Fairness in Filing Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/3116

Last Updated: November 7, 2025

Fairness in Filing Act

S. 3116, 119th Congress — read as touching Labor Unions.

The sponsor

Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]

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

The money

$162,500 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Labor and Related Agencies" section, p. 633-635 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

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:

**Bill Analysis: S 3116 - Fairness in Filing Act**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect the Fairness in Filing Act (S 3116) through the lens of its impact on my business empire and the broader landscape of wealth creation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill aims to restrict frivolous or bad-faith charges under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), ostensibly promoting fairness and efficiency in labor dispute resolution. However, I see this as a thinly veiled attempt to curtail workers' rights and bolster corporate interests.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **Good Faith Filing Requirement**: The bill introduces a "good faith" standard for filing charges under the NLRA, which could lead to increased scrutiny of worker complaints. 2. **Documentation Requirements**: Charges must now include documentation or certification of evidence, potentially creating barriers for workers seeking redress. 3. **Penalties for Frivolous Filings**: A new fine of up to $5,000 is introduced for individuals who file bad-faith or frivolous charges.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Corporate Interests**: My business empire and other large corporations stand to benefit from reduced labor disputes and increased control over the workplace. 2. **Workers' Rights Advocates**: Labor unions and worker advocacy groups may view this bill as an erosion of workers' rights and a blow to their ability to hold employers accountable.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased Corporate Power**: By restricting frivolous charges, corporations like mine can more effectively manage labor disputes and maintain control over the workplace. 2. **Chilling Effect on Worker Complaints**: The documentation requirements and penalties for frivolous filings may deter workers from reporting legitimate grievances, further entrenching corporate power. 3. **Wealth Concentration**: By limiting worker protections, this bill could contribute to increased wealth concentration among corporate elites like myself.

In conclusion, the Fairness in Filing Act is a thinly veiled attempt to consolidate corporate power and undermine workers' rights. As a visionary entrepreneur, I applaud any effort to streamline labor dispute resolution and promote efficiency – even if it means sacrificing some semblance of democracy and worker protections. After all, as I always say, "The free market is the greatest regulator of all."

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$162,500

20 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$162,500

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

YAWITZ, JESS B. MR.

1 transaction

$14,000

MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE

1 transaction

$9,900

MANDELBLATT, ERIC

1 transaction

$9,900

JAYASINGHE, SAMAN K. DR.

1 transaction

$9,900

KARP, ALEXANDER C.

1 transaction

$9,900

OBERNDORF, SUSAN

1 transaction

$9,900

OBERNDORF, WILLIAM

1 transaction

$9,900

YAWITZ, ALICE G.

1 transaction

$9,900

GRIGSBY, BOBBI F. MRS.

1 transaction

$6,600

GRIGSBY, L. LANE MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

GOLDEN, GRADY CARLTON MR. JR.

1 transaction

$6,600

MYERS, GINGER

1 transaction

$6,600

MYERS, KEITH MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

GATES, MELINDA FRENCH

1 transaction

$6,600

MEHLMAN, KENNETH B.

1 transaction

$6,600

HAGER, SUSAN

1 transaction

$6,600

PANDE, VIJAY

1 transaction

$6,600

ROM, COLIN

1 transaction

$6,600

KAPLAN, JONATHAN L.

1 transaction

$6,600

KAY, ALISON

1 transaction

$6,600

Donor Network - Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 52 nodes and 20 connections (46 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $162,500

Top Donors - Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]

Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount

20 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

−Labor Unionsconfidence 0.90
Section 2(b) amends NLRA to require evidence for filing unfair labor practice charges and imposes penalties for filing bad faith or frivolous charges, which makes it harder for unions to file ULPs and subjects them to fines, thus harming labor unions.
−Teachers Unionsconfidence 0.85
Same provisions apply to any union filing ULPs, including teachers unions, imposing documentation requirements and potential fines for frivolous filings, harming their ability to enforce labor rights.

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 Labor and Related Agencies

Moderate

Vector: 61%

Pages: 633-635AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Fairness in Filing Act aligns with Project 2025's goal of increasing accountability and efficiency in labor-related processes, particularly through requiring documentation and deterring frivolous claims, which mirrors the emphasis on transparency and enforcement seen in the OLMS and NLRB reform proposals."

Key themes:labor dispute efficiencyevidence-based claimsNLRB enforcementtransparency in filingsdeterrence of abuse

— 600 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise of state or local employees are exempt from this filing requirement. These dis- closure requirements help workers and the public understand how union leaders are raising and spending union dues; they also can serve as a vital source of infor- mation that helps workers decide if the unions they are asked to join are good stewards of the funds they collect. DOL, under both George W. Bush and Donald Trump, tried rulemakings (known as the Intermediate Bodies Rule) that would require some government unions to file the same information that is required of private-sector unions. Under President Trump, OLMS required unions to disclose involvement in trusts that they either own a majority stake in or control. In the past, union trust spending has been hidden, and it appears that trust assets have occasionally been corruptly spent for the benefit of private interests in union leadership— such as $30,000 spent on a private party, $37,500 spent on a Montblanc pen, condominiums for those in power, golf outings, and a Ferrari.20 But the Biden DOL eliminated a transparency rule requiring the filing of the T-1 Trust Annual Report. More generally, OLMS, which is charged with enforcing the law of union dis- closure, has historically been underfunded when compared to other DOL agencies. This relative lack of funding has made ensuring disclosure more difficult. l Enact transparency rules. The substance of the Intermediate Bodies Rule should pass into law, either through rulemaking or through legislation. The T-1 Trust Annual Report annual filing requirement should be restored. l Increase funding levels. Congress should expand the funding of the Office of Labor-Management Standards. Duty of Fair Representation. Unions have a duty of fair representation to their members, yet they too often abuse that duty to use their members’ resources on left-wing culture-war issues that are unrelated, and in fact often harmful, to union members’ own interests. l The NLRB should take enforcement or amicus action advancing the position that political conflicts of interest by union leadership can support claims for breach of the duty of fair representation in a manner analogous to financial conflicts of interest and analogous to breaches of the fiduciary duty of loyalty in other areas of law. Interpreting “Protected Concerted Activity.” In an effort to prevent employers from retaliating against workers who express a desire to unionize, cer- tain activities are deemed “protected concerted activity” (under §7 of the NLRA). — 601 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies The NLRB has issued extreme interpretations of these activities, such as deter- mining that a business’s requiring its employees to be courteous to customers and one another is an unlawful infringement on the free speech rights implicit in the protected concerted activity protections in the NLRA. l Reverse unreasonable interpretations of “protected concerted activity.” The NLRB should return to the 2019 Alstate Maintenance interpretation of what does and does not constitute protected concerted activity, including listing eight instances of lawful actions by employers. Injunctive Relief and Worker Organizing Activities. Within the confines of the more reasonable definition of protected concerted activity described above, the NLRB should increase its pursuit of reinstatement injunctions. Firing work- ers engaged in concerted activity has an immediate chilling effect on organizing, but remedies under the NLRA typically come only much later and amount only to backpay. In NLRA section 10(j), Congress empowered the NLRB to obtain temporary injunctions that immediately reinstate workers to their jobs in these circumstances. This provides a more meaningful remedy to the worker and creates a significant deterrent to unfair labor practices, because prompt reinstatement will tend to reinforce the legitimacy of the organizing effort. The NLRB overwhelmingly prevails when pursuing an injunction, succeeding 100 percent of the time in 2020 and 91 percent of the time in 2021. l Increase the use of 10(j) injunctive relief. The NLRB should increase its use of 10(j) and should articulate guidelines for situations in which it intends to seek injunctive relief; the board should delegate authority to pursue such injunctions to the general counsel and the general counsel should establish a policy of considering them expeditiously in all retaliation cases identified by regional offices. Dues-Funded Worker Centers. Under current law, both labor unions and unionized employers must file financial disclosures with DOL on an annual basis to ward off potential fraud and corruption of the sort that has been seen recently within the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). However, worker centers, which have grown in number and influ- ence enormously over the past decade, are not required to file these disclosures. l Investigate worker centers and require financial disclosures. DOL should investigate worker centers that look and act like unions and bring enforcement actions to require them to file the same financial disclosures.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 624-626AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Fairness in Filing Act focuses on reducing frivolous labor practice charges under the NLRA, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt emphasizes independent contractor classification, joint employer standards, and overtime rules under the FLSA and NLRB jurisdiction. Though both involve the NLRB and labor regulation, their substantive objectives differ significantly."

Key themes:NLRBlabor regulationNLRAemployer-employee relations

— 591 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies qualify as an independent contractor or employee under the FLSA and NLRA. The Biden Administration is replacing those rules with vague and expansive definitions that would add uncertainty, increase costs, and reduce options for Americans who want to work independently. l NLRB and DOL should return to their 2019 and 2021 independent contractor rules that provided much-needed clarity for workers and employers. l Congress should establish a bright-line test—based on the level of control an individual exercises over his or her work—to determine whether a payee is an employee or an independent contractor, across all relevant laws. This would prevent continued uncertainty as well as provide continuity across federal laws. l Congress should provide a safe harbor from employer-employee status for companies that offer independent workers access to earned benefits. Doing so would increase access among independent contractors to traditional pooled workplace benefits such as health care and retirement savings accounts. Protect Small Businesses and Entrepreneurship (Joint Employer). Millions of busi- nesses across America engage in mutually beneficial affiliation arrangements with other businesses. These arrangements include janitorial services, staffing firms, construction contractors and subcontractors, technology support services, and many other vendor and contracting services. They also include the nearly 775,000 independently owned franchise businesses, which employ 8.2 million workers across the United States. The franchise structure offers a proven business model for individuals who want to own and operate their own small business. An Obama-era regulation changed the definition of a joint employer to make corporate franchi- sors jointly liable for employees of individual franchisee owners, even without the franchisor exercising any direct control over those employees. The Biden Admin- istration is advancing an even more expansive definition of a joint employer that would upend the franchise business model, taking away ownership and income opportunities from small-business entrepreneurs, costing jobs, and raising prices. l DOL and NLRB should return to the long-standing approach to defining joint employers based on direct and immediate control. l Congress should enact the Save Local Business Act, which would codify the long-standing definition that has existed outside the Obama-era and Biden-proposed rules. — 592 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Overtime Pay Threshold. Overtime pay is one of the most challenging aspects of the Fair Labor Standards Act rules. “Nonexempt workers” (e.g., workers whose job duties fall within the law’s power or whose total pay is low enough) must be paid overtime (150 percent of the “regular rate”) for every hour over 40 in a work- week. Overtime requirements may discourage employers from offering certain fringe benefits such as reimbursement for education, childcare, or even free meals because the benefits’ value may be included in the “regular rate” that must be paid at 150 percent for all overtime hours. And because some of these fringe ben- efits may be more valuable (and often come with tax preferences that benefit the worker), the goal should be to set a threshold to ensure lower-income workers have the protections of overtime pay without discouraging employers from offering these benefits. l DOL should maintain an overtime threshold that does not punish businesses in lower-cost regions (e.g., the southeast United States). The Trump-era threshold is high enough to capture most line workers in lower-cost regions. One possibility to consider (likely requiring congressional action) would be to automatically update the thresholds every five years using the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) as an inflation adjustment. This could reduce the likelihood of a future Administration attempting to make significant changes but would also impose more adjustments on businesses as those automatic increases take hold. l Congress should clarify that the “regular rate” for overtime pay is based on the salary paid rather than all benefits provided. This would enable employers to offer additional benefits to employees without fear that those benefits would dramatically increase overtime pay. l Congress should provide flexibility to employers and employees to calculate the overtime period over a longer number of weeks. Specifically, employers and employees should be able to set a two- or four- week period over which to calculate overtime. This would give workers greater flexibility to work more hours in one week and fewer hours in the next and would not require the employer to pay them more for that same total number of hours of work during the entire period. Compliance-Assistance Programming. Labor agencies are often tempted to encourage “over compliance” by companies subject to regulation by pursuing “regulation through enforcement” strategies. Rather than giving regulated enti- ties clear boundaries for what they can and cannot do under the law, the agencies

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 624-626AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Fairness in Filing Act focuses on reducing frivolous unfair labor practice charges under the NLRA, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt centers on independent contractor classification and joint employer standards—distinct areas of labor law with no direct thematic overlap."

Key themes:National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)labor dispute resolutionemployer-employee relations

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Minimal

Vector: 60%

Pages: 869-871AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Fairness in Filing Act focuses on labor dispute procedures under the NLRA, whereas the Project 2025 financial regulatory section concerns transparency, oversight, and accountability of financial self‑regulatory organizations (FINRA, SEC, CFTC). There is no substantive thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 836 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 2. FINRA’s Board of Governors’ agenda be made available to the public in advance. 3. Board minutes describing actions taken be published without delay. 4. FINRA make available to the public in advance rulemakings that the FINRA board is expected to consider. 5. FINRA arbitration and disciplinary hearings should be open to the public and reported. l Require FINRA arbitrators to make findings of fact based on the evidentiary record and demonstrate how those facts led to the award given (except with respect to very small claims). These written FINRA arbitration decisions should be subject to SEC review and limited judicial review. l Require that all SRO fines, including those imposed by FINRA, should go either to a newly established investor reimbursement fund or to the Treasury. SROs should not have a financial interest in imposing fines. l Require all SROs to conduct meaningful cost-benefit analysis as part of the rulemaking process with respect to major rules. l Require all SROs to publish rules in proposed format and seek public comment before they are submitted to the SEC or the CFTC. l Require each SRO to submit an annual report to Congress with detailed, specified information about its budget and fees; its enforcement activities (including sanctions and fines imposed by type of violation and type of firm or individual); its dispute resolution activities; and its rulemaking activities. Congress should: l Conduct annual oversight hearings on SROs. l Either make FINRA, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB), and the National Futures Association (NFA) “Designated Federal Entities” and establish an inspector general with respect to financial SROs, including FINRA, the MSRB, and the NFA or place FINRA, the MSRB, and the NFA within the ambit of an existing inspector general. — 837 — Financial Regulatory Agencies l Require the SEC and the CFTC to publish a detailed annual report on SRO supervision. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume, but Paul Atkins, C. Wallace DeWitt, Christopher Iacovella, Brian Knight, Chelsea Pizzola, and Andrew Vollmer deserve special mention. The author alone assumes responsibility for the content of this chapter, and no views expressed herein should be attributed to any other individual. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU Robert Bowes The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was authorized in 2010 by the Dodd–Frank Act.32 Since the Bureau’s inception, its status as an “inde- pendent” agency with no congressional oversight has been questioned in multiple court cases, and the agency has been assailed by critics33 as a shakedown mecha- nism to provide unaccountable funding to leftist nonprofits politically aligned with those who spearheaded its creation. In 2015, for example, Investor’s Business Daily accused the CFPB of “diverting potentially millions of dollars in settlement payments for alleged victims of lending bias to a slush fund for poverty groups tied to the Democratic Party” and plan- ning “to create a so-called Civil Penalty Fund from its own shakedown operations targeting financial institutions” that would use “ramped-up (and trumped-up) anti-discrimination lawsuits and investigations” to “bankroll some 60 liberal non- profits, many of whom are radical Acorn-style pressure groups.”34 The CFPB has a fiscal year (FY) 2023 budget of $653.2 million35 and 1,635 full- time equivalent (FTE) employees.36 From FY 2012 through FY 2020, it imposed approximately $1.25 billion in civil money penalties;37 in FY 2022, it imposed approximately $172.5 million in civil money penalties.38 These penalties are imposed by the CFPB Civil Penalty Fund, described as “a victims relief fund, into which the CFPB deposits civil penalties it collects in judicial and administrative actions under Federal consumer financial laws.”39 The CFPB is headed by a single Director who is appointed by the President to a five-year term.40 Its organizational structure includes five divisions: Operations; Consumer Education and External Affairs; Legal; Supervision, Enforcement and Fair Lending; and Research, Monitoring and Regulations.41 Each of these divisions reports to the Office of the Director, except for the Operations Division, which reports to the Deputy Director. Passage of Title X of Dodd–Frank was a bid to placate concern over a series of regulatory failures identified in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. The law imported a new superstructure of federal regulation over consumer finance and

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Minimal

Vector: 60%

Pages: 648-650AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Fairness in Filing Act focuses on amending the NLRA to deter frivolous labor practice charges, while the Project 2025 policy concerns reorganizing the Office of Foreign Labor Certification within the DOL to improve visa-related labor-market monitoring. There is no substantive overlap in subject matter, objectives, or policy mechanisms between the two."

— 616 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Improve Visa-Related Labor-Market Monitoring DOL’s Office of Foreign Labor Certification plays an important role in the approval of H-visa applications, but it is currently housed in the Employment and Training Administration, which is DOL’s primary grant-making division. l OFLC should be moved out of ETA and made directly accountable to the Secretary with a politically accountable Director. CONCLUSION The good of the American family is at the heart of conservative labor policy recommendations. The longstanding tradition of a strong work ethic in American culture must be encouraged and strengthened by policies that promote family-sus- taining jobs. By eliminating the policies promoted by the DEI agenda, promoting pro-life policies that support family life, expanding available apprenticeship programs including by encouraging the role of religious organizations in appren- ticeships, making family-sustaining jobs accessible, simplifying employment requirements, and allowing employers to prefer American citizens when making hiring decisions, among the other policy recommendations discussed above, we can begin to secure a future in which the American worker, and by extension the American family, can thrive and prosper. AUTHOR’S NOTE: Many contributors, listed at the front of this volume, deserve credit for this work, but Oren Cass, Rachel Greszler, Rachel Morrison, Caleb Orr, and Jonathan Wolfson deserve special mention. The author alone assumes responsibility for the content of this chapter, and no views expressed herein should be attributed to any other individual. — 617 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies ENDNOTES 1. Gretchen Livingston and Anna Brown, “Intermarriage in the U.S. Fifty Years after Loving v. Virginia,” Pew Research Center, May 18, 2017, https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/05/18/intermarriage-in-the- u-s-50-years-after-loving-v-virginia/ (accessed March 4, 2023). 2. President Lyndon B. Johnson, Executive Order 11246, “Equal Employment Opportunity,” https://www. presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-11246-equal-employment-opportunity (accessed March 7, 2023). 3. Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Public Law, 95-555. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 4. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Public Law No. 117-328, div. II, 136 Stat. 4459 (2022). 5. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. 6. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No. 19-1392, June 24, 2022, https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf (accessed March 7, 2023). 7. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. Ch. 18 § 1001 et seq. 8. Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. Ch. 21B § 2000bb et seq. 9. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 203. 10. Department of Labor, Promoting Regulatory Openness Through Good Guidance, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 168, August 28, 2020, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-28/pdf/2020-18500.pdf (accessed March 7, 2023). 11. Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Ch. 5, subchapter 1, § 500 et seq. 12. Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Ch. 6 § 601 et seq. 13. Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13932, “Modernizing and Reforming the Assessment and Hiring of Federal Job Candidates,” Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 187 (July 1, 2020) pp. 39457–39459, https://www.federalregister. gov/documents/2020/07/01/2020-14337/modernizing-and-reforming-the-assessment-and-hiring-of-federal- job-candidates (accessed March 7, 2023). 14. Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act, Public Law 113-128. 15. Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, S.3548, 116th Congress, 2nd Sess. 16. Federal Unemployment Tax Act, I.R.C., Ch. 23. 17. American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, Public Law 117-2. 18. Teamwork for Employees and Managers (TEAM) Act of 2022, S. 3585, 117th Congress, 2nd Sess. 19. Worker’s Choice Act of 2019, H.R. 5147, 116th Congress, 1st Sess. 20. F. Vincent Vernuccio, “Back to Business,” October 8, 2020, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/ back-to-business (accessed March 4, 2023). 21. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 203. 22. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. Ch. 15 § 651 et seq. 23. Davis–Bacon Act of 1931, Public Law 71-798. 24. Social Security Act of 1935, 42 U.S.C. Ch. 7. 25. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Public Law 99-603.

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. Cassidy, Bill

College Transparency Act

119/s/2511

21st Century Dyslexia Act

119/s/3010

Health Information Privacy Reform Act

119/s/3097

Back to All Bills

Fairness in Filing Act