Pathways to Prosperity Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/3401

Last Updated: April 21, 2026

Pathways to Prosperity Act

S. 3401, 119th Congress — read as touching For-Profit Education & Student Loans.

The sponsor

Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]

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

The money

$154,700 raised

24 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. 630-632 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

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

March 18, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

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

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**Pathways to Prosperity Act (S 3401): A Regulatory Obstacle to Innovation**

The Pathways to Prosperity Act, introduced by Senators Marshall and Warnock, aims to strengthen community colleges' workforce development programs. While the bill's intentions may seem benevolent, it ultimately perpetuates a flawed system of government intervention in education and job training.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill seeks to establish, improve, or expand high-quality workforce development programs at community colleges, with a focus on high-skill, high-wage, or in-demand industry sectors. The primary objective is to provide individuals with recognized postsecondary credentials that are nationally or regionally portable and stackable.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) by creating a new grant program for community colleges. Key provisions include:

* Competitive grants for eligible institutions to carry out workforce development activities * Reservation of up to 2% of appropriated funds for administration, technical assistance, and evaluation * Award periods ranging from 1-4 years, with potential for subsequent grants based on performance

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill primarily affects community colleges, employers in high-skill industries, and individuals seeking workforce development training. However, as a billionaire entrepreneur, I am more concerned about the implications for my business interests.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* **Increased Regulatory Burden:** The bill's emphasis on government-funded grants and performance metrics will lead to increased bureaucratic red tape, stifling innovation in the education sector. * **Inefficient Allocation of Resources:** By relying on government funding, community colleges will be incentivized to prioritize programs that meet federal requirements rather than responding to market demands. * **Limited Scalability:** The bill's focus on community colleges neglects the potential for private sector solutions, such as online education platforms and vocational training programs, which could more efficiently address workforce development needs.

In conclusion, the Pathways to Prosperity Act represents a misguided attempt to address workforce development through government intervention. As a visionary entrepreneur, I believe that true innovation and progress can only be achieved by unleashing the power of the free market, unencumbered by regulatory obstacles.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

Let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process before it can be enacted.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Pathways to Prosperity Act (S. 3401) aims to establish, improve, or expand high-quality workforce development programs at community colleges. The primary objective is to provide individuals with recognized postsecondary credentials that are nationally or regionally portable and stackable for high-skill, high-wage, or in-demand industry sectors or occupations.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill amends the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3221 et seq.) by adding a new section, SEC. 172, which establishes the Strengthening Community Colleges Workforce Development Grants Program. This program will provide grants to eligible institutions on a competitive basis to carry out activities such as:

* Establishing or expanding workforce development programs * Providing technical assistance and targeted outreach to support low-income individuals or those with barriers to employment * Evaluating and reporting on the performance and impact of programs funded under this section

The bill also outlines the application process, eligibility criteria, and requirements for grant recipients.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The affected parties include:

* Community colleges: Eligible institutions that can apply for grants to establish or expand workforce development programs. * Employers: High-skill, high-wage, or in-demand industry sectors or occupations that will partner with community colleges to provide students with the necessary skills and job placement opportunities. * Individuals: Those seeking postsecondary credentials and employment in high-skill, high-wage, or in-demand industries.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

If enacted, this bill could lead to:

* Improved workforce development programs at community colleges * Increased access to recognized postsecondary credentials for individuals * Enhanced partnerships between employers and community colleges * Better alignment of education and training with employer demand

However, as we learned in civics class, the legislative process is not always straightforward. The bill's fate will depend on various factors, including committee reviews, markups, and potential amendments.

Now, I hope this summary has been enlightening. Remember when we learned about the importance of checks and balances in our government? This bill is a prime example of how the system is supposed to work – with input from multiple stakeholders and careful consideration by lawmakers.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round and behold the Pathways to Prosperity Act! This bill, masquerading as a benevolent effort to strengthen community colleges' workforce development programs, conceals a more sinister agenda.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** On the surface, S. 3401 aims to establish, improve, or expand high-quality workforce development programs at community colleges. However, I believe this is merely a Trojan horse for the government to further entrench its control over education and the workforce.

The bill's true objectives are:

* To create a pipeline of workers tailored to serve the interests of corporate America * To condition students to accept a lifetime of debt and servitude in exchange for "high-skill, high-wage" jobs that may not even exist * To further erode local control over education by centralizing power in the hands of the federal government

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) by:

* Redesignating section 172 as section 173, effectively rebranding existing programs under a new name * Inserting a new section 172, which establishes the Strengthening Community Colleges Workforce Development Grants Program

This program will provide grants to eligible institutions on a competitive basis, with the Secretary of Education reserving up to 2% for administrative purposes. This is a classic example of bureaucratic doublespeak – "administrative purposes" is code for "funding our own salaries and pet projects."

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The bill affects:

* Community colleges: forced to conform to federal standards and priorities * Students: conditioned to accept debt and servitude in exchange for "high-skill, high-wage" jobs * Employers: given undue influence over education policy through "partnerships" with community colleges * Taxpayers: footing the bill for this boondoggle

**Potential Impact & Implications** The Pathways to Prosperity Act will:

* Further centralize control over education, eroding local autonomy and decision-making power * Create a workforce tailored to serve corporate interests, rather than individual needs or community development * Perpetuate the myth that "high-skill, high-wage" jobs are the only path to prosperity, ignoring alternative forms of economic development and social mobility

Wake up, sheeple! This bill is not about creating pathways to prosperity; it's about creating a pipeline of compliant workers for the corporate oligarchy. We must resist this attempt to further control our education system and workforce.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round! We've got another doozy of a bill on our hands, straight from the hallowed halls of Congress. Say hello to S 3401, the "Pathways to Prosperity Act" – because who doesn't love a good pathway to prosperity, am I right? (wink)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is all about strengthening workforce development programs at community colleges. Because, you know, our great nation needs more skilled workers to compete with those pesky foreigners and their fancy education systems. The main objective here is to establish, improve, or expand high-quality workforce development programs that will lead to "recognized postsecondary credentials" – whatever that means.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (because who doesn't love a good acronym?) by creating a new grant program for community colleges. These grants will be awarded on a competitive basis, because we all know how much conservatives love competition – unless it's in the form of actual free markets, but that's a whole different story.

The bill also sets aside 2% of the funding for "administration" purposes, which is just code for "bureaucratic waste." But hey, at least they're being transparent about it. The grant program will have a two-year award period, with options for subsequent grants if the community college can demonstrate that their programs are actually working.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects community colleges, employers in high-skill industries, and – of course – the all-powerful federal government. Because what's a conservative bill without some good ol' fashioned government intervention?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, I know what you're thinking: "Is this just another example of the elites trying to control our education system?" And to that, I say... (pauses for dramatic effect) maybe? But seriously, folks, this bill could potentially lead to more skilled workers in high-demand industries. However, it also raises questions about government overreach and the effectiveness of these programs.

But let's be real – who needs actual results when we've got a catchy title like "Pathways to Prosperity"? It sounds great on paper, and that's all that matters, right? (smirk)

In conclusion, this bill is either a brilliant conservative strategy to boost our economy or just another example of the deep state trying to control our lives. You decide!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another exercise in futility, courtesy of our esteemed lawmakers. Let's dissect this mess, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Pathways to Prosperity Act (S 3401) claims to establish, improve, or expand high-quality workforce development programs at community colleges. How quaint. The real purpose is to funnel more taxpayer dollars into the black hole of bureaucratic inefficiency, while pretending to address the skills gap in the labor market.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) by creating a new grant program for community colleges. The grants will be awarded on a competitive basis, because nothing says "merit-based" like a government-funded handout. The Secretary of Labor gets to reserve up to 2% of the funds for administrative costs, because who needs actual workforce development when you can pay bureaucrats to attend conferences?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Community colleges, employers in high-skill industries, and individuals seeking workforce development programs will be affected by this bill. But let's not forget the real stakeholders: the politicians who get to tout this as a "job creation" initiative, the lobbyists who pushed for this boondoggle, and the bureaucrats who'll administer it with all the efficiency of a sleepy sloth.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill will likely achieve what most government programs do: create a new layer of bureaucratic red tape, waste taxpayer dollars on ineffective initiatives, and provide a false sense of security for those who think they're actually addressing the skills gap. Meanwhile, the real problems – lack of apprenticeships, inadequate vocational training, and a mismatch between education and industry needs – will remain unaddressed.

In short, this bill is a classic case of "throwing money at a problem" without actually solving it. It's a symptom of a deeper disease: the inability of our politicians to think critically about complex issues and their tendency to prioritize sound bites over substance. But hey, who needs actual solutions when you can just create more government programs?

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

**Pathways to Prosperity Act (S. 3401)**

**Main Purpose and Objectives**

The Pathways to Prosperity Act aims to establish, improve, or expand high-quality workforce development programs at community colleges, with a focus on providing individuals with recognized postsecondary credentials that are nationally or regionally portable and stackable for high-skill, high-wage, or in-demand industry sectors or occupations.

**Key Provisions and Changes to Existing Law**

The bill amends the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) by establishing a new grant program, "Strengthening Community Colleges Workforce Development Grants Program." Key provisions include:

* Competitive grants for eligible institutions to establish, improve, or expand workforce development programs * Reservation of up to 2% of appropriated funds for administration, technical assistance, and evaluation * Award periods of up to 2 years for first grants, with the option for a consecutive second grant of up to 1 year * Eligible institutions may receive subsequent grants after demonstrating successful performance

**Affected Parties and Stakeholders**

* Community colleges and other eligible institutions * Employers in high-skill, high-wage, or in-demand industry sectors or occupations * Individuals seeking workforce development training and education * Low-income individuals and those with barriers to employment * Rural-serving institutions and communities

**Potential Impact and Implications**

The Pathways to Prosperity Act has the potential to:

* Enhance workforce development programs at community colleges, leading to better job prospects for students * Foster partnerships between employers and educational institutions, aligning training with industry needs * Increase access to high-quality workforce development opportunities, particularly for low-income individuals and those with barriers to employment * Support regional economic growth by addressing labor market demands

However, the bill's impact may be limited by factors such as:

* Availability of funding and resources for grant administration and technical assistance * Ability of eligible institutions to demonstrate successful performance and secure subsequent grants * Effectiveness of partnerships between employers and educational institutions in meeting industry needs

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's dive into this gnarly bill, bro!

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Pathways to Prosperity Act (S 3401) is all about helpin' community colleges create and improve workforce development programs that'll get people stoked for in-demand jobs. The main goal is to establish, improve, or expand high-quality programs at community colleges, so folks can score recognized postsecondary credentials that are portable and stackable.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

This bill amends the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) by adding a new section (SEC. 172) that creates the Strengthening Community Colleges Workforce Development Grants Program. Here's what's new:

* The Secretary of Labor will make grants to eligible community colleges on a competitive basis. * These grants will help colleges build partnerships with employers in high-skill, high-wage industries and create programs that get students ready for those jobs. * Colleges can receive subsequent grants if they demonstrate success in achieving performance indicators.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill's got love for:

* Community colleges: They'll be the ones receivin' these sweet grants to boost their workforce development programs. * Employers: They'll get skilled workers who are ready to shred (I mean, work) in high-demand industries. * Students: They'll have access to better programs that'll help 'em score jobs with good pay and benefits.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill's got some rad potential implications:

* More community colleges will create or improve workforce development programs, which means more people will get trained for in-demand jobs. * Employers will get the skilled workers they need to grow their businesses and stay competitive. * Students will have better opportunities to score good jobs and improve their economic prospects.

However, there's also some potential riptides:

* The bill relies on grants, which can be unpredictable and subject to funding fluctuations. * Colleges might struggle to build partnerships with employers or find the right programs to support. * There's always a risk that these programs won't quite meet the needs of the job market.

Anyway, bro, that's the lowdown on S 3401. It's all about helpin' community colleges create rad workforce development programs that'll get people stoked for in-demand jobs.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: Pathways to Prosperity Act (S 3401)**

The Pathways to Prosperity Act, introduced by Senators Marshall and Warnock, aims to strengthen workforce development programs at community colleges. The bill's primary objective is to establish, improve, or expand high-quality workforce development programs that provide individuals with recognized postsecondary credentials in high-skill, high-wage, or in-demand industry sectors.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:**

The bill seeks to:

1. Strengthen community college workforce development grants program 2. Expand opportunities for individuals to obtain nationally or regionally portable and stackable credentials 3. Improve partnerships between community colleges and employers

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

1. Amends the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3221 et seq.) by inserting a new section, "Strengthening Community Colleges Workforce Development Grants Program" 2. Establishes a competitive grant program for eligible institutions to carry out workforce development activities 3. Sets aside up to 2% of appropriations for administration and technical assistance

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. Community colleges 2. Employers in high-skill, high-wage, or in-demand industry sectors 3. Individuals seeking postsecondary credentials 4. State and local workforce development agencies

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

The bill's provisions may lead to:

1. Increased funding for community college workforce development programs 2. Improved partnerships between community colleges and employers 3. Enhanced opportunities for individuals to obtain recognized postsecondary credentials 4. Potential benefits for industries with high-skill, high-wage, or in-demand job openings

However, the bill's success depends on effective implementation, adequate funding, and meaningful engagement from stakeholders.

**Monied Interest Analysis:**

While no specific PACs or industry lobby groups are directly mentioned in the bill text, it is likely that organizations representing community colleges, workforce development agencies, and industries with high-skill job openings may support this legislation. Potential backers could include:

1. American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) 2. National Association of Workforce Development Professionals (NAWDP) 3. Industry-specific trade associations (e.g., National Restaurant Association, National Retail Federation)

These groups may see the bill as an opportunity to promote workforce development and address labor market needs in their respective industries.

**Committee Capture:**

The bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. This committee has a history of being influenced by industry stakeholders, particularly those representing education and healthcare interests. It is possible that committee members may receive donations or lobbying efforts from organizations with vested interests in workforce development programs.

**Conflict of Interest:**

Senator Marshall, one of the bill's co-sponsors, has received campaign contributions from various industries, including education and healthcare. While these contributions do not necessarily indicate a conflict of interest, they highlight the potential for industry influence

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$154,700

19 donors

PACs

$9,500

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$145,200

THE KROGER CO. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE

2 transactions

$5,500

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS

1 transaction

$2,500

THE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE OF THE FERTILIZER INSTITUTE

1 transaction

$1,500

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

BRACH, JEREMIAH

4 transactions

$26,400

ILLIG, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$13,200

MADAY, GREG

1 transaction

$13,200

DOWNING, BARRY L.

2 transactions

$13,200

ILLIG, BONNE

1 transaction

$6,600

ILLIG, AMY

1 transaction

$6,600

MADAY, LIZ

1 transaction

$6,600

MAXWELL, KORB II

1 transaction

$6,600

ILLIG, CLIFFORD

1 transaction

$6,600

PRENGER, JEANETTE

1 transaction

$6,600

O'BRATE, CECIL L.

1 transaction

$6,600

SPARKS, LANCE

1 transaction

$6,600

LINDSEY, RYAN

1 transaction

$6,600

LEFKOWITZ, JOEL

1 transaction

$6,600

SMILOWITZ, DOV

1 transaction

$6,600

MCKEE, JACK C.

1 transaction

$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Warnock, Raphael G. [D-GA]

ID: W000790

Top Contributors

JME GROUP

OrganizationSTONE MOUNTAIN, GA

$2,900

Jun 30, 2023

JME GROUP

OrganizationSTONE MOUNTAIN, GA

$2,900

Jul 18, 2024

PORTFOLIO ONE

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$1,250

Mar 17, 2023

MCKENNEY HOUSE LLC

OrganizationFORT WASHINGTON, MD

$1,000

Jun 30, 2023

WATKINS WATKINS & WATKINS LLC

OrganizationCARROLLTON, GA

$1,000

Feb 17, 2023

SCR CONSULTING LLC

OrganizationATLANTA, GA

$500

Feb 17, 2023

GIBSON, DAVID H.

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$26,750

Mar 31, 2023

ROBBINS, BONNIE

IndividualSEATTLE, WA

$12,118

Mar 31, 2023

ROBBINS, BONNIE

IndividualSEATTLE, WA

$12,118

Jul 18, 2024

KERR, WILLIAM G.

IndividualOKLAHOMA CITY, OK

$9,625

Mar 31, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 35 nodes and 27 connections (38 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $161,750

Top Donors - Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

3 PACs16 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 4 helped.

+For-Profit Education & Student Loansconfidence 0.90
Section 2(e)(2)(B)(ii) requires grant recipients to provide access to course materials, technological devices, required equipment, and other supports necessary for participation and successful completion of workforce development programs, which benefits for-profit education providers that supply such materials and services.
+Construction & Engineeringconfidence 0.80
Section 2(e)(3)(C) allows grant funds to be used to purchase, lease, or refurbish specialized equipment necessary to carry out workforce development programs, which benefits construction and engineering firms that supply and install such equipment.
+Semiconductors & Hardwareconfidence 0.70
Section 2(e)(3)(C) permits grant funds to be used for purchasing, leasing, or refurbishing specialized equipment, which could include semiconductor manufacturing or hardware tools used in training programs, benefiting semiconductor and hardware companies.
+AI & Cloud Infrastructureconfidence 0.60
Section 2(e)(1)(F) encourages incorporation of virtual service delivery to facilitate technology-enabled learning, which could increase demand for AI and cloud infrastructure providers supporting online learning platforms.

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: 64%

Pages: 630-632AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill supports workforce development through community college grants, aligning with Project 2025's call for outcome-based evaluation of federal training programs, though it expands rather than streamlines or reassesses existing programs as urged in the policy."

Key themes:workforce developmentoutcome-based metricsWIOA reauthorizationfederal training programsskills-based hiring

— 597 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies Alternative View. While the federal government has a duty to promote economy and efficiency in federal hiring and contracting, and thus should base decisions on skills as opposed to degrees, it is not the federal government’s role to determine whether private employers may or may not include degree requirements in job descriptions and in their hiring decisions. The inappropriate reverence given to degree requirements is a byproduct of the federal government’s heavy subsidi- zation of BA degrees. Phasing down federal subsidies would be a better way to eliminate barriers to jobs for individuals without BA degrees. Federal Workforce Development Programs. Existing federally funded work- force development and training programs should be reassessed to ensure they are outcome-based and truly deliver value to taxpayers and job seekers. As of 2019, the federal government spent approximately $17 billion annually on 43 federal employment and training programs administered across nine federal agencies, many of which overlap with at least one other program. Many of these programs track only inputs or individuals served, not outcomes or outputs, and do not swiftly identify bad-actor grantees. The federal government should identify underperforming programs and eliminate or redirect that funding to programs with strong outcome-based metrics. l Evaluate and streamline workforce development programs, ensuring evidence-based outcomes. In its reauthorization of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA),14 Congress should evaluate and streamline the existing workforce development programs to ensure there is no overlap or fragmentation between programs. Congress should also ensure strong evidence-based outcomes for each program and tie federal funding for those programs to the outcomes achieved. l Review employment and training programs to ensure outcome- based metrics. DOL and other federal agencies with jurisdiction over employment and training programs should review their programs and utilize all available tools and authority to ensure these programs contain strong outcome-based metrics. To the extent that agencies have this authority, they should reevaluate funding for programs that do not meet those evidence-based and outcomes-based requirements. Finally, strong internal policies should be implemented to ensure bad-actor grantees are identified and sanctioned expeditiously. Federal Unemployment Insurance Program. In the post-pandemic land- scape, the federal government should restore the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program’s purpose with a particular focus on reestablishing program integrity and accountability. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act15 — 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.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Moderate

Vector: 64%

Pages: 630-632AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on outcome-based workforce development and streamlining programs under WIOA, but does not address the policy's critique of degree subsidies or federal overreach in hiring practices."

Key themes:workforce developmentWIOA reauthorizationoutcome-based metricsprogram evaluationcommunity college training

Department of Education

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on workforce development grants for community colleges, while the Project 2025 policy emphasizes K–12 school choice via tax credits, state opt-outs from federal education programs, and higher education accreditation reform—there is minimal thematic overlap."

Key themes:education reformfederal fundinginstitutional accountability

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

Small Business Administration

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 795-797AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Pathways to Prosperity Act focuses on workforce development through community college grants, while the Project 2025 SBA section emphasizes regulatory reform, faith-based organization eligibility, and oversight of loan programs like PPP and SBIR/STTR. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address small business lending, regulatory burden reduction, or faith-based organization inclusion in SBA programs."

Key themes:economic opportunityworkforce development

— 763 — Small Business Administration 40. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Inspector General, Top Management and Performance Challenges Facing the Small Business Administration in Fiscal Year 2023, p. iv. 41. H.R. 748, CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act, Public Law No. 116-136, 116th Congress, March 27, 2020, https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ136/PLAW-116publ136.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023). 42. Sarah McCammon, “Planned Parenthood Asked to Return Funds from Paycheck Protection Program,” NPR, May 21, 2020, https://www.npr.org/2020/05/21/859991359/planned-parenthood-asked-to-return-funds- from-paycheck-protection-program (accessed February 18, 2023). 43. Letter from William Manger, Associate Administrator, U.S. Small Business Administration, to Laura Meyers, Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, “Re: Notice of Investigation and Request for Records,” May 19, 2020, https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/6922122/SBA-Letter-Planned-Parenthood-DC.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 44. Press release, “Lankford, HSGAC Republicans Demand Details on Illegal PPP Loans to Planned Parenthood Affiliates,” Office of U.S. Senator James Lankford, April 28, 2022, https://www.lankford.senate.gov/news/press- releases/lankford-hsgac-republicans-demand-details-on-illegal-ppp-loans-to-planned-parenthood-affiliates (accessed February 18, 2023). 45. Press release, “Romney, Colleagues Request Information from SBA Administrator Guzman on Illegal PPP Loans Given to Planned Parenthood Affiliates,” Office of U.S. Senator Mitt Romney, April 28, 2022, https:// www.romney.senate.gov/romney-colleagues-request-information-from-sba-administrator-guzman-on- illegal-ppp-loans-given-to-planned-parenthood-affiliates/ (accessed February 18, 2023). 46. 13 C.F.R. §§ 109.400(b)(11), https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/13/109.400; 123.301(g), https://www.law. cornell.edu/cfr/text/13/123.301; 123.502(n), https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/13/123.502; and 123.702(b)(6), https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/13/123.702 (all accessed February 19, 2023). 47. U.S. Small Business Administration, “Religious Eligibility Worksheet for all 7(a) and 504 Loan Programs” SBA Form 1971, http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/sba-form-1971.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 48. U.S. Small Business Administration, “Ensuring Equal Treatment for Faith-Based Organizations in SBA’s Loan and Disaster Assistance Program.” 49. See, for example, Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023). 50. 28 U.S. Code § 530d, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/530D (accessed February 19, 2023). 51. U.S. Small Business Administration, “Ensuring Equal Treatment for Faith-Based Organizations in SBA’s Loan and Disaster Assistance Program.” 52. 13 CFR 120.110(k), https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/13/120.110 (accessed February 19, 2023). 53. U.S. Small Business Administration, “Regulatory Reform Initiative: Streamlining and Modernizing the 7(a), Microloan, and 504 Loan Programs to Reduce Regulatory Burden,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 125 (June 30, 2022), pp. 38900–38910, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/06/30/2022-13483/ regulatory-reform-initiative-streamlining-and-modernizing-the-7a-microloan-and-504-loan-programs-to (accessed February 18, 2023). 54. Ibid. 55. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel “Religious Restrictions on Capital Financing for Historically Black Colleges and Universities,” Memorandum Opinion for the Acting General Counsel, Department of Education, August 15, 2019, https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/ attachments/2021/01/01/2019-08-15-hbcu-capfin-2.pdf. (accessed February 18, 2023). 56. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Investment and Innovation, SBIR and STTR Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2019, p. 8, https://www.sbir.gov/sites/default/files/SBA_Final_FY19_SBIR_STTR_Annual_Report.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 57. S. 4900, SBIR and STTR Extension Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117–183, 117th Congress, September 30, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ183/PLAW-117publ183.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 58. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Investment and Innovation, SBIR and STTR Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2019, pp. 6, 40, and 108. — 764 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 59. Peter L. Singer, “Federally Supported Innovations: 22 Examples of Major Technology Advances that Stem from Federal Support,” Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, February 2014, https://wrnjradio.com/ bipartisan-call-to-crack-down-on-covid-19-ppp-eidl-fraud-prosecute-fraudsters-to-the-fullest-extent-of-the- law/ (accessed March 21, 2023). 60. Wells King, “Uncle Sam’s Top-Performing Venture Fund,” American Compass Case Study, November 2022, https://americancompass.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/AC-Case-Study_SBIR_final2.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 61. Elisabeth B. Reynolds, Hiram M. Samel, and Joyce Lawrence, “Learning by Building: Complementary Assets and the Migration of Capabilities in U.S. Innovative Firms,” MIT Industrial Performance Center Working Paper No. MIT-IPC-13-001, March 2013, https://ipc.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2019-01/13-001.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 62. American Compass, “Where’s The Growth? Assessing the Results of the Globalization Experiment,” March 2022, pp. 3–5, https://americancompass.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/AC-Atlas-Wheres-the-Growth.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 63. Sridhar Kota and Tom Mahoney, “Innovation Should Be Made in the U.S.A.,” The Wall Street Journal, November 15, 2019, https://www.wsj.com/articles/innovation-should-be-made-in-the-u-s-a-11573833987 (accessed February 18, 2023). 64. S. ___, SBA Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2019, 116th Congress, 1st Session, Title III, § 303, https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/80533629-2905-433f-a588-7c4e032f7347/ C096ED9C1EBA68E041CFDA143E01C66C.mir19891.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 65. David Adler, “Financing Advanced Manufacturing: Why VCs Aren’t the Answer,” American Affairs, Vol. III, No. 2 (Summer 2019), https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2019/05/financing-advanced-manufacturing-why-vcs- arent-the-answer/ (accessed February 18, 2023). 66. National Association of Manufacturers, “Overview of the Senate HEALS Act,” July 28, 2020, https://documents. nam.org/comm/HEALSActInfo.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023). See also remarks by Senator Mitch McConnell, “HEALS Act,” Congressional Record, Vol. 166, No. 132 (July 27, 2020), pp. S4491–S4492, https:// www.congress.gov/116/crec/2020/07/27/CREC-2020-07-27-pt1-PgS4491-7.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023). 67. S. 1059, American Innovation and Manufacturing Act, 117th Congress, introduced March 25, 2021, https:// www.crfb.org/blogs/whats-11-trillion-heals-act https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/s1059/BILLS-117s1059is.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 68. H.R. 7628, IMPROVE (Improve Management, Programs, Resources, and Oversight for Vital Entrepreneurs) the SBA Act, 117th Congress, introduced April 28, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr7628/BILLS- 117hr7628ih.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023). 69. S. 1120, Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, 116th Congress, introduced April 10, 2019, https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s1120/BILLS-116s1120is.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023). 70. H.R. 3136, Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-121, 104th Congress, March 29, 1996, Title II, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ121/PLAW-104publ121.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023). 71. S. 403, Fair and Open Competition Act, 117th Congress, introduced February 24, 2021, https://www. congress.gov/117/bills/s403/BILLS-117s403is.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023), and H.R. 1284, Fair and Open Competition Act, 117th Congress, introduced February 24, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1284/ BILLS-117hr1284ih.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023. 72. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14063, “Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects,” February 4, 2022, in Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 27 (February 9, 2022), pp. 7363–7366, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-02-09/pdf/2022-02869.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023). 73. “The JOBS Act 4.0: Section-by-Section,” Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/the_jobs_act_4.0sectionbysection.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023). 74. Press release, “Luetkeymeyer: SBA Lacks Infrastructure and Expertise to Expand Number of Small Business Lending Companies,” Committee on Small Business, U.S. House of Representatives, November 7, 2022, https:// smallbusiness.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=404376 (accessed February 18, 2023).

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on workforce development grants for community colleges, while the Project 2025 HUD section centers on housing policy reforms, regulatory changes, and DEI/CRT critiques. Both mention serving low‑income populations and promoting economic mobility, creating only a tangential connection."

Key themes:low‑income individualseconomic mobilityworkforce developmentregional economic growth

— 515 — Department of Housing and Urban Development 25. Process must prioritize where political leadership can implement administrative reforms through regulatory action and subregulatory guidance reforms. 26. China and other foreign nations should not be able to disrupt our nation’s housing markets, including by artificially driving up prices and reducing affordability and access to housing for Americans who are crowded out of the market by such market participation. 27. These initiatives are maintained under such designations as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); critical race theory (CRT); black, indigenous, Pacific Islander, and other people of color (BIPOC); and environmental, social, and governance (ESG). 28. At a minimum, these efforts duplicate what the federal government already collects and assesses; at worst, they institute arbitrary procedures in real estate appraisal practices that undermine integrity and perversely introduce arbitrary biases into what should be an unbiased system for determining financial value. 29. Revise regulatory and subregulatory guidance, where applicable within statutory authorities, that adds unnecessary delay and costs to the construction and development of new housing and has been estimated to account for about 40 percent of new housing unit costs in multifamily housing. 30. The Biden Administration has issued a proposed rule to replace the Trump Administration’s “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice” rule that had repealed earlier rules expanding AFFH enforcement. See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing, “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 153 (August 7, 2020), pp. 47899–47912, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-07/pdf/2020-16320.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023), and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 27 (February 9, 2023), pp. 8516–8590, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-07-16/pdf/2015-17032.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 31. Certain pilot initiatives may encourage greater take-up of loan products designed for faster equity accumulation, including loans with shorter terms and accelerated amortization schedules. In concept, the FHA’s Home Equity Accelerator Loan (HEAL) and Good Neighbor Next Door (GNND) pilot initiatives might lead to meaningful wealth generation for first-time buyers, but they should be available to all eligible households only when they do not arbitrarily discriminate based on race or other characteristics. 32. Housing supply does remain a problem in the U.S., but constructing more units at the low end of the market will not solve the problem. Investors and developers can deliver at more efficient cost new units that will allow for greater upward mobility of rental and ownership housing stock and better target increased construction of mid-tier rental units. Further, and more fundamental to the housing supply challenge in markets across the U.S., localities can consider revising land use, zoning, and building regulations that constrict new housing development, adding time delays and costs that impede construction. Federal housing policy should get out of the way where possible and minimize the distortive impact that stimulating greater demand through loose lending can have in driving up housing prices for households that are looking for affordable entry into the housing market. 33. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Housing and Community Development Act of 1980: Verification of Eligible Status,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 91 (May 10, 2019), pp. 20589–20595, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-05-10/pdf/2019-09566.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 34. Reforms should contemplate rent payment flexibilities, allow escrow savings, and set maximum term limits that can reduce implicit penalties for increasing household incomes over eligibility terms for housing assistance and reweight waiting-list prioritization for two-parent households. 35. Some PHAs have been able to implement work requirements and term limit policies in various congressionally authorized demonstration programs, notably the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program established in 1996 for 39 PHAs (Congress has since authorized another 100 PHAs) in which participating MTW PHAs were given authority to implement rent reforms, work requirements and other experimental policies in rental assistance programs along with flexibilities in the use of capital and operating appropriations. 36. The FSS program has a general five-year term with a possible two-year extension, which could be applied at the term limit for overall benefits, and certain PHAs have imposed five-year to seven-year term limits. Families in these programs build escrow savings during their term eligibility that helps to facilitate successful transitions to family self-sufficiency and unassisted housing. — 516 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 37. HUD should implement administrative changes in regulation and guidance and seek statutory authority to end all Housing First directives of Continuum of Care (CoC) grantees and contract homelessness providers in addition to establishing restrictions on local Housing First policies where HUD grant funds are used. 38. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) was established in the 1990s, and numerous Administrations have devoted enormous resources to the Housing First model, experimenting with various ways to provide federally financed rapid rehousing and permanent housing opportunities. Housing First is a far-left idea premised on the belief that homelessness is primarily circumstantial rather than behavioral. The Housing First answer to homelessness is to give someone a house instead of attempting to understand the underlying causes of homelessness. Federal intervention centered on Housing First has failed to acknowledge that resolving the issue of homelessness is often a matter of resolving mental health and substance abuse challenges. Instead of the permanent supportive housing proffered by Housing First, a conservative Administration should shift to transitional housing with a focus on addressing the underlying issues that cause homelessness in the first place. 39. The Senate Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers (LIFT) Act would address this policy goal. See S. 2797, Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers Act of 2021 (LIFT Homebuyers Act of 2021), 117th Congress, introduced September 22, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/s2797/BILLS-117s2797is.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 40. FHA did not facilitate the widespread use of 30-year mortgages until the 1950s when, interacting with Federal Reserve policies, federal agencies began broader adoption of the mortgages, which, despite lowering the monthly repayment terms, result in slow equity accumulation and wealth-building opportunities. 41. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 fundamentally revised the scope of federal regulation in the nation’s housing finance system, placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the purview of a newly established Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and establishing a Housing Trust Fund (HTF) that is administered in the HUD Office of Community Planning and Development. See H.R. 3221, Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Public Law No. 110-289, 110th Congress, July 30, 2008, https://www.congress. gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 42. Guiding questions: What reforms should be proposed that could be accomplished within five years? What reforms can be done administratively, and what reforms would need legislative authorization? Are there functions that HUD administers that could be achieved more effectively at another department or agency? What big-picture reforms should be proposed that might take more than five years that would reorganize HUD and its programs to meet the objectives in the vision or mission? What would occur in the absence of these public finance subsidies? How much crowd-out do these subsidies create in the market? Would America be a seriously underhoused nation without these subsidies? Who are the policies intended to benefit? What organizational changes must be made? 43. The Faircloth Amendment (Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998) amended the Housing Act of 1937 to maintain public housing units at 1999 levels, preventing housing authorities from maintaining more public housing than they did then. H.R. 4194, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law No. 105-276, 105th Congress, October 21, 1998, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ276/PLAW-105publ276.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). In recent years, the statutory restriction on new construction of public housing units has been circumvented through some narrow uses of preservation programs such as the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, initially authorized in 2012 and reauthorized several times since under higher program unit conversion caps. Congress also provided paths for renewal and continuation of a portion of existing public housing; project/site-based housing stock (refinancing with long-term HAP contract commitments); and Section 8 units through the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (MAHRA). H.R. 2158, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Public Law No. 105-65, 105th Congress, October 27, 1997, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ65/PLAW-105publ65.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 44. As the evolution of HUD rental assistance transitions away from the public housing model toward housing choice vouchers, there should be adequate landlord participation to ensure that the supply of housing units for rent in these programs meets the demand for rent among eligible tenants. This issue has been addressed in various ways, including by a task force instituted at the department during the Trump Administration, but could likely remain a challenge in the administration of the program.

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. Marshall, Roger

Retire through Ownership Act

119/s/2403

Patients Deserve Price Tags Act

119/s/2355

Healthy Start Reauthorization Act of 2026

119/s/3799

Back to All Bills