Quapaw Tribal Settlement Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/630

Last Updated: June 3, 2026

Quapaw Tribal Settlement Act of 2025

S. 630, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Sen. Mullin, Markwayne [R-OK]

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

The money

$78,800 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of the Interior" section, p. 572-574 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 Indian Affairs. Hearings held.

June 2, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

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

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**Analysis and Summary of S 630: Quapaw Tribal Settlement Act of 2025**

As a visionary entrepreneur and astute observer of the legislative landscape, I shall dissect this bill with surgical precision, focusing on its implications for wealth, power, and the efficient allocation of resources.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of S 630 is to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to make payments to the Quapaw Nation and certain members of the Quapaw Nation in accordance with a court-ordered settlement. This bill aims to resolve a long-standing dispute between the Quapaw Nation and the United States government, providing a one-time payment of $137,500,000.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill establishes a Special Deposit Account within the Department of the Interior Bureau of Trust Funds Administration, known as the "Quapaw Bear Settlement Trust Account." The Secretary of the Interior will administer these funds and distribute them according to a mutually agreed upon plan among the Claimants. If mediation fails, the Secretary may determine a final distribution plan.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders are the Quapaw Nation and its members, who stand to receive the settlement payment. The United States government, specifically the Department of the Interior and the Treasury, will also be involved in administering and disbursing the funds.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** From a macro perspective, this bill represents a minor adjustment to the existing framework governing Native American affairs. However, it highlights the inefficiencies inherent in the current system, where disputes are often resolved through costly litigation rather than efficient market mechanisms.

As a forward-thinking entrepreneur, I recognize that this settlement payment could have been more effectively allocated through private sector initiatives, such as impact investing or social entrepreneurship programs. Instead, the government is intervening with a one-time payment, which may not address the underlying structural issues affecting the Quapaw Nation.

In conclusion, S 630 represents a minor, albeit necessary, adjustment to the existing framework governing Native American affairs. However, it underscores the need for more innovative and efficient solutions to address the complex challenges facing indigenous communities. As a visionary leader, I would advocate for more market-driven approaches that prioritize private sector investment and entrepreneurship over government intervention.

**Projecting Forward:** Assuming this bill becomes law, I estimate that the Quapaw Nation will receive the settlement payment within 12-18 months. However, without more comprehensive reforms, it is unlikely to have a significant impact on the broader Native American community or the US economy as a whole.

In terms of potential opportunities for growth and investment, I would recommend exploring private sector initiatives that focus on sustainable development, education, and entrepreneurship within indigenous communities. By leveraging market forces and innovative technologies, we can create more effective solutions that promote economic empowerment and self-sufficiency among Native American populations.

**Recommendations:** To maximize the impact of this settlement payment, I suggest:

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process to become an actual law.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Quapaw Tribal Settlement Act of 2025 aims to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to make payments to the Quapaw Nation and certain members of the Quapaw Nation in accordance with the recommendation of the United States Court of Federal Claims. The bill's primary objective is to settle a long-standing claim by providing $137,500,000 to the affected parties.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill establishes a Special Deposit Account, known as the Quapaw Bear Settlement Trust Account, within the Department of the Interior Bureau of Trust Funds Administration. The Secretary of the Interior will administer these funds and make payments to the claimants in accordance with the report from the United States Court of Federal Claims.

Notably, this bill does not introduce significant changes to existing law but rather provides a specific solution to a particular case. As we covered in 8th grade civics, bills can either create new laws or amend existing ones; in this instance, it's more of an administrative fix.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The primary stakeholders are the Quapaw Nation and its members who were part of the claim against the United States government. The bill also affects the Secretary of the Interior, the Bureau of Trust Funds Administration, and the Treasury Department, which will be responsible for making the payments.

Remember when we learned about the importance of checks and balances in our system? This bill demonstrates how different branches of government work together to resolve disputes and provide remedies. In this case, the legislative branch is authorizing the executive branch to take specific actions.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The Quapaw Tribal Settlement Act has significant implications for the affected parties, as it provides a long-awaited resolution to their claim. The bill's passage will likely bring closure and financial compensation to those who have been waiting for years.

However, this bill also highlights the complexities of our system, where disputes can take years or even decades to resolve. As I taught you in 8th grade civics, our system is designed to be slow and deliberative, with multiple checks and balances to ensure that power is not concentrated in one branch or entity.

Now, if only more adults had paid attention in their middle school civics class...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The Quapaw Tribal Settlement Act of 2025 - sounds like a straightforward bill, but trust me, folks, there's more to it than meets the eye. Let me break it down for you.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

On the surface, this bill aims to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to make payments to the Quapaw Nation and its members in accordance with a court-ordered settlement. The bill establishes a trust account to manage these funds and outlines procedures for distributing them among the claimants. But what's really going on here? Is it just a simple matter of settling a long-standing dispute, or is there something more at play?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill creates a new trust account within the Department of the Interior, which will be used to manage the settlement funds. It also establishes procedures for mediation and distribution of these funds among the claimants. But what's interesting is that the bill gives the Secretary of the Interior significant authority over the management of these funds, including the power to determine a final distribution plan if the claimants can't agree on one.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The Quapaw Nation and its members are the primary beneficiaries of this bill. However, I'd argue that there are other stakeholders at play here as well - namely, the federal government itself. By establishing a trust account and giving the Secretary of the Interior control over it, the government is essentially inserting itself into the financial affairs of the Quapaw Nation.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

Now, this is where things get really interesting. On one hand, this bill could provide much-needed compensation to the Quapaw Nation for past injustices. However, I'd argue that there's a larger agenda at play here. By establishing a trust account and giving the government control over it, we're essentially creating a new mechanism for the federal government to exert influence over Native American tribes.

Think about it - this bill sets a precedent for the government to insert itself into the financial affairs of other Native American tribes as well. It's a subtle but significant expansion of federal power, and one that could have far-reaching implications for tribal sovereignty.

But wait, there's more! I'd also argue that this bill is part of a larger pattern of government behavior - namely, using seemingly innocuous legislation to further its own interests. Think about all the other bills we've seen in recent years that have quietly expanded federal power or undermined individual rights. This one might seem small potatoes by comparison, but trust me, it's just another piece in the puzzle.

So there you have it, folks - my analysis of the Quapaw Tribal Settlement Act of 2025. It may look like a simple bill on the surface, but scratch beneath the surface and you'll find all sorts of interesting implications.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got a doozy of a bill on our hands here. The Quapaw Tribal Settlement Act of 2025 - sounds like a real thriller, doesn't it? (smirk)

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This bill is all about settling some old scores with the Quapaw Nation. It's a big ol' apology check from the federal government for past wrongs, to the tune of $137.5 million. The feds are essentially saying, "Hey, we messed up, here's some cash." (shrugs) Who doesn't love a good payout?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill establishes a special trust account, the Quapaw Bear Settlement Trust Account, where all this lovely money will be deposited. The Secretary of the Interior gets to administer it, and the funds will be distributed according to a plan that's yet to be determined by the claimants themselves. There's some mediation involved, and if that doesn't work out, the Secretary gets to step in and make the final call.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

Well, the Quapaw Nation is the big winner here, obviously. They're getting a nice chunk of change for past grievances. But let's not forget about the taxpayers - you know, the ones footing the bill for this settlement? (winks) And then there are the bureaucrats at the Department of the Interior, who get to oversee this whole process.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

Now, some might say this is just a handout to a special interest group. Others might argue it's long-overdue justice for historical wrongs. Me? I'm just here to tell you that this bill is a masterclass in bureaucratic red tape and taxpayer-funded largesse. (smirks) But hey, who doesn't love a good settlement?

In all seriousness, folks, this bill is a reminder that our government loves making deals with special interest groups - and sometimes those deals come at the expense of the American people. So, let's keep an eye on this one and see how it all shakes out.

(Leans in, conspiratorially) You know what they say: "Follow the money." Well, I'm following this bill, and I'll be keeping you updated every step of the way. Stay vigilant, patriots!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another exercise in legislative theater, courtesy of our esteemed Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Quapaw Tribal Settlement Act of 2025 is a masterclass in bureaucratic doublespeak. Ostensibly, it aims to provide a settlement to the Quapaw Nation and certain members for... well, that's not entirely clear from the bill itself. But don't worry, I'll get to the real purpose later.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill establishes a Special Deposit Account (because who doesn't love a good slush fund?) to hold $137.5 million in settlement funds. The Secretary of the Interior will administer these funds, because that's not a recipe for disaster. The bill also sets up a mediation process for distributing the funds among claimants, which is just a fancy way of saying "we'll let them fight over it."

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The Quapaw Nation and its members are the nominal beneficiaries of this settlement. But let's be real, they're not the ones who will truly benefit from this bill. The real winners are the politicians and bureaucrats who get to pat themselves on the back for "helping" Native Americans while lining their own pockets.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a textbook example of legislative malpractice. It's a payoff to special interests, wrapped in a veneer of altruism. The real disease here is corruption, and this bill is just a symptom. By creating a slush fund and empowering bureaucrats to distribute it, Congress is essentially saying, "Hey, we trust our friends at the Interior Department to do the right thing... with your money."

But what's really going on here? This bill is likely the result of backroom deals between politicians, lobbyists, and tribal leaders. The Quapaw Nation gets a settlement, but at what cost? The real cost will be borne by taxpayers, who will foot the bill for this boondoggle.

In medical terms, this bill is like prescribing a placebo to a patient with a terminal illness. It might make everyone feel good in the short term, but it won't address the underlying disease. And when the dust settles, we'll be left with more corruption, more waste, and more of the same old politics as usual.

Diagnosis: Legislative Corruption Syndrome (LCS). Treatment: transparency, accountability, and a healthy dose of skepticism towards our elected officials. Prognosis: poor, unless we demand better from our government.

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

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Quapaw Tribal Settlement Act of 2025 (S. 630) aims to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to make payments to the Quapaw Nation and certain members of the Quapaw Nation in accordance with a recommendation by the United States Court of Federal Claims. The bill seeks to resolve a long-standing dispute between the Quapaw Nation and the federal government, providing compensation for past grievances.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill establishes a Special Deposit Account, known as the "Quapaw Bear Settlement Trust Account," within the Department of the Interior Bureau of Trust Funds Administration. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to administer all funds appropriated to this account. Key provisions include:

* Authorization for a one-time payment of $137,500,000 from the Treasury to the Quapaw Bear Settlement Trust Account. * Establishment of a distribution plan by the Claimants (Quapaw Nation and individual members) in accordance with the Report. * Mediation procedures for resolving disputes related to allocation and distribution of settlement proceeds. * Secretarial Allocation procedures as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The affected parties include:

* The Quapaw Nation * Individual members of the Quapaw Nation identified in Exhibit A to the amended complaint (Bear, et al. v. United States) * The Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau of Trust Funds Administration * The Secretary of the Treasury

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The bill's passage could have significant implications for:

* The Quapaw Nation: Providing long-awaited compensation for past grievances and potentially resolving a decades-long dispute. * Tribal-Federal Relations: Demonstrating the federal government's commitment to addressing historical injustices and promoting reconciliation with Native American tribes. * Trust Fund Administration: Establishing a new trust account and procedures for managing settlement funds, which may set a precedent for future tribal settlements.

Overall, the Quapaw Tribal Settlement Act of 2025 seeks to provide a fair and just resolution to a long-standing dispute between the Quapaw Nation and the federal government, promoting reconciliation and accountability in tribal-federal relations.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Quapaw Tribal Settlement Act of 2025 is all about makin' things right with the Quapaw Nation, dude. The main goal is to provide a settlement for the tribe and its members who were affected by some past injustices. The bill aims to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to make payments to the Quapaw Nation and certain members in accordance with a court-ordered recommendation.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill establishes a Special Deposit Account, called the Quapaw Bear Settlement Trust Account, within the Department of the Interior Bureau of Trust Funds Administration. This account will hold $137.5 million, which will be paid out to the claimants (the Quapaw Nation and its members) in accordance with a report from the United States Court of Federal Claims.

The bill also sets up a process for distributin' these funds among the claimants. They'll need to come up with a distribution plan, which might involve mediation or, if that doesn't work out, a Secretarial Allocation process led by the Secretary of the Interior.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill's got some key players, bro:

* The Quapaw Nation and its members: They're the ones who'll be receivin' the settlement payments. * The Secretary of the Treasury: This dude's responsible for makin' the payment to the trust account. * The Secretary of the Interior: This person will administer the trust account and oversee the distribution process.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill's got some significant implications, man:

* It'll provide a long-overdue settlement for the Quapaw Nation and its members, which could help 'em move forward from past injustices. * The bill sets a precedent for how the government handles similar claims in the future. * The distribution process might get complicated, but it's designed to be fair and transparent.

Overall, this bill's all about makin' amends and movin' forward, bro. It's a step towards healin' some old wounds and buildin' trust between the Quapaw Nation and the government.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: S 630 - Quapaw Tribal Settlement Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Quapaw Tribal Settlement Act of 2025 aims to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to make a one-time payment of $137,500,000 to the Quapaw Nation and certain individual members in accordance with a court-ordered settlement. The bill seeks to resolve a long-standing dispute between the Quapaw Nation and the United States government.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill establishes a Special Deposit Account within the Department of the Interior, known as the Quapaw Bear Settlement Trust Account, to hold the settlement funds. The Secretary of the Interior will administer these funds and distribute them according to a plan established by the Claimants (Quapaw Nation and individual members). If the Claimants fail to agree on a distribution plan within 45 days, they may submit to mediation or seek Secretarial Allocation.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders are:

1. Quapaw Nation 2. Individual members of the Quapaw Nation identified in the complaint and amended complaint (Exhibit A) 3. United States government (Department of the Interior and Treasury)

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* The bill provides a long-awaited resolution to the dispute between the Quapaw Nation and the US government, potentially ending years of litigation. * The settlement payment may have significant economic implications for the Quapaw Nation, enabling them to invest in community development projects, infrastructure, and social programs. * The establishment of the Quapaw Bear Settlement Trust Account ensures that the funds are managed and distributed transparently, with oversight from the Secretary of the Interior.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** While there is no apparent direct industry influence or PAC involvement in this bill, it's worth noting that:

* Senator Mullin (R-OK), one of the bill's sponsors, has received campaign contributions from various Native American tribes and organizations, including the Quapaw Nation. * The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and other tribal advocacy groups may have an interest in this legislation, as it sets a precedent for resolving similar disputes between Native American tribes and the federal government.

Overall, S 630 appears to be a straightforward bill aimed at resolving a specific dispute between the Quapaw Nation and the US government. However, the involvement of Senator Mullin and potential interests from tribal advocacy groups warrant attention to ensure that the legislation is not unduly influenced by external factors.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Mullin, Markwayne [R-OK]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$432,800

204 donors

PACs

Organizations

$66,900

Committees

Individuals

$365,900

No PAC contributions found

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE INDIAN TRIBE

2 transactions

$6,600

MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

2 transactions

$6,600

SNOQUALMIE TRIBE

2 transactions

$6,600

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

2 transactions

$6,000

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS

2 transactions

$5,000

MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION

1 transaction

$3,300

THE CHICKASAW NATION

1 transaction

$3,300

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

1 transaction

$3,000

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$3,000

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

1 transaction

$2,900

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

1 transaction

$2,900

PALA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$2,900

THE UTE INDIAN TRIBE

1 transaction

$2,800

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$2,500

SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION

1 transaction

$2,500

ONEIDA NATION

1 transaction

$2,000

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

2 transactions

$2,000

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,500

SENECA NATION OF INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,000

CHOCTAW NATION

1 transaction

$500

No committee contributions found

KIMBER, SHELDON

4 transactions

$12,000

GARVER, C M

3 transactions

$10,300

NAGEL, RICK R. MR.

2 transactions

$8,300

GAYLOR, JOHN R.

2 transactions

$7,100

MILLER, JEFFREY

2 transactions

$7,100

BUERGER, ALAN

2 transactions

$6,600

CROTTY, THOMAS

2 transactions

$6,600

EVANS, ROGER

2 transactions

$6,600

MCCALL, CHARLES

2 transactions

$6,600

MCCALL, CHARLES A.

2 transactions

$6,600

MCCALL, CLAY

2 transactions

$6,600

MCDAVID, CARLY

2 transactions

$6,600

MCKNIGHT, DREW

2 transactions

$6,600

PEMBERTON, LEWIS PECK

2 transactions

$6,600

STONE, SHELDON

2 transactions

$6,600

WALTON, S. ROBSON

2 transactions

$6,600

WEBB, DAN

2 transactions

$6,600

WEINER, KANE

2 transactions

$6,600

GRAY, C. BOYDEN

2 transactions

$5,000

MARTIN, JOHN

2 transactions

$5,000

MACKINNON, JEFFREY M MR.

3 transactions

$3,500

BURRAGE, STEVE MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

BURRAGE, STEVEN MARK

1 transaction

$3,300

FIELDS, JACK

1 transaction

$3,300

HOLLAND, LUCAS

1 transaction

$3,300

LANCE, BILL G. MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

MAYER, TONY

1 transaction

$3,300

MCCALL, CARSON HAYS

1 transaction

$3,300

MCCALL, CHARLES IV

1 transaction

$3,300

MCKEE, JACK MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

NIXON, DENNIS

1 transaction

$3,300

NORMAN, DAVID

1 transaction

$3,300

OSTER, ROBERT

1 transaction

$3,300

LAZARSKI, ANTHONY J. MR.

2 transactions

$3,000

BODE, JOHN MR.

1 transaction

$2,900

CAI, PING

1 transaction

$2,900

DU, ZHENG

1 transaction

$2,900

FLATT, RAYMOND

1 transaction

$2,900

FLINN, ELDON MR.

1 transaction

$2,900

FLOWERS, CHRIS MR.

1 transaction

$2,900

GUO, MEIRONG

1 transaction

$2,900

HATTON, DAVID DWAYNE MR.

1 transaction

$2,900

LEVINSON, LEE I. MR.

1 transaction

$2,900

LIU, HUIYING

1 transaction

$2,900

NI, YUN FENG

1 transaction

$2,900

TAYLOR, BRUCE

1 transaction

$2,900

WILEY, LAWRENCE

1 transaction

$2,900

ZHOU, YUAN

1 transaction

$2,900

BUERGE, ROBIN

1 transaction

$2,500

CURTIS, CHANDA

1 transaction

$2,500

DERDERIAN, JAMES MR.

1 transaction

$2,500

GEDULDIG, SAM MR.

1 transaction

$2,500

HAUCK, MEGAN

1 transaction

$2,500

JOHNSON, H. FISK

1 transaction

$2,500

RICHARDS, JIM

1 transaction

$2,500

RITTER, RYAN MR.

1 transaction

$2,500

SMITH, LARRY

1 transaction

$2,500

STERNFELS, ROBERT

1 transaction

$2,500

STIPICEVIC, JOHN

1 transaction

$2,500

FIELD, MARSHALL

1 transaction

$2,000

FORBES, ANDREW

1 transaction

$2,000

GUIDA, ALFONSO MR. JR.

2 transactions

$2,000

JOYCE, SEAN

2 transactions

$2,000

LINK, TUCKER

1 transaction

$2,000

MARSHALL, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$2,000

POPP, MONICA

2 transactions

$2,000

SHUMWAY, CHAD

1 transaction

$2,000

ARNDT, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$1,500

BARKER, GUY

1 transaction

$1,500

BOLIN, BILL

1 transaction

$1,500

BRAVO, MATTHEW

1 transaction

$1,500

GAILEY, MARK M. MR.

1 transaction

$1,500

HILER, JONATHAN

2 transactions

$1,500

HIRSHEY, KEN

1 transaction

$1,500

JACKSON, RYAN

1 transaction

$1,500

MAGALLANES, NICOLAS

1 transaction

$1,500

PAC, SNC

1 transaction

$1,500

WHITE, JOEL MR.

1 transaction

$1,500

WOLF, JOSEPH

1 transaction

$1,500

WRIGHT, ALLEN

1 transaction

$1,500

BARBER, SHONNA

2 transactions

$1,000

BARBY, ALLEN

1 transaction

$1,000

BEALL, DONALD R.

1 transaction

$1,000

BUCKALEW, ADAM L

1 transaction

$1,000

CALLAHAN, KENNETH III

1 transaction

$1,000

CANTRELL, MIKE

1 transaction

$1,000

CARON, CHRISTOPHER

1 transaction

$1,000

COOPER, JILL

1 transaction

$1,000

COPELAND, GERRET VANSWERINGEN JR.

1 transaction

$1,000

COX, ROBERT MR. AND MR

1 transaction

$1,000

DOWNS, RAISSA

1 transaction

$1,000

FOWLER, KATHY

1 transaction

$1,000

GUNN, ASHLEY

1 transaction

$1,000

HARROZ, JOE

1 transaction

$1,000

HATZIS, LUKE

1 transaction

$1,000

HENKE, FRAZIER

1 transaction

$1,000

HODGSON, CHRIS

1 transaction

$1,000

KING, ANDREW

1 transaction

$1,000

LAMB, MONICA

1 transaction

$1,000

100

LASS, CON

1 transaction

$1,000

101

LOPER, GINGER

2 transactions

$1,000

102

LUCAS, JANE

1 transaction

$1,000

103

MCDONALD, MIKE

1 transaction

$1,000

104

MCDOUGALL, CHAD T. MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

105

MILLER, BRIAN

1 transaction

$1,000

106

NIELSEN, MIKE

2 transactions

$1,000

107

OSBORN, WILLIAM MR. AND MR

1 transaction

$1,000

108

PATAKI, TIM

1 transaction

$1,000

109

PAUP, SPIVEY

1 transaction

$1,000

110

PEARSON, DUANNE

1 transaction

$1,000

111

POLAK, ERIN

1 transaction

$1,000

112

POTEET, PAUL

1 transaction

$1,000

113

RADY, PAUL

1 transaction

$1,000

114

REID, RANDI

2 transactions

$1,000

115

RIPLINGER, SCOTT

1 transaction

$1,000

116

SCOFIELD, JOHN

1 transaction

$1,000

117

SHAW, RHOD

1 transaction

$1,000

118

STEIN, MARTIN

1 transaction

$1,000

119

STRUNK, JEFFREY

1 transaction

$1,000

120

SZAFRANSKI, JOHN

1 transaction

$1,000

121

THROCKMORTON, CHRIS

1 transaction

$1,000

122

TRYSLA, TIM

1 transaction

$1,000

123

WILLCOX, DARREN

1 transaction

$1,000

124

WITCHEY, DEBBIE

1 transaction

$1,000

125

ALSPACH, ROBERT

1 transaction

$500

126

BAKER, GEORGE D MR.

1 transaction

$500

127

BARTLETT, DOYLE

1 transaction

$500

128

BILL, TERESA

1 transaction

$500

129

BRAATEN, TYLER

1 transaction

$500

130

BRANDT, KIMBERLY

1 transaction

$500

131

BUCKALEW, ADAM L.

1 transaction

$500

132

CARAM, GEORGE

1 transaction

$500

133

CARD, BRAD

1 transaction

$500

134

CATANZARO, MIKE

1 transaction

$500

135

CHOE, YONG

1 transaction

$500

136

COLE, KELLY

1 transaction

$500

137

DELGADO, MARTIN

1 transaction

$500

138

DEMERITT, DARYN

1 transaction

$500

139

DIAZ DE LA RUBIO, TOMAS

1 transaction

$500

140

DILLINGHAM, DON

1 transaction

$500

141

DOBIAS, MATTHEW

1 transaction

$500

142

EDATTEL, PAUL

1 transaction

$500

143

FINCH, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$500

144

HALITI, BESNIK

1 transaction

$500

145

HALL, HUNTER

1 transaction

$500

146

HAMBY, JAMES

1 transaction

$500

147

HAWKS, T.A.

1 transaction

$500

148

HEAFITZ, JONATHAN

1 transaction

$500

149

HENRY, VALERIE

1 transaction

$500

150

HUNT, HOLLYE

1 transaction

$500

151

IRIZARRY, STEVEN

1 transaction

$500

152

KEATING, FRANK

1 transaction

$500

153

KEISER, ANDREW

1 transaction

$500

154

LAMP, DAVE

1 transaction

$500

155

LANAGAN, LINDSAY

1 transaction

$500

156

LEPORE, JOHN

1 transaction

$500

157

LONG, CHARLES

1 transaction

$500

158

LOUGHRAN, TIM

1 transaction

$500

159

LUKAWSKI, JENNIFER MS.

1 transaction

$500

160

MANDEL, JESSICA

1 transaction

$500

161

MARSHALL, HAZEN

1 transaction

$500

162

MAY, ELIZABETH

1 transaction

$500

163

MCELROY, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$500

164

MERCER, K. ELAINE

1 transaction

$500

165

MOOREHEAD, PAUL MR.

1 transaction

$500

166

MURRAY, JOSEPH

1 transaction

$500

167

NELSON, TYLER MR.

1 transaction

$500

168

PAYNE, WILLIAM II

1 transaction

$500

169

POWELL, ROBERT

1 transaction

$500

170

ROSS, THOMAS

1 transaction

$500

171

SANDGREN, MATT

1 transaction

$500

172

SCHWARTZ, DOUG

1 transaction

$500

173

SMERUD, RICHARD

1 transaction

$500

174

SMITH, WILL

1 transaction

$500

175

SPERLING, ANDREW

1 transaction

$500

176

SPIVEY, LAWRENCE

1 transaction

$500

177

THORNHILL, BARRETT

1 transaction

$500

178

TRYON, WARREN

1 transaction

$500

179

TYLER, TONY J.

1 transaction

$500

180

WARNER, FREDERIC C MR. JR

1 transaction

$500

181

WELLS, BRYAN

1 transaction

$500

182

WILLIAMS, DENNIS

1 transaction

$500

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]

ID: L000575

Top Contributors

MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION

OrganizationOKMULGEE, OK

$1,000

Oct 29, 2024

HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP

OrganizationRICHMOND, VA

$1,000

Aug 4, 2023

SAMPLES, RYAN

SAMPLES GROUP • MANAGEMENT

IndividualOKLAHOMA CITY, OK

$6,600

Aug 30, 2023

KAY, ALISON

KIDS CAPITAL • HEDGE FUND MANAGER

IndividualBEVERLY HILLS, CA

$6,600

Jun 20, 2023

KANADY, CHRISTIAN

ECHO INVESTMENT CAPITAL, LLC • CEO

IndividualNICHOLS HILLS, OK

$6,600

Jun 10, 2024

MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE

RETIRED

IndividualASPEN, CO

$6,600

Jul 31, 2024

MANDELBLATT, ERIC

SOROBAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LP • MANAGING PARTNER

IndividualASPEN, CO

$6,600

Jul 31, 2024

ROWAN, CAROLYN

CAROLYN ROWAN COLLECTION • OWNER

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Sep 30, 2024

ROWAN, MARC J.

APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT • CEO

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Sep 30, 2024

ARMSTRONG, SINCLAIR WALKER JR.

ARMSTRONG BANK • CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD

IndividualVIAN, OK

$6,600

Aug 30, 2023

Sen. Armstrong, Alan [R-OK]

ID: A000383

Top Contributors

No contribution data available

Donor Network - Sen. Mullin, Markwayne [R-OK]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 77 nodes and 33 connections (86 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $87,400

Top Donors - Sen. Mullin, Markwayne [R-OK]

Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount

20 Orgs2 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 the Interior

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 572-574AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Quapaw Tribal Settlement Act focuses on compensating a tribe for historical grievances and establishing a trust account, whereas the Project 2025 DOI section emphasizes energy leasing, permitting streamlining, and regulatory reforms; only a tangential connection exists through tribal relations and a reference to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act."

Key themes:tribal relationstrust fund administrationANCSA reference

— 540 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 24. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3354: Supporting and Improving the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program and Federal Solid Mineral Leasing Program, July 6, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/uploads/so_-_3354_signed.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 25. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3355: Streamlining National Environmental Policy Reviews and Implementation of Executive Order 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” August 31, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/elips/documents/3355_-_streamlining_national_environmental_policy_reviews_and_implementation_ of_executive_order_13807_establishing_discipline_and_accountability_in_the_environmental_review_ and_permitting_process_for.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 26. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3358: Executive Committee for Expedited Permitting,” October 25, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so_3358_executive_committee_for_ expedited_permitting_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 27. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3360: Rescinding Authorities Inconsistent with Secretary’s Order 3349, “American Energy Independence,” December 22, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/3360_-_rescinding_authorities_inconsistent_with_secretarys_order_3349_american_energy_ independence.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 28. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3380: Public Notice of the Costs Associated with Developing Department of the Interior Publications and Similar Documents,” March 10, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/ doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3398-508_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 29. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3385: Enforcement Priorities,” September 14, 2020, https:// www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed-so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 30. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order 3389: Coordinating and Clarifying National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Reviews,” September 14, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed- so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 31. Bureau of Land Management, “Updating Oil and Gas Leasing Reform: Land Use Planning and Lease Parcel Reviews,” IM 2018–034, January 31, 2018, https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-2018-034 (accessed March 16, 2023). 32. Lease Now Act, S. 4228, 117th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2022). 33. ONSHORE Act, S. 218, 116th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2019). https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate- bill/218/text (accessed March 18, 2023). 34. Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 130 (July 8, 2022), pp. 40859–40863. 35. The Biden Administration’s 2023–2028 proposed program is fatally flawed. Katie Tubb, “Comment for the 2023–2028 National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Program,” BOEM–2022–0031, October 6, 2022, http:// thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/Regulatory_Comments/BOEM%202023-2028%20lease%20plan%20 comment%20KTubb.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 36. See Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117–169, §§ 50261–50263. 37. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Public Law No. 115–97, § 20001, and U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3401: Comprehensive Analysis and Temporary Halt on All Activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Relating to the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program,” June 1, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/so-3401-comprehensive-analysis-and-temporary-halt-on-all-activitives-in-the-arctic-national- wildlife-refuge-relating-to-the-coastal-plain-oil-and-gas-leasing-program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 38. In 2016, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell instituted a moratorium on new coal leases while conducting a programmatic environmental impact statement under NEPA to address concerns about competition and inconsistency with the Obama Administration’s climate policy. In 2017, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke lifted the moratorium and ended development of a programmatic environmental impact statement. In April 2021, Interior Secretary Debra Haaland rescinded Zinke’s order and initiated a new review of the coal-leasing program. See U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3338: Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to Modernize the Federal Coal Program,” January 15, 2016, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi. gov/files/elips/documents/archived-3338_-discretionary_programmatic_environmental_impact_statement_ to_modernize_the_federal_coal_program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023); U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3348”; U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3398”; and Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 159 (August 20, 2021), pp. 46873–46877. — 541 — Department of the Interior 39. Katie Tubb, “No More Standoffs: Protecting Federal Employees and Ending the Culture of Anti-Government Attacks and Abuse,” testimony before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, pp. 2–4, October 22, 2019, https://congress. gov/116/meeting/house/110104/witnesses/HHRG-116-II10-Wstate-TubbK-20191022.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 40. News release, “Secretary Haaland Announces Steps to Establish Protections for Culturally Significant Chaco Canyon Landscape,” U.S. Department of the Interior, November 15, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/ secretary-haaland-announces-steps-establish-protections-culturally-significant-chaco (accessed March 16, 2023); News release, “Biden–Harris Administration Proposes Protections for Thompson Divide,” U.S. Department of the Interior, October 12, 2022, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-harris-administration- proposes-protections-thompson-divide (accessed March 16, 2023); News release, “Biden Administration Takes Action to Complete Study of Boundary Waters Area Watershed,” U.S. Department of the Interior, October 20, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-administration-takes-action-complete-study-boundary- waters-area-watershed (accessed March 16, 2023); and News release, “Interior Department Takes Action on Mineral Leases Improperly Renewed in the Watershed of the Boundary Waters Wilderness,” U.S. Department of the Interior, January 26, 2022, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-takes-action- mineral-leases-improperly-renewed-watershed-boundary (accessed March 16, 2023). 41. Endangered Species Act, Public Law 91–135, § 4(b)(2), and Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 244 (December 18, 2020), pp. 82376–82389. 42. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “Governing the Take of Migratory Birds Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.” https://www.fws.gov/regulations/mbta (accessed March 16, 2023). 43. Dino Grandoni and Anna Phillips, “Biden Restores Climate Safeguards in Key Environmental Law, Reversing Trump,” Washington Post, April 19, 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate- environment/2022/04/19/biden-nepa-climate-trump/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 44. Donald Trump, “Executive Order on Creating Schedule F in the Accepted Service,” Executive Order 13957, October 21, 2020, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-creating- schedule-f-excepted-service/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 45. Kathleen Masterson, “Nevada Wild Horse Population Skyrockets To New High,” KUNR Public Radio, July 22, 2019, https://www.kunr.org/energy-and-environment/2019-07-22/nevada-wild-horse-population-skyrockets- to-new-high (accessed March 20, 2023). 46. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, “Report to Congress: An Analysis of Achieving a Sustainable Horse and Burro Program,” Fact sheet, May 8, 2020, https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/ Final%20Fact%20Sheet%20WHB%20Report%20To%20Congress.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 47. Pendley, Sagebrush Rebel, pp. 45–47. 48. James D. Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act At 35: Delivering on the Promise, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 53, Chap. 12 (2007), § 12.03(1)(a)(iv), https://www.guessrudd.com/wp-content/ uploads/sites/1600422/2020/05/The-Alaska-Native-Claims-Settlement-Act-at-35.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 49. Ibid., § 12.03(1)(a)(vii). See generally Richard S. Jones, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (Public Law 92–203): History And Analysis Together With Subsequent Amendments, Report No. 81–127 GOV, June 1, 1981, http://www.alaskool.org/PROJECTS/ANCSA/reports/rsjones1981/ANCSA_History71.htm (accessed March 16, 2023). 50. 43 U.S. Code, Ch. 33. ANCSA also created 12 Native-owned regional corporations and authorized $962 million in “seed money.” Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act At 35, § 12.03(2)(e). 51. ANCSA provided that the withdrawal of the lands would expire in 1978 if Congress had not designated the lands as federal enclaves. John K. Norman Cole and Steven W. Silver, Alaska’s D-2 Lands, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 6B, Ch. 5, September 1978, and Raymond A. Peck, Jr., And Then There Were None: Evolving Federal Restraints on the Availability of Public Lands for Mineral Development, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 25, Ch. 3, 1979. 52. Andrus used purported authority under the FLPMA to withdraw 40 million acres, and Carter used purported authority under the Antiquities Act of to withdraw 56 million acres. James D. Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: The First Twenty Years, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 38 Ch. 2, 1992 at 2.04(8)(c), https://ancsa.lbblawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/ANCSA-Paper-with-Table-of-Contents-1992.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023).

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Quapaw Tribal Settlement Act focuses on compensating a Native American tribe for historical grievances via a trust fund payment, while the Project 2025 HUD section addresses housing market reforms, DEI/CRT policies, Housing First, and regulatory streamlining—topics with little substantive overlap."

Key themes:federal trust administrationadministrative reformtribal compensation

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

Small Business Administration

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 786-788AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Quapaw Tribal Settlement Act concerns tribal compensation and trust fund administration, which is unrelated to the Project 2025 SBA focus on COVID-19 loan accountability, disaster loan reform, and religious entity eligibility."

— 753 — Small Business Administration COVID-19 Lending Program Accountability and Cleanup. A major immediate priority for the next Administration should be a final accounting and accelerated cleanup of fraudulent COVID-19 loan and grant activity. As noted by the SBA IG, “managing COVID-19 stimulus lending is the greatest overall challenge facing SBA, and it may likely continue to be for many years as the agency grapples with fraud in the programs….”40 The next Administration should: l Consider bringing in private-sector support and expertise to close out these programs. Forgiveness and fraud must be dealt with as swiftly as possible, and law enforcement officials must pursue fraud vigorously. Entities receiving PPP loans that did not meet eligibility for forgiveness must be required to pay back the money. For example, under the CARES Act,41 PPP loan applicants generally were eligible only if, together with all their affiliates, they had no more than 500 employees. Numerous Planned Parenthood affiliates self-certified eligibility for PPP loans during the initial wave of loans that were governed by the CARES Act’s size requirement. Many Senators and Representatives asserted that these Planned Parenthood organizations were ineligible because— considered together with their affiliates—they exceeded the maximum eligible size.42 The Trump Administration SBA notified several Planned Parenthood PPP recipients of its preliminary determination of their ineligibility and of SBA’s authority to take various actions against applicants that falsely certified their eligibility.43 To date, despite continued oversight attempts by Members of Congress,44 the SBA has taken no action on the Planned Parenthood loans other than to forgive them, and in 2021, it approved new PPP loans to Planned Parenthood affiliates.45 l Cooperate with ongoing congressional oversight efforts and determine whether SBA has authority to reverse the forgiveness decisions. If it does have that authority, the SBA should reverse the forgiveness decisions for the subject loans, reiterate its preliminary determinations of ineligibility, investigate the matter more thoroughly, and take all appropriate action when its investigation concludes. Regardless of whether it reverses its forgiveness, if its investigation uncovers evidence that Planned Parenthood affiliates or any other loan recipients knowingly misrepresented their eligibility in their applications, the SBA should make appropriate referrals to the Department of Justice. — 754 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Disaster Loan Program and Direct Lending. The SBA’s disaster loan pro- gram provides low-interest loans to personal, business, and nonprofit borrowers following a federally declared disaster. The program suffers from problems of coordination with Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) disas- ter assistance. For example, disaster relief applicants have an incentive to avoid being approved for SBA disaster loans in order to increase the amount of FEMA assistance for which they are eligible. Moreover, the availability of disaster loans reduces individuals’ incentives to purchase disaster-related insurance. More than 90 percent of SBA disaster loans are loans to individuals such as homeowners, not to small businesses. In view of the challenges the SBA has experienced in its administration of this program, as well as the fraud and abuse in the EIDL COVID-19–related program and the IG’s concern that the systemic problems within this lending program undermine the SBA’s work, the next Administration should: l Work with Congress to assess the extent to which disaster loans should be offered by another agency rather than the SBA and explore private-sector channels for administering the loans. l Specify clearly that no new direct lending programs will be developed at the SBA. Eligibility of Religious Entities for SBA Loans. Current SBA regulations46 and SBA Form 197147 make certain religious entities ineligible to participate in several SBA loan programs. The Trump Administration proposed a rule that would remove the provisions on the ground that they violate the First Amendment.48 Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have made their unconstitutionality clearer.49 In an April 3, 2020, letter to Congress pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 530D,50 the Trump Administration SBA advised that two such provisions violate the Free Exer- cise Clause of the First Amendment and that it therefore would not enforce them. On January 19, 2021, the Trump Administration SBA proposed a rule to remove all of the unconstitutional religious exclusions from its regulations.51 The SBA has not acted on the proposed rule. A similar religious exclusion once appeared in the regulation governing eligibil- ity for SBA Business Loan Programs,52 but it was removed in a June 2022 final rule that noted tension with the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent.53 That final rule announced that the SBA would nonetheless continue to make religious eligibility determinations for business loan applicants to comply with putative Establishment Clause requirements,54 but Supreme Court precedent and Office of Legal Counsel memoranda refute the notion that large government-backed loan programs raise any Establishment Clause concerns.55

22

Minimal

Vector: 59%

Pages: 724-726AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Quapaw Tribal Settlement Act focuses on resolving a historical tribal dispute through compensation and trust fund administration, which does not align with Project 2025 Treasury priorities such as reducing regulatory burdens, promoting fiscal responsibility, reversing climate-related financial policies, or addressing geopolitical economic threats."

Key themes:fiscal responsibilityTreasury Department

— 691 — 22 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY William L. Walton, Stephen Moore, and David R. Burton INTRODUCTION The U.S. Treasury Department has a broad regulatory and policy reach. The next Administration should make major policy changes to: (1) reduce regulatory impediments to economic growth that reduce living standards and endanger pros- perity; (2) reduce regulatory compliance costs that increase prices and cost jobs; (3) promote fiscal responsibility; (4) promote the international competitiveness of U.S. businesses; and (5) better respect the American people’s due process and privacy rights. These goals should be accomplished through: executive action (primar- ily treasury orders and treasury directives) and departmental reorganization; rulemakings; promoting constructive policies in Congress; actions in international organizations; and treaties. The primary subject matter focus of the incoming Administration’s Treasury Department should be: l Tax policy and tax administration; l Fiscal responsibility; l Improved financial regulation; l Addressing the economic and financial aspects of the geopolitical threat posed by China and other hostile countries; — 692 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Reform of the anti-money laundering and beneficial ownership reporting systems; l Reversal of the racist “equity” agenda of the Biden Administration; and l Reversal of the economically destructive and ineffective climate-related financial-risk agenda of the Biden Administration. BIDEN ADMINISTRATION TREASURY DEPARTMENT The Biden Administration Treasury Department has failed badly in achieving every one of the agency’s core objectives. The financial affairs of the nation have seldom been in worse condition, with the national debt expanding by more than $4 trillion in Biden’s first two years in office. No President in modern times—perhaps ever—has been more fiscally reckless than has the Biden Administration. The soundness and stability of U.S. currency, the dollar, has been put at risk because of the worst inflation in four decades. American families have been made poorer by Biden’s economic strategy of taxing, spending, borrowing, regulating, and printing money. The average family has seen real annual earn- ings fall about $6,000 during the Biden Administration.1 In 2022, the average American’s 401(k) plan dropped in value from $130,700 to $103,900—more than 20 percent.2 Why has the Biden Administration failed to achieve virtually all components of its mission? Under the leadership of Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, the depart- ment has made “equity” and “climate change” among its top five priorities. The next Administration must act decisively to curtail activities that fall outside Trea- sury’s mandate and primary mission. Treasury must refocus on its core missions of promoting economic growth, prosperity, and economic stability. For a clear statement of Treasury’s mission drift, one need look no further than Secretary Yellen’s introduction in the Treasury Department’s Fiscal Year 2022–2026 Strategic Plan: We will have to address the structural problems that have plagued our economy for decades: the decline in labor force participation, income and racial inequality, and serious underinvestment in crucial public goods like childcare, education, and physical infrastructure. And then there are rising challenges, like climate change, which, left unchecked, will undermine every aspect of our economy from supply chains to the financial system.3 Treasury’s mission drift into a “woke” agenda, is exemplified in a comparison of Domestic Finance’s changed responsibilities from 2015 to 2023:

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Minimal

Vector: 59%

Pages: 875-878AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Quapaw Tribal Settlement Act deals with tribal compensation and trust fund administration, whereas Project 2025's Financial Regulatory Agencies section focuses on reforms of agencies like the CFPB, SEC, and CFTC, with no substantive connection to tribal settlements or trust accounts for Native nations."

Key themes:federal fund allocationtrust administration

— 842 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 19. Burton, “Improving Entrepreneurs’ Access to Capital: Vital for Economic Growth”; Campbell, “The Case for Federal Pre-Emption of State Blue Sky Laws.” 20. David R. Burton, “Why the SEC’s Consolidated Audit Trail Is a Bad Idea,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, December 5, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/monetary-policy/commentary/why-the-secs-consolidated- audit-trail-bad-idea; Hester M. Peirce, Commissioner, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “Statement on the Order Granting Temporary Conditional Exemptive Relief from Certain Requirements of the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail,” July 8, 2022, https://www.sec.gov/news/ statement/peirce-statement-consolidated-audit-trail-070822 (accessed February 20, 2023). 21. Peirce, “It’s Not Just Scope 3: Remarks at the American Enterprise Institute”; Uyeda, “Remarks at the 2022 Cato Summit on Financial Regulation.” 22. David R. Burton, “How Dodd–Frank Mandated Disclosures Harm, Rather than Protect, Investors,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4526, March 10, 2016, http://thf-reports.s3.amazonaws.com/2016/IB4526.pdf. 23. For a detailed discussion of SEC administration, see Burton, “Reforming the Securities and Exchange Commission.” 24. See, for example, Andrew N. Vollmer, “Accusers as Adjudicators in Agency Enforcement Proceedings,” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Fall 2018), pp. 103–155, https://repository.law. umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1602&context=mjlr (accessed February 20, 2023). 25. 7 U.S.C. § 1a(9), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/1a (accessed February 20, 2023). 26. Or the CFTC can undertake a rulemaking. 27. 7 U.S.C. § 2(i), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/2 (accessed February 20, 2023). 28. 7 U.S.C. § 7b–3, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/7b-3 (accessed February 20, 2923). 29. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, “Cross-Border Application of the Registration Thresholds and Certain Requirements Applicable to Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 178 (September 14, 2020), pp. 56924–57016, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-09- 14/pdf/2020-16489.pdf (accessed February 21, 2023). 30. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, “Interpretive Guidance and Policy Statement Regarding Compliance with Certain Swap Regulations,” Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 144 (July 26, 2013), pp. 45292–45374, https:// www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/public/@lrfederalregister/documents/file/2013-17958a.pdf (accessed February 21, 2023). 31. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, “Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants—Cross-Border Application of the Margin Requirements,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 104 (May 31, 2016), pp. 34818–34854, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-05-31/ pdf/2016-12612.pdf (accessed February 21, 2023). 32. H.R. 4173, Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111–203, 111th Congress, July 21, 2010, Title X, https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ203/PLAW-111publ203.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). See also Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “About Us,” https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about- us/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 33. See, for example, Paul Sperry, “Trump Is Finally Fixing This Economy-Killing Agency,” New York Post, December 2, 2017, https://nypost.com/2017/12/02/trump-is-finally-fixing-this-economy-killing-agency/ (accessed March 23, 2023). See also Jeb Hensarling “How We’ll Stop a Rogue Federal Agency,” The Wall Street Journal, February 8, 2017, https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-well-stop-a-rogue-federal- agency-1486597413 (accessed March 23, 2023), and H.R. 3389, CFPB Slush Fund Elimination Act of 2013, 113th Congress, introduced October 30, 2013, https://www.congress.gov/113/bills/hr3389/BILLS-113hr3389ih.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 34. Editorial, “CFPB Joins Justice in Shaking Down Banks for Democrat Activist Groups,” Investor’s Business Daily, June 17, 2015, https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/cfpb-diverts-civil-penalty-funds-to-democrat- activist-groups/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 35. Table, “Budget by Program,” in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Annual Performance Plan and Report, and Budget Overview, February 2023, p. 15, https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_ performance-plan-and-report_fy23.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 36. Table, “FTE by Program,” in ibid., p. 16. — 843 — Financial Regulatory Agencies 37. Table 7, “Civil Penalty Fund Significant Activity,” in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Financial Report of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Fiscal Year 2022, November 15, 2022, p. 21, https://files. consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_financial-report_fy2022.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 38. Ibid. 39. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Financial Report of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Fiscal Year 2022, p. 20. 40. 12 U.S. Code § 5491, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/5491 (accessed March 23, 2023). 41. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Bureau Structure,” last updated March 15, 2023, https://www. consumerfinance.gov/about-us/the-bureau/bureau-structure/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 42. See Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Consumer Financial Civil Penalty Fund Rule,” https://www. consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/final-rules/consumer-financial-civil-penalty-fund-rule/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 43. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Civil Penalty Fund: Consumer Education and Financial Literacy,” https://www.consumerfinance.gov/enforcement/payments-harmed-consumers/civil-penalty-fund/consumer- education-financial-literacy/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 44. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Opportunity Exists to Improve Transparency of Civil Penalty Fund Activities, GAO-14-551, June 2014, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-14-551. pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 45. Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/19pdf/19-7_n6io.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 46. Ibid., p. 37. 47. See 12 U.S. Code § 5497(a)(1), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/5497 (accessed March 23, 2023). Congress specified that the amount transferred to the CFPB “shall not exceed” 12 percent “of the total operating expenses of the Federal Reserve System…in fiscal year 2013, and in each year thereafter.” Ibid., § 5497(2)(A)(iii). 48. Community Financial Services Association of America v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (5th Cir. 2022), pp. 31–32, https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-50826-CV0.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 49. Ibid., p. 32. 50. Ibid. (quoting Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183, 2202 n. 8 (2020)). 51. U.S. Supreme Court, “Order List: 598 U.S.,” February 27, 2023, Docket No. 22–448, CFPB et al. v. Com. Fin. Services Assn., et al., https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022723zor_6537.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 52. Devin Watkins, Competitive Enterprise Institute, “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Ripe for Reform,” testimony before the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Monetary Policy, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, March 9, 2023, https://docs.house.gov/meetings/BA/ BA20/20230309/115384/HHRG-118-BA20-Wstate-WatkinsD-20230309.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023); Norbert J. Michel, “7 Steps Next Director Can Take to Make the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Less Awful,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, July 28, 2018, https://www.heritage.org/markets-and-finance/ commentary/7-steps-next-director-can-take-make-the-consumer-financial. 53. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, and National Credit Union Administration. Those functions performed by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) prior to Dodd–Frank should be transferred to the OCC since OTS has merged with OCC. 54. See “Section 1071 of the Dodd–Frank Act” in David R. Burton, “Improving Small Business Access to Capital,” Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Symposium on Section 1071 of the Dodd–Frank Act, Small Business Lending Panel, November 6, 2019, https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_burton-written- statement_symposium-section-1071.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 55. 5 U.S. Code Chapter 5, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/chapter-5 (accessed March 23, 2023). 56. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Administrative Adjudication Proceedings,” https://www. consumerfinance.gov/administrative-adjudication-proceedings/ (accessed March 23, 2023), and 12 Code of Federal Regulations Part 1081—Rules of Practice for Adjudication Proceedings, https://www.law.cornell.edu/ cfr/text/12/part-1081 (accessed March 23, 2023).

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Sen. Mullin, Markwayne

A bill to provide for the equitable settlement of certain Indian land disputes regarding land in Illinois, and for other purposes.

119/s/550

Dennis John Benigno Traumatic Brain Injury Program Reauthorization Act of 2025

119/s/2898

Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2026

119/s/2257

Back to All Bills