Secure Rural Schools Reauthorization Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/356
Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID]

ID: C000880

Follow the money

The bill

Secure Rural Schools Reauthorization Act of 2025

S. 356, 119th Congress — read as touching Teachers Unions.

The sponsor

Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID]

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

The money

$77,100 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Agriculture" section, p. 344-346 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Became Public Law No: 119-58.

December 17, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed Senate

House Review

Passed Congress

Presidential Action

Became Law

📍 Current Status

This bill has become law!

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, folks! The Secure Rural Schools Reauthorization Act of 2025 is a shining example of how our esteemed lawmakers can take a simple concept and turn it into a Byzantine nightmare.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to extend the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, which provides funding for rural schools and counties with significant federal landholdings. In other words, it's a way for Congress to throw some cash at rural areas while pretending to care about education.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes several changes to the existing law, including:

* Extending the secure payment program for states and counties through 2026 * Modifying the distribution of payments to eligible counties * Allowing counties to elect to receive a different type of payment (because, you know, choice is always good) * Extending the authority to conduct special projects on federal land * Permitting counties to expend funds for certain purposes

Wow, I bet you're just thrilled by these earth-shattering changes.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are affected by this bill:

* Rural schools and counties (the supposed beneficiaries of this legislation) * The U.S. Treasury Department (which gets to shell out more money) * Various federal agencies (which get to administer the program and pretend it's making a difference)

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Let's be real, folks. This bill is just another example of Congress throwing money at a problem without actually addressing the underlying issues. The impact will likely be minimal, except for the fact that some rural schools might get a few more dollars to waste on bureaucratic nonsense.

But hey, who needs actual reform when you can just reauthorize an existing program and call it a day? It's like putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound – it might look pretty, but it won't actually fix anything.

In conclusion, this bill is a perfect example of the legislative equivalent of a placebo. It might make some people feel good, but it won't actually cure anything. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than analyze this drivel further.

Related Topics

State & Local Government AffairsEducation & Student AidHousing & Urban Development
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$77,100
19 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$7,800
Committees
$0
Individuals
$69,300

No PAC contributions found

1
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
2
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$2,000
3
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
1 transaction
$1,000
4
ONEIDA NATION
1 transaction
$1,000
5
RENO-SPARKS INDIAN COLONY
1 transaction
$500

No committee contributions found

1
BUKOWSKY, BRANT
3 transactions
$9,900
2
ARNOLD, JOHN D. MR.
1 transaction
$6,600
3
BUKOWSKY, BROCK
2 transactions
$6,600
4
DWYER, JOHN W.
2 transactions
$6,600
5
DWYER, NANCY
2 transactions
$6,600
6
FIELDS, CLIVE
2 transactions
$6,600
7
LEPRINO, TERRY L
1 transaction
$3,300
8
SILBEY, ALEXANDER
1 transaction
$3,300
9
ELTOUKHY, HELMY
1 transaction
$3,300
10
MONSEN, MARION
1 transaction
$3,300
11
BUTTON, DARRYL
1 transaction
$3,300
12
CHAVERN, DAVID
1 transaction
$3,300
13
COOPER, ELLEN
1 transaction
$3,300
14
CRANDALL, ROGER
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Sen. Wyden, Ron [D-OR]

ID: W000779

Top Contributors

30

1
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$2,000
Dec 12, 2024
2
MOHEGAN TRIBE OF INDIANS OF CONNECTICUT
OrganizationUNCASVILLE, CT
$1,000
Dec 28, 2023
3
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$1,000
Dec 30, 2023
4
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSIONS INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$1,000
Mar 26, 2024
5
SHAKOPEE MDWEKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jun 12, 2024
6
SHAKOPEE MDWEKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
May 31, 2023
7
MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS
$1,000
Dec 31, 2023
8
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationDURANT, OK
$550
Oct 3, 2023
9
RENO-SPARKS INDIAN COLONY
OrganizationRENO, NV
$500
Jul 18, 2023
10
RENO-SPARKS INDIAN COLONY
OrganizationRENO, NV
$500
Sep 10, 2024

Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID]

ID: R000584

Top Contributors

21

1
CRW RESOURCES
OrganizationCOEUR D ALENE, ID
$1,000
Feb 29, 2024
2
SNELL, PETER
ARBELLA CAPITAL • REAL EATATE
IndividualARLINGTON, VA
$5,000
May 8, 2024
3
KAYALI, ZEID
SELF • PHYSICIAN
IndividualPASADENA, CA
$3,500
Feb 9, 2023
4
MOORE, JEFFREY
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualLAS VEGAS, NV
$3,435
Nov 19, 2024
5
KTELEH, TAREK
RHEUMATOLOGY • DOCTOR
IndividualFISHERS, IN
$3,300
Dec 23, 2024
6
ALAAMA, ABDUL M.D.
SELF • GASTROENTEROLOGY
IndividualWHITTIER, CA
$3,300
Feb 9, 2023
7
ASHOURI, DIANA
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA • PHYSICIAN
IndividualPASADENA, CA
$3,300
Feb 9, 2023
8
DIAB, MOHAMED KHEIR
MASIMO CORPORATION • DIRECTOR
IndividualLADERA RANCH, CA
$3,300
Feb 9, 2023
9
MOUJTAHED, SAED
OWL REXALL INFUSION • DIRECTOR
IndividualTRABUCO CANYON, CA
$3,300
Feb 9, 2023
10
MONSEN, MARION F
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSUN VALLEY, ID
$3,300
Sep 6, 2023

Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]

ID: M001176

Top Contributors

28

1
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$2,500
Oct 17, 2024
2
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$2,500
Dec 30, 2023
3
SISSETON-WAHPETON OYATE
OrganizationAGENCY VILLAGE, SD
$2,000
Jun 21, 2024
4
CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS OF THE YAKAMA NATION
OrganizationTOPPENISH, WA
$1,000
Oct 7, 2024
5
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationDURANT, OK
$1,000
Nov 9, 2023
6
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
May 2, 2024
7
MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS
$1,000
Aug 2, 2024
8
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$400
Jul 17, 2023
9
STUBBS, MARILYN L.
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualPORTLAND, OR
$5,000
Jul 17, 2023
10
BARNHART, PHILIP N.
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualEUGENE, OR
$5,000
Jun 21, 2024

Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK]

ID: S001198

Top Contributors

75

1
SEND IN THE SEAL PAC
PACALEXANDRIA, VA
$45,000
Aug 9, 2024
2
THE LINCOLN CLUB OF ORANGE COUNTY FEDERAL PAC
PACNEWPORT BEACH, CA
$25,000
Oct 18, 2024
3
SEND IN THE SEAL PAC
PACALEXANDRIA, VA
$15,000
Aug 9, 2024
4
WINRED
PACARLINGTON, VA
$6,600
Oct 19, 2023
5
RON JOHNSON VICTORY
COMOSHKOSH, WI
$1,997
Sep 30, 2024
6
MACLEAN-FOGG COMPANY
OrganizationMUNDELEIN, IL
$58,700
Dec 28, 2023
7
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$41,300
Dec 29, 2023
8
MACLEAN-FOGG COMPANY
OrganizationMUNDELEIN, IL
$41,300
Dec 28, 2023
9
PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE
OrganizationTUCSON, AZ
$41,300
Dec 29, 2023
10
TIGUA INDIAN RESERVATION
OrganizationEL PASO, TX
$41,300
Dec 19, 2023

Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV]

ID: R000608

Top Contributors

42

1
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
OrganizationTACOMA, WA
$3,700
Jul 31, 2024
2
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA
OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023
3
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023
4
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Dec 28, 2023
5
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Mar 10, 2023
6
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Mar 10, 2023
7
SYUCAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$3,300
Mar 31, 2023
8
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Mar 28, 2024
9
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA
OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL
$3,300
Sep 30, 2024
10
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI
$3,300
Oct 21, 2024

Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]

ID: C001047

Top Contributors

23

1
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$2,800
Dec 31, 2024
2
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Nov 8, 2023
3
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jul 22, 2024
4
ARNOLD, JOHN MR.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$6,600
Dec 27, 2023
5
MANOCHERIAN, JENNIFER MS.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSCARSDALE, NY
$6,600
Feb 17, 2023
6
MANOCHERIAN, JED MR.
SELF • REAL ESTATE
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Feb 23, 2023
7
MANOCHERIAN, GREG MR.
SELF EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE
IndividualPOUND RIDGE, NY
$6,600
Mar 1, 2023
8
MANOCHERIAN, KIM
PANAM EQUITIES • EXECUTIVE
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Mar 27, 2023
9
KAY, ALISON MS.
KIDS CAPITAL • HEDGE FUND MANAGER
IndividualBEVERLY HILLS, CA
$6,600
Jun 20, 2023
10
MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE
DMM PROPRIETA MANAGEMENT • MANAGER
IndividualASPEN, CO
$6,600
Sep 26, 2024

Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]

ID: S001181

Top Contributors

21

1
TILT LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE LLC
OrganizationPLYMOUTH, MI
$250
Feb 6, 2024
2
HAWASH, NOUR
BLINK TECH INC. • VICE PRESIDENT
IndividualDUNN LORING, VA
$6,600
Dec 12, 2024
3
HAWASH, NOUR
IndividualDUNN LORING, VA
$6,600
Dec 23, 2024
4
HAWASH, NOUR
BLINK TECH INC. • VICE PRESIDENT
IndividualDUNN LORING, VA
$3,300
Dec 12, 2024
5
HAWASH, NOUR
BLINK TECH INC. • VICE PRESIDENT
IndividualDUNN LORING, VA
$3,300
Dec 12, 2024
6
HAWASH, SAFA
ACCLIVITY LLC • BUSINESS CONSULTANT
IndividualDUNN LORING, VA
$3,300
Dec 11, 2024
7
HAWASH, SAFA
ACCLIVITY LLC • BUSINESS CONSULTANT
IndividualDUNN LORING, VA
$3,300
Dec 11, 2024
8
JONDY, JENAN
N/A • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualFLUSHING, MI
$3,300
Dec 16, 2024
9
KANDIL, MARIAM
SELF-EMPLOYED • BUSINESS OWNER
IndividualGREAT FALLS, VA
$3,300
Dec 16, 2024
10
KANDIL, MARIAM
SELF-EMPLOYED • BUSINESS OWNER
IndividualGREAT FALLS, VA
$3,300
Dec 16, 2024

Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT]

ID: D000618

Top Contributors

30

1
CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES OF THE FLATHEAD NATI
OrganizationPABLO, MT
$6,600
Mar 30, 2023
2
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA
$5,000
Jun 18, 2024
3
BLUECHIP FINANCIAL
OrganizationBELCOURT, ND
$3,300
Jun 20, 2024
4
HPUL PROJECT OPERATION
OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA
$3,300
Jun 20, 2024
5
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
6
SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationSUQUAMISH, WA
$3,300
Sep 20, 2024
7
ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE
OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX
$2,500
Oct 31, 2024
8
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jun 5, 2024
9
MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION
OrganizationOKMULGEE, OK
$1,000
Jun 20, 2024
10
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationDURANT, OK
$765
Oct 17, 2023

Sen. Kelly, Mark [D-AZ]

ID: K000377

Top Contributors

24

1
PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE
OrganizationTUCSON, AZ
$3,300
Oct 23, 2023
2
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$2,500
May 23, 2024
3
GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationSACATON, AZ
$1,000
Jun 15, 2023
4
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Aug 12, 2024
5
CORMIER, STEPHEN
IndividualMANSFIELD, LA
$6,000
Dec 31, 2023
6
LEWIS, PAUL
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualKINGMAN, AZ
$5,000
Oct 23, 2024
7
LEWIS, PAUL
IndividualKINGMAN, AZ
$5,000
Dec 6, 2024
8
BASS, JOSEPH P
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualPORTLAND, OR
$5,000
Mar 29, 2024
9
PEROT, MARGOT B
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$5,000
Apr 8, 2024
10
MILLER, JUDITH
IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN
$5,000
Sep 11, 2024

Sen. Hawley, Josh [R-MO]

ID: H001089

Top Contributors

24

1
R&W TOWING & RECOVERY
OrganizationST JOSEPH, MO
$3,300
Sep 18, 2024
2
SOUTHERN MISSOURI REAL ESTATE LLC
OrganizationAURORA, MO
$1,000
Jun 28, 2023
3
ST LOUIS CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP PAC
OrganizationCHESTERFIELD, MO
$914
Oct 31, 2024
4
MARK FAUGHN CONSTRUCTION LLC
OrganizationPOPLAR BLUFF, MO
$250
May 22, 2023
5
SCHELL, MARK CHRISTOPHER
DIAMOND PET FOOD • MANAGER
IndividualLOHMAN, MO
$13,200
Apr 13, 2023
6
CARR, GEORGE T.
THE DURHAM CO • MANAGEMENT
IndividualSPRINGFIELD, MO
$12,200
Apr 21, 2023
7
RUSSELL, DOUG MR.
DURHAM COMPANY • PRESIDENT
IndividualLEBANON, MO
$7,400
Apr 21, 2023
8
SHELTON, GREGORY P. MR.
SHELTON WHOLESALE • OWNER
IndividualEAGLEVILLE, MO
$6,600
Mar 11, 2024
9
WALDEN, MICHAEL
SHOOK HARDY BACON • ATTORNEY
IndividualMISSION HILLS, KS
$6,600
Mar 31, 2023
10
WILLARD, BRADLEY
WILLARD ASPHALT PAVING • PRESIDENT
IndividualLEBANON, MO
$6,600
Mar 31, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 57 nodes and 69 connections

Total contributions: $69

Top Donors - Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

5 Orgs14 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • +Teachers Unionsconfidence 0.80

    Section 2 extends the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, which provides funding to rural schools, thereby benefiting teachers unions (SEC. 2(a)(1) and SEC. 2(b))

  • +Labor Unionsconfidence 0.80

    Section 2 extends the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, which provides funding to rural schools, thereby benefiting labor unions (SEC. 2(a)(1) and SEC. 2(b))

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 Agriculture

Moderate
Vector: 63%
Pages: 344-346AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill supports rural economic development and environmental conservation through federal land management, which aligns with USDA's broader goals in Project 2025 related to land use and rural prosperity, though it does not directly address food system transformation or agricultural policy priorities emphasized in the document."

Key themes:rural developmentfederal land managementconservationeconomic assistanceUSDA programs

— 311 — Department of Agriculture ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p.1, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/2023-usda-budget-summary.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 2. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Transforming the U.S. Food System,” https://www.usda. gov/fst (accessed December 14, 2022). 3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p.1. 4. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “USDA Celebrates 150 Years,” https://www.usda.gov/our-agency/about-usda/ history (accessed December 16, 2022). 5. The law stated, “[T]here is hereby established at the seat of government of the United States a Department of Agriculture, the general designs and duties of which shall be to acquire and to diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture in the most general and comprehensive sense of that word, and to procure, propagate, and distribute among the people new and valuable seeds and plants.” Gladys L. Baker et al., Century of Service: The First 100 Years of the United States Department of Agriculture, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963) p. 13, https://babel. hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4254098&view=1up&seq=33 (accessed December 16, 2022). 6. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p. 2. 7. Ibid., p. 2. 8. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2022–2026, p. 3, https://www.usda.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/usda-fy-2022-2026-strategic-plan.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 9. News release, “USDA Announces Framework for Shoring Up the Food Supply Chain and Transforming the Food System to Be Fairer, More Competitive, More Resilient,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 1, 2022, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/06/01/usda-announces-framework-shoring-food-supply- chain-and-transforming (accessed December 14, 2022). 10. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Transforming the U.S. Food System.” 11. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2022–2026, pp. 1–2. 12. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Background on the U.S. Approach to the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit,” August 4, 2021, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Background-on-US-approach-2021-UN- Food-Systems-Summit.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 13. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “UN Food Systems Summit,” https://www.usda.gov/oce/sustainability/un- summit (accessed December 14, 2022). 14. Mark Bittman et al., “How a National Food Policy Could Save Millions of American Lives,” The Washington Post, November 7, 2014, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-a-national-food-policy-could- save-millions-of-american-lives/2014/11/07/89c55e16-637f-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html (accessed December 14, 2022); Daren Bakst and Gabriella Beaumont-Smith, “No, We Don’t Need to Transform the American Food System,” The Daily Signal, February 26, 2021, https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/02/26/ no-we-dont-need-to-transform-the-american-food-system/ (accessed December 14, 2022); and Daren Bakst, “Biden’s Food Conference Should Put People First, Not Environmental Extremism,” The Daily Signal, September 22, 2022, https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/09/22/bidens-food-conference-should-put-people- first-not-environmental-extremism/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 15. News release, “USDA to Invest Up to $300 Million in New Organic Transition Initiative,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 22, 2022, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/08/22/usda-invest-300- million-new-organic-transition-initiative (accessed December 14, 2022). 16. Gary Baise, “Sri Lanka’s Green New Deal Was a Disaster,” Farm Futures, November 14, 2022, https://www. farmprogress.com/commentary/sri-lankas-green-new-deal-was-disaster (accessed December 16, 2022). 17. See, for example, Catherine Greene et al., “Growing Organic Demand Provides High-Value Opportunities for Many Types of Producers,” Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, February 6, 2017, https://www. ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/januaryfebruary/growing-organic-demand-provides-high-value-opportunities- for-many-types-of-producers/#:~:text=ERS%20research%20shows%20that%20many,flavor%20desired%20 by%20the%20consumer (accessed December 14, 2022), and Andrea Carlson, “Investigating Retail Price Premiums for Organic Foods,” Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, May 24, 2016, https://www.ers. usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/may/investigating-retail-price-premiums-for-organic-foods/ (accessed December 16, 2022). Further, there are many myths, such as those regarding the alleged health benefit of organic food. One — 312 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise meta study found that “[t]he published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.” Crystal Smith-Spangler et al., “Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives,” Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 157, No. 5 (September 4, 2012), pp. 348–366, https:// www.acpjournals.org/doi/epdf/10.7326/0003-4819-157-5-201209040-00007 (accessed December 16, 2022). 18. Steve Savage, “USDA Data Confirm Organic Yields Significantly Lower Than With Conventional Farming,” Genetic Literacy Project, February 16, 2018, https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/02/16/usda-data-confirm- organic-yields-dramatically-lower-conventional-farming/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 19. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program, Request for Comments,” USDA–2021–0010, October 21, 2021, https://www.regulations. gov/document/USDA-2021-0010-0001 (accessed December 16, 2022). 20. Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law 117–169. 21. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Productivity Growth in U.S. Agriculture (1948–2019),” https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/agricultural-productivity-in-the-u-s/productivity- growth-in-u-s-agriculture-1948-2019/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 22. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Total Food Budget Share Increased from 9.4 Percent of Disposable Income to 10.3 Percent in 2021,” July 15, 2022, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=76967 (accessed December 14, 2022). 23. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Quintiles of Income Before Taxes: Annual Expenditure Means, Shares, and Standard Errors, and Coefficients of Variation, Consumer Expenditure Surveys,” 2021, Table 1101, https://www.bls.gov/cex/tables/calendar-year/mean-item-share-average-standard-error/cu- income-quintiles-before-taxes-2021.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022), and Daren Bakst and Patrick Tyrrell, “Big Government Policies That Hurt the Poor and How to Address Them,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No.176, April 5, 2017, p. 7, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-04/SR176.pdf. 24. Daren Bakst and Joshua Sewell, “Congress Should Stop Abrogating Its Spending Power and Rein in the USDA Slush Fund,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 6052, February 19, 2021, p. 2, https://www.heritage.org/ budget-and-spending/report/congress-should-stop-abrogating-its-spending-power-and-rein-the-usda. 25. Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act of 1948, Public Law 80–806. 26. Bakst and Sewall, “Congress Should Stop Abrogating Its Spending Power.” 27. Ibid., p. 3. 28. Daren Bakst, “Comment from Bakst, Darren” on “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program, Request for Comments,” USDA–2021–0010, October 21, 2021,” November 1, 2021, https://www. regulations.gov/document/USDA-2021-0010-0001/comment?filter=bakst (accessed December 16, 2022). 29. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program.” 30. Megan Stubbs, “The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC),” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, updated January 14, 2021, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44606 (accessed December 16, 2022). 31. “Overall, 34 percent of all farms reported receiving some type of Government payment in 2021,” and “[o]verall, 14 percent of U.S. farms participated in Federal crop insurance programs.” Christine Whitt, Noah Miller, and Ryan Olver, “America’s Farms and Ranches at a Glance: 2022 Edition,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, pp. 24 and 26, https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/105388/eib-247. pdf?v=527.4 (accessed March 18, 2023). This data, which apparently does not cover crop insurance, included payments beyond just commodity payments, such as conservation payments. 32. Randy Schnepf, “Farm Safety-Net Payments Under the 2014 Farm Bill: Comparison by Program Crop,” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, August 11, 2017, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44914.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 33. Although livestock and specialty crop producers do receive some subsidies, former American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman captured the subsidy issue well. He “dismisse[d] outright the claim that farmers couldn’t survive without subsidy money. ‘Why does the livestock industry survive without subsidies?’ he ask[ed]. ‘Why does the specialty crop [fruit and vegetable] industry survive?’” Tamar Haspel, “Why Do Taxpayers Subsidize Rich Farmers?” The Washington Post, March 15, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost. com/lifestyle/food/why-do-taxpayers-subsidize-rich-farmers/2018/03/15/50e89906-27b6-11e8-b79d- f3d931db7f68_story.html (accessed March 18, 2023).

Department of Agriculture

Weak
Vector: 63%
Pages: 347-349AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on extending financial assistance to rural counties and schools affected by federal land ownership, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt emphasizes eliminating the Conservation Reserve Program, reforming wetlands compliance, and reducing federal barriers in agriculture—topics not addressed in the bill. There is minimal thematic overlap beyond a general connection to rural land and USDA-administered programs."

Key themes:rural communitiesfederal land managementUSDA programs

— 315 — Department of Agriculture 79. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “WIC Data Tables,” December 9, 2022, https:// www.fns.usda.gov/pd/wic-program (accessed December 16, 2022). 80. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Regulations and Information on the Manufacture and Distribution of Infant Formula,” May 16, 2022, https://www.fda.gov/food/infant-formula-guidance-documents-regulatory- information/regulations-and-information-manufacture-and-distribution-infant-formula (accessed December 14, 2022). 81. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “History of the National School Lunch Program,” January 17, 2008, https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/program-history (accessed December 14, 2022). 82. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “School Breakfast Program History,” July 24, 2013, https://www.fns.usda.gov/sbp/program-history (accessed December 14, 2022), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “History of the National School Lunch Program.” 83. Crystal FitzSimons, “Free School Meals for All Is the Key to Supporting Education and Health Outcomes,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol 41, No. 1 (2022), pp. 358–364, https://econpapers.repec.org/ article/wlyjpamgt/v_3a41_3ay_3a2022_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a358-364.htm (accessed December 14, 2022). 84. Jonathan Butcher and Vijay Menon, “Returning to the Intent of Government School Meals: Helping Students in Need,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3399, March 22, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/sites/ default/files/2019-03/BG3399.pdf. 85. Daren Bakst and Jonathan Butcher, “A Critical Fix to the Federal Overreach on School Meals,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4976, July 11, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/hunger-and-food-programs/report/ critical-fix-the-federal-overreach-school-meals. 86. Ibid., and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “Community Eligibility Provision,” April 19, 2019, https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/community-eligibility-provision (accessed December 16, 2022). 87. See Payment Accuracy, https://www.paymentaccuracy.gov/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 88. Payment Accuracy, “Payment Integrity Scorecard,” https://www.cfo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/Q3/ FNS%20National%20School%20Lunch%20Program%20(NSLP)%20Payments%20Integrity%20Scorecard%20 FY%202022%20Q3.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 89. U.S. Government Accountability Office, “School Meals Programs: USDA Has Reported Taking Some Steps to Reduce Improper Payments But Should Comprehensively Assess Fraud Risks,” GAO–19–389, May 21, 2022, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-389 (accessed December 14, 2022). 90. Payment Accuracy, “Payment Integrity Scorecard.” 91. White House, “Fact Sheet: The American Families Plan,” April 28, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/ briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/28/fact-sheet-the-american-families-plan/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 92. Universal School Meals Program Act of 2021, S. 1530, 117th Cong., 1st Sess., https://www.congress.gov/ bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1530 (accessed December 14, 2022). 93. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Find Meals for Kids When Schools Are Closed,” Food and Nutrition Service, September 22, 2022, https://www.fns.usda.gov/meals4kids (accessed December 16, 2022), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “Seamless Summer and Other Options for School,” July 16, 2013, https://www.fns.usda.gov/sfsp/seamless-summer-and-other-options-schools (accessed December 16, 2022). 94. Tom Driscoll, “From the Field: Farmers Are the Original Conservationists,” National Farmers Union, August 30, 2017, https://nfu.org/2017/08/30/from-the-field-farmers-are-the-original-conservationists/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 95. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, “Conservation Programs,” https://www.fsa.usda.gov/ programs-and-services/conservation-programs/index (accessed December 16, 2022), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, “Programs and Initiatives,” https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ programs-initiatives (accessed December 16, 2022). 96. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, “Conservation Reserve Program: About the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),” https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation- programs/conservation-reserve-program/ (accessed December 16, 2022). — 316 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 97. American Bakers Association et al., letter to U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, March 23, 2022, https://www.dropbox.com/s/yfyv04ilkom11zd/USDA%20Letter%20to%20Secretary%20Vilsack%20on%20 Tools%20to%20Address%20Global%20Commodity%20Supply%20Challenges%203.23.22_.pdf?dl=0 (accessed December 15, 2022). It is also necessary to increase food production to mitigate high food inflation. Approximately 25 percent of idled land is considered prime farmland. Therefore, one-quarter of idled land is merely idling, not producing food—and this does not include other land that may viably be used for food production. The Conservation Reserve Program should be eliminated. There are also two issues connected to property rights and fairness that should be addressed: challenging NRCS determinations and problems with USDA easements. To be eligible for many USDA programs, farmers must comply with certain conservation provisions enforced by NRCS. Conservation compliance of wetlands and highly erodible lands consist of federal restrictions that prevent farmers from using parts of their property. If farmers plant crops or modify the areas federal officials deem protected, farmers can lose all access to USDA programs and support. For farmers, there are real, practical concerns to challenging NRCS determinations, including the time and costs of challenging the federal bureaucracy. NRCS is empowered to declare areas wetlands and highly erodible areas, which are therefore off limits for farming. If these wetland-or-erodible-declared areas are used in a manner deemed unacceptable by federal officials, NRCS may revoke access to federal resources and subsidies by making technical determinations that carry potential penalties. There must be a fair and reasonable process for farmers to challenge such actions. See Daren Bakst, “Food Price Inflation Continues to Worsen. Here’s What Should Be Done About It,” The Daily Signal, April 25, 2022, https:// www.dailysignal.com/2022/04/25/food-price-inflation-continuing-to-worsen-heres-what-should-be-done- about-it/ (accessed December 15, 2022); American Bakers Association et.al., letter to Vilsack; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, “Conservation Compliance Appeals Process,” https://www. nrcs.usda.gov/getting-assistance/compliance/conservation-compliance-appeals-process (accessed December 15, 2022); and Chris Bennett, “Regulatory Hell: Farmer and Veteran Wins 10-Year Wetlands Fight With Government,” AG Web, August 30, 2021, https://www.agweb.com/news/crops/crop-production/regulatory-hell-farmer-and- veteran-wins-10-year-wetlands-fight (accessed December 15, 2022). 98. Fortunately, there are already resources available to help states establish their own wetlands conservation programs. One particular example, the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Wetlands Mapping and Protection Act model policy, is available for states to define the procedures, guidelines, and administration of wetlands programs. American Legislative Exchange Council, “Wetlands Mapping and Protection Act,” November 16, 2017, https://alec.org/model-policy/wetlands-mapping-and-protection-act/ (accessed December 16, 2022). The new Administration should focus on best practices instead of imposing prescriptive federal practices. It should support the policies contained within the “NRCS Wetland Compliance and Appeals Reform Act” and modify NRCS compliance rules to protect farmers and ranchers by adding protections against regulatory overreach—such as banning the practice of re-engaging farmers in new technical determinations appeals processes for the same areas of their farms. See NRCS Wetland Compliance and Appeals Reform Act, S. 4931, 117th Cong., 2nd Sess., https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4931?s=1&r=8 (accessed December 15, 2022). 99. Ibid 100. See, for example, Daren Bakst and Jeremy Dalrymple, “Reducing Federal Barriers for the Sale of Meat,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 5078, June 1, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/agriculture/report/ reducing-federal-barriers-the-sale-meat, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, “State Inspection Programs,” updated January 12, 2023, https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/state- inspection-programs (accessed December 15, 2022). 101. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, “Cooperative Interstate Shipping Program,” September 7, 2022, https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/state-inspection-programs/cooperative- interstate-shipping-program (accessed December 15, 2022). 102. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “State Inspection Programs.” 103. The Senate bill removes obstacles for both meat and poultry. The House version does not appear to cover poultry. New Markets for State-Inspected Meat and Poultry Act of 2021, S. 107, 117th Cong., 1st Sess., https:// www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/107#:~:text=This%20bill%20allows%20meat%20and,be%20 sold%20in%20interstate%20commerce (accessed December 15, 2022), and Expanding Markets for State- Inspected Meat Processors Act of 2021, H.R. 1998, 117th Cong., 1st Sess., https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th- congress/house-bill/1998 (accessed December 15, 2022).

Department of Education

Weak
Vector: 62%
Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on extending federal financial assistance to rural schools and counties, while the Project 2025 education policy emphasizes school choice, state opt-outs from federal programs, and accreditation reform. Both involve K-12 education funding, but the bill does not advance the specific reforms outlined in Project 2025."

Key themes:education fundingrural schoolsfederal assistance

— 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

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.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills