Guidance Clarity Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/81
Last Updated: May 21, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]

ID: L000575

Follow the money

The bill

Guidance Clarity Act of 2025

S. 81, 119th Congress — read as touching Private Equity & Hedge Funds.

The sponsor

Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]

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

The money

$112,600 raised

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

The alignment

95% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Education" section, p. 389-391 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 250.

November 2, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

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

(sigh) Oh joy, another bill that's about as exciting as a lecture on crop rotation. Let me dissect this mess for you.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Guidance Clarity Act of 2025 is a masterclass in bureaucratic doublespeak. Its primary objective is to require federal agencies to include a "guidance clarity statement" on certain documents, which supposedly clarifies that these documents don't have the force of law. Wow, what a revolutionary concept! It's like they're trying to cure a disease by slapping a Band-Aid on it.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires agencies to include this statement on guidance documents issued under section 553(b)(4)(A) of title 5, United States Code. This means that agencies will now have to explicitly state the obvious – that their guidance doesn't bind anyone or anything. What a monumental waste of time and resources.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved in this farce: federal agencies, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and Congress itself. It's like they're all playing a game of " CYA" (Cover Your Agency). The real stakeholders, however, are the taxpayers who will foot the bill for this exercise in futility.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of treating symptoms rather than the disease. It's an attempt to address the problem of regulatory overreach by adding more bureaucracy, which only perpetuates the cycle of confusion and inefficiency. The real impact will be on the already-muddled landscape of federal regulations, making it even harder for businesses and individuals to navigate.

In short, this bill is a placebo designed to make politicians look like they're doing something about regulatory reform. It's a Band-Aid on a bullet wound, a drop in the ocean of bureaucratic red tape. The only thing that will be clarified by this bill is the extent of Congress's incompetence and lack of vision.

Diagnosis: Terminal case of bureaucratic bloat, with symptoms including excessive verbiage, pointless regulations, and a complete disregard for common sense. Prognosis: Poor. Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism and a strong stomach for the absurdity that is Washington politics.

Related Topics

Federal Budget & AppropriationsCongressional Rules & Procedures
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$112,600
19 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$2,000
Committees
$0
Individuals
$110,600

No PAC contributions found

1
MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION
1 transaction
$1,000
2
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
SAMPLES, RYAN
3 transactions
$16,500
2
KAY, ALISON
1 transaction
$6,600
3
KANADY, CHRISTIAN
1 transaction
$6,600
4
MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE
1 transaction
$6,600
5
MANDELBLATT, ERIC
1 transaction
$6,600
6
ROWAN, CAROLYN
1 transaction
$6,600
7
ROWAN, MARC J.
1 transaction
$6,600
8
ARMSTRONG, SINCLAIR WALKER JR.
1 transaction
$6,600
9
LOWELL OSHMAN, LISHA K.
1 transaction
$6,600
10
MASSEY, GREGORY LEWIS
1 transaction
$6,600
11
VIELEHR, BYRON
2 transactions
$6,600
12
KIMBER, SHELDON
1 transaction
$5,800
13
NATION, THE CHEROKEE
1 transaction
$5,000
14
PACE, CHARLES
1 transaction
$5,000
15
CANTRELL, MIKE
1 transaction
$5,000
16
JONES, BILL
1 transaction
$4,000
17
BODE, DENISE A.
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Johnson, Ron [R-WI]

ID: J000293

Top Contributors

10

1
RICHARD & PEGGY LARSEN FARMS
OrganizationDUBOIS, ID
$500
Oct 12, 2023
2
SUNSET TRUST
OrganizationFLOWER MOUND, TX
$104
Oct 25, 2023
3
SUNSET TRUST
OrganizationFLOWER MOUND, TX
$104
Oct 31, 2023
4
SOLE TERRA FARMING
OrganizationCHICO, CA
$100
Oct 13, 2023
5
M AND M FARMS PARTNERSHIP
OrganizationMONTROSE, AR
$50
Jul 26, 2024
6
TORK RENTALS
OrganizationWISCONSIN RAPIDS, WI
$50
Jul 4, 2024
7
FAITH CHRISTIAN CHURCH
OrganizationROSEMEAD, CA
$25
Aug 7, 2024
8
PECK, JOHN
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$9,000
Feb 17, 2023
9
PECK, JOHN
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$9,000
Feb 17, 2023
10
TAYLOR, MARGARETTA J.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Dec 28, 2023

Sen. Moody, Ashley [R-FL]

ID: M001244

Top Contributors

0

No contribution data available

Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]

ID: S001217

Top Contributors

0

No contribution data available

Donor Network - Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 58 nodes and 25 connections (57 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $113,308

Top Donors - Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs17 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 4 harmed.

  • Section 2(a) implies increased regulatory clarity for agencies, which may lead to more stringent guidance and oversight on private equity firms and hedge funds, potentially increasing their compliance costs.

  • −Commercial Banksconfidence 0.50

    Section 2(a) suggests that agencies will provide clearer guidance, which may result in more stringent regulations for commercial banks, potentially increasing their operational costs and reducing their flexibility.

  • Section 2(b)(2) states that guidance documents do not have the force of law, which may lead to increased uncertainty for insurance companies, as they may need to navigate complex regulatory environments without clear guidelines.

  • −Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.50

    Section 2(c) requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to issue guidance, which may lead to more stringent regulations on big tech platforms, potentially increasing their compliance costs and reducing their ability to innovate.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HARMS

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Education

Very Strong
Vector: 68%
Pages: 389-391AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Guidance Clarity Act directly implements the core requirement of Executive Order 13891 reinstated in Project 2025: mandating that agencies clearly state guidance documents lack the force of law, thereby promoting transparency and preventing regulatory overreach."

Key themes:guidance documentsnon-binding naturetransparencyagency accountabilityrule of law

— 357 — Department of Education NEW EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD ISSUE Guidance Documents l The President should immediately reinstate and reissue Executive Order 13891: Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents, 84 Fed. Reg. 55235 (Oct. 9, 2019), and Executive Order 13892: Promoting the Rule of Law Through Transparency and Fairness in Civil Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication (Oct. 15, 2019). These executive orders required all federal agencies to treat guidance documents as non-binding in law and practice and also forbade federal agencies from imposing new standards of conduct on persons outside the executive branch through guid- ance documents. They required all federal agencies to apply regulations and statutes instead of guidance documents in any enforcement action. President Biden revoked these executive orders on January 20, 2021, demonstrating that these executive orders effectively restrained the abuses of an expansive administrative state. l Require APA notice and comment. The President should issue an executive order requiring the Office for Civil Rights’ Case Processing Manual to go through APA (Administrative Procedures Act) notice and comment. l Protect the First Amendment. The President should issue an executive order requiring grant applications (SF-424 series) to contain assurances that the applicant will uphold the First Amendment in funded programs and work. l Minimize bachelor’s degree requirements. The President should issue an executive order stating that a college degree shall not be required for any federal job unless the requirements of the job specifically demand it. l Eliminate the “list of shame.” Educational institutions can claim a religious exemption with the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education from the strictures of Title IX. In 2016, the Obama Administration published on the Department of Education’s website a list of colleges that had applied for the exemption. This “list of shame” of faith-based colleges, as it came to be known, has since been archived on ED’s website, still publicly available. The President should issue an executive order removing the archived list and preventing such a list from being published in the future. — 358 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise NEW AGENCY POLICIES THAT DON’T REQUIRE NEW LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS TO ENACT Transparency of FERPA and PPRA Complaints l The Department of Education should be transparent about complaints filed on behalf of families regarding the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA). l At the same time, the Department of Education should develop a portal and resources for parents on their rights under FERPA and PPRA. This portal should also contain an explanation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) and public school procedures to demonstrate that the law does not deprive parents of their right to access any school health records. The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program In 2011, Congress added new requirements to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program stating that participating private schools must submit to site visits by the program administrator, inform prospective students about the school’s accreditation status, mandate that teachers of core subjects have bachelor’s degrees, and require participating students to take some form of nationally norm-referenced test. Notably, the 2011 reauthorization also required, for the first time, that participating private schools be accredited or be on a path to accreditation. The 2017 reauthorization went further, requiring that each participating school supply a certificate of accreditation to the administering entity upon program entry, demonstrating that the school is fully accredited before being allowed to participate. The list of approved accreditors is entirely too small to serve the mission of the diverse schools in the nation’s capital. l Although the accreditation regulations should be removed entirely by Congress, in the meantime, the next President should issue an executive order expanding the list of allowable accreditors. Transparency Around Program Performance and DEI Influence The next President should issue a series of executive orders requiring: l An accounting of how federal programs/grants spread DEI/CRT/ gender ideology, l A review of outcomes for GEAR UP and the 21st Century grants programs,

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Very Strong
Vector: 64%
Pages: 624-626AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill directly enforces the Project 2025 objective of limiting the binding effect of agency guidance by mandating a clear statement that guidance lacks the force of law, thereby supporting clearer, non‑binding guidance and reducing regulatory overreach."

Key themes:guidance documentsbinding nature of guidancetransparencyregulatory overreachcompliance assistance

— 592 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Overtime Pay Threshold. Overtime pay is one of the most challenging aspects of the Fair Labor Standards Act rules. “Nonexempt workers” (e.g., workers whose job duties fall within the law’s power or whose total pay is low enough) must be paid overtime (150 percent of the “regular rate”) for every hour over 40 in a work- week. Overtime requirements may discourage employers from offering certain fringe benefits such as reimbursement for education, childcare, or even free meals because the benefits’ value may be included in the “regular rate” that must be paid at 150 percent for all overtime hours. And because some of these fringe ben- efits may be more valuable (and often come with tax preferences that benefit the worker), the goal should be to set a threshold to ensure lower-income workers have the protections of overtime pay without discouraging employers from offering these benefits. l DOL should maintain an overtime threshold that does not punish businesses in lower-cost regions (e.g., the southeast United States). The Trump-era threshold is high enough to capture most line workers in lower-cost regions. One possibility to consider (likely requiring congressional action) would be to automatically update the thresholds every five years using the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) as an inflation adjustment. This could reduce the likelihood of a future Administration attempting to make significant changes but would also impose more adjustments on businesses as those automatic increases take hold. l Congress should clarify that the “regular rate” for overtime pay is based on the salary paid rather than all benefits provided. This would enable employers to offer additional benefits to employees without fear that those benefits would dramatically increase overtime pay. l Congress should provide flexibility to employers and employees to calculate the overtime period over a longer number of weeks. Specifically, employers and employees should be able to set a two- or four- week period over which to calculate overtime. This would give workers greater flexibility to work more hours in one week and fewer hours in the next and would not require the employer to pay them more for that same total number of hours of work during the entire period. Compliance-Assistance Programming. Labor agencies are often tempted to encourage “over compliance” by companies subject to regulation by pursuing “regulation through enforcement” strategies. Rather than giving regulated enti- ties clear boundaries for what they can and cannot do under the law, the agencies — 593 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies rely on the vagueness of the law to bring enforcement activity against businesses that fail to meet an inspector or agency head’s personal standard. This is not fair to regulated parties and results in disfavored companies bearing the brunt of the agencies’ enforcement efforts even though their behavior may be within the main- stream of employer behavior. l Labor agencies should provide compliance assistance to help businesses and workers better understand the agencies’ position on their own rules and should do so in a way that makes it easier to follow those rules. This frees people to focus on their work rather than slogging through an ever-growing body of laws, rules, and guidance documents generated by the agencies. Clear and Restrictive Rules on Guidance Documents. Federal agencies not only issue regulations to fill in gaps left by legislation, but also supplement those reg- ulations with “guidance” documents that occupy a unique and often confusing area between law and “helpful advice.” Unfortunately, wielded by overzealous enforcement agents, such guidance, some of it even hidden from public view, morphs into binding law used against unsuspecting employers. Guidance can be a tricky thing and can be used for good or bad. It should be used to make compli- cated regulations easier to understand, so that businesses can do their actual jobs and focus on providing jobs to American workers and value to consumers (really, compliance assistance). But guidance is often used to create new rules overnight without following legal requirements—like giving the public an opportunity to provide valuable input. This wrongful use of guidance hurts workers and those who employ them. In October 2019, President Trump signed an executive order ending this abusive practice and created a new, fairer system for American busi- nesses and their employees. In response, DOL published its PRO Good Guidance rule,10 which expressly limits its use of guidance in enforcement actions and gives the public the opportunity to submit comments to influence the department’s deci- sions on creating, revising, and even rescinding guidance. Under this rule, agencies cannot treat guidance as legally binding and must make all guidance documents readily accessible on their searchable online databases. This rule was immediately rescinded by the Biden Administration. l DOL should reinstitute the PRO Good Guidance rule via notice and comment. l Congress should amend the Administrative Procedure Act11 to explicitly limit the use of guidance documents.

Executive Office of the President of the United States

Very Strong
Vector: 63%
Pages: 99-102AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Guidance Clarity Act directly implements the Project 2025 objective of increasing transparency and limiting the perceived binding effect of agency guidance, mirroring proposals such as the Guidance Out of Darkness Act and Regulatory Accountability Act that aim to curb regulatory overreach through clear disclosures."

Key themes:regulatory transparencyagency guidance limitationsexecutive oversightcongressional reviewpaperwork reduction

— 66 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 17. President William J. Clinton, Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” August 4, 1999, in Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 153 (August 10, 1999), pp. 43255–43259, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1999-08-10/pdf/99- 20729.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 18. President Ronald Reagan, Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” March 15, 1988, in Federal Register, Vol. 53, No. 53 (March 18, 1988), pp. 8859–8862, https://www.regulationwriters.com/downloads/Executive_Orders/EO_12630.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 19. Section 115 in H.R. 4577, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001, Public Law No. 106-544, 106th Congress, December 21, 2000, https://www.congress.gov/106/plaws/publ554/PLAW-106publ554.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 20. H.R. 6410, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public Law No. 96-511, 96th Congress, December 11, 1980, https:// www.congress.gov/96/statute/STATUTE-94/STATUTE-94-Pg2812.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 21. S. 3418, An Act to Amend Title 5, United States Code, by Adding a Section 552a, to Safeguard Individual Privacy from the Misuse of Federal Records, to Provide that Individuals Be Granted Access to Records Concerning Them Which Are Maintained by Federal Agencies, to Establish a Privacy Protection Study Commission, and for Other Purposes (Privacy Act of 1974), Public Law No. 93-579, 93rd Congress, December 31, 1974, https://www.congress.gov/93/statute/STATUTE-88/STATUTE-88-Pg1896.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 22. Office of Management and Budget, “Guidance for Grants and Agreements,” Final Guidance, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 157 (August 13, 2020), pp. 49506–49582, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-13/ pdf/2020-17468.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023), and “Guidance for Grants and Agreements,” Correcting Amendments, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 33 (February 22, 2021), pp. 10439–10440, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-02-22/pdf/2021-02969.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 23. H.R. 5, Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017, 115th Congress, introduced January 3, 2017, https://www. congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5 (accessed January 31, 20/23), and S. 951, Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017, 115th Congress, introduced April 26, 2017, https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th- congress/senate-bill/951 (accessed January 31, 2023). 24. S. 2314, Social Media Addiction Reduction Technology Act (SMART Act), 116th Congress, introduced July 30, 2019, https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/2314/text (accessed January 31, 2023). 25. H.R. 1605, Guidance Out of Darkness Act (GOOD Act), 117th Congress, introduced March 8, 2021, https://www. congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1605 (accessed January 31, 2023). 26. S. 2804, Early Participation in Regulations Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced September 22, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2804 (accessed January 31, 2023). 27. S. 170, Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act, 117th Congress, introduced February 2, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/170 (accessed January 31, 2023). 28. H.R. 277, Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2023 (REINS Act), 118th Congress, introduced January 11, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/277/all-info?r=217 (accessed January 31, 2023). 29. Subtitle E, “Congressional Review,” in H.R. 3136, Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-121, 104th Congress, March 29, 1996, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-104publ121/pdf/ PLAW-104publ121.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 30. H.R. 115, Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https://www.congress. gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/115/text?s=1&r=18 (accessed January 31, 2023). 31. See Federation of American Scientists, Intelligence Resource Program, “Presidential Directives and Executive Orders,” https://irp.fas.org/offdocs/direct.htm (accessed February 1, 2023), and Library of Congress, Researchers, Newspaper and Current Periodical Reading Room, “Presidential Directives and Where to Find Them,” March 30, 2022, https://www.loc.gov/rr/news/directives.html (accessed February 1, 2023). 32. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13803, “Reviving the National Space Council,” June 30, 2017, in Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 129 (July 7, 2017), pp. 31429–31432, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2017-07-07/pdf/2017-14378.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). — 67 — Executive Office of the President of the United States 33. H.R. 10230, National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976, Public Law No. 94-282, 94th Congress, May 11, 1976, https://www.congress.gov/94/statute/STATUTE-90/STATUTE-90-Pg459. pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 34. H.R. 4346, CHIPS [Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors] and Science Act, Public Law No. 117-167, 117th Congress, August 9, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ167/PLAW-117publ167.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 35. S. 169, Global Change Research Act of 1990, Public Law No. 101-606, 101st Congress, November 16, 1990, https://www.congress.gov/101/statute/STATUTE-104/STATUTE-104-Pg3096.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 36. S. 1075, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law No. 91-190, 91st Congress, January 1, 1970, https://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/91/190.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 37. Andrus v. Sierra Club, 442 U.S. 347, 358 (1979), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep442/ usrep442347/usrep442347.pdf (accessed March 7, 2023). 38. Title XLI (41) in H.R. 22, Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), Public Law No. 114-94, 114th Congress, December 4, 2015, https://www.congress.gov/114/statute/STATUTE-129/STATUTE-129-Pg1312.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 39. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” August 15, 2017, in Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 163 (August 24, 2017), pp. 40463–40469, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-08-24/ pdf/2017-18134.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 40. H.R. 5210, Anti-Drug Abuse of 1988, Public Law No. 100-690, 100th Congress, November 18, 1988, https://www. congress.gov/100/statute/STATUTE-102/STATUTE-102-Pg4181.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 41. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14020, “Establishment of the White House Gender Policy Council,” March 8, 2021, in Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 46 (March 11, 2021), pp. 13797–13801, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-03-11/pdf/2021-05183.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 42. U.S. Constitution, Amendment XXV, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv (accessed March 9, 2023). 43. 50 U.S.C. § 3021(c)(1), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3021 (accessed March 9, 2023). 44. 20 U.S.C. § 20(a), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/42#:~:text=The%20business%20of%20the%20 Institution%20shall%20be%20conducted,no%20two%20of%20them%20of%20the%20same%20State (accessed March 9, 2023). 45. Vice Presidents Gerald Ford and Lyndon Johnson assumed (Ford) or initially assumed (Johnson) the office of the presidency by a process of succession.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

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

Full Policy Text

Related Bills