Renewing the African American Civil Rights Network Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/4767
Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Scott, Tim [R-SC]

ID: S001184

Follow the money

The bill

Renewing the African American Civil Rights Network Act

S. 4767, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Sen. Scott, Tim [R-SC]

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

The money

$287,300 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Education" section, p. 362-364 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 Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held.

July 20, 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 of S. 4767: Renewing the African American Civil Rights Network Act**

**1. Main Purpose & Objectives** The stated purpose of S. 4767 is to extend the authorization of the African American Civil Rights Network—a program under the National Park Service that preserves, interprets, and promotes sites and stories related to the African American civil rights movement. On the surface, it’s a benign, feel-good gesture: let’s keep honoring the struggle for racial justice by funding markers, trails, and educational programs. But let’s not pretend this is about healing or history. This is legislative lipstick on a pig—an easy, low-risk way for senators to appear virtuous without doing anything that might actually challenge systemic racism, like, say, protecting voting rights or reforming policing. The objective? To let politicians pat themselves on the back for “supporting civil rights” while avoiding the hard work of confronting ongoing injustice.

**2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends Section 308404 of Title 54, U.S. Code, by striking the current sunset clause—“7 years after the date of enactment of this chapter”—and replacing it with “10 years after the date of enactment of the Renewing the African American Civil Rights Network Act.” That’s it. One sentence. Three years added to an authorization timeline. No new funding mechanisms, no oversight improvements, no expansion of scope. Just a bureaucratic extension to keep the program alive a little longer. It’s the legislative equivalent of renewing a library card: minimally disruptive, administratively necessary, and utterly devoid of courage.

**3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders** - **Beneficiaries (nominally):** Local historians, community organizations, and state/tribal governments that apply for grants or technical assistance through the Network to preserve civil rights sites. - **Real beneficiaries:** Senators Scott (R-SC) and Blunt Rochester (D-DE), who get to cosponsor a “bipartisan” bill that costs nothing, risks nothing, and lets them tweet about honoring John Lewis without touching a single controversial issue. - **Ignored parties:** The actual descendants of civil rights activists still fighting voter suppression, economic inequality, and police violence—whose lived struggles are reduced to interpretive plaques and walking tours. - **Lobbyists:** Presumably, the National Parks Conservation Association and similar groups who quietly applaud the extension while knowing it does nothing to address the erosion of civil rights in real time.

**4. Potential Impact & Implications** Impact? Minimal. The Network will continue operating, doling out small grants and coordinating educational outreach—useful, perhaps, for schoolteachers and tourists, but functionally irrelevant to advancing racial equity. The extension does nothing to stop states from banning AP African American Studies, gutting diversity programs, or enacting laws that make it harder to protest. It’s a distraction: a way to celebrate the *past* of civil rights while ignoring its *present* crisis. Implication? This bill is a diagnostic marker of our political malaise. We’d rather fund a network of historic sites than enforce the rights those sites commemorate. It’s not malice—it’s worse: it’s indifference dressed up as reverence. We preserve the memory of the movement while allowing its goals to be rolled back, one voter ID law at a time. In short: S. 4767 isn’t extending civil rights. It’s extending the illusion that we still care.

Related Topics

Civil Rights & LibertiesElections & Voting RightsGovernment Operations & Accountability
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Scott, Tim [R-SC]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$287,300
24 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$23,300
Committees
$0
Individuals
$264,000

No PAC contributions found

1
FAIRWAY INVESTMENTS, LLC
2 transactions
$16,500
2
MK INTERNATIONAL LLC
1 transaction
$3,300
3
OSWALD COOKE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
1 transaction
$1,500
4
HUDSON CAPITAL ADVISORS LLC
1 transaction
$1,000
5
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
EMMET, RICHARD
2 transactions
$26,400
2
BOLDRICK, JAMES
1 transaction
$13,200
3
DUHAMEL, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$13,200
4
GROFF, SUSAN
1 transaction
$13,200
5
SLUSKY, ALEX
1 transaction
$13,200
6
HAMMOND, GREGORY
1 transaction
$13,200
7
NAVARRO, ANNE
1 transaction
$13,200
8
NEWMAN, BRAD
1 transaction
$13,200
9
ANDERSON, MORGAN
1 transaction
$13,200
10
BROWN, JAMES
1 transaction
$13,200
11
CANN, DAVID
1 transaction
$13,200
12
CHAMBERLAIN, LEE
1 transaction
$13,200
13
COLQUITT, DAVID
1 transaction
$13,200
14
CONVERSE, JUSTIN
1 transaction
$13,200
15
DEERING, TONY
1 transaction
$13,200
16
DEJONG, ROBERT
1 transaction
$13,200
17
GOLDBAUM, ROBERT
1 transaction
$13,200
18
HASLAM, BILL
1 transaction
$13,200
19
HASLAM, JAMES
1 transaction
$13,200

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Blunt Rochester, Lisa [D-DE]

ID: B001303

Top Contributors

36

1
PHAROS CAPITAL GROUP LLC
OrganizationBRENTWOOD, TN
$3,300
Dec 15, 2023
2
TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA
OrganizationMARKSVILLE, LA
$3,300
Dec 29, 2023
3
POMO BAND OF THE HABEMOTOLEL INDIANS
OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA
$3,300
May 17, 2024
4
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationMADILL, OK
$3,300
May 30, 2024
5
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationMADILL, OK
$3,300
May 30, 2024
6
THE DANIEL INITIATIVE, LLC
OrganizationSTAFFORD, VA
$3,300
Jul 24, 2023
7
TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA
OrganizationMARKSVILLE, LA
$2,500
Sep 30, 2024
8
PHAROS CAPITAL GROUP LLC
OrganizationBRENTWOOD, TN
$2,300
Dec 15, 2023
9
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$2,000
Mar 31, 2024
10
1634 ASSOCIATES
OrganizationPHILADELPHIA, PA
$2,000
Sep 30, 2023

Sen. Cantwell, Maria [D-WA]

ID: C000127

Top Contributors

70

1
SAC FOX TRIBE
OrganizationTAMA, IA
$5,000
Oct 29, 2024
2
LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE
OrganizationPORT ANGELES, WA
$3,360
Mar 31, 2023
3
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationHIGHLAND, CA
$3,300
Oct 28, 2023
4
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationHIGHLAND, CA
$3,300
Dec 21, 2023
5
SAN PABLO LYTTON TRIBE
OrganizationSAN PABLO, CA
$3,300
Nov 16, 2023
6
SAN PABLO LYTTON TRIBE
OrganizationSAN PABLO, CA
$3,300
Nov 16, 2023
7
SAULT STE MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS
OrganizationSAULT SAINTE MARIE, MI
$3,300
Dec 14, 2023
8
SENECA NATION OF INDIANS
OrganizationSALAMANCA, NY
$3,300
Dec 14, 2023
9
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationAUBURN, WA
$3,300
May 12, 2023
10
NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationOLYMPIA, WA
$3,300
Jun 30, 2023

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

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 42 nodes and 55 connections

Total contributions: $55

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

Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount

5 Orgs19 Individuals

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 Education

Weak
Vector: 58%
Pages: 362-364AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on extending the African American Civil Rights Network for historical preservation and education, while Project 2025's Department of Education section emphasizes dismantling federal education oversight, moving civil rights enforcement to the DOJ, and rolling back regulations—particularly those related to civil rights data collection. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill supports civil rights education through cultural institutions, whereas Project 2025 seeks to reduce "

Key themes:civil rightseducationhistorical preservation

— 330 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise with the advice and consent of the Senate; (2) funded with annual appropriations from Congress; and (3) operated by professional managers. Federal loans would be assigned directly to the Treasury Department, which would manage collections and defaults. The new federal student loan authority would manage the loan port- folio, handle borrower relations, administer loan applications and disbursements, monitor institutional participation and accountability issues, and issue regulations. Office for Civil Rights (OCR) l OCR should move to the Department of Justice. The federal government has an essential responsibility to enforce civil rights protections, but Washington should do so through the Department of Justice and federal courts. The OCR at DOJ should be able to enforce only through litigation. Additional Bureaus and Offices For those attorneys, accountants, experts, and specialists in the department's remaining offices subject to closure whose positions might nevertheless be a key component of serving the mission—positions that might include the Office of the Secretary/Deputy Secretary, Office of the Undersecretary, Office of the General Counsel, Office of the Inspector General, Office of Finance and Operations, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Office of Communications and Outreach, and Office of Legislative and Congressional Affairs—the opportunity to join other agencies based on their expertise and the needs of other agencies should be made available. For example, OGC higher education lawyers would join the newly independent Federal Student Aid Office or the Department of Labor, and OGC civil rights attor- neys would join DOJ. These positions must first be determined to serve a continued mission need prior to being transferred. l Attorneys, accountants, experts, and specialists in the department’s remaining offices subject to closure, and whose positions are indispensable to serving the mission, should have the opportunity to join other agencies. Current Laws Relating to the Department of Education That Require Repeal In order to fully wind down the Department of Education, Congress must pass and the President must sign into law a Department of Education Reorganization Act (or Liquidating Authority Act) to direct the executive branch on how to devolve the agency as a stand-alone Cabinet-level department. l Congress should pass and the next President should sign a Department of Education Reorganization Act. — 331 — Department of Education Current Regulations Promulgated by or Relevant to the Agency That Should Be Rolled Back or Eliminated While the next Administration works to distribute department programs across the federal government, it will need to thoroughly review the many educa- tion-related regulations promulgated by the Biden Administration. There are five primary regulatory targets (as of December 2022) that require the next Adminis- tration’s attention: regulations on (1) Charter School Grant Program Priorities; (2) Civil Rights Data Collection; (3) Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan Program, and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program Final Regulations; (4) Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance (Title IX); and (5) Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities, Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities (Equity in IDEA). The next Administration should also review regulatory changes to the school meals program (under the Department of Agriculture) and changes to the Income-Driven student loan program. Additional Biden Administration regulations on (1) gainful employment, administrative capa- bility, and financial responsibility for institutions that participate in the federal student loans and grant programs; (2) Title VI, (3) accreditation of postsecondary institutions, and (4) female athletics are expected in to be released in 2023. l Thoroughly review the many education-related regulations promulgated by the Biden Administration, as well as the school meals program and the Income-Driven student loan program. Charter School Grant Programs Congress first authorized the Charter School Program (CSP) in 1994 [Title X, Part C of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended, 20 U.S.C. § 8061 et seq. (1994)]. It most recently reauthorized the program in 2015 as part of the Every Student Succeeds Act.13 On March 14, 2022, the department published a notice concerning proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and grant selection criteria relating to the award of federal grants to applicants in CSP. This proposal increases the federal footprint in the charter school sector by ignor- ing statute and adding to the list of requirements imposed on charter schools. l The new Administration must take immediate steps to rescind the new requirements and lessen the federal restrictions on charter schools. Civil Rights Data Collection On December 13, 2021, OCR published a notice concerning proposed revisions to OCR’s Mandatory Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) in which it proposed

Federal Communications Commission

Minimal
Vector: 59%
Pages: 891-894AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on extending the African American Civil Rights Network for historical preservation and education, while the Project 2025 FCC section addresses communications regulation, spectrum auctions, broadband policy, and Section 230 reform—there is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 858 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. 47 U.S.C. § 151, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/151 (accessed January 23, 2023). 2. 47 U.S.C. § 154, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/154 (accessed January 23, 2023). 3. Ibid. 4. 47 U.S.C. § 154(c). 5. 47 U.S.C. § 154(b)(5). 6. 47 U.S.C. § 155(a), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/155 (accessed January 23, 2023). 7. Ibid. 8. Ibid. There are no limits on the President’s authority to designate a different Chairperson from among the existing Commissioners. Further, though it is an open question, it is generally believed that the judiciary would impose limits on the power of the President to remove a Commissioner during his or her five-year term. The question is not settled because Congress did not include an express “for cause” or similar protection against removal in the Communications Act itself. Scholars assume this is because Congress passed the Communications Act in the years between the Supreme Court’s decision in Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926) and Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), when it was not entirely clear that Congress could impose a limit on the President’s removal power. However, the Communications Act was significantly amended in 1996, and Congress did not add “just cause” or other protections from removal at that time. Considering the high-profile contemporary debates about the appointment and removal of independent counsels under the Independent Counsel Act, one could reasonably assume that Congress was aware of removal powers and protections for presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed officials. 9. Chart, “FTEs—Historical and Estimated, Fiscal Years 1986–2023,” in U.S. Federal Communications Commission, 2023 Budget Estimates to Congress, March 2022, p. 17, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-381693A1. pdf (accessed January 23, 2023). 10. U.S. Federal Communications Commission, 2023 Budget Estimates to Congress, p. 7. 11. Roslyn Layton, “Spectrum Auctions Have Raised $230 Billion; The FCC’s Authority to Conduct Them Will Lapse Soon If Congress Doesn’t Act,” Forbes, April 29, 2022, https://www.forbes.com/sites/ roslynlayton/2022/04/29/spectrum-auctions-have-raised-230-billion-the-fccs-authority-to-conduct-them- will-lapse-soon-if-congress-doesnt-act/?sh=4d32066908eb (accessed January 23, 2023). 12. For a full listing of the FCC’s Bureaus and Offices, along with their functions and an organization chart, see U.S. Federal Communications Commission, “Organizational Charts of the FCC,” https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/ organizational-charts-fcc (accessed January 23, 2023). 13. 47 U.S.C. § 230, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 (accessed January 23, 2023). 14. Thomas M. Johnson Jr., “The FCC’s Authority to Interpret Section 230 of the Communications Act,” October 21, 2020, https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/blog/2020/10/21/fccs-authority-interpret-section-230- communications-act (accessed January 23, 2023). 15. This chapter does not purport to set forth a comprehensive agenda for the FCC. Rather, it focuses on a selected handful of issue areas that may quickly rise to the attention of a new Administration. Similarly, not every contributor to this chapter agrees with every policy idea included here; this document attempts to reflect a range of views and perspectives. 16. Johnson, “The FCC’s Authority to Interpret Section 230 of the Communications Act.” 17. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, “NTIA Petition for Rulemaking to Clarify Provisions of Section 230 of the Communications Act,” July 27, 2020, https:// ntia.gov/fcc-filing/ntia-petition-rulemaking-clarify-provisions-section-230-communications-act (accessed January 23, 2023). 18. Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software, 592 U.S. ___ (2020) (Thomas, J., statement respecting the denial of certiorari), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1284_869d.pdf (accessed January 23, 2023). 19. See 47 U.S.C. § 230; see also Ray Baum’s Act of 2018, Division P, Title IV, § 401 (codifying the Consolidated Reporting Act), in H.R. 1625, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Public Law No. 115-141, 115th Congress, March 23, 2018, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ141/PLAW-115publ141.pdf (accessed January 23, 2023). 20. NetChoice, L.L.C. v. Paxton, 49 F.4th 439 (5th Cir. 2022), https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/ gdpzqyobyvw/alisonn%201.pdf (accessed January 23, 2023). — 859 — Federal Communications Commission 21. Hal J. Singer and Ted Tatos, Subsidizing Universal Broadband Through a Digital Advertising Services Fee: An Alignment of Incentives, Econ One, September 2021, p. 1 (“[T]he current USF mechanism is unsustainable and will fail to meet the needs of its target consumer base within the next five years.”), https://www.econone.com/ wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Digital-Divide-HSinger-TTatos-2.pdf (accessed January 23, 2023). 22. FBI Director Christopher Wray, testimony in video of hearing, Worldwide Threats to the Homeland, Committee on Homeland Security, U.S. House of Representatives, November 15, 2022, at 02:27, https://democrats- homeland.house.gov/activities/hearings/11/04/2022/worldwide-threats-to-the-homeland (accessed January 23, 2023); John D. McKinnon, Arunav Viswanatha, and Stu Woo, “TikTok National-Security Deal Faces More Delays as Worry Grows Over Risks,” The Wall Street Journal, updated December 6, 2022, https://www.wsj. com/articles/tiktok-national-security-deal-faces-more-delays-as-worry-grows-over-risks-11670342800 (accessed January 23, 2023). 23. U.S. Federal Communications Commission, “List of Equipment and Services Covered by Section 2 of the Secure Networks Act,” updated September 20, 2022, https://www.fcc.gov/supplychain/coveredlist (accessed January 23, 2023). 24. H.R. 820, Foreign Adversary Communications Transparency Act, 118th Congress, introduced February 2, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr820/BILLS-118hr820ih.pdf (accessed March 6, 2023). 25. U.S. Department of State, “The Clean Network,” https://2017-2021.state.gov/the-clean-network/index.html (accessed January 23, 2023). 26. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Broadband: National Strategy Needed to Guide Federal Efforts to Reduce Digital Divide, GAO-22-104611, May 2022, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104611.pdf (accessed January 23, 2023). 27. Document No. 144, “Federal Communications Commission: Message from the President of the United States Recommending that Congress Create a New Agency to be Known as the Federal Communications Commission,” U.S. Senate, 73rd Cong., 2nd Sess., February 26, 1934, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/ DOC-298207A1.pdf (accessed January 23, 2023). 28. 47 U.S.C, Chapter 5, §§ 151 et seq., (accessed March 6, 2023).

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Minimal
Vector: 58%
Pages: 879-881AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on extending authorization for the African American Civil Rights Network to preserve civil rights history, while the Project 2025 policy section addresses FCC reforms related to Big Tech regulation, Section 230, and transparency rules. There is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 847 — Federal Communications Commission The FCC has facilitated the transition from 3G to 4G and now 5G offerings in two ways. First, it has freed spectrum—the airwaves needed to deliver wireless ser- vices. Second, it has preempted state and local siting and permitting laws that could otherwise slow down the buildout of next-generation infrastructure. One of the FCC’s great success stories from 2017 to 2020 was securing U.S. leadership in 5G. The FCC also administers an approximately roughly $9 billion-a-year program called the Universal Service Fund (USF), which has been funded by a line-item charge that traditional telephone companies add to consumers’ monthly bills. Expenditures from this fund subsidize rural broadband networks and low-income programs as well as connections for schools, libraries, and rural health care facil- ities. Through various COVID-era laws, Congress has also provided the FCC with a one-time $24 billion appropriation for various low-income initiatives. POLICY PRIORITIES The FCC needs to change course and bring new urgency to achieving four main goals: l Reining in Big Tech, l Promoting national security, l Unleashing economic prosperity, and l Ensuring FCC accountability and good governance.15 Reining in Big Tech. The FCC has an important role to play in addressing the threats to individual liberty posed by corporations that are abusing dominant positions in the market. Nowhere is that clearer than when it comes to Big Tech and its attempts to drive diverse political viewpoints from the digital town square. Today, a handful of corporations can shape everything from the information we consume to the places we shop. These corporate behemoths are not merely exercising market power; they are abusing dominant positions. They are not simply prevailing in the free market; they are taking advantage of a landscape that has been skewed—in many cases by the government—to favor their business models over those of their competitors. It is hard to imagine another industry in which a greater gap exists between power and accountability. That is why a new Adminis- tration should support FCC action on several fronts. Specifically, the FFC should: l Eliminate immunities that courts added to Section 230. The FCC should issue an order that interprets Section 230 in a way that eliminates the expansive, non-textual immunities that courts have read into the statute. — 848 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise As one of the FCC’s previous General Counsels noted, the FCC has authority to take this action because Section 230 is codified in the Communications Act.16 The FCC’s Section 230 reforms should track the positions outlined in a July 2020 Petition for Rulemaking filed at the FCC near the end of the Trump Administration.17 Any new presidential Administration should consider filing a similar or new petition. As Justice Clarence Thomas has made clear, courts have construed Section 230 broadly to confer on some of the world’s largest companies a sweeping immunity that is found nowhere in the text of the statute.18 They have done so in a way that nullifies the limits Congress placed on the types of actions that Internet companies can take while continuing to benefit from Section 230. One way to start correcting this error is for the FCC to remind courts how the various portions of Section 230 operate. At the outset, the FCC can clarify that Section 230(c)(1) does not apply broadly to every decision that a platform makes. Rather, its protections apply only when a platform does not remove information provided by someone else. In contrast, the FCC should clarify that the more limited Section 230(c)(2) protections apply to any covered platform’s decision to restrict access to material provided by someone else. Combined, these actions will appropriately limit the number of cases in which a platform can censor with the benefit of Section 230’s protections. Such clarifications might also include drawing out the traditional legal distinction between distributor and publisher liability; Section 230 did not do away with the former, nor does it collapse into the latter. l Impose transparency rules on Big Tech. Today, Big Tech offers a black box. After Google manipulates search results, a small business can see its web traffic drop precipitously overnight for no apparent reason, potentially flipping its outlook from black to red. On Facebook, social media posts are left up or taken down, accounts suspended or permanently banned, without any apparent consistency. Out of the blue, YouTube can demonetize individuals who have risked their capital and invested their labor to build online businesses. At present, the FCC requires broadband providers to comply with a transparency rule that can provide a good baseline for Big Tech. Under the FCC’s rule, broadband providers must provide detailed disclosures about practices that would shape Internet traffic—from blocking to prioritizing or discriminating against content. The FCC could take a similar approach to

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