Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/9

Last Updated: August 4, 2026

Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025

S. 9, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Sen. Tuberville, Tommy [R-AL]

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

The money

$90,700 raised

30 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. 365-367 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Cloture on the motion to proceed to the measure not invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 51 - 45. Record Vote Number: 100. (CR S1455-1456)

March 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

Summary Style:

The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025. A bill that, on the surface, appears to be a trivial matter of athletic participation, but beneath the veneer lies a complex web of regulatory overreach.

**New Regulations:** This bill seeks to modify Title IX by introducing a new definition of sex based solely on reproductive biology and genetics at birth. A seemingly innocuous change, but one that will undoubtedly create a ripple effect throughout various industries and sectors.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:**

1. Education: Institutions receiving federal funds will be forced to adapt their athletic programs to comply with the new definition of sex. 2. Sports and Entertainment: Professional sports leagues, teams, and organizations will need to reassess their policies regarding athlete participation and competition. 3. Healthcare: Medical professionals may face increased scrutiny when providing care related to reproductive biology and genetics.

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:** The bill does not provide a clear timeline for implementation or compliance. However, it is likely that institutions and organizations will be given a short window to adapt, potentially leading to costly and time-consuming changes.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:** Non-compliance with the new definition of sex may result in loss of federal funding for educational institutions and potential lawsuits against sports organizations. The bill's vague language leaves room for interpretation, which could lead to inconsistent enforcement and penalties.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:**

1. Increased administrative costs for institutions and organizations to comply with the new regulations. 2. Potential loss of revenue for sports teams and leagues due to changes in athlete participation and competition. 3. Unforeseen consequences on the healthcare industry, potentially leading to increased costs and reduced access to care.

From a purely economic perspective, this bill is a prime example of regulatory overreach. The government's attempt to dictate how institutions and organizations define sex will undoubtedly lead to inefficiencies, increased costs, and unintended consequences. As a rational actor, I must consider the potential impact on my own interests and investments.

Projection: This bill has the potential to disrupt various industries, leading to a 5-10% decrease in revenue for affected companies within the first year of implementation. However, savvy investors may find opportunities for growth in the healthcare sector as institutions adapt to the new regulations.

Recommendation: I will be advising my network of think tanks and lobbying groups to push for amendments that reduce the regulatory burden on industries and provide clearer guidelines for compliance. Ultimately, this bill should serve as a prime example of why government intervention in the market is often counterproductive.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

Let's get down to business. As I taught you in 8th grade, a bill becomes a law through a process that involves introduction, committee review, debate, voting, and signature or veto by the President. This bill, S 9, has already passed some of those steps, but let's break it down.

The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025 aims to modify existing regulations under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Specifically, it seeks to redefine sex for purposes of athletic programs as solely based on a person's reproductive biology and genetics at birth. This change would affect educational institutions that receive federal funding and operate or sponsor athletic programs.

As we covered in middle school, bills like this one are typically referred to committees for review and markup. In this case, the bill has been read twice and placed on the Senate calendar, indicating it's ready for debate and voting. If passed, it would amend Section 901 of the Education Amendments of 1972.

Now, let's talk about compliance requirements and timelines. The bill doesn't specify a timeline for implementation, but affected institutions would need to review and update their policies to ensure compliance with the new definition of sex. This could involve changes to athletic program participation rules, facility usage, and staff training.

Enforcement mechanisms and penalties are not explicitly stated in the bill, but educational institutions that fail to comply with Title IX regulations risk losing federal funding. The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights would likely be responsible for monitoring compliance and investigating complaints.

The economic and operational impacts of this bill could be significant. Educational institutions may need to invest time and resources into updating policies, training staff, and potentially reconfiguring athletic programs. This could lead to increased costs and administrative burdens. Additionally, the bill's provisions could have a disproportionate impact on certain student populations, such as transgender athletes.

Remember when we learned about checks and balances in government? Well, this bill is an example of how the legislative branch can influence policy through new regulations. However, it's also important to note that the executive branch, specifically the Department of Education, would play a crucial role in enforcing these regulations.

In conclusion, this bill aims to modify existing regulations under Title IX and redefine sex for purposes of athletic programs. While it may seem straightforward, the implications are far-reaching, and affected institutions will need to carefully review and update their policies to ensure compliance.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got a doozy for ya. This bill, S 9, the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025, seems like a straightforward attempt to clarify sex-based participation in sports, but trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**New Regulations:** This bill aims to modify Title IX by introducing a new definition of "sex" based solely on reproductive biology and genetics at birth. Sounds innocuous enough, right? But think about it – this is a government-mandated redefinition of sex, folks! What's next? Redefining the meaning of life itself?

**Affected Industries:** This bill primarily targets educational institutions receiving federal funds, but let's not be naive. This is just the tip of the iceberg. The real target is the sports industry as a whole. Think about it – if this bill passes, what's to stop the government from dictating who can participate in professional sports? It's a slippery slope, folks!

**Compliance Requirements:** The bill requires institutions to ensure that only individuals with female reproductive biology and genetics at birth can participate in women's sports programs. But here's the thing – how will they enforce this? Will we see a new wave of "sex inspectors" patrolling school athletic departments?

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:** Ah, now we get to the juicy part! The bill doesn't explicitly outline penalties for non-compliance, but you can bet your bottom dollar that there'll be some sort of draconian measures in place. Mark my words – this is just another way for the government to exert control over our lives.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:** This bill will have far-reaching consequences for schools and athletic programs. Imagine the costs associated with implementing these new regulations! Not to mention the potential lawsuits from individuals who feel their rights are being infringed upon. It's a Pandora's box, folks!

Now, I know what you're thinking – "Uncle, this is just a simple bill about sports participation." Ah, but that's exactly what they want you to think! Wake up, sheeple! This is just another example of the government's insidious attempts to control every aspect of our lives. Stay vigilant, folks!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, we've got a real doozy for you tonight. The so-called "Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025" is making its way through the Senate, and I'm here to tell you, it's about time someone stood up for our daughters' right to fair competition on the field. (Sarcasm dripping from my voice) Oh, wait, no one was actually complaining about this issue until now.

Let's get down to business. This bill aims to modify Title IX regulations by defining sex solely based on reproductive biology and genetics at birth. Translation: if you're born with XY chromosomes, you can't compete in women's sports. Simple enough, right? (Winking at the camera) I mean, it's not like we've been having this debate for years or anything.

Now, let's talk about who's affected by this bill. Schools and athletic programs that receive federal funding will need to comply with these new regulations. That means colleges, universities, and even some high schools will have to reevaluate their policies on transgender athletes. (Smirking) I'm sure the elites in academia are just thrilled about this.

Compliance requirements? Well, it's pretty straightforward: if you're a male athlete who wants to compete with women, you'll need to... not do that anymore. (Chuckles) The bill doesn't specify any particular timeline for implementation, but we can assume it'll be soon enough to make the 2025 sports season.

Enforcement mechanisms? Ah, now this is where things get interesting. Schools that don't comply with these regulations risk losing federal funding. (Gasps dramatically) Oh no, the horror! I'm sure the deep state will find a way to strong-arm them into submission.

Economic and operational impacts? Well, let's be real, folks. This bill won't exactly break the bank. But hey, it might just save our daughters from those pesky trans athletes who are clearly ruining women's sports. (Rolls eyes)

In conclusion, this bill is a masterclass in conservative strategy: create a controversy where none existed, and then "solve" it with a bill that's sure to rile up the base. (Smirks) And hey, if it just so happens to restrict the rights of trans athletes, well, that's just collateral damage in the war for freedom. (Winks at the camera) Stay vigilant, folks!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another brilliant example of legislative theater, folks! The "Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025" - because nothing says "protection" like a healthy dose of transphobia and ignorance.

Let's dissect this mess, shall we?

**New Regulations:** This bill attempts to redefine sex as solely based on reproductive biology and genetics at birth. Because, you know, that's exactly what the medical community has been begging for - politicians playing doctor.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:** Athletics, education, and anyone who dares to challenge this blatant display of scientific illiteracy.

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:** Schools and athletic programs will be forced to comply with this nonsense, lest they face the wrath of... well, we'll get to that in a minute.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:** Ah, the fun part! The bill doesn't specify any concrete enforcement mechanisms or penalties, but I'm sure the usual suspects - bureaucratic red tape, lawsuits, and public shaming - will be employed to ensure compliance. After all, who needs due process when you're fighting for "women's rights"?

**Economic and Operational Impacts:** This bill is a masterclass in unintended consequences. It'll lead to:

* Increased costs for schools and athletic programs to implement these new regulations * Potential lawsuits from students and athletes who feel discriminated against * A chilling effect on inclusivity and diversity initiatives * And, of course, the inevitable public relations nightmare when some poor soul gets caught in the crossfire

Now, let's get to the real diagnosis: this bill is a symptom of a deeper disease - pandering to the far-right base while pretending to care about women's rights. It's a cynical attempt to score cheap points with the "values voters" crowd.

The sponsors of this bill are either willfully ignorant or deliberately malicious. I'm not sure which is worse. Either way, they're playing politics with people's lives, and that's just sickening.

In conclusion, this bill is a legislative abomination - a Frankenstein's monster of ignorance, intolerance, and bureaucratic overreach. It needs to be put out of its misery before it causes any more harm.

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

**Bill Summary: S 9 - Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025**

The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025 (S 9) aims to modify the interpretation of sex under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, specifically in the context of athletics. The bill seeks to ensure that sex is recognized based solely on a person's reproductive biology and genetics at birth.

**New Regulations:**

* The bill amends Section 901 of the Education Amendments of 1972 by adding a new subsection (d) that prohibits recipients of federal funds from allowing individuals whose sex is male to participate in athletic programs or activities designated for women or girls. * For purposes of this subsection, sex shall be recognized based solely on a person's reproductive biology and genetics at birth.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:**

* Educational institutions receiving federal funds, including schools and universities with athletic programs * Organizations sponsoring or facilitating athletic programs or activities for women and girls

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:**

* The bill does not specify a compliance timeline. However, affected entities will need to review and update their policies and procedures to ensure alignment with the new regulations. * Institutions may need to reassess their current practices regarding athlete participation and develop new guidelines for determining sex-based eligibility.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:**

* The bill does not explicitly outline enforcement mechanisms or penalties. However, as an amendment to Title IX, non-compliance could result in loss of federal funding or other consequences under existing regulations.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:**

* Institutions may face costs associated with revising policies, training staff, and implementing new procedures. * The bill's provisions could impact the participation of transgender athletes in women's sports, potentially affecting their educational and athletic opportunities. * Some argue that the bill could also lead to increased scrutiny and potential harassment of transgender students.

Overall, this bill aims to clarify the definition of sex under Title IX for purposes of athletics. However, its implementation may raise complex issues regarding athlete participation, institutional compliance, and potential consequences for non-compliance.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro.

The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025 is all about redefining how we determine sex for the purposes of Title IX compliance in athletics. The new regulation would require that sex be recognized based solely on a person's reproductive biology and genetics at birth. That means if you're born with XY chromosomes, you're considered male, and if you're born with XX chromosomes, you're considered female.

Now, this bill is all about modifying the existing Title IX regulations to ensure that women's sports remain competitive and fair. The new rule would prevent individuals who identify as transgender females from participating in women's athletic programs or activities. This change affects schools, universities, and other organizations that receive federal funding and operate athletic programs.

The compliance requirements are pretty straightforward: if you're a recipient of federal funds and you have an athletic program, you gotta make sure you're not letting dudes who identify as chicks compete against the ladies. The timeline for compliance isn't explicitly stated in the bill, but it's likely that schools and organizations will need to get their acts together ASAP.

As for enforcement mechanisms and penalties, the bill doesn't specify exactly how this new regulation would be policed or what kind of consequences would be doled out for non-compliance. However, we can assume that the Department of Education would be responsible for ensuring that schools are following the rules, and that failure to comply could result in a loss of federal funding.

The economic and operational impacts of this bill are pretty significant, bro. Schools and organizations might need to shell out some cash to update their policies and procedures, not to mention deal with potential lawsuits from individuals who feel like they're being discriminated against. On the other hand, some folks might argue that this new regulation is necessary to protect women's sports and ensure a level playing field.

Overall, this bill is all about trying to find a balance between fairness and inclusivity in women's athletics. It's a complex issue, dude, but it's one that we need to have an honest conversation about.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025: A Bill Born from Ideology, Not Science**

S. 9, introduced by Senator Tuberville (R-AL) and cosponsored by 27 Republican senators, aims to redefine sex under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 for purposes of athletic programs. The bill seeks to restrict participation in women's sports to individuals assigned female at birth, effectively excluding transgender athletes.

**New Regulations:**

The bill modifies Section 901 of the Education Amendments of 1972 by adding a new subsection that prohibits recipients of federal funds from allowing male-identified individuals to participate in women's athletic programs. This change creates a new regulatory framework for educational institutions and athletic organizations receiving federal funding.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:**

* Educational institutions (K-12 and higher education) * Athletic organizations and sports leagues * Transgender advocacy groups

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:**

The bill does not provide specific compliance requirements or timelines. However, it is likely that educational institutions and athletic organizations will need to review and revise their policies to ensure compliance with the new regulations.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:**

The bill relies on existing enforcement mechanisms under Title IX, which include investigations by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and potential loss of federal funding for non-compliant institutions. However, it does not specify penalties for individuals or organizations found to be in violation.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:**

The bill may have significant economic and operational impacts on educational institutions and athletic organizations that receive federal funding. Compliance with the new regulations may require changes to policies, procedures, and infrastructure, potentially leading to increased costs and administrative burdens.

**Monied Interest Analysis:**

While there are no obvious monied interests directly backing this bill, it is likely that conservative advocacy groups and think tanks have played a role in shaping its language and provisions. The Heritage Foundation, the Family Research Council, and other organizations with a history of opposing LGBTQ+ rights may be supporting this legislation.

**Committee Capture:**

The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) will likely review this bill. Given the committee's composition and past actions, it is possible that industry interests and conservative advocacy groups have undue influence over its deliberations.

In conclusion, S. 9 is a bill driven by ideology rather than science or evidence-based policy-making. Its provisions may have far-reaching consequences for transgender athletes, educational institutions, and athletic organizations, while serving the interests of conservative advocacy groups and think tanks.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Tuberville, Tommy [R-AL]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$90,700

21 donors

PACs

Organizations

$20,900

Committees

Individuals

$69,800

No PAC contributions found

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

3 transactions

$9,100

BROAD METRO LLC

1 transaction

$3,300

SUMMERLIN FARMS

2 transactions

$2,000

KENT HANCE BUSINESS

2 transactions

$2,000

BEACH ICE LLC

2 transactions

$1,000

LEELAND VENTURES LLC

1 transaction

$500

C&D CANNON FARMS

2 transactions

$500

LOROC FARMS

2 transactions

$500

OAK WILLOW CREATIVES LLC

2 transactions

$500

WINDHAUSEN FARMS

2 transactions

$500

DEMOTT PEANUT CO.

1 transaction

$250

DEMOTT TRUCKING LLC

1 transaction

$250

DEMOTT PEANUT CO

1 transaction

$250

HARWOOD REAL ESTATE

1 transaction

$250

No committee contributions found

MILES, WILSON DANIEL

1 transaction

$13,200

STAHL, LEWIS ARNOLD

1 transaction

$10,000

CALDWELL, MATTHEW THOMAS

1 transaction

$10,000

CALDWELL, JOSEPH W.

1 transaction

$10,000

CARTER, LEWIS M. JR

1 transaction

$10,000

CARTER, LEWIS M JR

1 transaction

$10,000

SPITZER, TERRY

1 transaction

$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID]

ID: R000584

Top Contributors

CRW RESOURCES

OrganizationCOEUR D ALENE, ID

$1,000

Feb 29, 2024

SNELL, PETER

ARBELLA CAPITAL • REAL EATATE

IndividualARLINGTON, VA

$5,000

May 8, 2024

KAYALI, ZEID

SELF • PHYSICIAN

IndividualPASADENA, CA

$3,500

Feb 9, 2023

MOORE, JEFFREY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualLAS VEGAS, NV

$3,435

Nov 19, 2024

KTELEH, TAREK

RHEUMATOLOGY • DOCTOR

IndividualFISHERS, IN

$3,300

Dec 23, 2024

ALAAMA, ABDUL M.D.

SELF • GASTROENTEROLOGY

IndividualWHITTIER, CA

$3,300

Feb 9, 2023

ASHOURI, DIANA

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA • PHYSICIAN

IndividualPASADENA, CA

$3,300

Feb 9, 2023

DIAB, MOHAMED KHEIR

MASIMO CORPORATION • DIRECTOR

IndividualLADERA RANCH, CA

$3,300

Feb 9, 2023

MOUJTAHED, SAED

OWL REXALL INFUSION • DIRECTOR

IndividualTRABUCO CANYON, CA

$3,300

Feb 9, 2023

MONSEN, MARION F

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSUN VALLEY, ID

$3,300

Sep 6, 2023

Sen. Johnson, Ron [R-WI]

ID: J000293

Top Contributors

RICHARD & PEGGY LARSEN FARMS

OrganizationDUBOIS, ID

$500

Oct 12, 2023

SUNSET TRUST

OrganizationFLOWER MOUND, TX

$104

Oct 25, 2023

SUNSET TRUST

OrganizationFLOWER MOUND, TX

$104

Oct 31, 2023

SOLE TERRA FARMING

OrganizationCHICO, CA

$100

Oct 13, 2023

M AND M FARMS PARTNERSHIP

OrganizationMONTROSE, AR

$50

Jul 26, 2024

TORK RENTALS

OrganizationWISCONSIN RAPIDS, WI

$50

Jul 4, 2024

FAITH CHRISTIAN CHURCH

OrganizationROSEMEAD, CA

$25

Aug 7, 2024

PECK, JOHN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$9,000

Feb 17, 2023

PECK, JOHN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$9,000

Feb 17, 2023

TAYLOR, MARGARETTA J.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Dec 28, 2023

Sen. Tillis, Thomas [R-NC]

ID: T000476

Top Contributors

SASTRY, ASHWANI

SUNRISE VASCULAR • PHYSICIAN

IndividualORLANDO, FL

$3,400

Dec 12, 2024

AGARWAL, SAJJAN K

GREENHAWK CORPORATION • CEO

IndividualCARY, NC

$3,300

Dec 11, 2024

ALLYN, JILL

BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL • INVESTMENTS

IndividualESTERO, FL

$3,300

Oct 17, 2024

BARATTA, JOSEPH PATRICK

BLACKSTONE • FINANCE EXECUTIVE

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Dec 18, 2024

BARATTA, JOSEPH PATRICK

BLACKSTONE • FINANCE EXECUTIVE

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Dec 18, 2024

BIELEN, RICHARD J

PROTECTIVE LIFE CORPORATION • PRESIDENT & CEO

IndividualMOUNTAIN BRK, AL

$3,300

Oct 29, 2024

BLITZER, DAVID S

BLACKSTONE • CHAIRMAN

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Dec 12, 2024

BLITZER, DAVID S

BLACKSTONE • CHAIRMAN

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Dec 12, 2024

BRAND, MARTIN

BLACKSTONE • FINANCE

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Dec 20, 2024

CAMERON, WILLIAM H

CAMERON MANAGMENT • PRESIDENT

IndividualWILMINGTON, NC

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]

ID: C001047

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$2,800

Dec 31, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Nov 8, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jul 22, 2024

ARNOLD, JOHN MR.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$6,600

Dec 27, 2023

MANOCHERIAN, JENNIFER MS.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSCARSDALE, NY

$6,600

Feb 17, 2023

MANOCHERIAN, JED MR.

SELF • REAL ESTATE

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Feb 23, 2023

MANOCHERIAN, GREG MR.

SELF EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE

IndividualPOUND RIDGE, NY

$6,600

Mar 1, 2023

MANOCHERIAN, KIM

PANAM EQUITIES • EXECUTIVE

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Mar 27, 2023

KAY, ALISON MS.

KIDS CAPITAL • HEDGE FUND MANAGER

IndividualBEVERLY HILLS, CA

$6,600

Jun 20, 2023

MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE

DMM PROPRIETA MANAGEMENT • MANAGER

IndividualASPEN, CO

$6,600

Sep 26, 2024

Sen. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND]

ID: C001096

Top Contributors

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Jun 14, 2024

SISSETON-WAHPETON OYATE

OrganizationAGENCY VILLAGE, SD

$2,500

Jun 21, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jun 18, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$600

Jun 6, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$400

Jun 6, 2023

WALSH, RICHARD

IndividualLAKE WORTH BEACH, FL

$6,700

Oct 16, 2024

JORDAN, BORIS

CURALEAF • EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$6,600

Sep 15, 2023

SMITH, BRAD

MICROSOFT CORPORATION • ATTORNEY

IndividualBELLEVUE, WA

$6,600

Sep 29, 2023

KAPLAN, DAVID

ARES MANAGEMENT • CO-FOUNDER

IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA

$6,600

Oct 11, 2023

Sen. Hyde-Smith, Cindy [R-MS]

ID: H001079

Top Contributors

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$2,900

Feb 28, 2023

MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS

$1,500

May 31, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jun 20, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$250

Mar 11, 2024

LUROS, HILARY

HOUSEWIFE • HOUSEWIFE

IndividualSUGAR LAND, TX

$6,600

Oct 21, 2024

LUROS, HILARY

HOUSEWIFE • HOUSEWIFE

IndividualSUGAR LAND, TX

$6,600

Oct 21, 2024

BESSENT, SCOTT

KEY SQUARE GROUP • INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT

IndividualCHARLESTON, SC

$6,600

Dec 31, 2024

FREEMAN, JOHN

HIGH PLAINS ACRES LLP • ATTORNEY/AGRICULTURE

IndividualCHARLESTON, SC

$6,600

Dec 31, 2024

CASTLE, JOHN

CASTLE HARLAN • MERCHANT BANKER

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Mar 26, 2024

SEEMANN, WILLIAM III

SEEMANN COMPOSITES • CHAIRMAN

IndividualPASS CHRISTIAN, MS

$6,600

Jun 20, 2024

Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR]

ID: C001095

Top Contributors

WINRED

PACARLINGTON, VA

$1,919

Mar 7, 2024

CLARK COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE

OrganizationARKADELPHIA, AR

$600

Mar 4, 2024

YELL COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE

OrganizationDARDANELLE, AR

$500

Jan 17, 2024

DARDANELLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

OrganizationDARDANELLE, AR

$400

Jan 26, 2024

RAMSEY, JASON

RAGNAR • MANAGER

IndividualBREVARD, NC

$11,600

Jul 11, 2023

KLINGENSTEIN, THOMAS D. MR.

COHEN KLINGENSTEIN LLC • INVESTMENT COUNSELOR

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$11,600

Sep 28, 2023

MCINERNEY, THOMAS

BLUFF POINT ASSOCIATES • INVESTOR

IndividualWESTPORT, CT

$11,600

Oct 24, 2023

MCMAHON, LINDA E. MRS.

AMERICA FIRST POLICY INSTITUTE • SELF-EMPLOYED

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$11,600

Oct 31, 2023

CHIAPPA, CARL

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualOLD CHATHAM, NY

$11,600

Nov 9, 2023

SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$11,600

Jan 11, 2024

Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID]

ID: C000880

Top Contributors

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$2,000

Dec 19, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Apr 30, 2024

ONEIDA NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$1,000

Sep 10, 2024

RENO-SPARKS INDIAN COLONY

OrganizationRENO, NV

$500

Sep 10, 2024

ARNOLD, JOHN D. MR.

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$6,600

May 6, 2024

LEPRINO, TERRY L

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualDENVER, CO

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

BUKOWSKY, BRANT

MORTGAGE RESEARCH CENTER • ENTREPRENEUR

IndividualCOLUMBIA, MO

$3,300

Oct 9, 2023

BUKOWSKY, BROCK

VETERANS UNITED • FINANCE

IndividualCOLUMBIA, MO

$3,300

Nov 28, 2023

SILBEY, ALEXANDER

ATS COMMUNICATIONS, INC. • CONSULTANT

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Dec 21, 2023

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. Daines, Steve [R-MT]

ID: D000618

Top Contributors

CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES OF THE FLATHEAD NATI

OrganizationPABLO, MT

$6,600

Mar 30, 2023

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$5,000

Jun 18, 2024

BLUECHIP FINANCIAL

OrganizationBELCOURT, ND

$3,300

Jun 20, 2024

HPUL PROJECT OPERATION

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Jun 20, 2024

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationSUQUAMISH, WA

$3,300

Sep 20, 2024

ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE

OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX

$2,500

Oct 31, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jun 5, 2024

MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION

OrganizationOKMULGEE, OK

$1,000

Jun 20, 2024

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$765

Oct 17, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Tuberville, Tommy [R-AL]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 31 nodes and 42 connections

Total contributions: $42

Top Donors - Sen. Tuberville, Tommy [R-AL]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

14 Orgs7 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

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

Department of Education

Very Strong

Vector: 74%

Pages: 365-367AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill directly implements Project 2025's core objective of defining 'sex' under Title IX as only biological sex recognized at birth and protecting women's and girls' athletic opportunities by restricting male-bodied participants from women's sports."

Key themes:biological sex definitionTitle IX athleticswomen's sports protectionsex-based eligibilityfederal funding compliance

— 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.

Department of Education

Very Strong

Vector: 71%

Pages: 365-367AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill directly implements Project 2025's objective to define 'sex' under Title IX as biological sex recognized at birth, specifically in athletics, aligning with the policy's goal to reverse Biden-era interpretations and restore protections for women and girls in sports."

Key themes:Title IXbiological sexathleticswomen's sportssex definition

— 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. — 334 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l The next Administration should abandon this change redefining “sex” to mean “sexual orientation and gender identity” in Title IX immediately across all departments. l On its first day in office, the next Administration should signal its intent to enter the rulemaking process to restore the Trump Administration’s Title IX regulation, with the additional insistence that “sex” is properly understood as a fixed biological fact. Official notice-and-comment should be posted immediately. l At the same time, the political appointees in the Office for Civil Rights should begin a full review of all Title IX investigations that were conducted on the understanding that “sex” referred to gender identity and/or sexual orientation. l All ongoing investigations should be dropped, and all school districts affected should be given notice that they are free to drop any policy changes pursued under pressure from the Biden Administration. l The OCR Assistant Secretary should prepare a report of OCR’s actions for the new Secretary of Education, who should—by speech or letter— publicize the nature of the overreach engaged in by his predecessor. l The Secretary should make it clear that FERPA allows parents full access to their children’s educational records, so any practice of paperwork obfuscation on this front violates federal law. Title VI—School Discipline and Disparate Impact Assuring a safe and orderly school environment should be a primary consid- eration for school leaders and district administrators. Unfortunately, federal overreach has pushed many school leaders to prioritize the pursuit of racial parity in school discipline indicators—such as detentions, suspensions, and expulsions— over student safety. In 2014, the Obama Administration issued a Dear Colleague Letter that muddied the standard for civil rights enforcement under Title VI for student discipline cases. Before the DCL, a school would be in violation of federal law for treating black and white students differently for the same offense (dispa- rate treatment); under the Obama Administration schools were at risk of losing federal funding if they treated black and white students equally but had aggregate differences in the rates of school discipline by race (disparate impact). OCR leveraged federal civil rights investigations as policy enforcement tools; these investigations could only end when school districts agreed to adopt lenient

Department of Education

Very Strong

Vector: 70%

Pages: 365-367AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill directly supports Project 2025's goal of reversing Biden-era Title IX changes by defining sex strictly based on reproductive biology and genetics at birth, thereby opposing the inclusion of gender identity in athletic participation and data collection, which aligns with the policy's critique of expanding sex categories beyond male/female."

Key themes:Title IXsex definitionathletic participationgender identitydata collection

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Very Strong

Vector: 64%

Pages: 618-620AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill directly implements the Project 2025 directive by defining sex solely based on reproductive biology and genetics at birth for Title IX enforcement, thereby focusing sex discrimination enforcement on the biological binary meaning of sex."

Key themes:biological binary sexsex discrimination enforcementTitle IXathletics eligibilityfederal funding compliance

— 585 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies l Direct agencies to refocus enforcement of sex discrimination laws. The President should direct agencies to focus their enforcement of sex discrimination laws on the biological binary meaning of “sex.” PRO-LIFE MEASURES l Promote pro-life workplace accommodations for mothers. Federal law should protect life and promote pro-family policies. Current law, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act,3 provides nondiscrimination protections in the workplace for pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA)4 requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for women “to the known limitations related to the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” unless “the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the [employer’s] business.” The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) also provides nondiscrimination and accommodation protections in the workplace for certain pregnancy-related disability.5 None of these laws requires an employer provide health insurance benefits for elective abortion. l Pass a law requiring equal (or greater) benefits for pro-life support for mothers and clarifying abortion exclusions. Congress should pass a law requiring that to the extent an employer provides employee benefits for abortion, it must provide equal or greater benefits for pregnancy, childbirth, maternity, and adoption. That law should also clarify that no employer is required to provide any accommodations or benefits for abortion. l Keep anti-life “benefits” out of benefit plans. Some benefits attorneys and pro-choice advocates have argued since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision6 that the longstanding doctrine of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)7 preemption should block individual states’ efforts to prohibit employers from helping employees procure abortions via offering various kinds of coverage under employee-sponsored benefit plans. ERISA should not be allowed to trump states’ ability to protect innocent human life in the womb. Congress and DOL should clarify that ERISA does not preempt states’ power to restrict abortion, surrogacy, or other anti-life “benefits.” RELIGION l Provide robust protections for religious employers. America’s religious diversity means that workplaces include people of many faiths and that many employers are faith-based. Nevertheless, the Biden Administration has been hostile to people of faith, especially those with traditional beliefs — 586 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise about marriage, gender, and sexuality. The new Administration should enact policies with robust respect for religious exercise in the workplace, including under the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA),8 Title VII, and federal conscience protection laws. l Issue an executive order protecting religious employers and employees. The President should make clear via executive order that religious employers are free to run their businesses according to their religious beliefs, general nondiscrimination laws notwithstanding, and support participation of religious employees and employers as federal contractors and in federal activities and programs. l Clarify Title VII’s religious organization exemptions. Congress should clarify Title VII’s religious organization exemptions to make it more explicit that those employers may make employment decisions based on religion regardless of nondiscrimination laws. l Provide Robust Accommodations for Religious Employees. Title VII requires reasonable accommodations for an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs, observances, or practices unless it poses an undue hardship on the employer’s business. These accommodation protections also apply to issues related to marriage, gender, and sexuality. Unless the Supreme Court overrules its bad precedent, Congress should clarify that undue hardship means “significant difficulty or expenses,” not “more than a de minimis cost” as the Court has previously held. General EEOC Reforms. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commis- sion (EEOC) does not have rulemaking authority under Title VII and other laws it enforces, yet it issues “guidance,” “technical assistance,” and other documents, including some that push new policy positions. EEOC should disclaim its regulatory pretensions and abide by the guidance reforms dis- cussed below. l EEOC should disclaim its regulatory pretensions. l Affirm decision-making via majority vote of Commissioners. EEOC should affirm as policy the Title VII requirement that it exercise substantive power via majority vote of Commissioners, not by unilateral Chair action or by delegation to staff.

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 64%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on defining sex based on reproductive biology for Title IX athletics eligibility, while the Project 2025 HHS section primarily addresses healthcare regulations, civil rights in health programs, abortion policy, and related social services—there is minimal thematic overlap beyond a shared conservative stance on sex and gender definitions."

Key themes:sex definitiongender policyconservative social policy

— 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).

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. Tuberville, Tommy

Making America's Food Safer Act

119/s/4974

Veterans National Traumatic Brain Injury Treatment Act

119/s/2737

ASSIST Act of 2025

119/s/1726

Back to All Bills