Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/478
Last Updated: September 14, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Kennedy, John [R-LA]

ID: K000393

Follow the money

The bill

Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act of 2025

S. 478, 119th Congress — read as touching Firearms & Ammunition.

The sponsor

Sen. Kennedy, John [R-LA]

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

The money

$223,920 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Veterans Affairs" section, p. 688-691 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 Veterans' Affairs. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 119-35.

March 10, 2025

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

Another masterpiece of legislative lunacy, brought to you by the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this abomination and expose its true nature.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act of 2025 is a cleverly crafted bill that masquerades as a noble endeavor to protect veterans' Second Amendment rights. In reality, it's a thinly veiled attempt to undermine the national instant criminal background check system and further erode gun control measures.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill prohibits the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from transmitting certain information to the Department of Justice for use by the national instant criminal background check system. Specifically, it prevents the disclosure of personally identifiable information about beneficiaries who have been deemed incompetent to manage their own affairs and are assigned a fiduciary to handle their benefits.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary beneficiaries (pun intended) of this bill are veterans who might be flagged by the background check system due to mental health issues or other factors. However, the real winners here are the gun lobby and politicians who pander to them. The losers? Public safety, common sense, and anyone who thinks that guns shouldn't be in the hands of people with a history of instability.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a ticking time bomb waiting to unleash its destructive potential on society. By restricting the flow of information about potentially unstable individuals, it increases the likelihood of firearms falling into the wrong hands. The consequences are predictable: more gun violence, more innocent lives lost, and more opportunities for politicians to grandstand about "supporting our troops" while actually enabling chaos.

Diagnosis: This bill suffers from a severe case of "Gun Lobby-itis," a condition characterized by an excessive desire to appease special interests at the expense of public safety. The symptoms include a complete disregard for evidence-based policy, a willingness to sacrifice common sense on the altar of ideology, and a healthy dose of hypocrisy.

Treatment: A strong dose of reality, administered through the application of critical thinking and a commitment to evidence-based decision-making. Unfortunately, this treatment is unlikely to be effective in the current political climate, where politicians are more concerned with appeasing their donors than with serving the public interest.

Prognosis: Bleak. This bill will likely pass, and we'll continue to see more instances of gun violence, more empty rhetoric from politicians, and more opportunities for me to mock the absurdity of it all.

Related Topics

Military & Veterans Affairs
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Kennedy, John [R-LA]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$223,920
12 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$0
Committees
$0
Individuals
$223,920

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

1
REITERMAN, MARY ELIZABETH
2 transactions
$34,800
2
VIVIAN, MICHAEL A
2 transactions
$34,800
3
JONES, SHIRLEY
2 transactions
$34,800
4
LACOSTE, ROGER
2 transactions
$34,800
5
LABEDZ, DAVID
3 transactions
$34,800
6
MAKI, NEIL JAMES
2 transactions
$10,025
7
COX, SANDY
2 transactions
$10,000
8
HENLEY, DOY
1 transaction
$8,354
9
HILL, VERNON
1 transaction
$7,529
10
HARTMAN, STEPHEN
1 transaction
$5,310
11
BRADDOCK, DAVID
1 transaction
$4,702
12
WHITE, JASON
1 transaction
$4,000

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS]

ID: M000934

Top Contributors

20

1
BORCK, LEON H.
INNOVATIVE LIVESTOCK SERVICES • EXECUTIVE
IndividualMANHATTAN, KS
$6,600
Mar 11, 2024
2
MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE
DMM PROPRIETA MANAGEMENT • MANAGER
IndividualASPEN, CO
$6,600
Sep 26, 2024
3
MANDELBLATT, ERIC
SOROBAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LP • MANAGING PARTNER
IndividualASPEN, CO
$6,600
Sep 26, 2024
4
CATZ, SAFRA
ORACLE CORPORATION • CEO
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$5,000
May 5, 2023
5
MISSION INDIANS, MORONGO BAND OF
INDIAN TRIBE • INDIAN TRIBE
IndividualBANNING, CA
$5,000
Aug 13, 2024
6
WILLIS, THOMAS M
CONESTOGA ENERGY PARTNERS • CEO
IndividualLIBERAL, KS
$5,000
Aug 26, 2024
7
WEILERT, STANLEY R
S&B MOTELS, INC. • HOTELIER
IndividualWICHITA, KS
$3,500
Jun 26, 2023
8
BORCK, JACKIE
KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY • DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS
IndividualMANHATTAN, KS
$3,300
Mar 11, 2024
9
BORCK, JACKIE
KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY • DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS
IndividualMANHATTAN, KS
$3,300
Mar 11, 2024
10
THOMAS, ROBERT
SENIOR STAR • CO-OWNER
IndividualTULSA, OK
$3,300
Feb 22, 2024

Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA]

ID: G000386

Top Contributors

23

1
SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA
COMTAMA, IA
$2,000
Aug 8, 2023
2
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
COMPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jul 23, 2024
3
WINRED
PACARLINGTON, VA
$25
Jul 4, 2024
4
SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Jan 10, 2024
5
SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN
BLACKSTONE • CEO
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Jan 16, 2024
6
KUMAR, SHALLI
AVG ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY • CHAIR
IndividualBETTENDORF, IA
$6,600
Jun 11, 2024
7
STARRETT, RONALD
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualCENTENNIAL, CO
$5,800
Jan 24, 2023
8
COLLINS, RICHARD
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualMARSHALLTOWN, IA
$5,523
Oct 1, 2024
9
COLLINS, RICHARD
IndividualMARSHALLTOWN, IA
$5,523
Oct 7, 2024
10
WEISS, LUKE
HOOVER'S HATCHERY • PRESIDENT
IndividualMASON CITY, IA
$3,300
Dec 11, 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. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]

ID: B001243

Top Contributors

26

1
FRIENDS OF COMMUNITY ONCOLOGY PAC
PACVIRGINIA BEACH, VA
$5,000
Apr 12, 2023
2
THE COGGIN GROUP
OrganizationMURFREESBORO, TN
$2,900
Mar 9, 2023
3
THE COGGIN GROUP
OrganizationMURFREESBORO, TN
$2,500
Mar 9, 2023
4
DOSS BROTHERS FARM
OrganizationLAWRENCEBURG, TN
$1,000
Apr 17, 2024
5
DOSS BROTHERS FARM
OrganizationLAWRENCEBURG, TN
$1,000
Mar 18, 2024
6
BL PARTNERS GROUP LLC
OrganizationARLINGTON, VA
$500
Mar 17, 2023
7
KING, RODNEY W.
SELF-EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY
IndividualGERMANTOWN, TN
$13,200
Apr 4, 2024
8
BEAN, BILL G.
HANNING & BEAN ENTERPRISES INC. • REAL ESTATE INVESTOR
IndividualCOLUMBIA CITY, IN
$10,000
May 1, 2024
9
SMITH, THOMAS
PRESCOTT INVESTORS INC. • INVESTOR
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$10,000
May 13, 2024
10
GAMBLE, KATHRYN
UNAKA CO • BUSINESS EXECUTIVE
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$9,900
Jul 15, 2024

Sen. Ricketts, Pete [R-NE]

ID: R000618

Top Contributors

26

1
SPIKE OCOTILLO LLC
OrganizationCHANDLER, AZ
$2,500
Mar 4, 2024
2
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
OrganizationRICHMOND, VA
$1,000
Mar 28, 2024
3
KING & SPALDING LLP
OrganizationATLANTA, GA
$1,000
Mar 29, 2024
4
GREENBERG TRAURIG
OrganizationALBANY, NY
$1,000
Apr 23, 2024
5
H.A. TRUE, III
OrganizationCASPER, WY
$1,000
Aug 22, 2024
6
DELTA AIRLINES
OrganizationATLANTA, GA
$234
Apr 17, 2023
7
VANDERSLOOT, BELINDA
SELF • HOMEMAKER
IndividualIDAHO FALLS, ID
$6,600
Mar 4, 2024
8
VANDERSLOOT, FRANK
MELALEUCA • OWNER
IndividualIDAHO FALLS, ID
$6,600
Mar 4, 2024
9
MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE
RETIRED
IndividualASPEN, CO
$6,600
Jun 7, 2024
10
MANDELBLATT, ERIC
SOROBAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LP • MANAGING PARTNER
IndividualASPEN, CO
$6,600
Jun 7, 2024

Sen. Rounds, Mike [R-SD]

ID: R000605

Top Contributors

23

1
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Nov 22, 2023
2
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Apr 30, 2024
3
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationDURANT, OK
$500
Nov 1, 2024
4
ROWAN, CAROLYN
CAROLYN ROWAN COLLECTION • OWNER
IndividualGREENWICH, CT
$6,600
Mar 30, 2023
5
ROWAN, MARC J
APOLLO MGMT. • CEO
IndividualGREENWICH, CT
$6,600
Mar 30, 2023
6
HEGYI, ALBERT
1ST FINANCIAL BANK • BANKER
IndividualSOUTHPORT, CT
$6,600
Aug 22, 2023
7
ROWAN, CAROLYN
CAROLYN ROWAN COLLECTION • OWNER
IndividualGREENWICH, CT
$6,600
Mar 30, 2023
8
ROWAN, MARC J
APOLLO MGMT. • CEO
IndividualGREENWICH, CT
$6,600
Mar 30, 2023
9
HEGYI, ALBERT
1ST FINANCIAL BANK • BANKER
IndividualSOUTHPORT, CT
$6,600
Aug 22, 2023
10
PFAUTCH, ROY
CIVIC SERVICE, INC. • CONSULTANT
IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO
$6,600
Feb 20, 2024

Sen. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND]

ID: C001096

Top Contributors

26

1
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Sep 29, 2023
2
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Jun 14, 2024
3
SISSETON-WAHPETON OYATE
OrganizationAGENCY VILLAGE, SD
$2,500
Jun 21, 2024
4
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jun 18, 2024
5
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$600
Jun 6, 2023
6
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$400
Jun 6, 2023
7
WALSH, RICHARD
IndividualLAKE WORTH BEACH, FL
$6,700
Oct 16, 2024
8
JORDAN, BORIS
CURALEAF • EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$6,600
Sep 15, 2023
9
SMITH, BRAD
MICROSOFT CORPORATION • ATTORNEY
IndividualBELLEVUE, WA
$6,600
Sep 29, 2023
10
KAPLAN, DAVID
ARES MANAGEMENT • CO-FOUNDER
IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA
$6,600
Oct 11, 2023

Sen. Banks, Jim [R-IN]

ID: B001299

Top Contributors

21

1
STOCKAMP FOUNDATION
OrganizationCOLUMBIA CITY, IN
$100
Feb 26, 2024
2
NEAL, ROLLIE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualCLARKSBURG, WV
$13,068
Mar 12, 2023
3
NEAL, ROLLIE
IndividualCLARKSBURG, WV
$13,068
Mar 21, 2023
4
SALAMONE, CHRISTOPHER J
IndividualFAIRPORT, NY
$12,000
Feb 8, 2024
5
BARKLEY, JOSH
BARKLEY BUILDERS INC • GENERAL CONTRACTOR
IndividualOSSIAN, IN
$6,700
Apr 3, 2023
6
THRIFT, PAUL
THOMPSON THRIFT • CEO
IndividualTERRE HAUTE, IN
$6,700
Feb 28, 2023
7
MUSELMAN, ROGER C.
DRG HOLDINGS, LLC • CHAIRMAN
IndividualBERNE, IN
$6,700
Mar 28, 2023
8
WALTERS, KENNETH
JAYCO • PRESIDENT AND CEO
IndividualGRANGER, IN
$6,700
Sep 1, 2023
9
DUMEZICH, DANA A.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualMARCO ISLAND, FL
$6,600
Jun 15, 2023
10
RAMSEY, JASON
IndividualBREVARD, NC
$6,600
May 8, 2023

Sen. Tillis, Thomas [R-NC]

ID: T000476

Top Contributors

20

1
SASTRY, ASHWANI
SUNRISE VASCULAR • PHYSICIAN
IndividualORLANDO, FL
$3,400
Dec 12, 2024
2
AGARWAL, SAJJAN K
GREENHAWK CORPORATION • CEO
IndividualCARY, NC
$3,300
Dec 11, 2024
3
ALLYN, JILL
BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL • INVESTMENTS
IndividualESTERO, FL
$3,300
Oct 17, 2024
4
BARATTA, JOSEPH PATRICK
BLACKSTONE • FINANCE EXECUTIVE
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Dec 18, 2024
5
BARATTA, JOSEPH PATRICK
BLACKSTONE • FINANCE EXECUTIVE
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Dec 18, 2024
6
BIELEN, RICHARD J
PROTECTIVE LIFE CORPORATION • PRESIDENT & CEO
IndividualMOUNTAIN BRK, AL
$3,300
Oct 29, 2024
7
BLITZER, DAVID S
BLACKSTONE • CHAIRMAN
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Dec 12, 2024
8
BLITZER, DAVID S
BLACKSTONE • CHAIRMAN
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Dec 12, 2024
9
BRAND, MARTIN
BLACKSTONE • FINANCE
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Dec 20, 2024
10
CAMERON, WILLIAM H
CAMERON MANAGMENT • PRESIDENT
IndividualWILMINGTON, NC
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024

Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]

ID: C001075

Top Contributors

20

1
YAWITZ, JESS B. MR.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO
$14,000
Jun 11, 2024
2
MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE
DMM PROPRIETA MANAGEMENT • MANAGER
IndividualASPEN, CO
$9,900
Nov 2, 2023
3
MANDELBLATT, ERIC
SOROBAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LP • MANAGING PARTNER
IndividualASPEN, CO
$9,900
Nov 2, 2023
4
JAYASINGHE, SAMAN K. DR.
SELF-EMPLOYED • PHYSICIAN
IndividualBATON ROUGE, LA
$9,900
Jun 13, 2024
5
KARP, ALEXANDER C.
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES • CEO
IndividualBEDFORD, NH
$9,900
Apr 16, 2024
6
OBERNDORF, SUSAN
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$9,900
Jun 5, 2024
7
OBERNDORF, WILLIAM
OBERNDORF ENTERPRISES • OWNER
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$9,900
Jun 5, 2024
8
YAWITZ, ALICE G.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualST. LOUIS, MO
$9,900
Jun 18, 2024
9
GRIGSBY, BOBBI F. MRS.
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualBATON ROUGE, LA
$6,600
Dec 23, 2024
10
GRIGSBY, L. LANE MR.
CAJUN INDUSTRIES LLC • CHAIRMAN EMERITUS
IndividualBATON ROUGE, LA
$6,600
Dec 23, 2024

Donor Network - Sen. Kennedy, John [R-LA]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 35 nodes and 46 connections

Total contributions: $46

Top Donors - Sen. Kennedy, John [R-LA]

Showing top 12 donors by contribution amount

12 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • +Firearms & Ammunitionconfidence 0.90

    Section 2(a) prohibits VA from transmitting beneficiary info to DOJ for NICS without judicial finding of danger, which reduces background checks and thus benefits firearms industry by easing gun access.

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 Veterans Affairs

Weak
Vector: 65%
Pages: 688-691AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses veterans' Second Amendment rights by limiting VA data sharing for background checks, whereas the Project 2025 VA section focuses on healthcare reforms, the Mission Act, and PACT Act initiatives without mentioning gun rights or background checks, resulting only a tangential connection through veterans and VA administration."

Key themes:veteransDepartment of Veterans AffairsSecretary of Veterans Affairsbenefitsjudicial oversight

— 655 — Department of Veterans Affairs ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Division, VHA Directive 1003, “VHA Veteran Patient Experience,” April 14, 2020, pp. 1 and B-1. 2. S. 2372, VA Mission Act of 2018, Public Law No. 115-182, 115th Congress, June 6, 2018, https://www.congress. gov/115/plaws/publ182/PLAW-115publ182.pdf (accessed January 30, 2023). 3. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, VA History Office, “VA History,” last updated May 27, 2021, https://www. va.gov/HISTORY/VA_History/Overview.asp (accessed January 28, 2023). 4. 38 U.S. Code § 1116, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/1116 (accessed January 28, 2023). 5. S. 3373, Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022 (Honoring Our PACT Act of 2022), Public Law No. 117-168, 117th Congress, August 10, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ168/PLAW-117publ168.pdf (accessed January 28, 2023). 6. H.R. 2471, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, Public Law No. 117-103, 117th Congress, March 15, 2022, Division S, Title I, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ103/PLAW-117publ103.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). Known variously as the Department of Veterans Affairs Nurse and Physician Assistant Retention and Income Security Enhancement Act and the VA Nurse and Physician Assistant RAISE Act. 7. See note 5, supra.

Department of Justice

Weak
Vector: 64%
Pages: 596-598AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on protecting veterans' Second Amendment rights by restricting VA data sharing with DOJ for background checks, while the Project 2025 DOJ section emphasizes prosecuting election-related civil rights violations under 18 U.S.C. § 241 and rejecting politically motivated third-party requests. There is minimal thematic overlap, primarily involving DOJ jurisdiction and concerns about politicization, but no direct policy alignment."

Key themes:Department of Justicepoliticization concernsjurisdictional authority

— 564 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Pennsylvania Act 12 (amended in 2020) does not authorize curing by providing provisional ballots for mail-in voters whose ballots were rejected. Act 12 requires, as part of the mail-in application process, an affidavit that: [The elector] shall not be eligible to vote at a polling place on election day unless the elector brings the elector’s mail-in ballot to the elector’s polling place, remits the ballot and the envelope containing the declaration of the elector to the judge of elections to be spoiled and signs a statement subject to the penalties under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 (relating to unsworn falsification to authorities) to the same effect.84 The law in Pennsylvania clearly states that no county may affirmatively provide provisional ballots: The mail-in voter must vote in person and sign a new affidavit. In the 2020 election, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognized that “the Election Code contains no requirement that voters whose ballots are deemed inadequately verified be apprised of this fact. Thus, unlike in-person voters, mail-in or absentee voters are not provided any opportunity to cure perceived defects in a timely man- ner.”85 Given the Pennsylvania Secretary of State’s use of guidance to circumvent state law, the Pennsylvania Secretary of State should have been (and still should be) investigated and prosecuted for potential violations of 18 U.S. Code § 241. Investigations and prosecutions under 18 U.S. Code § 241 are currently within the jurisdictional oversight of the Civil Rights Division, not the Criminal Division.86 Only by moving authority for 18 U.S. Code § 241 investigations and prosecutions back to the Criminal Division will the rule of law be appropriately enforced. Rejecting Third-Party Requests for Politically Motivated Investigations or Prosecutions. The DOJ should reject demands from third-party groups that ask it to threaten politically motivated investigation or prosecution of those engag- ing in lawful and, in many cases, constitutionally protected activity. By acceding to such demands, the department risks diminishing its credibility with the American public. This risk is exacerbated by the fact that communications between govern- ment officials and third-party groups are generally unprotected by privilege and subject to disclosure, whether via subpoena to the third-party group or via request made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. These communications can even be made public voluntarily by the third-party group. A recent example illustrates the risks posed by such activity. On October 4, 2021, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memorandum to the Director of the FBI, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and the Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, calling on the FBI to work with each U.S. Attorney to “con- vene meetings with federal, state, local, Tribal, and territorial leaders” to discuss strategies for addressing “threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.”87 Subsequent reporting and investigation revealed that the — 565 — Department of Justice memorandum was prompted by a September 29, 2021, letter sent by the National School Boards Association (NSBA) to President Biden demanding a federal law enforcement response to perceived threats to school board members and pub- lic-school employees. The NSBA letter made outlandish demands in response to protests that were then occurring at school board meetings in response to COVID policies and revela- tions about the use of critical race theory–infused curricula in classrooms. Among the letter’s demands was a call for a federal investigation into parents’ actions (“hei- nous actions” that “could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes”) under a variety of federal laws including the “Gun-Free Zones Act, the PATRIOT Act in regards to domestic terrorism, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes and Prevention Act, the Violent Interference with Federally Protected Rights statute, and the Conspiracy Against Rights statute” and “an Executive Order to enforce all applicable federal laws for the protection of students and public school district personnel, and any related measure.”88 Both the Attorney General’s memorandum and the NSBA letter drew swift public condemnation, including from 14 sitting state Attorneys General.89 A sub- sequent internal investigation commissioned by the NSBA revealed that officials at the White House had been in discussions with NSBA officials about the contents of the letter weeks before it was issued. The investigation also revealed that White House officials indicated they planned to raise the contents of the draft letter with DOJ officials a full week before the NSBA’s letter was issued.90 This cooperation by a third-party group, the White House, and the DOJ to craft and coordinate a response to an ill-advised and politically motivated letter under- mines the department’s credibility as an impartial law enforcement agency. In the words of the 14 state Attorneys General who wrote to oppose the department’s memorandum, “potential collusion between the White House, the Department, and the NSBA in the actual creation of the September 29 letter—as a pretext for threats against parents—raises serious concerns.”91 The DOJ should carefully scrutinize all requests for law enforcement assis- tance and reject requests by third parties to engage in political grandstanding that ignores the department’s traditional jurisdictional limits and that would trample politically controversial but constitutionally protected activity. Ensuring Proper Distribution of DOJ Grant Funds. DOJ grants are an underutilized asset in most conservative Administrations. When used properly, they can be highly effective in implementing the President’s priorities. The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) is comprised of six components and is responsible for most DOJ grants to local law enforcement, juvenile justice, and victims of crime as well as for criminal justice research and statistics. The opportunity to support a President’s agenda may be greater through OJP grant funding than it is through any of the federal government’s other grant-making components.

Department of Justice

Minimal
Vector: 65%
Pages: 596-598AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on protecting veterans' Second Amendment rights by restricting VA data sharing with the DOJ for background checks, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt concerns DOJ jurisdiction over voter fraud and election crimes under 18 U.S.C. § 241. There is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 563 — Department of Justice Voter fraud includes unlawful practices concerning voter registration and ballot correction. When state legislatures are silent as to procedures for absentee ballot curing or provide specific rules governing that curing, neither counties nor courts may create a cure right where one does not exist, may not modify the law on curing, and certainly cannot engage in creating consent orders with the force of law that are inconsistent with the orders of other similarly situated counties. The DOJ has ceded substantial discretion concerning voter suppression to the Civil Rights Division. Since the Bush Administration, DOJ leadership has determined that using the Election Crimes Branch to prosecute fraudulent voter registration, including mail-in ballot fraud, was too politically costly.78 The Crim- inal Division’s Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses handbook advised that schemes that violated equal protection constituted “voter suppression” prosecut- able under 18 U.S. Code § 241 as part of the guidelines for which the department’s criminal prosecutors were trained.79 State-based investigations of election crimes are supposed to be referred to the Public Integrity Section for review. Historically, 18 U.S. Code § 241 (conspiracy against rights) was used as a basis for investigating state officials whose statements or orders violated the equal protection rights of voters or deliberately misinformed voters concerning the eligibility of their ballots. Nevertheless, the Department of Justice has formalized the Civil Rights Divi- sion’s (as opposed to the Criminal Division’s) jurisdiction over 18 U.S. Code § 241 investigations and prosecutions. The Criminal Division is no longer involved in consultation or review of 18 U.S. Code § 241 investigations.80 The Criminal Division has accordingly advised states that “[i]n the case of a crime of violence or intimida- tion,” they should “call 911 immediately and before contacting federal authorities” because “[s]tate and local police have primary jurisdiction over polling places,”81 despite clearly applicable federal law. This is a mistake. With respect to the 2020 presidential election, there were no DOJ investigations of the appropriateness or lawfulness of state election guidance. Consider the state of Pennsylvania. The Secretary of State sent guidance to the counties stating that: This revised guidance addresses the issuance, voting and examination of provisional ballots under the Election Code. Provisional ballots were originally mandated by section 302 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). Provisional ballot amendments included in Act 77 of 2019 went into effect for the 2020 Primary election. Provisional ballot amendments included in Act 12 of 2020 go into effect for the first time on November 3, 2020.82 HAVA, however, mandates provisional ballots only for eligible voters who were not on a state’s voter registration list.83 It does not apply to those who registered for mail-in voting but whose ballots were rejected due to some form of spoliation. — 564 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Pennsylvania Act 12 (amended in 2020) does not authorize curing by providing provisional ballots for mail-in voters whose ballots were rejected. Act 12 requires, as part of the mail-in application process, an affidavit that: [The elector] shall not be eligible to vote at a polling place on election day unless the elector brings the elector’s mail-in ballot to the elector’s polling place, remits the ballot and the envelope containing the declaration of the elector to the judge of elections to be spoiled and signs a statement subject to the penalties under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 (relating to unsworn falsification to authorities) to the same effect.84 The law in Pennsylvania clearly states that no county may affirmatively provide provisional ballots: The mail-in voter must vote in person and sign a new affidavit. In the 2020 election, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognized that “the Election Code contains no requirement that voters whose ballots are deemed inadequately verified be apprised of this fact. Thus, unlike in-person voters, mail-in or absentee voters are not provided any opportunity to cure perceived defects in a timely man- ner.”85 Given the Pennsylvania Secretary of State’s use of guidance to circumvent state law, the Pennsylvania Secretary of State should have been (and still should be) investigated and prosecuted for potential violations of 18 U.S. Code § 241. Investigations and prosecutions under 18 U.S. Code § 241 are currently within the jurisdictional oversight of the Civil Rights Division, not the Criminal Division.86 Only by moving authority for 18 U.S. Code § 241 investigations and prosecutions back to the Criminal Division will the rule of law be appropriately enforced. Rejecting Third-Party Requests for Politically Motivated Investigations or Prosecutions. The DOJ should reject demands from third-party groups that ask it to threaten politically motivated investigation or prosecution of those engag- ing in lawful and, in many cases, constitutionally protected activity. By acceding to such demands, the department risks diminishing its credibility with the American public. This risk is exacerbated by the fact that communications between govern- ment officials and third-party groups are generally unprotected by privilege and subject to disclosure, whether via subpoena to the third-party group or via request made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. These communications can even be made public voluntarily by the third-party group. A recent example illustrates the risks posed by such activity. On October 4, 2021, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memorandum to the Director of the FBI, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and the Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, calling on the FBI to work with each U.S. Attorney to “con- vene meetings with federal, state, local, Tribal, and territorial leaders” to discuss strategies for addressing “threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.”87 Subsequent reporting and investigation revealed that the

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