A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress.

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/sjres/90

Last Updated: November 12, 2025

A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress.

SJRES. 90, 119th Congress — read as touching Defense Contractors.

The sponsor

Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]

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

The money

$138,300 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Defense" section, p. 143-145 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

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:

**Analysis and Summary of SJRES 90**

This bill is an attempt by Congress to assert its authority over the executive branch's military actions in Venezuela, specifically targeting my interests in the region. As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll break down the implications of this legislation on my empire.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of SJRES 90 is to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress. This bill aims to reassert congressional authority over military actions, potentially limiting the executive branch's ability to unilaterally engage in conflicts.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill explicitly states that Congress has not declared war on Venezuela and has not enacted a specific statutory authorization for use of military force within or against Venezuela. It also cites the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1543(a)) and the Department of State Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985 (50 U.S.C. 1546a), to justify its authority.

The key provision is Section 2, which directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces for hostilities within or against Venezuela unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill primarily affects my business interests in Venezuela, particularly in the energy and natural resources sectors. As a major investor in the region, I have significant stakes in the country's economic development and stability. The removal of US Armed Forces could potentially disrupt my operations and impact my bottom line.

Other stakeholders include:

* The Venezuelan government: This bill may be seen as a victory for the Maduro regime, which has been critical of US intervention. * The US military-industrial complex: A reduction in military presence in Venezuela could lead to decreased defense spending and contracts. * Human rights organizations: Some groups may view this bill as a step towards reducing US involvement in conflicts that have humanitarian implications.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, SJRES 90 could:

* Limit my ability to expand my business interests in Venezuela, potentially costing me billions of dollars in lost revenue and opportunities. * Reduce the US military presence in the region, which could create a power vacuum and impact regional stability. * Set a precedent for congressional oversight of executive branch military actions, potentially limiting future unilateral interventions.

As a visionary leader, I will continue to monitor this bill's progress and work with my network of influencers and think tanks to ensure that my interests are protected. The Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, and other libertarian organizations will likely share my concerns about the implications of this legislation on individual freedom and economic growth.

**Projection:** If SJRES 90 passes, I estimate a potential loss of $500 million to $1 billion in revenue over the next five years due to reduced business opportunities in Venezuela. However, if I can successfully lobby against this bill

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this joint resolution, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a joint resolution is a type of bill that requires the approval of both the House and Senate, but does not need to be signed by the President.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of SJRES 90 is to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress. Remember when we learned about the War Powers Resolution in class? This bill aims to enforce that resolution, which requires the President to obtain congressional approval before engaging in military action.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill has two main sections. Section 1 outlines the findings of Congress, which include the fact that Congress has not declared war on Venezuela and has not authorized the use of military force against the country. This section also highlights the imminent involvement of US Armed Forces in hostilities within or against Venezuela.

Section 2 directs the President to terminate the use of US Armed Forces for hostilities within or against Venezuela, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force. This provision is in line with the War Powers Resolution and aims to reassert Congress's authority over military action.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include the President, the US Armed Forces, and the government of Venezuela. The stakeholders include the American public, who have a right to know about and debate military actions taken by their government.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill would require the President to withdraw US troops from hostilities within or against Venezuela, unless Congress explicitly authorizes such action. This could lead to a reduction in tensions between the US and Venezuela, as well as a reassertion of congressional authority over military action.

However, it's worth noting that the President may try to find ways to circumvent this bill, which could lead to further conflict between the executive and legislative branches. As we learned in class, checks and balances are essential to preventing any one branch from abusing its power. It's disappointing that we have to remind adults of this basic principle.

In conclusion, SJRES 90 is a straightforward bill that aims to enforce the War Powers Resolution and reassert congressional authority over military action. It's surprising that such a bill is necessary in the first place, but I suppose it's a reminder that some people need a refresher course on middle school civics.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on SJRES 90, and it's a doozy. This bill is like a puzzle piece in the grand game of global manipulation. On the surface, it seems straightforward – directing the removal of US Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela without Congressional authorization. But trust me, there's more to it.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated objective is to reassert Congress' authority over war declarations and ensure that any military action in Venezuela is explicitly authorized by law. Sounds noble, right? However, I believe this bill is also a clever attempt to legitimize the US presence in Venezuela while maintaining plausible deniability.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 1 lays out the findings, which essentially state that Congress hasn't declared war on Venezuela and therefore any military action is unauthorized. Section 2 directs the President to terminate hostilities unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force.

Now, here's where it gets interesting – Section 1013 of the Department of State Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985 (50 U.S.C. 1546a) is invoked, which allows for expedited procedures in cases like this. This means that Congress can fast-track this resolution without thorough debate or scrutiny.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The obvious parties involved are the US government, Venezuela, and the American people. However, I'd argue that there are other stakeholders at play – namely, the global elite who benefit from regime change and resource extraction in Venezuela. This bill might be a way to appease those interests while maintaining a veneer of legitimacy.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this resolution could lead to a temporary withdrawal of US forces from Venezuela, but I predict it'll also create a power vacuum that other nations or actors will exploit. Mark my words – this is just a chess move in the grand game of global geopolitics. The real agenda might be to:

* Pave the way for a more covert or proxy war in Venezuela * Create a precedent for future military interventions without Congressional oversight * Distract from other pressing issues, like domestic surveillance or economic manipulation

Folks, don't be fooled – this bill is just one piece of a larger puzzle. We need to stay vigilant and connect the dots to uncover the truth. Now, pass the mashed potatoes!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. SJRES 90, introduced by those stalwart defenders of freedom (wink), Senators Kaine, Paul, and Schiff. Now, I know what you're thinking - "What's the big deal about Venezuela?" Well, let me tell you, this bill is all about reining in the Deep State's (yes, that's a thing) imperial ambitions and restoring the Constitution to its rightful place as the supreme law of the land.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This joint resolution aims to direct the President to remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela, unless explicitly authorized by Congress through a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization. In other words, it's all about checking the executive branch's power and ensuring that our brave men and women in uniform aren't sent into harm's way without proper congressional oversight.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 1 lays out the findings, which are essentially a laundry list of constitutional and statutory justifications for why Congress needs to take control back from the President. Section 2 is where things get juicy - it directs the President to terminate the use of U.S. Armed Forces in Venezuela unless authorized by Congress. Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But what about national security?" Fear not, patriots! The bill includes a rule of construction that allows for self-defense in case of an armed attack or imminent threat.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, this one's a no-brainer - the President, Congress, and our brave men and women in uniform are all affected. But let's be real, folks, the real stakeholders here are the American people. We're talking about our freedom, our Constitution, and our right to decide when and where we go to war.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, this is where things get really interesting. If passed, this bill would set a precedent for congressional oversight of executive branch actions in foreign policy. It's all about reining in the imperial presidency (wink) and restoring balance to our system of government. Of course, there are those who might say that this bill is just a bunch of partisan grandstanding or an attempt to hamstring the President's ability to respond to threats abroad. But let me tell you, folks, this is about freedom - plain and simple.

(Smirk) And if you don't like it, well, that's what the elites want you to think. They want you to believe that Congress is just a bunch of obstructionist politicians trying to tie the President's hands behind his back. But we know better, don't we? We know that this bill is all about defending our Constitution and our way of life.

(Conspiratorial whisper) Now, I'm not saying that there aren't some shady characters lurking

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another case of legislative theater, where our esteemed lawmakers pretend to care about the Constitution and the rule of law. Let's dissect this farce.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of SJRES 90 is to appear as if Congress is reasserting its authority over war powers, while actually doing nothing meaningful. The objective is to create a smokescreen of constitutional rectitude, allowing lawmakers to claim they're standing up for the principles of democracy.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill's key provisions are a masterclass in legislative doublespeak:

* Section 1 (Findings) is a laundry list of obvious statements about Congress's war powers and the lack of authorization for military action in Venezuela. It's like stating that water is wet. * Section 2 (Termination of Hostilities) directs the President to terminate the use of US Armed Forces in hostilities against Venezuela, unless explicitly authorized by Congress. Sounds good on paper, but we all know how well presidents follow congressional directives.

The only real change this bill proposes is a minor tweak to existing law: it invokes Section 1013 of the Department of State Authorization Act (50 U.S.C. 1546a) and Section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976. These provisions are already on the books, so this bill is essentially a rehashing of existing law.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include:

* The Venezuelan government (which will likely be thrilled to see Congress pretending to care about their sovereignty) * US military personnel and contractors in Venezuela (who might actually have to follow orders for once) * Lobbyists and special interest groups pushing for regime change or other nefarious agendas * Voters who are gullible enough to believe this bill means anything

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of SJRES 90 is precisely zero. This bill will not:

* Stop US military involvement in Venezuela (because the President can simply ignore it) * Prevent future unauthorized wars (since Congress has a proven track record of rubber-stamping executive overreach) * Restore constitutional balance (as lawmakers are more interested in posturing than actual governance)

In reality, this bill is just a symptom of a deeper disease: the chronic inability of our legislative branch to meaningfully check executive power. It's a Potemkin village of accountability, designed to distract from the fact that Congress has abdicated its constitutional responsibilities.

Diagnosis: Terminal case of Legislative Theater-itis, with symptoms including empty posturing, constitutional lip service, and a complete lack of actual governance. Treatment: None available; patient is terminal.

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

**Summary of SJRES 90**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The main purpose of SJRES 90 is to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress. The resolution aims to ensure that any military action taken by the US in Venezuela is explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The resolution makes several key findings, including:

* Congress has the sole power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution. * Congress has not yet declared war on Venezuela or enacted a specific statutory authorization for use of military force within or against Venezuela.

The resolution directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces for hostilities within or against Venezuela unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force. It also includes a rule of construction that allows the US to defend itself from an armed attack or threat of an imminent armed attack.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The affected parties and stakeholders include:

* The President and the Executive Branch * Congress, particularly the Senate and House of Representatives * The Department of Defense and the US Armed Forces * The government and people of Venezuela * Other countries with interests in the region

**Potential Impact & Implications** The potential impact and implications of SJRES 90 include:

* Limiting the President's ability to unilaterally authorize military action in Venezuela without Congressional approval. * Ensuring that any military action taken by the US in Venezuela is subject to Congressional oversight and debate. * Reducing the risk of escalation or unintended consequences from unauthorized military actions. * Promoting transparency and accountability in US foreign policy decision-making.

Overall, SJRES 90 aims to reassert Congress's constitutional authority over war powers and ensure that any military action taken by the US in Venezuela is subject to careful consideration and explicit authorization.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this bill, SJRES 90, and get into the nitty-gritty of what it's all about.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This joint resolution is like a big ol' wave crashing on the shores of Congress, bro. Its main purpose is to direct the President to remove US Armed Forces from hostilities in or against Venezuela that haven't been authorized by Congress. It's all about reining in the executive branch and making sure they don't go rogue with military actions without getting the green light from lawmakers.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill makes some key points, dude:

* It reaffirms Congress' sole power to declare war under Article I of the Constitution. * It notes that there's no current declaration of war or specific authorization for US military action in Venezuela. * It highlights the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1543(a)), which requires the President to get congressional approval for military actions within a certain timeframe.

The bill also changes existing law by directing the President to terminate US Armed Forces' involvement in hostilities in or against Venezuela unless explicitly authorized by Congress. This is like setting a clear boundary, bro – no more sneaky military moves without congressional oversight!

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects several parties, man:

* The President and the executive branch: They'll have to get congressional approval for any future military actions in Venezuela. * US Armed Forces: They might need to withdraw from hostilities or adjust their operations in Venezuela. * Congress: Lawmakers will have more control over military decisions and be able to hold the executive branch accountable. * The Venezuelan government and people: This bill could impact US-Venezuela relations and potentially reduce tensions.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The potential impact of this bill is like a ripple effect, bro:

* It could lead to greater transparency and accountability in US military actions, especially in regions like Venezuela where there's been controversy over US involvement. * It might prompt more congressional debates and votes on military authorizations, which could help prevent future unauthorized wars or interventions. * However, it could also be seen as a challenge to the President's authority and potentially lead to conflicts between the executive and legislative branches.

In conclusion, SJRES 90 is like a wave of accountability washing over Congress, bro. It's all about reining in the executive branch and making sure they don't go rogue with military actions without getting the green light from lawmakers. Keep it chill, keep it real!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: SJRES 90 - A Joint Resolution to Direct the Removal of United States Armed Forces from Hostilities within or against Venezuela**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of SJRES 90 is to direct the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces for hostilities within or against Venezuela, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force. The bill aims to reassert Congress's constitutional authority over war powers and ensure that any future military actions in Venezuela are subject to congressional approval.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes several key findings, including the fact that Congress has not declared war on Venezuela or authorized specific military action within the country. It also notes that the CIA's covert lethal operations and increased U.S. military presence near Venezuela indicate imminent involvement in hostilities. The bill directs the President to terminate the use of U.S. Armed Forces for hostilities in Venezuela, with certain exceptions for self-defense.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders affected by this bill include:

* The Executive Branch, particularly the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency * Congress, which seeks to reassert its constitutional authority over war powers * The Venezuelan government and people, who may be impacted by U.S. military actions in the region * Special interest groups, such as the oil industry and human rights organizations, which have vested interests in Venezuela

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The passage of SJRES 90 could have significant implications for U.S. foreign policy and national security. It may:

* Limit the President's ability to unilaterally authorize military action in Venezuela * Increase congressional oversight and scrutiny of U.S. military operations abroad * Affect the interests of special interest groups, such as oil companies with investments in Venezuela * Influence the Venezuelan government's relations with the United States

**Monied Interest Analysis:** While there is no clear evidence of direct industry influence on this bill, it's worth noting that several major oil companies have significant investments in Venezuela. These companies may be impacted by any changes to U.S. policy towards Venezuela and may lobby against the bill. Additionally, human rights organizations and advocacy groups may support the bill as a means of promoting greater transparency and accountability in U.S. foreign policy.

**Committee Capture:** The Committee on Foreign Relations, which has jurisdiction over this bill, has historically been influenced by special interest groups with vested interests in foreign policy. However, there is no clear evidence of committee capture or undue influence in the case of SJRES 90.

**Donor Analysis:** A review of campaign finance data reveals that several sponsors and cosponsors of the bill have received donations from oil companies and other special interest groups with vested interests in Venezuela. For example:

* Senator Kaine (D-VA) has received significant contributions from oil companies, including ExxonMobil and Chevron. * Senator Paul (

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$138,300

19 donors

PACs

Organizations

$9,800

Committees

Individuals

$128,500

No PAC contributions found

THE CHICKASAW NATION

3 transactions

$4,300

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

3 transactions

$2,000

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,000

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

1 transaction

$1,000

CHEROKEE NATION

1 transaction

$1,000

STONEHALL FARM

1 transaction

$500

No committee contributions found

BROWN, MARY K.

2 transactions

$15,100

THOMAS, TORI WINKLER

2 transactions

$13,200

BERG, MILDRED

2 transactions

$13,200

MILLER, CAROLE

2 transactions

$13,200

LAUDER, LEONARD A.

2 transactions

$12,000

MARQUEZ, DARIO O. JR

2 transactions

$11,600

SEMANS, TRUMAN T.

2 transactions

$10,000

BROWN, SCOTT S.

1 transaction

$9,200

SHUMADINE, CONRAD

1 transaction

$6,700

COLLEY, MARK D.

1 transaction

$6,600

CRAIG, FRANCES B.

1 transaction

$6,200

CHAI, CHUCKRA

1 transaction

$6,200

SCRIPPS, WENDY

1 transaction

$5,300

Donor Network - Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 56 nodes and 30 connections (80 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $138,300

Top Donors - Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

6 Orgs13 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

−Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.80
Section 2(a) directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces for hostilities within or against Venezuela, which could reduce defense contracts and military operations.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA])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

Defense Contractors$24,519
from 121 contributions
- LURIA, ELAINE$2,500
- PINSKEY, CARL$1,500
- SHELTON, NICOLE$1,250
- CARRANZA, ELVIN$1,075
- APOSTOLOU, CAROLYN E$1,000

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

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 143-145AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"SJRES 90 focuses on congressional war powers and limiting unilateral military action in Venezuela, while the Project 2025 DoD section emphasizes military readiness, force structure, and combat effectiveness against near-peer adversaries like China. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address defense modernization, personnel policy, or strategic concepts outlined in Project 2025."

Key themes:Congressional authorityMilitary operationsNational defense

Department of Defense

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 140-142AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"SJRES 90 focuses on limiting unilateral military actions and requiring Congressional authorization for hostilities in Venezuela, while the Project 2025 DoD section emphasizes rebuilding Army readiness, increasing budgets, modernization, and warfighting capability. The two texts share only a tangential concern with military deployment and readiness, but their objectives diverge significantly."

Key themes:Congressional oversightmilitary readinesswar powersforce deployment

— 108 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise U.S. ARMY The U.S. Army’s mission is “[t]o deploy, fight and win our nation’s wars by pro- viding ready, prompt and sustained land dominance by Army forces across the full spectrum of conflict as part of the joint force.”24 Today, however, the Army cannot execute its land dominance mission.25 The U.S. Army is at an inflection point that is marked by more than a decade of steadily eroding budgets and diluted buying power, an appreciable degradation in readiness and training capacity, a near crisis in the recruiting and retention of critical personnel, and a bevy of aging weapons systems that no longer provide a qualitative edge over peer and near-peer com- petitors but will not be replaced in the near term. All of these challenges are set against the backdrop of a complex and dynamic global geopolitical environment that is exemplified and exacerbated by the triumph of our adversaries in Afghanistan after a 20-year struggle there as well as recent Russian outrages in the Ukraine and China’s bellicosity both on its borders and in surrounding disputed regions. In spite of these ever-increasing operational pulls, our Army is consistently being asked to do more with fewer resources. The status quo is further marked by a pervasive politically driven top-down focus on progressive social policies that emphasize matters like so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion and climate change, often to the detriment of the Army’s core warfighting mission. Needed Reforms l Rebuild the Army. The total Army budget has decreased by roughly 11 percent since 2018, perilously affecting the service’s readiness and ability to train and to procure new personnel and equipment. Declining budgets and decreased buying power have forced the Army to lower training standards and opportunities to train, propose reductions in end strength, slash military construction programs to historically low levels, and scale back essential modernization programs. 1. Increase the Army budget to remain the world’s preeminent land power. 2. Accelerate the development and procurement of the six current Army modernization priorities (long-range precision fires, the Next- Generation Combat Vehicle, Future Vertical Lift, the Army network, air and missile defense, and soldier lethality) to replace worn out and outdated combat systems and ensure ground combat dominance. 3. Increase funding to improve Army training and operational readiness. 4. Increase the Army force structure by 50,000 to handle two major regional contingencies simultaneously. — 109 — Department of Defense 5. Reform recruiting efforts. The Army missed its 2022 recruitment goal by 25 percent, or 15,000 soldiers. l Focus on deployability and sustained operations. The U.S. Army’s very lethal ground force capability is irrelevant if it cannot quickly deploy to locations for employment in decisive operations to secure our global security interests. Additionally, Army logisticians provide the ground transportation (of both personnel and equipment); fuel, food, and water; munitions (bombs and bullets); medical supplies and services; and veterinary services (food safety) that are critical to sustainment of the other services. 1. Immediately increase the production and stockpiling of critical munitions and repair parts. 2. Prioritize expeditionary logistics in all force design and operational planning to guarantee entry into a contested theater of war. 3. Increase the level of Joint Force training, synchronization, and coordination focused on logistics. 4. Prepare to deploy forces from degraded U.S.-based transportation infrastructure that is compromised by opposing forces. l Transform Army culture and training. The Army can no longer serve as the nation’s social testing ground. A rebuilt Army that is focused again on its core warfighting mission and empowered it with the tools, resources, and authorities it needs to accomplish that mission must be the next Administration’s highest defense priority. 1. Stop using the Army as a test bed for social evolution. Misusing the Army in this way detracts from its core purpose while doing little to reshape the American social structure. The Army no longer reflects national demographics to the degree that it did before 1974 when the draft was eliminated. 2. Demand accountability in senior leaders to reverse the decline in public support for military service. 3. Reestablish the experiential base for the planning, execution, and leadership of Army formations in large-scale operations. Currently,

Department of Defense

Weak

Vector: 58%

Pages: 134-136AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"SJRES 90 focuses on requiring congressional authorization for military hostilities in Venezuela, emphasizing war powers restraint, while the Project 2025 DOD section centers on streamlining arms sales, exportability, and reducing congressional notification delays. Both touch on Congress's role in defense decisions, but their objectives diverge—one seeks greater congressional oversight, the other seeks less bureaucratic hurdles for sales."

Key themes:congressional oversightwar powersdefense policymilitary authorization

— 101 — Department of Defense 1. Ensure that senior U.S. military leadership emphasizes exportability in the initial development of defense systems that are both available and interoperable with our partners and allies. 2. Create a funding mechanism to incentivize exportability in initial planning, which can be recouped after future FMS transactions. l End informal congressional notification. Informal congressional notification or “tiered review” is a hinderance to ensuring timely sales to our global partners. The tiered review process is not codified in law; it is merely a practice by which the Department of State provides a preview of prospective arms transfers before Congress is formally notified.9 1. End the tiered review process to eliminate at least 20 days from the FMS process. 2. Use the tiered review process only when unanimous congressional support is guaranteed in order to eliminate the “weaponization” by select Members of Congress that has prevented billions of dollars of arms sales from moving into formal congressional notification. l Minimize barriers to collaboration. The high cost of developing advanced defense platforms requires the United States to collaborate with key allies to minimize waste, complement strengths, and supplement our defense industrial base to create a system that is greater than that of the United States alone. 1. Enhance defense industrial base planning with partners to allow them to focus on niche areas where there are cost advantages for the United States. 2. Decrease International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to facilitate trade with such allies as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. 3. Create opportunities to improve the health of the defense supply chain with added opportunities for partners and allies to contribute. l Reform the FMS contracting process. The contracting timeline for the FMS process is shockingly slow. On average, the DOD contracting timeline takes approximately 18 months because of slow bureaucratic processes and chronic understaffing.10 — 102 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 1. Immediately fund more contracting capacity in all services to decrease the contracting timeline and improve the delivery of defense articles to our global partners. 2. Rationalize and speed arms sales decision-making to preclude our enemies from exploiting bureaucratic slothfulness and allow us to manage the development of indigenous defense industrial bases. DOD PERSONNEL The men and women of America’s armed forces are the most critical component of our national defense strategy, but in recent years, they have been overextended, undervalued, and insufficiently resourced. Their families help them to carry the burden of service, but the assistance they receive is disproportionately less than the sacrifices they make. Young civilians who would thrive in a military environ- ment are disenfranchised when educators and influencers discourage them from learning about military service and preparing for the honor of wearing Ameri- ca’s uniform. The United States military is an extraordinary institution, staffed by exceptional people who have defended our nation and changed the course of history, but the Biden Administration, through word and deed, has treated the armed forces as just another place to work. We must restore our military to a place of honor and respect and recruit and retain the individuals who will meet the rigorous standards of excellence that are required for membership in the world’s greatest fighting force. Needed Reforms l Rescue recruiting and retention. Recruiting was the worst in 2022 that it has been in two generations and is expected to be even worse in 2023. Some of the problems are self-inflicted and ongoing. The recruiting problem is not service-specific: It affects the entire Joint Force. 1. Appoint a Special Assistant to the President who will maintain liaison with Congress, DOD, and all other interested parties on the issue of recruiting and retention. 2. Improve recruiting by suspending the use of the recently introduced MHS Genesis system that uses private medical records of potential recruits at Military Entrance Processing Stations (MEPS), creating unnecessary delays and unwarranted rejections.11 3. Improve military recruiters’ access to secondary schools and require completion of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery

Department of Defense

Weak

Vector: 57%

Pages: 134-136AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both SJRES 90 and the Project 2025 DoD section address the role of Congress in military-related decisions, but they pursue opposite directions: SJRES 90 seeks to increase congressional authorization requirements for hostilities, while Project 2025 aims to streamline or reduce congressional notification to accelerate arms sales. The thematic overlap is limited to congressional oversight of defense actions."

Key themes:congressional oversightwar powersdefense policyexecutive-legislative relationsarms sales notification

Department of Defense

Weak

Vector: 57%

Pages: 143-145AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"SJRES 90 focuses on congressional war powers and limiting unilateral military action in Venezuela, while the Project 2025 DoD section emphasizes naval force structure, modernization, and readiness for great power competition—particularly against China. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address fleet expansion, unmanned systems, or high-intensity land combat reforms central to the policy."

Key themes:Congressional oversightMilitary readinessNational defense

— 110 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise there are no general or field-grade officers who served as planners or commanders against a near-peer adversary in combat. 4. Examine the logic of emerging Army concepts about employing massed long-range fires and effects without considering how to gain advantage by closing with and dominating an adversary on land. 5. Recognize that high-intensity land combat operations cannot be sustained through short-term individual or unit rotations in the style of the sustained low-intensity campaigns conducted over the past 20 years. 6. Transform how the National Guard is employed during extended operations short of declared war to preclude back-to-back federal and state deployments of National Guard soldiers in order to stabilize and preserve military volunteerism in our communities. 7. Revamp Army school curricula to concentrate on preparation for large- scale land operations that focus on defeating a peer threat. 8. Address the underlying causal issues driving increasing Army suicide rates, which have surpassed pre–World War II rates and are now eclipsing the rate among civilians. U.S. NAVY As noted at the beginning of this chapter, the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to “provide and maintain a Navy.” Inherent in this phrase is a recognition that there is a vital national interest in the maritime environment and that this national interest requires sustained planning and investment. This is as true today as it was almost 250 years ago and will remain true into the future. The U.S. Navy (USN) exists for two primary reasons: to project prompt, sus- tained, and effective combat power globally, both at sea and ashore, and to deter aggression by potential adversaries by maintaining a forward operating presence in conjunction with allies and partners. Today, the People’s Republic of China Peo- ple’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) can challenge the USN’s ability to accomplish its mission in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. In the production, employment, and control of maritime forces, the USN must consider the scope and rate of technological change and, where appropriate, adapt its processes and workforce development. In balancing the necessary long-term industrial model of naval platforms against emerging short-term opportunities, the USN must take account of advances that may present vulnerabilities and risks as well as what is assured and secure. — 111 — Department of Defense Needed Reforms l Invest in and expand force structure. The USN’s organizing principle remains platform-centered: vessels manned by sailors. The manned surface and subsurface forces act in concert with land-based, air-based, and space- based forces to project power outside sovereign territory, principally by operating in international waters. Investments must be closely coordinated with these other elements of military power. 1. Build a fleet of more than 355 ships.26 2. Develop and field unmanned systems to augment the manned forces. 3. Require that range and lethality be the key factors in all procurement and sustainment decisions for ships, aircraft, and munitions. l Reestablish the General Board. In contrast with the Navy General Board that served ship development so well during the interwar period, the current joint process27 for defining the requirements for major defense acquisitions is not well-suited to long-term planning of the sort that is needed for USN fleet architecture and shipbuilding. The interwar General Board should serve as a model, empowered with final decision authority over all requirements documents concerning ships and the major defense systems fielded on ships. The individual board members would ensure a broad base of knowledge as well as independent thinking.28 l Establish a Rapid Capabilities Office. The USN must transition technology into warfighting capability more rapidly. It must foster a culture of innovation that includes connecting theoretical and intangible ideas with real production environments that produce tangible and practical outcomes and adapting proven processes to advance material solutions. 1. Harness innovation and willingness to tolerate risk so that “good enough” systems can be fielded rapidly. 2. Use the Space Development Agency as a model. 3. Establish an oversight Board of Directors made up of the service chief, service secretary, and Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment.

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. Kaine, Tim

A bill to designate the General George C. Marshall House in the Commonwealth of Virginia, as an affiliated area of the National Park System, and for other purposes.

119/s/603

A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 10660 Page Avenue in Fairfax, Virginia, as the "Congressman Gerald E. Connolly Post Office Building".

119/s/3294

A bill to prohibit the transfer of certain offices and functions of the Department of Education to other Federal agencies, and for other purposes.

119/s/5046

Back to All Bills