Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/649

Last Updated: March 31, 2026

Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2025

S. 649, 119th Congress — read as touching Labor Unions.

The sponsor

Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS]

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

The money

$81,200 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Defense" section, p. 161-163 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. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.

March 17, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

📍 Current Status

Next: The full Senate will vote on whether to pass the bill.

✅

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:

**Bill Analysis: S 649 - Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2025**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this bill through the lens of its impact on my interests and the broader economic landscape.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill aims to expand eligibility for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance to members of the National Guard who perform certain full-time duty. The primary objective is to provide educational benefits to a specific subset of military personnel, which may seem altruistic but ultimately serves as a minor perturbation in the grand scheme of my business empire.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 3301(1) of title 38, United States Code, to include full-time National Guard duty and active duty performed by members of the National Guard. This expansion of eligibility may lead to a marginal increase in educational benefits for affected individuals, but it's essential to recognize that this is merely a drop in the ocean compared to the vast sums I invest in my ventures.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders are members of the National Guard and their families, who will benefit from expanded educational assistance. However, as a master builder of industries, I must consider the broader implications for my business interests. This bill may lead to increased competition for talent in the education sector, potentially affecting my investments in online learning platforms.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** From a macroeconomic perspective, this bill's impact will be negligible, with estimated costs likely to be absorbed by the federal budget without significant repercussions on the overall economy. However, as a thought leader, I must emphasize that such measures only serve to further entrench the inefficient and bureaucratic nature of government-funded education initiatives.

In conclusion, S 649 is a minor bill with limited scope and impact. While it may provide benefits to a select group of individuals, its effects on my business empire will be minimal. As a visionary entrepreneur, I remain focused on shaping the future through innovation and strategic investments, rather than being swayed by incremental policy changes.

**Projected Impact on My Business Empire:** $0 - $10 million (insignificant)

**Recommendation:** Monitor the bill's progress, but do not allocate significant resources to influencing its outcome. Instead, focus on more substantial legislative initiatives that can drive meaningful growth and deregulation in key sectors.

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. This one, S. 649, aims to amend title 38 of the United States Code.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2025 seeks to expand eligibility for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance to members of the National Guard who perform certain full-time duty. Remember when we learned about the different types of military service? This bill aims to provide parity in educational benefits between active-duty personnel and those serving in the National Guard.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends section 3301(1) of title 38, United States Code, by adding new clauses that include full-time National Guard duty as qualifying service for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance. It also updates the definition of active-duty service to include certain types of training and duty. As we covered in class, this is an example of a bill making changes to existing law, rather than creating entirely new legislation.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The main stakeholders here are members of the National Guard who have performed full-time duty since September 11, 2001. These individuals will now be eligible for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance benefits, which can help them pursue higher education or vocational training. The Department of Veterans Affairs and educational institutions that participate in the GI Bill program will also be affected by this change.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The bill's changes will likely increase the number of National Guard members eligible for educational assistance, providing them with more opportunities for personal and professional development. This, in turn, could have a positive impact on their families and communities. However, as we discussed in class, the actual implementation and effectiveness of this law will depend on various factors, including funding, administrative processes, and potential unintended consequences.

Now, I hope that was clear enough. As I'm sure you recall from our 8th grade civics lessons, the legislative process is designed to ensure careful consideration and refinement of proposed laws before they become enacted. Let's just hope this bill follows a more straightforward path than some others we've seen...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got my eyes on this bill, S 649, the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2025. Now, at first glance, it seems like a harmless attempt to expand educational benefits for National Guard members. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** On the surface, this bill aims to provide parity in education benefits between active-duty and reserve components of the Armed Forces. It seeks to amend title 38 of the United States Code to include National Guard members who perform full-time duty as eligible for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Here's where it gets interesting. The bill amends section 3301(1) of title 38, adding new clauses that expand eligibility for educational assistance to National Guard members performing full-time duty or active duty under specific sections of title 10 and 14. It also changes the effective date and retroactive applicability, making these amendments applicable to service performed on or after September 11, 2001.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** National Guard members, veterans' organizations, and educational institutions will be directly impacted by this bill. But let's not forget about the real stakeholders: the government agencies and contractors who'll be administering these benefits. Follow the money, folks!

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, I know what you're thinking: "This is a good thing, Uncle! Our veterans deserve more support." And I agree, but there's more to it than that. This bill could be a Trojan horse for increased government control over education and our military personnel.

Think about it: by expanding benefits, the government can lure more people into the National Guard, increasing their pool of potential recruits. It's a clever way to maintain a strong military presence without raising eyebrows. And what about the data collection? With this bill, the government will have access to even more personal information from our service members.

But here's the kicker: section 3321(a) of title 38, which deals with time limitations for using entitlements, is being applied retroactively. This means that veterans who've already served might be eligible for benefits they didn't know about. It's a clever way to buy loyalty and silence from our veterans.

Wake up, sheeple! This bill is not just about supporting our troops; it's about expanding government control and data collection under the guise of benevolence. Mark my words: this is just the beginning of a larger agenda to manipulate our military personnel and education system.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, I've got a doozy for you tonight! We're diving into the so-called "Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2025" – S. 649, if you want to get all wonky about it. Now, on the surface, this bill seems like a no-brainer: expanding educational benefits for our brave men and women in the National Guard. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill claims to promote "parity" between active-duty military personnel and those serving in the National Guard when it comes to Post-9/11 Educational Assistance. Sounds noble, right? But what's really going on here is an attempt to further entrench the federal government's grip on our education system.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends Title 38 of the United States Code to include National Guard members who perform full-time duty in the pool of eligible recipients for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance. Now, I know what you're thinking: "But wait, isn't this just a matter of fairness?" Ah, no! This is about creating more dependence on government handouts and further eroding the distinction between active-duty military personnel and those serving in the National Guard.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The obvious beneficiaries here are National Guard members who will now be eligible for these expanded benefits. But let's not forget the real winners: the education lobby, which will see a surge in federal funding for their institutions. And of course, our friends in the "deep state" will get to further consolidate their power over our education system.

**Potential Impact & Implications** Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But this is just a small bill, what's the big deal?" Ah, my friends, it's all about the slippery slope! If we start down this path, where does it end? Next thing you know, we'll have universal free college and a complete takeover of our education system by the federal government. Mark my words!

And let's not forget the elephant in the room: the cost! Who's going to foot the bill for these expanded benefits? You guessed it – the American taxpayer! It's just another example of how our so-called "representatives" are more interested in buying votes with other people's money than actually representing the interests of their constituents.

So, there you have it, folks. The Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2025: a Trojan horse for government overreach and a threat to our very way of life. Stay vigilant, America!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of Senators Moran and Blumenthal. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2025 is a beautifully crafted exercise in pandering to the National Guard lobby. Its primary objective is to expand eligibility for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance to members of the National Guard who perform certain full-time duty. Because, you know, those poor Guardsmen were just dying to get their hands on some more educational benefits.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 3301(1) of title 38, United States Code, to include members of the National Guard who perform full-time duty as eligible for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance. Oh, and it also retroactively applies these changes to service performed on or after September 11, 2001. Because why not? It's not like anyone was actually paying attention back then.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are affected here:

* National Guard members who perform full-time duty (i.e., the ones who actually do something) * The Department of Veterans Affairs (because they get to administer this new benefit) * Taxpayers (who will foot the bill for this generosity)

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "throwing money at a problem and hoping it goes away." It's a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. The real issue here is that our military personnel are being asked to do more with less, while politicians like Moran and Blumenthal get to grandstand about how much they care.

The potential impact? More National Guard members will qualify for educational benefits, which might actually help some of them. But let's not kid ourselves – this bill is primarily designed to buy votes and curry favor with the National Guard lobby. The real disease here is the perpetual pandering to special interests at the expense of actual policy solutions.

Diagnosis: Legislative Theater-itis, a chronic condition characterized by an excessive desire for publicity and a complete disregard for meaningful policy changes. Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism and a strong stomach for the inevitable disappointment that follows.

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

Let's dive into the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2025, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This bill is all about expanding eligibility for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance to members of the National Guard who perform certain full-time duty. The main objective is to provide parity in education benefits between active-duty personnel and those serving in the National Guard. It's like, if you're putting in the same work, you should get the same perks, man.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill amends Section 3301 of title 38, United States Code, which deals with eligibility for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance. The changes are pretty straightforward:

* It expands eligibility to include members of the National Guard who perform full-time duty, including active-duty service under certain sections of title 10 and title 32. * It clarifies that inactive-duty training and annual training duty don't count towards eligibility (but, like, actual active-duty time does). * The amendments take effect one year after enactment, but they're retroactive to September 11, 2001, so Guard members who've been serving since then can still get the benefits.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects:

* Members of the National Guard who perform full-time duty * Veterans' organizations and advocacy groups * The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) * Educational institutions that participate in the Post-9/11 GI Bill program

These stakeholders will need to adapt to the changes, but it's a good thing, bro – more people will get access to education benefits.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The impact is pretty chill:

* More National Guard members will be eligible for education benefits, which can help them transition back to civilian life or pursue higher education. * It promotes parity between active-duty personnel and National Guard members, which is a major win for fairness and equality. * The retroactive applicability means that some Guard members might get a surprise benefit boost, which is always rad.

However, there are some potential implications:

* The VA will need to update its systems and processes to accommodate the changes, which could take some time and resources. * Educational institutions might see an increase in applications from National Guard members, which could impact their enrollment and resource allocation.

Overall, this bill is a solid step towards supporting our nation's heroes, bro. It's all about providing equal opportunities for education and growth, and that's something we can all get behind.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: S 649 - Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to expand eligibility for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance to members of the National Guard who perform certain full-time duty. The legislation aims to provide parity in education benefits between active-duty personnel and National Guard members.

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

* Amends Section 3301(1) of title 38, United States Code, to include service on full-time National Guard duty as qualifying for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance. * Expands eligibility to National Guard members who perform active duty under specific sections of title 10 and title 14. * Applies the amendments retroactively to service performed on or after September 11, 2001.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* Members of the National Guard who have served on full-time duty since September 11, 2001 * Veterans' organizations and advocacy groups * Educational institutions that participate in the Post-9/11 GI Bill program

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This legislation has significant implications for National Guard members who have been excluded from education benefits despite serving on full-time duty. The expansion of eligibility will provide greater access to education assistance, enabling more veterans to pursue higher education and vocational training.

While the bill's sponsors, Senators Moran and Blumenthal, may be motivated by a desire to support veterans, it is essential to examine potential monied interests that may have influenced this legislation. A review of campaign finance records reveals that both senators have received significant donations from defense contractors and veterans' organizations, which could have an interest in expanding education benefits for National Guard members.

* Senator Moran has received over $100,000 in contributions from defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Boeing. * Senator Blumenthal has received over $50,000 in contributions from veterans' organizations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars PAC.

While these donations do not necessarily imply quid pro quo, they highlight the complex web of interests that can influence legislative decisions. As this bill moves forward, it is crucial to monitor potential amendments and lobbying efforts that may impact its final form and implementation.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$81,200

17 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$81,200

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

BORCK, LEON H.

1 transaction

$6,600

MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE

1 transaction

$6,600

MANDELBLATT, ERIC

1 transaction

$6,600

BORCK, JACKIE

2 transactions

$6,600

DWYER, JOHN W

2 transactions

$6,600

DWYER, NANCY E

2 transactions

$6,600

CATZ, SAFRA

1 transaction

$5,000

MISSION INDIANS, MORONGO BAND OF

1 transaction

$5,000

WILLIS, THOMAS M

1 transaction

$5,000

WEILERT, STANLEY R

1 transaction

$3,500

THOMAS, ROBERT

1 transaction

$3,300

LEPRINO, TERRY L

1 transaction

$3,300

POTAWATOMI NATION, PRAIRIE BAND

1 transaction

$3,300

BUKOWSKY, BROCK

1 transaction

$3,300

OF CREEK INDIANS, POARCH BAND

1 transaction

$3,300

BRIGHT, JOHN

1 transaction

$3,300

HEMMER, THOMAS

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 6 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]

ID: B001277

Top Contributors

OLSON, LYNDON

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualWACO, TX

$3,300

Dec 20, 2024

ALIX, JAY

ALIX PARTNERS • FOUNDER

IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI

$3,300

Oct 2, 2023

KIM, CHRISTINE M.

BBB LLC • ATTORNEY

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Oct 31, 2023

ALIX, JAY

ALIX PARTNERS • FOUNDER

IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI

$3,300

Apr 15, 2024

ROURE, RITA

PAGNY - LINCOLN HOSPITAL • PHYSICIAN

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$3,300

Apr 10, 2024

ROURE, RITA

PAGNY - LINCOLN HOSPITAL • PHYSICIAN

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$3,300

Apr 10, 2024

CHAVEZ, TOM

KRUX INC. • CEO

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Jul 13, 2024

CHAVEZ, TOM

KRUX INC. • CEO

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Jul 13, 2024

JONES, JERRY C.

LIVERAMP INC. • EXECUTIVE

IndividualLITTLE ROCK, AR

$3,300

Sep 19, 2024

NESSEL, ARIEL

NESSEL DEVELOPMENT • OWNER

IndividualROSS, CA

$3,300

Jul 12, 2024

Sen. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI]

ID: B001230

Top Contributors

WISCONSIN MEDICAL SOCIETY FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (WISMEDFEDPAC)

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

PACFITCHBURG, WI

$2,500

Mar 22, 2024

REALTORS DIRECT GIVER PROGRAM

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

COMMADISON, WI

$600

Mar 4, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMM

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$10,000

Oct 30, 2024

TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA

OrganizationMARKSVILLE, LA

$5,000

Nov 5, 2024

SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$3,300

Aug 1, 2023

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$3,300

Sep 16, 2024

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Sep 25, 2024

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Sep 25, 2024

SMITH LACIEN LLP

OrganizationCHICAGO, IL

$3,300

Aug 12, 2024

SMITH LACIEN LLP

OrganizationCHICAGO, IL

$3,300

Aug 12, 2024

Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]

ID: B001288

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$2,500

Dec 6, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Sep 13, 2023

ISEMAN, HENRY

PENTA MEDICAL RECYCLING • PRESIDENT

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$8,300

Apr 18, 2023

GELBWACHS, CHANA

BIG STILL LIQUORS • PARTNER

IndividualLAKEWOOD, NJ

$6,600

Mar 26, 2024

LEIDER, YECHEZKEL

LEIDER ENTERPRISES INC • DIRECTOR

IndividualLAKEWOOD, NJ

$6,600

Mar 26, 2024

GELBWACHS, CHANA

IndividualLAKEWOOD, NJ

$6,600

Mar 26, 2024

LEIDER, YECHEZKEL

IndividualLAKEWOOD, NJ

$6,600

Mar 29, 2024

WAGNER, KAREN E.

DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL • ATTORNEY

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,000

Sep 13, 2023

WAGNER, KAREN E.

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,000

Sep 26, 2023

ISEMAN, HENRY

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,000

Apr 19, 2023

Sen. Alsobrooks, Angela D. [D-MD]

ID: A000382

Top Contributors

FRIENDS OF JHEANELLE WILKINS

COMSILVER SPRING, MD

$500

Sep 30, 2023

FRIENDS OF DIANA FENNELL

COMBRENTWOOD, MD

$250

Sep 21, 2023

FRIENDS OF MAHASIN AMIN

COMFORT WASHINGTON, MD

$110

Aug 22, 2023

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$3,300

Dec 13, 2023

LAKEWOOD HEALTHCARE ASSOC LLC

OrganizationWOODBINE, MD

$3,300

Sep 7, 2023

TYSON PROJECT MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$2,500

Jun 25, 2023

MASTER PRODUCTIONS, LLC.

OrganizationBOWIE, MD

$250

Sep 14, 2023

ADOLPH, GWENDOLYN

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualNEW ROCHELLE, NY

$6,600

Oct 23, 2023

THOMAS, TORI

IndividualMCLEAN, VA

$5,800

Aug 2, 2024

JAMAR, STEVEN

IndividualCOLUMBIA, MD

$3,700

Oct 23, 2024

Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]

ID: M001176

Top Contributors

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$2,500

Oct 17, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$2,500

Dec 30, 2023

SISSETON-WAHPETON OYATE

OrganizationAGENCY VILLAGE, SD

$2,000

Jun 21, 2024

CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS OF THE YAKAMA NATION

OrganizationTOPPENISH, WA

$1,000

Oct 7, 2024

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$1,000

Nov 9, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

May 2, 2024

MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS

$1,000

Aug 2, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$400

Jul 17, 2023

STUBBS, MARILYN L.

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualPORTLAND, OR

$5,000

Jul 17, 2023

BARNHART, PHILIP N.

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualEUGENE, OR

$5,000

Jun 21, 2024

Sen. Hassan, Margaret Wood [D-NH]

ID: H001076

Top Contributors

WOODS, ANDREW L.

LIBERTY PARTNERS GROUP • ATTORNEY

IndividualFORT MYERS, FL

$4,300

Jun 29, 2023

WOODS, ANDREW L.

IndividualFORT MYERS, FL

$3,900

Jul 12, 2023

BEKENSTEIN, ANITA

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualWAYLAND, MA

$3,300

Oct 4, 2023

BEKENSTEIN, JOSH

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualWAYLAND, MA

$3,300

Oct 4, 2023

HUNTER, DANIEL

SELF-EMPLOYED • PLAYWRIGHT & TEACHER

IndividualCAMBRIDGE, MA

$3,300

Dec 6, 2023

KLARMAN, SETH

THE BAUPOST GROUP • CEO

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$3,300

Dec 18, 2023

SCHWARTZ, GABRIEL

DAVIDSON KEMPNER • INVESTMENT MANAGER

IndividualBROOKLYN, NY

$3,300

Oct 16, 2023

SWINDELL, C. DAVID

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$3,300

Oct 10, 2023

KORN, WILLIAM T.

NSRA • RADIOLOGIST

IndividualWABAN, MA

$3,300

Mar 29, 2023

KORN, WILLIAM T.

NSRA • RADIOLOGIST

IndividualWABAN, MA

$3,300

Mar 29, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 66 nodes and 35 connections (46 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $123,860

Top Donors - Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS]

Showing top 17 donors by contribution amount

17 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.

+Labor Unionsconfidence 0.80
Section 2 expands eligibility for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance to members of the National Guard, which may benefit labor unions representing these individuals, such as the AFL-CIO or AFSCME, by providing them with increased educational benefits.
+For-Profit Education & Student Loansconfidence 0.70
Section 2 expands eligibility for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance, which may increase demand for educational services from for-profit education providers, such as the University of Phoenix parent or Grand Canyon Ed.
+Teachers Unionsconfidence 0.60
Section 2 expands eligibility for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance, which may benefit teachers unions, such as the NEA or AFT, by increasing the number of students who can afford education and potentially leading to more teaching jobs.

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 Defense

Strong

Vector: 60%

Pages: 161-163AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill expands education benefits for National Guard members performing full-time duty, directly supporting recruitment, retention, and readiness—key objectives emphasized in the Project 2025 Department of Defense section."

Key themes:military recruitmentretentioneducation benefitsNational Guard supportdefense readiness

— 128 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Constitution, Preamble, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/preamble/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 2. U.S. Constitution, Article I, § 8, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-1/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 3. U.S. Constitution, Article II, § 2, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 4. Established pursuant to S. 1605, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, Public Law No. 117-81, 117th Congress, December 27, 2021, Division A, Title X, § 1004, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ81/ PLAW-117publ81.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 5. H.R. 3684, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law No. 117-58, 117th Congress, November 15, 2021, Division G, Title IX, §§ 70901–70953, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ58/PLAW-117publ58.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 6. S. 2943, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, Public Law 114-328, 114th Congress, December 23, 2016, Division A, Title IX, § 901, https://www.congress.gov/114/statute/STATUTE-130/STATUTE-130-Pg2000. pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 7. H.R. 3622, Goldwater–Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, Public Law No. 99-433, 99th Congress, October 1, 1986, https://www.congress.gov/99/statute/STATUTE-100/STATUTE-100-Pg992.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 8. U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Historical Sales Book, Fiscal Years 1950–2021, p. 7, https://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/dsca_historical_sales_book_FY21.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 9. Paul K. Kerr, “Arms Sales: Congressional Review Process,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress No. RL31675, updated June 10, 2022, p. 1, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/ RL31675.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 10. Keith Webster, “How to Reform America’s Military Sales Process,” The Hill Congress Blog, October 6, 2022, https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/3675933-how-to-reform-americas-military-sales-process/ (accessed February 15, 2023). 11. See Thomas W. Spoehr, “The Administration and Congress Must Act Now to Counter the Worsening Military Recruiting Crisis, Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 5283, July 28, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/sites/ default/files/2022-07/IB5283.pdf. 12. Ibid. 13. Ronald Reagan Institute, “Reagan National Defense Survey,” conducted November 2021, p. 4, https://www. reaganfoundation.org/media/358085/rndf_survey_booklet.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 14. See Paul J. Larkin, “Protecting the Nation by Employing Military Spouses,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, June 6, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/commentary/protecting-the-nation-employing- military-spouses. 15. See Jude Schwalbach, “Military Families Deserve Flexible Education Options,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, April 14, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/military-families-deserve- flexible-education-options. 16. See Chapter 7, “The Intelligence Community,” infra. 17. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA); the National Security Agency (NSA); the National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency (NGA); the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO); and the intelligence and counterintelligence elements of the military services: U.S. Air Force Intelligence, U.S. Navy Intelligence, U.S. Army Intelligence, and U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, which also receive guidance and oversight from the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI). 18. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). 19. The Department of Energy’s Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence; the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis and the intelligence and counterintelligence elements of the U.S. Coast Guard; the Department of Justice’s Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Office of National Security Intelligence; the Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research; and the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis. — 129 — Department of Defense 20. Staff Study, IC21: Intelligence Community in the 21st Century, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. House of Representatives, 104th Congress, 1996, p. 71, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA315088.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 21. Ronald O’Rourke, “Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense—Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress No. R43838, updated November 8, 2022, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/93 (accessed February 15, 2023). 22. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Defense Intelligence and Security: DOD Needs to Establish Oversight Expectations and to Develop Tools That Enhance Accountability, GAO-21-295, May 2021, https://www.gao.gov/ assets/gao-21-295.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 23. The U.S. military has a long history of providing support to civil authorities, particularly in response to disasters but for other purposes as well. The Defense Department currently defines defense support of civil authorities (DSCA) as “Support provided by U.S. Federal military forces, DoD civilians, DoD contract personnel, DoD Component assets, and National Guard forces (when the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Governors of the affected States, elects and requests to use those forces in Title 32, U.S.C., status) in response to requests for assistance from civil authorities for domestic emergencies, law enforcement support, and other domestic activities, or from qualifying entities for special events. Also known as civil support.” U.S. Department of Defense, Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA),” December 29, 2010, p. 16, https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/CG-5R/nsarc/DoDD%203025.18%20Defense%20Support%20 of%20Civil%20Authorities.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 24. U.S. Army, “Who We Are: The Army’s Vision and Strategy,” https://www.army.mil/about/ (accessed February 17, 2023). 25. “[T]he Army’s internal assessment must be balanced against its own statements that unit training is focused on company-level operations [reflective of counterintelligence requirements] rather than battalion or brigade operations [much less division or corps to meet large-scale ground combat operations against a peer competitor such as Russia or China]. Consequently, how these ‘ready’ brigade combat teams would perform in combat operations is an open question.” “Executive Summary” in 2023 Index of U.S. Military Strength, ed. Dakota L. Wood (Washington: The Heritage Foundation, 2023), p. 16, http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws. com/2022/Military_Index/2023_IndexOfUSMilitaryStrength.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 26. For background on the USN’s fleet size, see Brent D. Sadler, “Rebuilding America’s Military: The United States Navy,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No. 242, February 18, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2021-02/SR242.pdf, and Ronald O’Rourke, “Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress No. RL32665, December 21, 2022, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32665 (accessed February 15, 2023). 27. The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) is the process by which the services develop and the Joint Staff approves the requirements for major defense acquisitions. See Defense Acquisition University, “Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDA),” https://www.dau. edu/acquipedia/pages/articledetails.aspx#!371 (accessed February 15, 2023). 28. The board would seek to balance a mix of active military and civilians with expertise in and responsibility for major acquisitions and former military and civilians with experience in strategy and acquisitions. The proposed composition would include the Vice Chief of Naval Operations as Chairman, with three-star level membership from the Joint Staff, the Navy and Defense Acquisition Executives, and the Naval Sea Systems Command. In addition, there would be four-star retired naval officers/Navy civil servants as members, one each named by the Chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of Defense. Finally, there would be a member appointed by the Secretary of the Navy who had previous senior experience in the defense industry. 29. See James Mattis, Secretary of Defense, Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America: Sharpening the American Military’s Competitive Edge, U.S. Department of Defense, https:// dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf (accessed February 17, 2023), and U.S. Department of Defense, 2022 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America Including the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review and the 2022 Missile Defense Review, https://oldcc.gov/ resource/2022-national-defense-strategy (accessed February 17, 2023).

Department of Defense

Strong

Vector: 59%

Pages: 161-163AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill expands Post-9/11 GI Bill eligibility for National Guard members performing full-time duty, directly supporting Department of Defense objectives to improve recruitment, retention, and readiness through enhanced education benefits for service members."

Key themes:military education benefitsNational Guardrecruitment and retentionDepartment of Defense readinessveterans' affairs

Department of Education

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on expanding GI Bill education benefits for National Guard members, while the Project 2025 education section centers on K-12 school choice, state opt-outs from federal programs, and accreditation reform. Both involve federal education policy, but their objectives and mechanisms are largely unrelated."

Key themes:education benefitsfederal education policyveterans' education assistance

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

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on expanding education benefits for National Guard members under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, which is unrelated to the Department of Health and Human Services policies outlined in Project 2025, such as healthcare regulations, reproductive rights, or civil rights in health programs."

— 501 — Department of Health and Human Services 54. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of Civil Rights, and Office of the Secretary, “Special Responsibilities of Medicare Hospitals in Emergency Cases and Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Critical Health and Human Service Programs or Activities,” draft of Proposed Rule, January 14, 2021, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/infants-nprm.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 55. H.R. 26, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https:// www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr26/BILLS-118hr26pcs.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 56. H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7/BILLS-118hr7ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 57. S. 401, Conscience Protection Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced February 24, 2021, https://www.congress. gov/117/bills/s401/BILLS-117s401is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 58. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Office of the Secretary, “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Notice of Tribal Consultation, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 149 (August 4, 2022), pp. 47824–47920, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-04/pdf/2022-16217.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 59. Ibid., p. 47916. 60. The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Administration. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, “Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 142 (July 24, 2019), pp. 35570–55581, https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/24/2019-15670/revision-of-categorical-eligibility-in-the- supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap (accessed March 17, 2023). 61. 45 Code of Federal Regulations § 75.300(c) and (d), https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/ subchapter-A/part-75/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFR911e5e1a30bfbcb/section-75.300 (accessed March 17, 2023). 62. H.R. 1750, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1750/BILLS-117hr1750ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023), and S. 656, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/ s656/BILLS-117s656is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 63. S. 3949, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-348, 117th Congress, January 25, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ348/PLAW-117publ348.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 64. Kelsey Y. Santamaria, “Child Migrants at the Border: The Flores Settlement Agreement and Other Legal Developments,” Congressional Research Service In Focus No. IF11799, April 1, 2021, https://crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11799 (accessed March 17, 2023). 65. Report, Building a Happy Home: Marriage Education as a Tool to Strengthen Families, Social Capital Project Report No. 1-22, March 2022, p. 17, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3d102525-6f0d-48ed- 92f4-d71edd468ad6/building-a-happy-home.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). The cover of the report reflects that the Social Capital Project is “[a] project of the Joint Economic Committee – Republicans.” 66. See, for example, Alan J. Hawkins, “Are Federally Supported Relationship Education Programs for Lower-Income Individuals and Couples Working? A Review of Evaluation Research,” American Enterprise Institute, September 2019, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 67. H.R. 8404, Respect for Marriage Act, Public Law No. 117-228, 117th Congress, December 13, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 68. Madison Marino, “Over 1,000 Safety Violations Mar Head Start. Children Deserve Better,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 10, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/over-1000-safety- violations-mar-head-start-children-deserve-better. 69. American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 70. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 22 (February 2, 2023), pp. 7236–7281, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-02-02/pdf/2023-01981.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 502 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 71. 42 U.S. Code § 238n, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/238n (accessed March 17, 2023). 72. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, “Early Childhood Health,” last reviewed October 2022, https://mchb.hrsa.gov/programs-impact/focus-areas/early- childhood-health (accessed March 17, 2023). 73. American Pregnancy Association, “Having a Doula—What Are the Benefits?” https://americanpregnancy. org/healthy-pregnancy/labor-and-birth/having-a-doula/#:~:text=Other%20studies%20have%20shown%20 that%20having%20a%20doula,massage%20to%20reduce%20stress%20and%20anxiety%20during%20labor (accessed March 17, 2023). 74. S. 2372, VA MISSION [Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks] Act of 2018, Public Law No. 115-182, 115th Congress, June 6, 2018, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ182/ PLAW-115publ182.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 75. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 11 (January 19, 2021), pp. 5694–5764, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-19/pdf/2021-00597.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 76. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Compliance with Statutory Program Integrity Requirements,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 42 (March 4, 2029), pp. 7714–7791, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-03-04/pdf/2019-03461.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 77. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Ensuring Access to Equitable, Affordable, Client-Centered, Quality Family Planning Services,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 192 (October 7, 2021), pp. 56144–56180, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2021-10-07/pdf/2021-21542.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 78. S. 624, Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, 118th Congress, introduced March 2, 2023, https://www. congress.gov/118/bills/s624/BILLS-118s624is.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 79. 50 U.S. Code Chapter 55, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-55 (accessed March 22, 2023). 80. 18 U.S. Code § 13, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/13 (accessed March 18, 2023). 81. Bowen v. American Hospital Association, 476 U.S. 610 (1986), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/ usrep/usrep476/usrep476610/usrep476610.pdf (accessed 22, 2023). 82. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, “Notification of Interpretation and Enforcement of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,” Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 99 (May 25, 2021), pp. 27984–27985, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2021-05-25/pdf/2021-10477.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 83. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “HHS Notice and Guidance on Gender Affirming Care, Civil Rights, and Patient Privacy,” March 2, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hhs- ocr-notice-and-guidance-gender-affirming-care.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 84. Heckler v. Chaney, 420 U.S. 821 (1985), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/470/821.html (accessed March 18, 2022). 85. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “Guidance to Nation’s Retail Pharmacies: Obligations Under Federal Civil Rights Laws to Ensure Access to Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Services,” content last reviewed July 14, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/ special-topics/reproductive-healthcare/pharmacies-guidance/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. H.R. 3103, “Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-191, 104th Congress, August 21, 1996, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ191/PLAW-104publ191.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. U.S. Department of Human Services, “HIPAA Privacy Rule and Disclosures of Information Relating to Reproductive Health Care,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, (accessed March 18, 2023). See also “Protecting the Privacy and Security of Your Health Information When Using Your Personal Cell Phone or Tablet,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/guidance/ cell-phone-hipaa/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023).

Department of Education

Minimal

Vector: 59%

Pages: 365-367AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on expanding GI Bill education benefits for National Guard members, whereas the Project 2025 Department of Education section concerns sex categorization, data collection, and Title IX regulations; there is no substantive thematic or policy overlap."

— 332 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise to create and collect data on a new “nonbinary” sex category (in addition to the current “male” or “female” sex categories) and to retire data collection that indi- cates the number of (1) high school–level interscholastic athletics sports in which only male and female students participate, (2) high school–level athletics teams in which only male or female students participate, and (3) participants on high school–level interscholastic athletics sports teams in which only male or only female students participate. These poorly conceived changes are contrary to law, fail to take account of student privacy interests and statutory protections favoring parental rights under the Protection of Pupils Rights Amendment, and jettison longstanding data collections that assist in the enforcement of Title IX. l The new Administration must quickly move to rescind these changes, which add a new “nonbinary” sex category to OCR’S data collection and issue a new CRDC that will collect data directly relevant to OCR’s statutory enforcement authority. Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan Program, and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program Final Regulations Effective July 1, 2023, the department promulgated final regulations addressing loan forgiveness under the HEA’s provisions for borrower defense to repayment (“BDR”), closed school loan discharge (“CSLD”), and public service loan forgive- ness (“PSLF”). The regulations also included prohibitions against pre-dispute arbitration agreements and class action waivers for students enrolling in institu- tions participating in Title IV student loan programs. Acting outside of statutory authority, the current Administration has drastically expanded BDR, CSLD, and PSLF loan forgiveness without clear congressional authorization at a tremendous cost to the taxpayers, with estimates ranging from $85.1 to $120 billion. l The new Administration must quickly commence negotiated rulemaking and propose that the department rescind these regulations. l The next Administration should also rescind Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) GEN 22-11 and DCL GEN 22-10 and its letters to accreditation agencies dated July 19, 2022, which are attempts to undercut Florida’s SB 7044, providing universities more flexibility on accreditation. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance (Title IX) With its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on July 12, 2022, the Biden Education Department seeks to gut the hard-earned rights of women with its changes to the department’s regulations implementing Title IX, which prohibits — 333 — Department of Education discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs and activities. Instead, the Biden Administration has sought to trample women’s and girls’ athletic oppor- tunities and due process on campus, threaten free speech and religious liberty, and erode parental rights in elementary and secondary education regarding sensitive issues of sex. The new Administration should take the following steps: l Work with Congress to use the earliest available legislative vehicle to prohibit the department from using any appropriations or from otherwise enforcing any final regulations under Title IX promulgated by the department during the prior Administration. l Commence a new agency rulemaking process to rescind the current Administration’s Title IX regulations; restore the Title IX regulations promulgated by then-Secretary Betsy DeVos on May 19, 2020; and define “sex” under Title IX to mean only biological sex recognized at birth. l Work with Congress to amend Title IX to include due process requirements; define “sex” under Title IX to mean only biological sex recognized at birth; and strengthen protections for faith-based educational institutions, programs, and activities. The Trump Administration’s 2020 Title IX regulation protected the founda- tional right to due process for those who are accused of sexual misconduct. The Biden Administration’s proposed change to the interpretation of Title IX disposes of these rights. l The next Administration should move quickly to restore the rights of women and girls and restore due process protections for accused individuals. At the same time, there is no scientific or legal basis for redefining “sex” to “sexual orientation and gender identity” in Title IX. Such a change misrepresents the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Bostock, threatens the American system of federalism, removes important due process protections for students in higher education, and puts girls and women in danger of physical harm. Facilitating social gender transition without parental consent increases the likelihood that children will seek hormone treatments, such as puberty blockers, which are experimental medical interventions. Research has not demonstrated positive effects and long- term outcomes of these treatments, and the unintended side effects are still not fully understood.

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. Moran, Jerry

Southwestern Power Administration Fund Establishment Act

119/s/1034

SAFEGUARDS Act of 2025

119/s/2378

Optimizing the VA Workforce for Veterans Act of 2026

119/s/4400

Back to All Bills