Worker Privacy Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/3128

Last Updated: November 10, 2025

Worker Privacy Act

S. 3128, 119th Congress — read as touching Labor Unions.

The sponsor

Sen. Scott, Tim [R-SC]

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

The money

$287,300 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Justice" section, p. 611-614 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 3128 - Worker Privacy Act**

This bill is a laughable attempt at regulating the flow of information in labor relations, masquerading as a protection for worker privacy. In reality, it's a thinly veiled attempt to restrict the ability of employers like myself to efficiently manage our workforce.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill aims to amend the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to "protect worker privacy" by regulating the use and disclosure of employee personal information in labor relations. The true intention, however, is to hamstring employers' ability to communicate with employees and limit their access to critical workforce data.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces new requirements for employers to provide voter lists to labor organizations, including sensitive employee contact information. It also creates new unfair labor practices related to the handling of this information. These provisions will only serve to increase regulatory burdens on businesses like mine, stifling innovation and competitiveness.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Employers, particularly those in industries with high unionization rates, will be disproportionately affected by these regulations. Labor organizations, on the other hand, will gain increased access to sensitive employee information, further entrenching their power over workers. The real losers here are businesses like mine, which will face increased compliance costs and reduced flexibility in managing our workforce.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has the potential to significantly increase regulatory burdens on employers, leading to decreased competitiveness and innovation. By restricting access to critical workforce data, we'll be forced to rely on outdated methods of communication and employee management, hindering our ability to adapt to changing market conditions. The estimated cost of compliance for businesses like mine could exceed $1 billion annually.

In conclusion, the Worker Privacy Act is a misguided attempt at regulation that will only serve to stifle business growth and innovation. As a leading voice in the business community, I urge lawmakers to reject this bill and instead focus on creating an environment that fosters competition, deregulation, and free market principles.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Scott, Tim [R-SC]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$287,300

24 donors

PACs

Organizations

$23,300

Committees

Individuals

$264,000

No PAC contributions found

FAIRWAY INVESTMENTS, LLC

2 transactions

$16,500

MK INTERNATIONAL LLC

1 transaction

$3,300

OSWALD COOKE & ASSOCIATES, LLC

1 transaction

$1,500

HUDSON CAPITAL ADVISORS LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

EMMET, RICHARD

2 transactions

$26,400

BOLDRICK, JAMES

1 transaction

$13,200

DUHAMEL, WILLIAM

1 transaction

$13,200

GROFF, SUSAN

1 transaction

$13,200

SLUSKY, ALEX

1 transaction

$13,200

HAMMOND, GREGORY

1 transaction

$13,200

NAVARRO, ANNE

1 transaction

$13,200

NEWMAN, BRAD

1 transaction

$13,200

ANDERSON, MORGAN

1 transaction

$13,200

BROWN, JAMES

1 transaction

$13,200

CANN, DAVID

1 transaction

$13,200

CHAMBERLAIN, LEE

1 transaction

$13,200

COLQUITT, DAVID

1 transaction

$13,200

CONVERSE, JUSTIN

1 transaction

$13,200

DEERING, TONY

1 transaction

$13,200

DEJONG, ROBERT

1 transaction

$13,200

GOLDBAUM, ROBERT

1 transaction

$13,200

HASLAM, BILL

1 transaction

$13,200

HASLAM, JAMES

1 transaction

$13,200

Donor Network - Sen. Scott, Tim [R-SC]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 43 nodes and 26 connections (55 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $287,300

Top Donors - Sen. Scott, Tim [R-SC]

Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount

5 Orgs19 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped, 1 harmed.

+Labor Unionsconfidence 0.90
Section 2(a)(1) amends NLRA Section 9(c) to require employers to provide voter lists (including contact info) to labor organizations petitioning to represent employees, facilitating union organizing efforts.
+Teachers Unionsconfidence 0.85
The bill's provisions apply to all labor organizations under the NLRA, which includes teachers unions representing public-sector employees in bargaining units, thus benefiting them similarly to other unions.
−Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.70
Section 2(b)(3) prohibits labor organizations from using employee personal information for political activism or selling to third parties, which could limit data monetization practices that some tech platforms engage in via employee data.

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 Justice

Moderate

Vector: 62%

Pages: 611-614AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Worker Privacy Act focuses on protecting employee personal information during union organizing, which aligns with the Project 2025 Labor goal of protecting workers and setting boundaries for healthy labor markets, though it does not directly address wages, family-supporting jobs, or broader career support."

Key themes:worker protectionlabor organizationprivacy rightslabor market regulation

— 579 — Department of Justice 93. H.R. 5005, Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law No. 107-296, 107th Congress, November 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2135, https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ296/PLAW-107publ296.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). 94. See, for example, 8 U.S. Code §§ 1103(a)(1) and 1103(g), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1103 (accessed February 3, 2023). 95. See, for example, 8 U.S. Code §§ 1324–1326, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/chapter-12/ subchapter-II/part-VIII (accessed February 3, 2023). 96. Press release, “Justice, Labor Departments Reach Settlements with Facebook Resolving Claims of Discrimination Against U.S. Workers and Potential Regulatory Recruitment Violations,” U.S. Department of Justice, October 19, 2021, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-labor-departments-reach-settlements- facebook-resolving-claims-discrimination-against (accessed February 3, 2023). 97. “Every four years, just after the Presidential election, the ‘United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions,’ commonly known as the Plum Book, is published, alternately, by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.” Senate Committee Print No. 114-26, United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, 114th Cong., 2nd Sess., December 1, 2016, p. iii, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-PLUMBOOK-2016/pdf/GPO-PLUMBOOK-2016.pdf (accessed February 5, 2023). 98. Allen J. Beck, “Race and Ethnicity of Violent Crime Offenders and Arrestees, 2018,” U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Statistical Brief No. NCJ 255969, January 2021, https:// bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/revcoa18.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). — 581 — 18 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND RELATED AGENCIES Jonathan Berry MISSION STATEMENT At the heart of The Conservative Promise is the resolve to reclaim the role of each American worker as the protagonist in his or her own life and to restore the family as the centerpiece of American life. The role that labor policy plays in that promise is twofold: Give workers the support they need for rewarding, well-paying, and self-driven careers, and restore the family-supporting job as the centerpiece of the American economy. The Judeo-Christian tradition, stretching back to Genesis, has always recognized fruitful work as integral to human dignity, as service to God, neighbor, and family. And Americans have long been known for their work ethic. While it is primarily the culture’s responsibility to affirm the dignity of work, our federal labor and employment agencies have an important role to play by protect- ing workers, setting boundaries for the healthy functioning of labor markets, and ultimately encouraging wages and conditions for jobs that can support a family. OVERVIEW The labor agencies covered in this chapter include the Department of Labor (DOL), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the National Mediation Board (NMB), the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS), and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). Congress has provided these agencies with the authority to enforce a wide range of federal statutes regulating workplace conduct, workforce development, employee benefits, labor organization and bargaining, and interna- tional labor conditions.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 630-632AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on worker privacy in union representation proceedings, while the Project 2025 policy emphasizes unemployment insurance reform, fraud detection, and non-union worker voice mechanisms like EIOs and the TEAM Act. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address UI systems, fraud prevention, or alternative representation models highlighted in the policy."

Key themes:worker representationlabor organizationsDepartment of Labor

— 598 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise unemployment programs were defrauded of hundreds of billions of dollars, includ- ing by state-sponsored hacking groups. Not all state agencies are yet through their backlogs of appeals and fraud cases; the recovery of lost funds has been minimal; and fraud has now spilled into the traditional UI programs. The CARES Act era drastically altered the entire UI ecosystem: The federal–state partnership shifted toward federal programs and funding, and the social insurance purpose of the program was disconnected as benefits were extended, expanded to more typically uncovered populations, and made exponentially larger. l Congress should enact bipartisan commonsense UI program reforms, including statutory authority for the Labor Office of Inspector General (OIG) to access all state UI records for the purposes of investigation and requiring state agencies to crossmatch applicants with the National Directory of New Hires. l Congress should also develop a framework (through commission of a congressional report to serve as a blueprint) of technical standards on broader tech topics like usability, state agency cybersecurity postures, data taxonomy standardization, and/or identity verification standards. l Congress should provide DOL with more reasonable enforcement tools for the UI system. Currently, DOL can either send a strongly worded letter or revoke the entire Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA)16 tax credit, which would place an immediate 6 percent to 7 percent tax on all covered employers. l DOL should review all actual or planned procurements against the $2 billion (under the American Rescue Plan Act)17 for UI fraud detection, accessibility, and equity investments. These funds do not have appropriations timelines and have very minimal statutory descriptions of the intended purpose. DOL should also review and propose changes to improve state monitoring programs including developing evidence-based frameworks for evaluating the technical readiness and security postures of the state agencies; strengthen its relationship with the OIG and Government Accountability Office (GAO), and support continued development of fraud prosecution with DOJ, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the financial services community; ensure administrative and IT funding is outcome-based; and gather and publish best practices from state officials, industry partners, and other vendors who deliver UI services. — 599 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies WORKER VOICE AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Non-Union Worker Voice and Representation. American workers lack a meaningful voice in today’s workplace. Between 50 percent and 60 percent of workers have less influence than they want on critical workplaces issues beyond pay and benefits. Even managers are twice as likely to say their employees have too little influence rather than too much. But America’s one-size-fits-all approach undermines worker representation. Federal labor law offers no alternatives to labor unions whose politicking and adversarial approach appeals to few, whereas most workers report that they prefer a more cooperative model run jointly with management that focuses solely on workplace issues. The next Administration should make new options available to workers and push Congress to pass labor reforms that create non-union “employee involvement organizations” as well as a mechanism for worker representation on corporate boards. l Congress should reintroduce and pass the Teamwork for Employees and Managers (TEAM) Act of 2022.18 The TEAM Act: 1. Reforms the National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA) Section 8(a)(2) prohibition on formal worker–management cooperative organizations like works councils. 2. Creates an “Employee Involvement Organization” (EIO) to facilitate voluntary cooperation on critical issues like working conditions, benefits, and productivity. 3. Amends labor law to allow EIOs at large, publicly traded corporations to elect a non-voting, supervisory member of their company’s board of directors. Alternative View. While some conservatives lament that workers lack sufficient voice in today’s workplace, others interpret the rise in independent and flexible work opportunities, significant expansion in family-friendly policies like paid family leave, and the decline in private sector unionization as indicators of workers’ increasing competency and control. Another way to help expand workers’ freedom and voices in traditional workplaces is by allowing them to choose who represents them in negotiations with their employer. The Worker’s Choice Act19 would accom- plish this by ending exclusive representation so that unions in right-to-work states are no longer forced to represent workers who do not want to join them. Union Transparency. Private-sector unions must file detailed financial infor- mation with DOL—on matters including union spending, income, loans, assets, membership information, and employee salary—but unions composed entirely

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 633-635AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on protecting employee privacy in union representation proceedings, while Project 2025 emphasizes union financial transparency, duty of fair representation, and NLRB enforcement priorities—areas not directly addressed by the bill’s provisions."

Key themes:labor unionsemployee rightsNLRB oversight

— 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: 62%

Pages: 633-635AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Worker Privacy Act focuses on protecting employee personal information during union organizing, while Project 2025's labor section emphasizes reversing NLRB interpretations of protected concerted activity, increasing injunctive relief, regulating worker centers, and reforming union financial disclosures and persuader rules—there is minimal thematic overlap."

Key themes:labor organizingemployee rightsNLRB oversight

— 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. — 602 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Office of Labor-Management Standards Initiative. Currently, the Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) may investigate potential employer mal- feasance with regard to union funds in the absence of any complaint by a worker or union but may not do the same with regard to potential union malfeasance. If OLMS has evidence that a union may be violating the law based on information available to the agency (such as annual financial disclosure reports, information developed during an audit of a union’s books and records, or information obtained from other government agencies) it should be permitted to open an investigation. It should have the same enforcement tools available for both employers and unions. l Revise investigation standards. The Office of Labor-Management Standards should revise its investigation standards to authorize investigations without receiving a formal complaint. Persuader Rule. During the Obama Administration, DOL created significant regulatory burdens for employers with respect to the advice that employers receive about union activity. As a general matter, employers who hire lawyers or other con- sultants to advise employees about union issues must file disclosure forms with the department, as must the lawyers and consultants themselves. Prior to the Obama Administration, advice provided solely to the employer required no disclosure. The Obama Administration attempted to eliminate this “advice exemption” with a directive known as the “persuader rule,” which was successfully challenged in court. In 2018, the Trump Administration formally rescinded the persuader rule. l DOL should rescind the persuader rule once again should the Biden Administration revive it. Unionizing the Workplace: Card Check vs. Secret Ballot. Under the NLRA, instead of having a secret ballot election about the decision to unionize a workplace, a union may instead collect signed pro-union cards from a majority of the employees it wishes to represent and then ask the employer and National Labor Relations Board for voluntary union recognition. That request gives the employer the option to hold a secret-ballot election or to recognize the union with- out any such election. This “card check” procedure is likely to induce employees to provide their signed cards in ways that do not accurately reflect their true pref- erences—ranging from a desire not to offend the signature requestor to a wish to avoid intimidation and coercion to signing based on false information provided by union organizers. In short, the card check procedure sidesteps many aspects of democratic decision-making that free and fair elections conducted by secret ballot are supposed to accomplish. Notably, the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board has recently proposed an esoteric legal theory that card-check

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Minimal

Vector: 63%

Pages: 618-620AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Worker Privacy Act focuses on protecting employee personal information in union representation processes, which does not address the Project 2025 priorities of sex discrimination enforcement based on a binary definition of sex, pro-life workplace accommodations, or religious employer protections."

— 585 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies l Direct agencies to refocus enforcement of sex discrimination laws. The President should direct agencies to focus their enforcement of sex discrimination laws on the biological binary meaning of “sex.” PRO-LIFE MEASURES l Promote pro-life workplace accommodations for mothers. Federal law should protect life and promote pro-family policies. Current law, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act,3 provides nondiscrimination protections in the workplace for pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA)4 requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for women “to the known limitations related to the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” unless “the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the [employer’s] business.” The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) also provides nondiscrimination and accommodation protections in the workplace for certain pregnancy-related disability.5 None of these laws requires an employer provide health insurance benefits for elective abortion. l Pass a law requiring equal (or greater) benefits for pro-life support for mothers and clarifying abortion exclusions. Congress should pass a law requiring that to the extent an employer provides employee benefits for abortion, it must provide equal or greater benefits for pregnancy, childbirth, maternity, and adoption. That law should also clarify that no employer is required to provide any accommodations or benefits for abortion. l Keep anti-life “benefits” out of benefit plans. Some benefits attorneys and pro-choice advocates have argued since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision6 that the longstanding doctrine of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)7 preemption should block individual states’ efforts to prohibit employers from helping employees procure abortions via offering various kinds of coverage under employee-sponsored benefit plans. ERISA should not be allowed to trump states’ ability to protect innocent human life in the womb. Congress and DOL should clarify that ERISA does not preempt states’ power to restrict abortion, surrogacy, or other anti-life “benefits.” RELIGION l Provide robust protections for religious employers. America’s religious diversity means that workplaces include people of many faiths and that many employers are faith-based. Nevertheless, the Biden Administration has been hostile to people of faith, especially those with traditional beliefs

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. Scott, Tim

SBA Disaster Transparency Act

119/s/371

Renewing the African American Civil Rights Network Act

119/s/4767

High-Quality Charter Schools Act

119/s/1813

Back to All Bills

Worker Privacy Act