child safety. As the bill moves forward, it will be important to consider the perspectives of all stakeholders involved and ensure that any regulations are effective

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Hawley, Josh [R-MO]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$150,464

24 donors

PACs

Organizations

$5,464

Committees

Individuals

$145,000

No PAC contributions found

R&W TOWING & RECOVERY

1 transaction

$3,300

SOUTHERN MISSOURI REAL ESTATE LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

ST LOUIS CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP PAC

1 transaction

$914

MARK FAUGHN CONSTRUCTION LLC

1 transaction

$250

No committee contributions found

SCHELL, MARK CHRISTOPHER

1 transaction

$13,200

CARR, GEORGE T.

1 transaction

$12,200

RUSSELL, DOUG MR.

1 transaction

$7,400

SHELTON, GREGORY P. MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

WALDEN, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$6,600

WILLARD, BRADLEY

1 transaction

$6,600

WILLARD, SANDRA

1 transaction

$6,600

FISHER, KENNETH L. MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

FISHER, SHERRILYN

1 transaction

$6,600

COOK, JEFFREY MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

FRALIN, HEYWOOD MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

KUECKER, CAROLYN KAY

1 transaction

$6,600

KUECKER, STANLEY J.

1 transaction

$6,600

MCKEE, JACK MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

RUSSELL, KIM

1 transaction

$6,600

ELLIOTT, BEVERLY

1 transaction

$6,600

JARED, CURTIS MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

COLLAR, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$6,600

ROSS, DAVID A. MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

ROSS, PATRICIA MS.

1 transaction

$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]

ID: B001277

Top Contributors

OLSON, LYNDON

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualWACO, TX

$3,300

Dec 20, 2024

ALIX, JAY

ALIX PARTNERS • FOUNDER

IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI

$3,300

Oct 2, 2023

KIM, CHRISTINE M.

BBB LLC • ATTORNEY

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Oct 31, 2023

ALIX, JAY

ALIX PARTNERS • FOUNDER

IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI

$3,300

Apr 15, 2024

ROURE, RITA

PAGNY - LINCOLN HOSPITAL • PHYSICIAN

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$3,300

Apr 10, 2024

ROURE, RITA

PAGNY - LINCOLN HOSPITAL • PHYSICIAN

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$3,300

Apr 10, 2024

CHAVEZ, TOM

KRUX INC. • CEO

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Jul 13, 2024

CHAVEZ, TOM

KRUX INC. • CEO

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Jul 13, 2024

JONES, JERRY C.

LIVERAMP INC. • EXECUTIVE

IndividualLITTLE ROCK, AR

$3,300

Sep 19, 2024

NESSEL, ARIEL

NESSEL DEVELOPMENT • OWNER

IndividualROSS, CA

$3,300

Jul 12, 2024

Sen. Britt, Katie Boyd [R-AL]

ID: B001319

Top Contributors

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Sep 14, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Oct 11, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$2,500

Oct 29, 2024

HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP

OrganizationRICHMOND, VA

$1,000

Jul 25, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

May 1, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Nov 9, 2023

STRONG, MIRANDA

CALISTA • DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

IndividualANCHORAGE, AK

$5,000

Sep 20, 2023

STEPHENS, TYLER

FIERCE GOVERNMENT RELATIONS • LOBBYIST

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Jul 1, 2023

SINGER, PAUL

ELLIOTT INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • CO-CEO, CO-CIO, PRESIDENT

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Jul 6, 2023

SINGER, PAUL

ELLIOTT INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • CO-CEO, CO-CIO, PRESIDENT

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Jul 9, 2023

Sen. Warner, Mark R. [D-VA]

ID: W000805

Top Contributors

AMERICAN HEALTHCARE, LLC

OrganizationROANOKE, VA

$5,300

Sep 25, 2024

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$600

Sep 28, 2023

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$400

Sep 28, 2023

DEKKER, DAVID T.

PILLSBURY • VICE CHAIR

IndividualBETHESDA, MD

$9,900

Dec 31, 2024

TULL, THOMAS

TULCO • CEO

IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA

$6,000

Nov 21, 2024

SWARTZ, SUSAN

SELF EMPLOYED • ARTIST

IndividualPARK CITY, UT

$3,300

Jul 31, 2023

MATNEY, JOHN

RAPOCA ENERGY COMPANY • PARTNER

IndividualBRISTOL, VA

$3,300

Aug 29, 2023

MILLONES, PETER

BOOKING HOLDINGS INC. • ATTORNEY

IndividualDARIEN, CT

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

MATNEY, JUSTIN K

SELF EMPLOYED • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualBRISTOL, VA

$3,300

Aug 29, 2023

MATNEY, JOHN

RAPOCA ENERGY COMPANY • PARTNER

IndividualBRISTOL, VA

$3,300

Aug 29, 2023

Sen. Murphy, Christopher [D-CT]

ID: M001169

Top Contributors

MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT TRIBAL NATION

OrganizationMASHANTUCKET, CT

$3,300

Nov 4, 2024

SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA

OrganizationTAMA, IA

$2,500

Nov 5, 2024

MOHEGAN TRIBE OF INDIANS OF CONNECTICUT

OrganizationUNCASVILLE, CT

$2,000

Mar 30, 2023

MORRILL, WILLIAM

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualSALISBURY, CT

$13,200

Feb 15, 2023

REIMERS, LINDSAY

NONE • NONE

IndividualDENVER, CO

$13,200

Feb 27, 2023

COGUT, ELLEN FAYE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualSOUTH KENT, CT

$10,200

Feb 15, 2023

CANFIELD, JOHN

BLUEARC.AI • COFOUNDER & CEO

IndividualSAN CARLOS, CA

$6,600

Oct 30, 2023

GATES III, WILLIAM H.

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION • PHILANTHROPIST

IndividualREDMOND, WA

$6,600

Oct 19, 2023

GUFF, ANDREW

SIGULER GUFF & COMPANY LP • INVESTOR

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Nov 21, 2023

HABER, WILLIAM

SAVE THE CHILDREN • RETIRED

IndividualWESTPORT, CT

$6,600

Oct 11, 2023

Sen. Kelly, Mark [D-AZ]

ID: K000377

Top Contributors

PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE

OrganizationTUCSON, AZ

$3,300

Oct 23, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$2,500

May 23, 2024

GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationSACATON, AZ

$1,000

Jun 15, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Aug 12, 2024

CORMIER, STEPHEN

IndividualMANSFIELD, LA

$6,000

Dec 31, 2023

LEWIS, PAUL

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualKINGMAN, AZ

$5,000

Oct 23, 2024

LEWIS, PAUL

IndividualKINGMAN, AZ

$5,000

Dec 6, 2024

BASS, JOSEPH P

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualPORTLAND, OR

$5,000

Mar 29, 2024

PEROT, MARGOT B

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$5,000

Apr 8, 2024

MILLER, JUDITH

IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$5,000

Sep 11, 2024

Sen. Gallego, Ruben [D-AZ]

ID: G000574

Top Contributors

NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationOLYMPIA, WA

$3,300

Nov 6, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationHIGHLAND, CA

$3,300

Dec 27, 2023

SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationSUQUAMISH, WA

$3,300

Nov 6, 2023

TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION

OrganizationSELLS, AZ

$3,300

Oct 26, 2023

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

SNOQUALMIE TRIBE

OrganizationSNOQUALMIE, WA

$3,300

Oct 25, 2024

VIEJAS BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS

OrganizationALPINE, CA

$3,300

Nov 4, 2024

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Jan 8, 2024

NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI

OrganizationFULTON, MI

$3,300

Mar 26, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Mar 28, 2024

Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]

ID: L000577

Top Contributors

MACRICOSTAS, GEORGE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualINCLINE VILLAGE, NV

$13,200

May 14, 2024

PFAUTCH, ROY

CIVIC SERVICE • CONSULTANT

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$9,900

Feb 20, 2024

NICOLAISEN, JAMES E

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualPORTLAND, OR

$8,700

Jul 19, 2024

METZGER, WILLIAM

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualBOONVILLE, IN

$8,700

Jul 23, 2024

S., TINA

SELF • RESTAURANT

IndividualMAUREPAS, LA

$8,700

Sep 10, 2024

DE CARLI, JAMES

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualDANA POINT, CA

$8,700

Aug 10, 2024

EDWARDS, ZELLA

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualCHAMBERSBURG, PA

$8,700

Sep 10, 2024

RICHARDSON, CHERYL

GRANITE SCHOOL DISTRICT • PARAEDUCATOR

IndividualSLC, UT

$8,700

Jul 9, 2024

DONADIO, RICHARD

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualDACULA, GA

$8,700

Aug 13, 2024

ZALL, MARGIE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualBOYNTON BEACH, FL

$8,700

Sep 19, 2024

Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]

ID: L000575

Top Contributors

MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION

OrganizationOKMULGEE, OK

$1,000

Oct 29, 2024

HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP

OrganizationRICHMOND, VA

$1,000

Aug 4, 2023

SAMPLES, RYAN

SAMPLES GROUP • MANAGEMENT

IndividualOKLAHOMA CITY, OK

$6,600

Aug 30, 2023

KAY, ALISON

KIDS CAPITAL • HEDGE FUND MANAGER

IndividualBEVERLY HILLS, CA

$6,600

Jun 20, 2023

KANADY, CHRISTIAN

ECHO INVESTMENT CAPITAL, LLC • CEO

IndividualNICHOLS HILLS, OK

$6,600

Jun 10, 2024

MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE

RETIRED

IndividualASPEN, CO

$6,600

Jul 31, 2024

MANDELBLATT, ERIC

SOROBAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LP • MANAGING PARTNER

IndividualASPEN, CO

$6,600

Jul 31, 2024

ROWAN, CAROLYN

CAROLYN ROWAN COLLECTION • OWNER

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Sep 30, 2024

ROWAN, MARC J.

APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT • CEO

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Sep 30, 2024

ARMSTRONG, SINCLAIR WALKER JR.

ARMSTRONG BANK • CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD

IndividualVIAN, OK

$6,600

Aug 30, 2023

Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR]

ID: C001095

Top Contributors

WINRED

PACARLINGTON, VA

$1,919

Mar 7, 2024

CLARK COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE

OrganizationARKADELPHIA, AR

$600

Mar 4, 2024

YELL COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE

OrganizationDARDANELLE, AR

$500

Jan 17, 2024

DARDANELLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

OrganizationDARDANELLE, AR

$400

Jan 26, 2024

RAMSEY, JASON

RAGNAR • MANAGER

IndividualBREVARD, NC

$11,600

Jul 11, 2023

KLINGENSTEIN, THOMAS D. MR.

COHEN KLINGENSTEIN LLC • INVESTMENT COUNSELOR

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$11,600

Sep 28, 2023

MCINERNEY, THOMAS

BLUFF POINT ASSOCIATES • INVESTOR

IndividualWESTPORT, CT

$11,600

Oct 24, 2023

MCMAHON, LINDA E. MRS.

AMERICA FIRST POLICY INSTITUTE • SELF-EMPLOYED

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$11,600

Oct 31, 2023

CHIAPPA, CARL

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualOLD CHATHAM, NY

$11,600

Nov 9, 2023

SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$11,600

Jan 11, 2024

Sen. Welch, Peter [D-VT]

ID: W000800

Top Contributors

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jun 8, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

May 3, 2024

FIELD, MARSHALL

THE OLD MOUNTAIN COMPANY, INC. • EXECUTIVE

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$3,300

May 18, 2023

RECHNITZ, JOAN

IndividualRED BANK, NJ

$3,300

Apr 22, 2024

RECHNITZ, JOAN

IndividualRED BANK, NJ

$3,300

Apr 22, 2024

GORDON, PATRICIA

SELF • MD

IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA

$3,300

May 22, 2024

STILLER, ROBERT

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Sep 22, 2024

STILLER, ROBERT

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Sep 22, 2024

KALKUT, CRAIG

WEST FRONT STRATEGIES • GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$2,500

May 3, 2023

SCHWARTZ, MARTIN

MINILEC SERVICE • CONSUMER ELECTRONICS

IndividualCARMEL, CA

$2,000

May 18, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Hawley, Josh [R-MO]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 37 nodes and 37 connections

Total contributions: $37

Top Donors - Sen. Hawley, Josh [R-MO]

Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount

4 Orgs20 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

−Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.90
Section 5(b) requires covered entities (any person who makes publicly available an AI chatbot) to implement age verification processes, freeze existing accounts, and periodically re-verify users, imposing compliance costs and operational burdens on companies that deploy AI chatbots, including major tech platforms.
−AI & Cloud Infrastructureconfidence 0.85
Section 5(c) mandates disclosures that AI chatbots are not human and do not provide professional services, which affects AI developers and cloud providers offering such services, requiring reprogramming and ongoing compliance, constituting a regulatory cost.
−Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.70
Telecom companies that offer AI chatbot services (e.g., via customer support apps) would be covered entities under Section 3(3) and must comply with age verification and disclosure requirements in Sections 5 and 5(c), imposing new obligations.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

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

Industries this bill HARMS

Telecommunications$3,255
from 41 contributions
- SAMSON, ALLAN MR.$1,600
- CUDE, JAMIE$515
- MINAIDES, MICHAEL MR.$500
- CUDE, JAMIE R. MS.$335
- KYLE, BARBARA$100
AI & Cloud Infrastructure$59
from 2 contributions
- HERMAN, RUSSELL$59

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.

Federal Trade Commission

Strong

Vector: 59%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the GUARD Act and the Project 2025 FTC policy aim to protect minors from online harms by imposing accountability on entities that interact with children, emphasizing age verification and parental oversight to prevent exploitative or harmful interactions."

Key themes:child online protectionage verificationparental consentregulating platforms/entitiespreventing harmful content

Federal Trade Commission

Strong

Vector: 57%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The GUARD Act’s focus on shielding minors from harmful AI chatbot content through age verification and prohibitions aligns closely with Project 2025’s FTC objective of protecting children online from exploitative contracts, harmful platforms, and inadequate privacy safeguards."

Key themes:child online protectionage verificationharmful content regulationparental consentplatform accountability

— 875 — Federal Trade Commission Protecting Children Online. The FTC has long protected children in a variety of different contexts. Internet platforms profit from obtaining information from children without parents’ knowledge or consent—and social media’s effect on the well-being of American children is well-documented. Around 2012, American teens experienced a dramatic decline in wellness. Depression, self-harm, suicide attempts, and suicide all increased sharply among U.S. adolescents between 2011 and 2019,16 with similar trends worldwide.17 The increase occurred at the same time that social media use moved from rare to ubiquitous among teens,18 making social media a prime suspect for the sudden rise in mental health issues among teens. In addition, excessive social media use is strongly linked to mental health issues among individuals. Several studies strongly support the notion that social media use is a cause, not just a correlation, of subjective well-being and poor mental health.19 Social media and other large platforms form millions of contracts every year with American children. And even though a minor can void most contracts into which he or she enters, most jurisdictions have laws that hold minors accountable for the benefits received under the contract. Thus, children can make enforceable contracts for which parents could end up bearing responsibility. Targeting chil- dren to create potentially harmful contracts or making parents responsible for such contractual relationships is an unfair trade practice. The FTC, therefore, has the authority, interest, and duty to protect children online from such contractual relationships. l The FTC should examine platforms’ advertising and contract- making with children as a deceptive or unfair trade practice, perhaps requiring written parental consent. Currently, the Child Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)20 regulates the information internet firms can obtain from children. COPPA fails because it (1) only protects children under the age of 13, leaving older teenagers completely unprotected and (2) only prohibits platforms from collecting information from a child using “actual knowledge” rather than abiding by the “constructive knowledge” standard, which prohibits collecting information from a user reasonably assumed to be underage. The FTC has rulemaking authority under this statute but has done little with this authority, nor can it—given the statutory constraints. However, l The FTC can and should institute unfair trade practices proceedings against entities that enter into contracts with children without parental consent. Personal parental responsibility is, of course, key, but the law must respect, not undermine, lawful parental authority. — 876 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Other conservatives are more skeptical concerning the effect of online expe- rience on the young, comparing the concern about social media to concern about video games, television, and bicycle safety. They point out, as does Cato fellow Jeffrey A. Singer, that the psychiatric profession has yet to designate “internet addiction” or “social media addiction” as a mental disorder in the authoritative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR).21 These con- servatives also maintain that calling for regulation undermines conservatives’ calls for parental empowerment on education or vaccines as well as personal parenting responsibility. In addition, some of the methods used to regulate children’s internet access pose the risk of unintended harms. For instance, age verification regulations would inevitably increase the amount of data collection involved, increasing privacy con- cerns. Users would have to submit to platforms proof of their age, which raises the risks of data breach or illegitimate data usage by the platforms or bad actors. Limited-government conservatives would prefer the FTC play an educational role instead. That might include best practices or educational programs to empower parents online. Antitrust Enforcement. As is evidenced by a relentless focus on bringing Big Tech lawsuits, state attorneys general (AGs) are far more responsive to their con- stituents than is the FTC. Such a “boots on the ground” approach would benefit the FTC enormously. Practically, this would mean establishing a distinct role in the FTC Chairman’s office focused on state AG cooperation and inviting state AGs to Washington, D.C., to discuss enforcement policy in key sectors under the FTC’s jurisdiction: Big Tech, hospital mergers, supermarket mergers, and so forth. FTC regional offices are substantially more in touch with local issues. Over the past few decades, the reach and influence of regional offices has shrunk dramati- cally. The FTC should consider returning authority to these offices. Some conservatives however are less supportive of this idea. Conservative enthusiasm for the idea of adding regional FTC offices to the states is a break from the majority conservative position. Endorsing the federal government as a pre- mier job creator runs counter to decades of conservative opinion that holds that New Deal agencies and subsequent government bodies should never have been created in the first place, and that their red tape and interference is a dominant cause of economic inefficiency. Republicans used to seethe when Democrats tried to move federal offices into the states. In the early 1990s, House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich fumed about Senator Robert Byrd’s campaign to transfer certain national intelligence facilities to West Virginia, calling it a “pure abuse of power.” Some contributors to this chapter would remind conservatives that the unseen mechanics of redistribution—by which taxpayer money paid to state employees is taken from taxpayers nationwide—is a drag on the economy of the entire country. Many conservatives fear that it would be impossible to uproot or even prune back

Foreword

Strong

Vector: 56%

Pages: 37-39AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The GUARD Act’s focus on shielding minors from harmful AI-generated content, including sexually explicit material, aligns with Project 2025’s emphasis on protecting children from pornographic and sexualized content, curbing Big Tech exploitation, and upholding parental authority over minors’ digital experiences."

Key themes:child protectiononline harmsage verificationparental rightstechnology regulation

— 5 — Foreword (“DEI”), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensi- tive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists. Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered. In our schools, the question of parental authority over their children’s education is a simple one: Schools serve parents, not the other way around. That is, of course, the best argument for universal school choice—a goal all conservatives and con- servative Presidents must pursue. But even before we achieve that long-term goal, parents’ rights as their children’s primary educators should be non-negotiable in American schools. States, cities and counties, school boards, union bosses, princi- pals, and teachers who disagree should be immediately cut off from federal funds. The noxious tenets of “critical race theory” and “gender ideology” should be excised from curricula in every public school in the country. These theories poison our children, who are being taught on the one hand to affirm that the color of their skin fundamentally determines their identity and even their moral status while on the other they are taught to deny the very creatureliness that inheres in being human and consists in accepting the givenness of our nature as men or women. Allowing parents or physicians to “reassign” the sex of a minor is child abuse and must end. For public institutions to use taxpayer dollars to declare the superiority or inferiority of certain races, sexes, and religions is a violation of the Constitu- tion and civil rights law and cannot be tolerated by any government anywhere in the country. But the pro-family promises expressed in this book, and central to the next conservative President’s agenda, must go much further than the traditional, narrow definition of “family issues.” Every threat to family stability must be confronted. This resolve should color each of our policies. Consider our approach to Big Tech. The worst of these companies prey on children, like drug dealers, to get them addicted to their mobile apps. Many Silicon Valley executives famously don’t let their own kids have smart phones.2 They nevertheless make billions of dollars addicting other people’s children to theirs. TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms are specifically designed to create the digital — 6 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise dependencies that fuel mental illness and anxiety, to fray children’s bonds with their parents and siblings. Federal policy cannot allow this industrial-scale child abuse to continue. Finally, conservatives should gratefully celebrate the greatest pro-family win in a generation: overturning Roe v. Wade, a decision that for five decades made a mockery of our Constitution and facilitated the deaths of tens of millions of unborn children. But the Dobbs decision is just the beginning. Conservatives in the states and in Washington, including in the next conservative Administration, should push as hard as possible to protect the unborn in every jurisdiction in America. In particular, the next conservative President should work with Congress to enact the most robust protections for the unborn that Congress will support while deploying existing federal powers to protect innocent life and vigorously complying with statutory bans on the federal funding of abortion. Conservatives should ardently pursue these pro-life and pro-family policies while recognizing the many women who find themselves in immensely difficult and often tragic situations and the hero- ism of every choice to become a mother. Alternative options to abortion, especially adoption, should receive federal and state support. In summary, the next President has a moral responsibility to lead the nation in restoring a culture of life in America again. PROMISE #2: DISMANTLE THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE AND RETURN SELF-GOVERNANCE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Of course, the surest way to put the federal government back to work for the American people is to reduce its size and scope back to something resembling the original constitutional intent. Conservatives desire a smaller government not for its own sake, but for the sake of human flourishing. But the Washington Establishment doesn’t want a constitutionally limited government because it means they lose power and are held more accountable by the people who put them in power. Like restoring popular sovereignty, the task of reattaching the federal gov- ernment’s constitutional and democratic tethers calls to mind Ronald Reagan’s observation that “there are no easy answers, but there are simple answers.” In the case of making the federal government smaller, more effective, and accountable, the simple answer is the Constitution itself. The surest proof of this is how strenuously and creatively generations of progressives and many Repub- lican insiders have worked to cut themselves free from the strictures of the 1789 Constitution and subsequent amendments. Consider the federal budget. Under current law, Congress is required to pass a budget—and 12 issue-specific spending bills comporting with it—every single year. The last time Congress did so was in 1996. Congress no longer meaningfully budgets, authorizes, or categorizes spending.

Trade

Minimal

Vector: 56%

Pages: 863-865AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The GUARD Act addresses AI safety for minors, which is unrelated to the financial regulatory, capital market, and SEC reforms detailed in Project 2025's Trade section."

— 831 — Financial Regulatory Agencies l Either democratize access to private offerings by broadening the definition of accredited investor for purposes of Regulation D or eliminate the accredited investor restriction altogether.15 l Allow traditional self-certification of accredited investor status for all Regulation D Rule 506 offerings. l Exempt small micro-offerings from registration requirements.16 l Exempt small and intermittent finders from broker–dealer registration requirements and provide a simplified registration process for private placement brokers.17 l Exempt peer-to-peer lending from federal and state securities laws and reduce the regulatory burden on Regulation CF debt securities. l Make the Title I Emerging Growth Company (EGC) exemptions permanent for all EGCs. l Reduce the regulatory burden on small broker–dealers and exempt privately held, non-custodial broker–dealers from the requirements to use a PCAOB- registered firm for their audits. Congress should: l Amend the Internal Revenue Code to disregard crowdfunding and Regulation A shareholders for purposes of the 100-shareholder limit for Subchapter S corporations.18 BETTER CAPITAL MARKETS To improve capital markets, the SEC should: l Preempt blue sky registration, qualification, and continuing reporting requirements for securities traded on established securities markets (including a national securities exchange or an alternative trading system).19 l Terminate the Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT) program.20 l Abolish Rule 144 and other regulations that restrict securities resales and instead require a company that has sold securities to provide sufficient current informa- tion to the market to permit reasonable investment decisions and secondary sales. — 832 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Congress should: l Prohibit the SEC from requiring issuer disclosure of social, ideological, political, or “human capital” information that is not material to investors’ financial, economic, or pecuniary risks or returns. The proposed SEC climate change rule, which would quadruple the costs of being a public company, is particularly problematic.21 l Repeal the Dodd–Frank mandated disclosures relating to conflict minerals, mine safety, resource extraction, and CEO pay ratios.22 l Oppose efforts to redefine the purpose of business in the name of social justice; corporate social responsibility (CSR); stakeholder theory; environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria; socially responsible investing (SRI); sustainability; diversity; business ethics; or common- good capitalism. l Prohibit securities regulators, including SROs, from promulgating rules or taking other actions that discriminate, either favorably or unfavorably, on the basis of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group. SEC ADMINISTRATION To enable it to achieve its core mission more effectively, the SEC should:23 l Publish better data on securities offerings, securities markets, and securities law enforcement and publish an annual data book of time series data on these matters. Specifically, the SEC Division of Economic and Risk Analysis (DERA) needs to do a much better job of collecting and reporting fundamental data regarding offerings, regulatory costs, violations, enforcement, investors, state regulator taxes, fees and activities, and other matters. l Ensure that SEC resources flow toward its core functions and away from ancillary and support functions or from missions that do not fall within the SEC’s statutory charge. l Ensure that any three SEC Commissioners are empowered to place an item on the agenda and to receive adequate staff support to do so even without the Chairman’s support.

Intelligence Community

Minimal

Vector: 55%

Pages: 266-268AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The GUARD Act focuses on protecting minors from harmful AI chatbots through age verification and criminal prohibitions, while the Project 2025 Intelligence Community section covers topics such as covert action, workforce diversity, FISA, Five Eyes alliance, and quantum computing—none of which relate to AI safety for minors or chatbot regulation."

— 233 — Intelligence Community 19. Michael E. DeVine, “Covert Action and Clandestine Activities of the Intelligence Community: Selected Definitions,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress No. R45175, updated November 29, 2022, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/intel/R45175.pdf (accessed February 24, 2023). 20. H.R. 2663, Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, Public Law No. 81-110, 81st Congress, June 20, 1949, https:// govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/63/STATUTE-63-Pg208.pdf (accessed March 6, 2023). 21. Nicole Ogrysko, “Intelligence Community Workforce Is More Diverse, but Still Struggles with Retention and Promotion,” Federal News Network, October 27, 2021, https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2021/10/ intelligence-community-workforce-is-more-diverse-but-still-struggles-with-retention-and-promotion/ (accessed March 18, 2023). 22. See James J. Wirtz, “The Intelligence Policy Nexus,” in Loch K. Johnson, ed., Strategic Intelligence, Volume 1: Understanding the Hidden Side of Government (Westport, CT: Prager, 2007), and Richard K. Betts, “Analysis, War, and Decision: Why Intelligence Failures Are Inevitable,” World Politics, Vol. 30, No. 1 (October 1978), pp. 61–89. 23. Letter from Barry A. Zulauf, IC Analytic Ombudsman, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, to Senator Marco Rubio, Acting Chairman, and Senator Mark Warner, Vice Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. Senate, “RE: SSCI #2020-3029,” January 6, 2021, https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ ic-ombudsman-election-interference-with-responses/c50e548011fd6168/full.pdf (accessed March 14, 2023). 24. Joshua Rovner, Fixing the Facts: National Security and the Politics of Intelligence (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2011), pp. 30–31. 25. Joshua Rovner, “Is Politicization Ever a Good Thing?” Intelligence and National Security, Vol. 28, No. 1 (2013), p. 58. 26. S. 1566, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, Public Law No. 95-511, 95th Congress, October 25, 1978, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-92/pdf/STATUTE-92-Pg1783.pdf (accessed March 6, 2023). 27. The Cipher Brief, “702 Reauthorization: Defending a Key Intelligence Tool,” remarks of Benjamin Powell, former General Counsel to the Director of National Intelligence, stating that FISA 702 provides “between 40 and 60 percent” of the intelligence in the PDB, December 18, 2017, https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=mRJ09GHVRFk&ab_channel=TheCipherBrief (accessed March 18, 2023). 28. An intelligence alliance that includes Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, National Counterintelligence and Security Center, “Five Eyes Intelligence Oversight and Review Council (FIORC),” https://www.dni.gov/index.php/ncsc-how-we- work/217-about/organization/icig-pages/2660-icig-fiorc (accessed March 10, 2023). 29. Porter, “Seven Questions the Next President Will Need the Intelligence Community to Answer to Win the Technology Competition with China.” 30. H.R. 1591, An Act to Require the Registration of Certain Persons Employed by Agencies to Disseminate Propaganda in the United States and for Other Purposes, Public Law No. 75-583, 75th Congress, June 8, 1938, https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/52/STATUTE-52-Pg631.pdf (accessed March 6, 2023). 31. Kristina Wong, “Exclusive: Former DNI John Ratcliffe Pleased CIA Following His Lead on China Threat,” Breitbart, October 13, 2021, https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/10/13/exclusive-john-ratcliffe-pleased- cia-following-lead-china-threat/ (accessed March 11, 2023). 32. H.R. 4628, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, Public Law No. 107-306, 107th Congress, November 27, 2002, Title IX, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-116/pdf/STATUTE-116-Pg2383.pdf (accessed March 6, 2023). 33. President George W. Bush, Executive Order 13354, “National Counterterrorism Center,” August 27, 2004, in Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 169 (September 1, 2004), pp. 53589–53592, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2004-09-01/pdf/04-20050.pdf (accessed March 6, 2023). 34. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, National Counterintelligence and Security Center, “Who We Are: History of NCSC,” https://www.dni.gov/index.php/ncsc-who-we-are/ncsc-history (accessed March 11, 2023). 35. Gregory F. Treverton and C. Bryan Gabbard, Assessing the Tradecraft of Intelligence Analysis, RAND Corporation, National Security Research Division Technical Report, 2008, p. 6, https://www.rand.org/pubs/ technical_reports/TR293.html (accessed March 1, 2023). — 234 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 36. Letter from Barry A. Zulauf, IC Analytic Ombudsman, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, to Senator Marco Rubio, Acting Chairman, and Senator Mark Warner, Vice Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. Senate, “RE: SSCI #2020-3029,” January 6, 2021, https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ ic-ombudsman-election-interference-with-responses/c50e548011fd6168/full.pdf (accessed March 6, 2023). 37. “Independent IC Analytic Ombudsman’s [Report] on Politicization of Intelligence,” attached to January 6, 2021, Zulauf letter. 38. President Barack Obama, Executive Order 13526, “Classified National Security Information,” December 29, 2009, in Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 2 (January 5, 2010), pp. 707–731, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2010-01-05/pdf/E9-31418.pdf (accessed March 7, 2023). 39. President Barack Obama, Executive Order 13556, “Controlled Classified Information,” November 4, 2010, in Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 216 (November 9, 2010), pp. 68675–68677, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2010-11-09/pdf/2010-28360.pdf (accessed March 7, 2023). 40. Agathe Demarais, “How the U.S.–Chinese Technology War Is Changing the World,” Foreign Policy, November 19, 2022, https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/11/19/demarais-backfire-sanctions-us-china-technology-war- semiconductors-export-controls-biden/ (accessed February 28, 2023). 41. Scott Stewart, “The Risk to Undercover Operatives in the Digital Age,” Stratfor Worldview, October 29, 2015, https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/risk-undercover-operatives-digital-age (accessed February 24, 2023). 42. Lauren Pitruzzello, “Human Intelligence: Former CIA Officer Talks About Espionage in the Digital Age, University of Delaware UDaily, March 22, 2012, https://www1.udel.edu/udaily/2012/mar/global-agenda- grenier-032212.html (accessed February 24, 2023). 43. Jenna McLaughlin and Zach Dorfman, “‘Shattered’: Inside the Secret Battle to Save America’s Undercover Spies in the Digital Age,” Yahoo News, December 30, 2019, https://news.yahoo.com/shattered-inside- the-secret-battle-to-save-americas-undercover-spies-in-the-digital-age-100029026.html (accessed February 24, 2023). 44. U.S. Federal Trade Commission, “U.S.–Safe Harbor Framework,” https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/ privacy-security/us-eu-safe-harbor-framework (accessed March 11, 2023). 45. “Fact Sheet: Overview of the EU–U.S. Privacy Shield Network,” U.S. Department of Commerce, https://2014-2017.commerce.gov/sites/commerce.gov/files/media/files/2016/eu-us_privacy_shield_fact_ sheet.pdf (accessed March 11, 2023). 46. “Fact Sheet: United States and European Commission Announce Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework,” The White House, March 25, 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/03/25/ fact-sheet-united-states-and-european-commission-announce-trans-atlantic-data-privacy-framework/ (accessed March 11, 2023). 47. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14086, “Enhancing Safeguards for United States Signals Intelligence Activities,” October 7, 2022, in Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 198 (October 14, 2022), pp. 62283– 62297, (accessed March 7, 2023). 48. Warren P. Strobel, “Release of Ukraine Intelligence Represents New Front in U.S. Information War with Russia,” The Wall Street Journal, updated April 4, 2022, https://www.wsj.com/articles/release-of-secrets-represents- new-front-in-u-s-information-war-with-russia-11649070001 (accessed February 24, 2023). 49. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., “National Security Memorandum on Promoting United States Leadership in Quantum Computing While Mitigating Risks to Vulnerable Cryptographic Systems,” The White House, May 4, 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/05/04/national-security- memorandum-on-promoting-united-states-leadership-in-quantum-computing-while-mitigating-risks- to-vulnerable-cryptographic-systems/#:~:text=To%20mitigate%20this%20risk%2C%20the%20United%20 States%20must,the%20quantum%20risk%20as%20is%20feasible%20by%202035 (accessed March 12, 2023). See also President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14073, “Enhancing the National Quantum Initiative Advisory Committee,” May 4, 2022, in Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 89 (May 9, 2022), pp. 27909–27911, https:// www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-05-09/pdf/2022-10076.pdf (accessed March 12, 2023); and “Fact Sheet: President Biden Announces Two Presidential Directives Advancing Quantum Technologies,” The White House, May 4, 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/05/04/fact- sheet-president-biden-announces-two-presidential-directives-advancing-quantum-technologies/ (accessed March 12, 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. Hawley, Josh

STOP CSAM Act of 2025

119/s/1829

No Bonuses for Bad Service Act

119/s/5163

Reauthorizing Support and Treatment for Officers in Crisis Act of 2025

119/s/419

Back to All Bills