Political Awareness

Note: Political Awareness never authorizes any candidate or their committees to publish its communication.

National Policy Roundup

National Policy Roundup is a section to explain what legislation is currently being considered in Congress. The cases held by the Supreme Court, and actions taken by the Executive branch each week. The goal of this column is to break down the important legislation to help our readers better understand. How current happenings in the federal government can and will affect their lives. As well as what they can do to help influence their representatives actions.

Bills of Note Coming to the Floor in Congress

H.R. 3174: Made in America Manufacturing Finance Act of 2025
The House Majority Leader indicated on Nov. 24, 2025 that this bill may be considered in the week ahead.

Sponsor: Roger Williams. Representative for Texas’s 25th congressional district. Republican.

Summary of the Resolution:

This bill seeks to increase certain loan-limit thresholds under existing small-business financing programs, specifically targeting “small manufacturers” (defined by the bill) to provide greater access to capital for U.S. manufacturing operations. 

Key Provisions Include:

• Adds a new definition of “small manufacturer” to the Small Business Act: a small business whose primary business is classified in sector 31, 32, or 33 of the NAICS (manufacturing), and whose production facilities are entirely located in the United States.
• For loans under section 7(a) of the Small Business Act: in the case of a borrower that is a small manufacturer: max loan amount raised to $7,500,000 (or if gross loan amount would exceed $10,000,000).
• Also for small manufacturers: the portion tied to export-purpose financing under paragraph (14) is raised, and the working-capital/supplies/export financing cap is adjusted (for example, up to $9,000,000 for small manufacturers under one clause).
• Under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958: the bill raises the limit in Section 502(2)(A)(iii) from $5,500,000 to $10,000,000 for small manufacturers.

Background / Rationale

The legislation is part of a broader effort to revitalize U.S. manufacturing. Especially the small business segment of the manufacturing sector. Officials note that small manufacturers often face higher per-employee regulatory burdens than larger manufacturers and access to capital remains a constraint. The title “Made in America Manufacturing Finance Act” underscores the push for domestic production, supply-chain resilience, and domestic job creation.

Support & Opposition

• Support: Proponents argue that raising the loan ceilings for small manufacturers will help these firms modernize, expand operations, purchase equipment, and compete globally—thereby strengthening U.S. manufacturing capacity, supply chains, and employment.
• Opposition / concerns: While I did not locate a detailed roll-call opposition summary in the publicly available summary, such measures often raise questions about cost, targeting, program oversight, and ensuring that the expanded financing reaches the intended firms and doesn’t duplicate existing support. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has prepared cost estimates, reflecting these concerns.

H.R. 2159: Count the Crimes to Cut Act of 2025

The House Majority Leader indicated on Nov. 24, 2025 that this bill may be considered in the week ahead. 

Sponsor: Chip Roy. Representative for Texas’s 21st congressional district. Republican.

Summary of the Bill

The bill requires the federal government to compile and publish a comprehensive database of all federal criminal offenses — both statutory crimes and regulatory crimes that carry criminal penalties.

Key Provisions Include:

• The head of the Department of Justice must submit to Congress (within one year of enactment) a report listing all criminal statutory offenses. For each offense, the report must include: the statute’s elements, the possible criminal penalties, the number of prosecutions over the prior 15 years, and the mens rea (mental-state) requirement.
• Each federal agency that enforces regulations carrying criminal penalties must also report (within one year) a list of criminal regulatory offenses. For each, the agency must similarly report the potential penalty, number of violation referrals to DOJ over the past 15 years, and the mens rea requirement.
• Within two years after enactment, DOJ and each relevant federal agency must publish an online, publicly accessible index of the statutory and regulatory criminal offenses. 
• The bill does not require new appropriations — it is intended to work within existing resources.

Background / Rationale

Supporters argue the bill addresses what many see as a massive problem of “overcriminalization” — that is, the proliferation of a large number of federal criminal laws (statutory or regulatory) that citizens may not even know exist.

By cataloguing every federal crime (statutory and regulatory), including how often they’ve been used in prosecutions. Congress and the public would finally have a full picture of the scope and use of federal criminal law. That visibility could then inform efforts to repeal outdated, rarely used, or overly broad crimes. 

Proponents argue this transparency is a “first step” toward simplifying and rationalizing the federal criminal code. Reducing redundant or unnecessary criminal offenses and protecting citizens from being punished under obscure or obscurely enforced laws.

Support & Policy Considerations

• Supporters: The bill has bipartisan backing (from both Republicans and Democrats) and is endorsed by several criminal-justice reform organizations seeking to reduce overcriminalization and improve fairness in the legal system.
• Benefits: If implemented, the bill would create clarity and accountability. Citizens, lawmakers, judges, and lawyers could reference a central, official source to determine what is a federal crime. What elements must be proven, how often crimes are prosecuted, and penalties. Rather than relying on an opaque, piecemeal statutory and regulatory code.
• Potential Challenges / Trade-offs: Compiling and maintaining a comprehensive database of all federal statutory and regulatory criminal offenses is likely a major administrative undertaking. Regulatory offenses, especially, may involve hundreds of agencies and thousands of regulations. Implementation may take time, and ensuring accuracy and timeliness could be difficult.

Legislation of Note from the Supreme Court

Kim Davis v. David Ermold, et al.

Decision date: November 10, 2025

What happened: The Court declined to grant review to former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, who sought to challenge her liability for refusing to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple — and in the process sought to overturn the landmark decision Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

Summary of case: Davis argued that her First Amendment free-exercise rights protected her from being required to issue licenses, and that Obergefell was wrongly decided. The Court’s denial of certiorari means it will not reconsider Obergefell or Davis’s claims.

Context: This challenge had drawn national attention as a potential vehicle for revisiting marriage equality. By rejecting it, the Court leaves in place the constitutional protections for same-sex marriage established a decade ago.

Status: The lower-court rulings — including damages awarded against Davis for denying a license — remain in force. The broader constitutional question of marriage equality remains intact under Obergefell.

Texas Congressional Map Stay (GOP-drawn 2026 map)

Decision date: November 21, 2025 (emergency order) What happened: The Court, through Justice Samuel Alito, temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that had struck down the 2026 congressional redistricting map for the state of Texas on grounds it likely discriminates on the basis of race.

Summary of case: A federal judge had found the new map — passed under a GOP-led legislature — was likely a racial gerrymander and enjoined its use in upcoming elections. The Supreme Court’s order pauses that injunction, allowing Texas to potentially use the new map while the Court considers whether to take up the case.

Context: This is part of a wave of redistricting battles across states for the 2026 midterms, and reflects how the Court is wielding its “shadow-docket” powers to intervene in election-map disputes close to elections.

Status: The lower-court ruling is stayed. The map may be used — at least provisionally — while the Supreme Court considers further action.

Executive Actions of Note

1.“Launching the Genesis Mission”

Action date: November 24, 2025

What happened: The President signed an executive order directing the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to lead a major national effort dubbed the “Genesis Mission” to build a unified, AI-powered scientific and computing platform. Aimed at accelerating research, energy technology, national security, and scientific discovery.

Summary of action: The order mobilizes DOE’s national labs, ties in private-sector and university partners. And intends to use supercomputing, AI modeling, quantum systems, and federal data infrastructure to double U.S. scientific productivity over the coming decade. It reflects a high-stakes, long-term investment in AI and R&D.

Context & development: This action is part of a broader push by the administration to assert U.S. technological leadership and respond to global competitiveness challenges. Especially in AI and advanced computing. It echoes past landmark federal R&D mobilization efforts, reframing them for the AI era.

2. “Review of Certain Chapters of the Muslim Brotherhood for Terror Designation”

Action date: November 24, 2025

What happened: The President signed an executive order directing the Secretaries of State and Treasury to review whether certain chapters of the Muslim Brotherhood should be designated as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” or “Specially Designated Global Terrorist.”

Summary of action: The order does not itself immediately designate those chapters, but instructs the relevant agencies to begin a formal review and report back — potentially paving the way for future sanctions, restrictions, or other counterterrorism measures.

Context & development: This step aligns with a broader national-security posture by the administration toward transnational Islamist groups. The move may impact U.S. foreign policy, immigration rules, and surveillance/financial-sanctions regimes depending on the outcome of the review.

3.“Modifying the Scope of Tariffs on Agricultural Imports from Brazil”

Action date: November 20, 2025

What happened:

The President signed an executive order rolling back certain tariffs. Specifically removing a 40% tariff on Brazilian agricultural products. Such as beef, coffee, cocoa, and fruits, several months after those tariffs were imposed.

Summary of action:

The order aims to relieve inflationary pressure on food prices in the U.S., ease trade tensions with Brazil. Possibly issue refunds for duties that had been paid since the tariffs were imposed.

Context & development:

Coming as global food-price inflation has contributed significantly to domestic economic stress. The move reflects a responsive shift in trade policy. It suggests the administration may continue to recalibrate trade measures tied to geopolitical developments and economic conditions.