America is ready
for an update.

Corporate lobbying is a company’s effort to influence public decisions, such as laws and regulations affecting its business. Federal election rules already prohibit corporate treasury contributions directly to candidates’ campaign committees, while allowing corporate funding of independent political spending. The proposal addresses wider routes of corporate influence as well as direct payments.

We would end corporate lobbying and corporate donations or other payments to politicians. The rules would also cover money routed through intermediaries or sham organizations, while protecting ordinary people’s right to advocate for policy.

Public decisions can affect the value of companies and property. An official’s investments can therefore give them a personal financial stake in decisions they make for everyone.

We would ban politicians from making stock-market or real-estate investments while they hold office.

Dark money is election funding whose original sources are not disclosed to voters. Naming the last organization in a chain may not show who supplied the money. Existing federal contribution and reporting rules already apply. For the 2025–2026 cycle, an individual can give one federal candidate $3,500 per election, with separate primary and general election limits. That is current law, not a new cap in this framework; it does not limit all independent political spending.

We would trace substantial election funding to its original sources, require prompt electronic reporting before Election Day and during early voting, and create a public archive of paid election messages, including digital ads and paid influencer promotions. Linked transfer records, anti-concealment rules and effective enforcement would target evasion, with privacy and due-process protections.

A political action committee, or PAC, is a group that raises and spends money to influence elections. Super PACs can currently accept unlimited contributions for spending independent of campaigns, so limiting donations directly to candidates does not by itself limit all election spending.

We would end the unlimited-funding model used by Super PACs and prevent campaign-controlled spending from being presented as independent. Coordination rules would target control, requests, shared private strategy and evasion through vendors or data. Public agreement or endorsement alone would not be enough. Independent political expression and citizen organizing would remain protected.

Officials’ salaries are the regular pay they receive for their public work. Their broader compensation also includes benefits and retirement arrangements. This proposal would connect salaries to earnings from work, so the reference point for pay is the living standard of ordinary workers.

We would base federal legislators’ pay on national median worker earnings, adjusted for prices in the state they represent. State and local officials’ pay would use earnings in their state or local area. The aim is an ordinary worker’s living standard without an arbitrary pay premium.

Voters need to understand what candidates would do about issues affecting their lives, such as housing, wages and public services.

We would encourage political debate focused on policy rather than personal attacks, with a fair opportunity for a middle-class candidate and a billionaire to explain their ideas. Any government role would have to protect speech and stay limited and justified.

An official can face a conflict when a gift, personal interest or possible future employer pulls against their public duties. Post-service lobbying means trying to influence government after leaving office, potentially using relationships formed while serving.

We are considering stronger rules on gifts, conflicts of interest, and lobbying after someone leaves public service. This would support the other political-integrity reforms.

Lawmakers need to understand costs, evidence and likely consequences before deciding what a law should do. Nonpartisan researchers support that work without advocating for a political party. Congress already receives such analysis from the Congressional Research Service; this proposal concerns strengthening research support.

We are considering stronger nonpartisan research support to help lawmakers assess proposals without taking a party’s side. Researchers would support elected lawmakers, who would still decide policy.

A term is the period an election gives someone in office; a term limit caps how long they may serve across elections. Today, senators serve six-year terms, with roughly a third of seats facing election every two years. The proposal would change that staggered schedule and limit total service.

We would give senators four-year terms and elect all senators on the same presidential election cycle. Service would be limited to three Senate terms totaling 12 years, 12 years in the House, and six years in leadership positions. A combined lifetime cap would also limit total congressional service; its number remains to be decided.

Ballot access means qualifying to have your name listed as a candidate for an office. This proposal would test support from individual people before a candidate reaches that stage.

We would make individual endorsements the main test for ballot access, followed by a minimum number of verified donors. Each eligible person could endorse one candidate per race during an announced qualification period. Any positive donation could count, regardless of size. The same requirements would apply to late entrants; we have not chosen the numerical thresholds.

A campaign promise tells you what someone says they would do; a voting record shows decisions they made in office. Putting both in one place would help voters compare candidates on the same issues.

We would create an official, searchable federal website covering every candidate who meets the initial qualifying requirements. It would explain candidates’ positions, show their actual voting records where available, and offer an optional way to compare their policies with your own beliefs. The scoring, privacy, and oversight safeguards still need design and testing.

Remote participation means taking part without being at a polling place. Online participation must address both eligibility and the security of private choices. Joint federal guidance distinguishes receiving a blank ballot online from returning a completed ballot electronically; it describes electronic return as high risk even with security controls and recommends paper return. That explains why identity checks alone would not establish a safe voting system.

We would develop online and ultimately paperless election participation, including verified candidate endorsements and remote voting. Identity and citizenship checks must preserve ballot secrecy. Deployment would depend on independent evidence that a system is safe; no secure remote-voting method has yet been selected or demonstrated, and existing safeguards cannot be removed without that evidence.

Federal Commonwealth is this framework’s name for a proposed status linking a community’s self-government to representation in the U.S. Senate. Today, each state has two U.S. senators. Giving a self-governing community its own Senate representation raises a separate constitutional question from giving it authority over local decisions.

We would develop an earned path to Senate representation through a status called Federal Commonwealth. Gaining local autonomy or merging would not automatically create Senate seats, and the system must avoid overlapping Senate votes. The qualifications, thresholds, and constitutional route still need to be settled.

Reaching voters takes resources even before a campaign has built a donor network. A starting grant would give each qualifying campaign an initial amount of money to use.

We are considering equal starting grants for qualifying candidates, followed by one to three debates with all qualifiers. Candidates could then raise individual contributions at their own pace under a common limit. A voluntary contribution pool could fund the grants. Equal starting support would not require every campaign to spend the same amount by the end.

Getting more votes than any other candidate is different from getting more than half of the votes counted toward the result. Ranked-choice ballots let voters put candidates in preference order; a separate runoff asks voters to return for another election among remaining candidates. What counts toward a majority depends on the rules chosen.

We are considering ranked-choice voting or a separate runoff to identify a winner with majority support. We have not chosen a method or its counting rules. This is a separate question from term limits and qualifying for initial campaign support.

A legislative chamber is a body that debates and votes on laws. This question is whether state lawmaking should represent residents by population and also give local governments a distinct voice.

We are considering a state legislature with one chamber representing population and a second representing local jurisdictions. Our earlier Council of Districts proposal needs to be rethought to fit direct local authority for cities and rural governments. Equal representation or representation weighted by population remains undecided, and the design needs constitutional review.

The Electoral College is the system through which electors chosen in the states and the District of Columbia cast the formal votes for President and Vice President.

We have not decided whether to keep, change, replace, or abolish the Electoral College. We want to understand what works, identify any specific problems, and compare the evidence and consequences before choosing a policy.

An electoral district groups the voters who choose a particular representative. Moving its boundaries changes which neighborhoods vote together and can change their political influence.

We have not chosen who should draw electoral districts, what standards they should follow, or how the results should be checked. We need to assess the evidence and alternatives before selecting a system to prevent gerrymandering, or manipulation of boundaries for political advantage.

Paying a tax today generally does not let you choose which services your own payment funds. Federal spending, for example, is authorized through laws and budgets, with funding bills passed by Congress and sent to the president. Tax direction would add an individual decision: your contribution could fund only the uses you authorize.

Each of us would decide where every dollar of our own tax contribution goes, at every level of government. Our instructions would be binding, including a decision to exclude spending we oppose. A majority could not override those exclusions, and we have not accepted a compulsory funding baseline or emergency override. Helping other communities would remain voluntary.

A recurring property tax is a bill charged repeatedly for owning taxable property, commonly based on its assessed value. It is separate from the price paid to buy the property. These taxes currently help fund local services, including public schools, so ending them also requires a plan for those services and existing obligations.

We would end recurring property taxes, going further than an exemption for a primary home. The transition would preserve existing obligations and prevent the tax from returning as a renamed recurring fee.

These are taxes on returns from owning investments. A dividend is a distribution a company pays its shareholders. A capital gain is the profit when an asset, such as shares, is sold for more than its cost after applicable tax adjustments. Federal taxes can apply to both today, though treatment varies and some gains qualify for a zero rate.

We would eliminate taxes on dividends and capital gains at every age. This is separate from relief for work and personal business income.

Here, early earnings means eligible income from work or a personal business before age 30. An allowance would shelter eligible income from federal income tax; it would not be a cash payment. The age taper would withdraw that tax saving gradually from ages 30 through 35. Today, federal income tax generally applies to taxable work and business income through brackets; Social Security and Medicare taxes are separate.

Before age 30, each person could earn up to $500,000 a year in eligible work income and personal business profits without federal income tax on that income. This is tax relief, not a cash grant. Income above the allowance would be taxed using ordinary progressive brackets, starting at the bottom. From ages 30 through 35, the tax saving would be withdrawn in six equal steps. Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes would remain separate.

Consumption means buying goods and services. Sales tax at checkout is a familiar example; an excise tax applies to particular products or activities. This change would collect more public revenue when people spend, rather than when they earn income or own property. What that costs a household would depend on the rates and purchases covered.

We would shift most taxation toward consumption, especially harmful products, alongside the federal income-tax changes described here. We would not abolish income tax completely.

A constitutional floor is a set of basic rights that a community cannot vote away. The Fourteenth Amendment already places rights limits on states. As more decisions move locally, this proposal would preserve protections people can rely on regardless of where they live or whether their neighbors agree with them.

We would require every level of government to respect the same basic constitutional rights, including the right to marry someone of the same sex and to elect representatives. Federal protection of a right would not require federal officials to administer every service connected to it.

People may deal with a city, county, school district and service district for different needs; these arrangements vary by state. Local self-government means having elected institutions responsible to the residents they serve. The question here is how everyone, including people outside cities, gets that accountability without simply adding another layer of government.

We would give cities, villages, suitable towns and townships, rural municipalities or districts, and voluntarily merged governments the same basic right to govern locally. Every resident would be covered, without requiring a new district government above every city.

Lifestyle policy means rules affecting personal choices and everyday conduct. Communities may want different rules, which raises two questions: who gets to decide, and which individual freedoms remain protected regardless of the local majority’s preferences? This proposal places local choice inside a common rights framework.

We would put lifestyle policy in local hands wherever possible, within the common protections for individual rights. A federal official’s disagreement would not be enough to override a lawful local decision.

People can live in one community and visit another whose rules differ. A jurisdiction is the area governed by a particular authority. This proposal addresses whether someone’s home government could punish them for a lawful activity completed elsewhere, while leaving separate questions about conduct or harm that crosses boundaries.

We would protect people who travel to take part in an activity that is lawful and carried out entirely in another jurisdiction. Their home government could not punish them merely because they live there.

A shared service lets communities use the same facilities or staff, such as a water-testing laboratory, without necessarily sharing a government. That can help places access equipment or expertise they would struggle to maintain alone. The political question is which responsibilities they agree to share and which remain with each community.

We would let communities cooperate on services while keeping their own governments, or voluntarily choose a common government for agreed responsibilities. Sharing a service would not automatically transfer other powers or merge the communities.

A government merger combines governing institutions, changing who makes decisions and carries existing obligations. It is a bigger change than sharing staff or facilities: residents would need to understand how representation, services, employees and financial commitments would work under the common government before choosing it.

We would allow willing communities to merge their governments. A community could stay out without blocking its neighbors, as long as all residents kept accountable representation. The agreement would address powers, staff, assets and debts before the vote.

The federal government is the national government. Its responsibilities include work carried out for the country as a whole, rather than for a single community. The Constitution already grants federal institutions powers over matters such as defense and interstate commerce; this proposal would clarify national duties and their boundaries within the wider government reforms.

We would assign national defense, citizenship, immigration and borders, interstate and international commerce, federal courts, and certain cross-state infrastructure and environmental responsibilities to the federal government. Protecting constitutional rights, research, technological progress, investigations and emergencies beyond regional capacity would also be national functions.

A river basin, electricity network or regional transport route can serve several communities at once. Decisions in one place may affect the same system elsewhere. This proposal gives states a defined role in managing those shared systems while preserving local control over subjects assigned to communities.

We would give states defined responsibilities for shared systems and retain useful scientific and technical services, while ending their general control over matters reserved to local communities.

These are three different questions about national action. Authority asks which constitutional power permits it. Necessity asks why lower levels of government cannot adequately do the job. Proportionality asks whether its reach is no broader than the problem warrants. Together, they would require a reasoned case for federal involvement rather than treating a national concern as sufficient by itself.

We are developing a test for every federal program and bill: identify its constitutional authority and national purpose, show why lower levels of government cannot adequately do the work, and keep its reach proportionate to the problem. Costs and results would be public and reviewed regularly. Rights enforcement would not need the accused local government’s permission.

Residents’ needs can change after a government is established. A charter is the basic rulebook for that government’s powers and structure; an initiative is a proposal residents put forward themselves. Continuing control means having usable ways to change the institution later, as well as a vote that gives it initial consent.

We are developing accessible ways for residents to amend a government’s charter, put forward initiatives, remove a government, or later merge or separate. These procedures would have to explain what happens to existing obligations.

Infrastructure is the physical network behind everyday services: water from a tap, electricity, roads and transit, and communications connections. Questions about reliability and access concern whether those systems work when people need them and who can use them. Assigning a responsible government does not, by itself, answer how to achieve that.

We still need policies for reliable, accessible energy, water, transport and communications. Deciding which government is responsible is only the starting point; we have not adopted a complete policy for these systems.

Trade policy sets the rules for buying and selling across boundaries, affecting what businesses can supply and people can buy. Interstate trade crosses state lines; international trade crosses national borders. Deciding who has authority over commerce leaves open the actual rules and the trade-offs they would create.

We have assigned responsibility for commerce, but policies for trade between states and with other countries still need to be developed.

Foreign affairs covers how the country deals with other countries. Diplomacy is negotiation and communication; treaties are formal international agreements; sanctions impose restrictions intended to influence conduct. These choices, along with civilian aid and participation in international institutions, can create commitments that extend beyond a single community or election.

We still need to develop policies for diplomacy, treaties, civilian aid, sanctions and international institutions. No complete foreign policy has been adopted.

These policies affect who may enter the country, stay, become a citizen or seek asylum, and how officials make and enforce those decisions. They touch both people crossing borders and the communities where they live. Assigning national responsibility leaves the substantive rules and fair procedures to be worked out.

We still need policies for entry, citizenship, asylum and enforcement, including fair legal procedures. These choices remain open even though federal responsibility has been assigned.

Tribal sovereignty means tribal nations’ powers of self-government; federally recognized tribes already have a government-to-government relationship with the United States. Territories also have distinct political and legal relationships, including differences from states and from one another. These arrangements need their own examination when considering wider changes to government.

We have not settled policies for tribal sovereignty or relationships with territories. We would examine their distinct authorities, obligations and affected communities without assuming that the wider government reforms automatically redraw those relationships or boundaries.

Emergency policy covers preparing for a crisis, responding to it and restoring services. Emergency powers concern special authority officials may use during that crisis. Having money available, having people and equipment ready, and deciding when exceptional powers are justified are related but separate questions.

We have not settled how to organize or fund the broader response to disasters and public-health emergencies, when emergency powers could begin, how long they could last or how they would be reviewed. The agency-reserve proposal uses a specific federal budget definition of an emergency, but it does not settle these wider questions or choose a replacement for FEMA.

A government agency manages a particular part of public work. Financial accountability requires finding out whether a failure came from its management, from the funding or workload imposed on it, or from both. The proposed strikes would be stages in enforced correction of serious failures, with responsibility established before blame or penalties.

We would apply a three-strike process to serious financial failures and serious or repeated legal violations caused by an individual agency. After establishing responsibility, we would require correction, then outside supervision if correction fails, and finally restructuring or dissolution if recovery still fails. Essential services, competent staff and whistleblowers would be protected throughout.

A bailout uses outside money to rescue a government from financial losses it cannot cover. That raises a question about who bears the consequences of local decisions, including debts and pension promises. This proposal separates local financial responsibility from assistance to people, while preserving every contributor’s funding choices.

Local governments would keep responsibility for their budgets, debts, pensions and treasury funds, with independent audits. We would not require unwilling outsiders to cover reckless or concealed losses. Responses to financial failure would respect each person’s control over their full tax contribution.

Federal law already generally bars agencies from committing funds before or beyond available appropriations, meaning money authorized by law for spending. This proposal connects those limits with the actual cost of the required job: staffing and day-to-day delivery, but also upkeep, replacement and existing obligations. Cutting the budget therefore requires explaining what can realistically change.

We would approve agency responsibilities and funding together, using credible cost estimates. A lower budget would need either credible savings or an explicit change in the work required. Agencies would track commitments and forecast costs so they seek authorized changes before taking on work they cannot fund.

Outsourcing means hiring another organization to deliver a service the government would otherwise provide itself. A quoted contract price may not capture every cost: changing providers, overseeing the work and maintaining continuity also matter. The decision concerns how a service is delivered and held accountable, rather than automatically transferring public powers to its provider.

We would compare public agencies, nonprofits and other providers without automatically favoring one type. Contracting out a service would be optional and would have to improve total cost, quality and accountability, with equivalent access for audits.

Balancing a budget means bringing spending and income into line. It does not erase bills or promises inherited from the past. Debt restructuring means lawfully changing repayment arrangements; planning a new government system still requires deciding how debts, pensions and contracts will be handled during the transition.

We would prioritize balanced budgets and workable public finances. We have not selected a general debt cancellation. Lawful restructuring would remain possible, and the transition would have to address debts, pensions, contracts and shared infrastructure while respecting each person’s tax-funding choices.

An emergency reserve is money set aside for urgent, unexpected needs beyond ordinary operations. In this proposal it would sit on top of the agency’s operating budget. Sharing unused money with employees creates an incentive that must be examined carefully, because money appearing unspent does not prove every emergency need and obligation has been met.

Our working proposal is an extra emergency reserve equal to 20% of an agency’s operating budget. After emergency needs and obligations are checked, half of the genuinely unused balance would go in equal dollar shares to every federal employee in that agency, and half would carry forward. Only the amount needed to restore the reserve would be added next time. A payment would not be guaranteed.

Federal spending today is allocated through public laws and the budget process. Personal funding accounts would let each person give binding directions for their full contribution, including excluding spending they oppose. That makes predictable service funding a practical design problem: a project needs enough committed money, and continuing services need support beyond the first payment.

We are exploring personal funding accounts for local government and agreed shared services, along with voluntary multiyear commitments, donations, community nonprofits, endowments and net commercial earnings. Project funds could be held until enough is committed to make the project viable. These are working options, with no assumption of guaranteed returns or enough revenue to fund every service.

Money and banking rules affect borrowing costs, payments and whether people and businesses can obtain funds. Monetary policy concerns the conditions under which money and credit are available; financial stability concerns whether the system can keep serving the economy through stress. Today the Federal Reserve conducts monetary policy and helps oversee financial stability.

Currency is likely to be a federal responsibility, but that assignment is not final. We have not chosen the rules or institutions for monetary policy, banking and financial stability.

Healthcare must keep services available as well as treat patients. Readiness means having staff, equipment and backup capacity when needed; outcomes are measured changes in health, daily functioning and safety. Medicare already uses both service-based payments and programs linked to care quality. This proposal would make readiness, necessary care and verified results explicit parts of the payment system.

We would fund the capacity to provide care, pay for necessary treatment and reward independently verified improvements in health, function and safety at the lowest sustainable total cost. Care budgets would reflect a population’s needs, and clinicians would receive stable, competitive salaries. The system would include protection against unusually high costs, independent review and patient safeguards before any savings were shared.

Pharmaceutical advertising promotes medicines to potential buyers or prescribers. Prescription-drug ads directed at the public, including television and radio ads, currently operate under FDA rules. The question here is which forms of that promotion should end.

We would end pharmaceutical advertising. The scope of the ban remains to be defined, including whether it covers prescription-drug advertising aimed at consumers or all pharmaceutical advertising.

Healthcare policy extends beyond paying a bill: it also shapes prevention, mental-health support, care settings, research and product standards. These subjects have different existing rules; for example, FDA does not approve dietary supplements before they are marketed.

We still need policies on prevention and mental health, humane care facilities, pharmaceutical research conflicts and liability, and supplement standards. We have not adopted a complete policy for these subjects.

A home is both a place to live and property that individuals or organizations can hold as an investment. Divestment means requiring affected owners to sell property. This proposal concerns who may own residential property and how much they may hold.

We would reserve residential ownership for individual citizens, cap how many homes one person can own, and require affected large owners to sell. The aim is to make more existing homes available to individual buyers. Roughly 20 units is one possible cap, not a settled rule. A change of around 50% in home values is an affordability ambition, not a forecast.

Development decisions determine what can be built near where people live. Existing local approval processes can include public hearings, but giving comments is different from having a binding vote. This proposal would put major private developments to a resident decision under rules still to be defined.

We would give residents binding authority to approve or reject major private developments and choose their community’s growth and character. This is a separate proposal from home-ownership limits. The voting rules remain open, and we have not established a universal local affordability requirement or an obligation to subsidize neighboring communities’ housing.

Finding a stable livelihood can require skills, access to work and practical services that make participation possible. This idea asks how that help and a person’s reasonable contribution fit together when people’s circumstances differ.

We would help people find practical routes out of poverty and expect reasonable effort from those able to contribute. Communities could choose different services and outcomes; greater wealth alone would not create a general duty to equalize another community’s resources. We have not chosen work tests or benefit penalties, and equal outcomes are not guaranteed.

A pay ratio compares an executive’s compensation with a worker’s. Existing SEC disclosure rules use the median employee, the person in the middle of the pay distribution. A limit based on the lowest-paid worker would set a different kind of rule: a ceiling on compensation rather than a disclosure.

We are considering whether executive pay should be limited to a multiple of the lowest-paid worker’s compensation. Ratios of 50, 100 and 200 times have been discussed as examples, but none has been selected. This remains an exploratory idea, separate from congressional pay.

Education is already primarily a state and local responsibility in the United States, with a federal role as well. Assigning responsibility still leaves families’ practical questions about school funding, available options, teaching standards and support for students with disabilities.

We have not settled policies for school funding, school choice, standards or special education. Vocational training and higher education also need their own review.

Social insurance provides support for life events such as retirement or disability. In the current system, Social Security pays benefits and Medicare provides health insurance for eligible people. Family and disability support also raises questions about care needs and the ability to work or contribute.

We have deferred decisions on Social Security and Medicare. We still need to examine unmet needs and how support should work for people whose circumstances limit their ability to contribute.

These rules matter when someone starts a job, opens a business or buys a product. They concern pay, safety, fair dealing and entry into trades. Collective bargaining means workers negotiating employment terms together through representatives, usually a union.

Pay, workplace safety, collective bargaining, licensing, starting a business and consumer protections all remain open policy questions. We also have not settled which levels of government would have authority over them.

An ecosystem includes living things, their surroundings and the interactions between them. Restoring a stream therefore involves more than the water alone: nearby soil, plants and habitats matter too. Whole-ecosystem restoration looks at how those parts function together.

We would make restoring ecosystems a core objective: improve waterways, native fields and forests, restore habitats and biodiversity, and reduce invasive species as far as practical. We still need to decide how to measure and verify the results.

Homeowners associations (HOAs) can set yard rules. Regenerative landscaping means caring for land in ways that restore soil and habitats. Some protections already exist: Florida, for example, limits HOA prohibitions on specified water-conserving landscaping. This proposal addresses conflicts between ecological landscaping and HOA penalties.

We would give residents an enforceable right to maintain regenerative landscaping without conflicting penalties from a homeowners association (HOA). This protection would not remove every other HOA obligation.

Farming depends on soil that supports crops, holds water and sustains living organisms. Here, regenerative agriculture means farming that restores soil and ecosystems. The aim is to assess how the land is doing as well as what it produces, with results judged in local conditions.

We would make regenerative agriculture the foundation of agricultural policy. Healthy soil would be treated as critical infrastructure. Transition plans are still open, and incentives would need to reward verified improvements suited to each region.

A seed commons would treat seed as a shared resource with protected freedoms to save and reproduce it. Today, buying physical seed does not always give unrestricted permission to reproduce a protected variety. Patents, plant-variety protections and contracts have different rules, including some existing seed-saving exceptions.

We would protect farmers’ rights to plant, save, store, breed and replant seed by changing laws, ownership claims, contracts and market practices that prevent those freedoms. The protection would include genetically modified varieties.

A yard can provide habitat and grow food as well as serve as outdoor living space. Native plants are species that occur naturally in a region and can support its wildlife. This proposal concerns recognizing those uses of residential land.

We would reward residents for creating native habitats, home gardens and food-growing landscapes in both front and back yards. The rewards would recognize intentional care and ecological results. We have not chosen a tax-credit or rebate formula.

Farmers depend on suppliers and buyers, so control over agricultural markets affects their choices. Existing antitrust law addresses unlawful monopolization and other anticompetitive conduct. This proposal concerns preventing coercive market control and establishing responsibility for proven abuses, with evidence and due process.

We would prevent monopoly control in agriculture and impose meaningful consequences for proven abuses. Investigations, market rules and compensation for farmers would need lawful evidence and due process. The institutions, thresholds, funding and remedies are still undecided.

Glyphosate is a herbicide, a type of pesticide used to control weeds in farming and other settings. A ban would change which weed-control substances people could use, so its scope and the transition matter to farms and other users.

We would ban glyphosate and additional similar pesticides to be specified in the policy. We still need to define the other substances covered, the timing, alternatives and any exceptions. The commitment is to a ban, not voluntary reduction.

Generating solar power, collecting roof runoff and growing a garden are everyday household uses of resources. They can intersect with shared resources and local rules; rainwater collection, for example, may require a state or local permit. The question is which household uses should have protection and where other rights or environmental harms set limits.

We are considering protections for household solar energy, rooftop rainwater collection, gardens and responsible use of resources people own. The scope remains open: owning land does not by itself settle water, mineral, tribal or conservation rights, or create an unlimited right to extract resources.

A serious investigation may need specialist skills, equipment or coordination beyond what one community can provide. Federal and local cooperation already exists: the FBI describes joint investigations that pool resources rather than treating local police as subordinate to it. The question is how to preserve that capability with clear authority and safeguards.

We would maintain federal expertise to identify serious threats to life and property and help regions investigate major crimes when they lack the resources. Federal help would work with local authorities. Crossing a border would not, by itself, automatically put the federal government in charge.

When a workplace, product or public decision causes harm, responsibility may lie with both the immediate actor and people who controlled the conditions. Accountability means establishing who could act, what they knew and how their choices contributed.

We would examine how business and public decisions affect health, ecosystems, affordability, wages and people’s real freedom to choose. Those responsible would have to answer for preventable harm, with consequences based on their authority, knowledge and conduct. A job title, wealth or association alone would not establish guilt.

A bill is a proposed law, and its binding wording determines what people and institutions must do if it becomes law. Readability matters because the public needs to understand those obligations before a vote.

We would require shorter, readable House and Senate bills. One working proposal would limit ordinary bills to 50 standardized pages or 15,000 words of legal provisions, whichever comes first, and allow seven days for public review. Those limits, the review period and the exceptions are proposals, not settled rules.

An accountability tracker would be a public record people could use to follow a decision, examine claims about its effects and see how those involved responded.

We would develop a public accountability tracker showing decisions, their consequences, the evidence, who was responsible and what changes are sought. It would include responses, contrary evidence and action taken to repair harm. Publication, privacy, review and appeal rules still need to be designed.

Rules can continue shaping work, services and everyday choices long after they were written. Reviewing them means checking whether their effects still justify keeping them; repeal means formally removing them through the lawful process.

We are considering an ongoing process to keep, change or repeal laws that obstruct rights, enable corruption or impose unjustified costs. Its findings could be challenged, and changes would go through the institution with legal authority to make them. A proposed five-year review cycle would not make every law expire automatically.

A justice system shapes what happens when someone reports harm, is accused of a crime, needs a lawyer or returns to the community after a sentence. Its fairness depends on choices throughout that process.

We have not settled how judges should be selected or policies for legal counsel, prosecution, sentencing, detention and corrections. Rehabilitation and support for victims also need substantive review.

This area covers the armed forces, gathering and assessing information about security threats, and support for people who have served in the military. Decisions here affect service members, their families, public spending and national safety.

Defense, intelligence and veterans’ services still need substantive policy work. We have not settled the size and organization of the armed forces, authority to wage war, purchasing, readiness or veterans’ services.

A consequential AI decision is one that can materially affect a person’s rights, such as an automated assessment influencing access to a service or official action against them. Human authority would need to mean someone can examine and correct the decision. Simply putting a person’s name on a system’s output would not explain how that accountability works.

We would keep accountable human judgment and a right to appeal in decisions that affect people’s rights. AI-generated suspicion could not replace lawful evidence. The detailed rules for notice, review, privacy, public records of AI use and remedies remain proposals rather than a finished government program.

Sharing technical capability means giving governments access to specialists and tools they may not be able to maintain alone. Existing Cooperative Extension services already connect university knowledge with local communities. The wider proposal applies that practical sharing idea to public services while keeping the choice of local policy with local government.

We would offer useful scientific knowledge and optional shared expertise to governments that cannot efficiently build every technical service themselves. Shared laboratories, engineering, cybersecurity, purchasing help and training could support local services without taking over local policymaking. The institutions, funding and terms are still to be designed.

Resilience means being able to withstand a disruption and recover. Civic intelligence here means information about systems a community depends on. For example, studying how a power outage could interrupt water delivery can help identify dependencies and preparations; a forecast would still need to show its assumptions and uncertainty.

We are considering a state service that would monitor food, water, energy, housing, transportation, public health, workforce needs and supply chains. It could identify risks, test possible scenarios and publish its assumptions and uncertainty. Its structure and who would act on its forecasts remain open.

An outcomes observatory would gather and publish comparable evidence about how places and public services are doing. Residents could use it to examine questions such as whether housing is becoming easier to find, students are learning more or permit applications take longer. The usefulness of a comparison depends on measuring fairly and acknowledging differences between places.

We are considering a Public Outcomes Observatory to compare living costs, housing, education, economic activity, safety, infrastructure, the environment, health and government performance. It would inform residents without ideological ratings or personal social scores. Reliable definitions, comparisons and corrections still need to be designed.

Finding the right rule, form or office is part of applying for a permit, understanding a tax bill or challenging a decision. A civic assistant would be an optional guide through that information. Its explanations would need to point to the underlying sources and make it possible to get help from a responsible person.

We are considering an optional civic assistant to explain laws, taxes, services, applications and ways to take part in public decisions. It would cite sources, acknowledge uncertainty and provide access to a human. It would have no independent power to punish, deny, investigate or classify a person.

Materials recovery means finding a safe, useful destination for things discarded from homes, businesses or public systems. Recycling, composting and recovering resources from wastewater involve different processes and facilities. Coordinating them requires understanding both where material comes from and whether there is a suitable use or treatment for it.

States could coordinate recycling, composting, hazardous-waste handling, wastewater recovery and materials reuse. We would need to test the results of shared facilities and recovery technologies, while leaving room for communities to use different solutions.

Worker transition means adapting when a job changes or moving into different work. Apprenticeships combine work with learning, and credentials provide evidence of skills or completed training. Access to suitable training and tools could help people make a transition, but the available support would still need defined providers, costs and intended results.

We are considering training, apprenticeships, credentials and access to tools to help people adapt to changes in work. We have not selected a benefit program or a mandatory work test.

Portability means being able to use relevant records and keep continuity in earned benefits after moving. For example, a person’s education or pension history should not become unusable simply because a new office uses a different system. Making records travel securely requires decisions about permission, access and compatible systems.

We are considering secure ways for records and earned benefits to follow people between communities. This would cover identity, education, credentials, pensions, courts, health, business, vehicles and property. Authorization, access and compatible systems still need to be specified.

Automation uses technology to perform work that otherwise needs human time. Productivity gains mean getting more useful work from the resources used; they are not always cash savings. Systems cost money to build, run and maintain, so a faster process alone cannot establish how much money is available to share or redirect.

We are considering how to use verified savings and productivity gains from public automation. Possibilities include lower taxes or fees, debt reduction, better services, reserves, training, shorter public-sector workweeks without reduced service and local productivity dividends. No allocation formula or universal entitlement has been chosen.