Bill Overview
Title: RISC Act
Description: This bill revokes the security clearance of a family member or financial associate of the President that was granted contrary to the determination or recommendation of an agency, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation. A subsequent background investigation and agency adjudication is required before such an individual may be granted a security clearance. In addition, the White House Chief of Staff must notify Congress if the President or any other individual grants a security clearance to a family member or financial associate of the President contrary to the determination or recommendation of an agency. The notification must be made in writing no later than five days after the decision to grant the clearance.
Sponsors: Rep. Espaillat, Adriano [D-NY-13]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals who are family members or financial associates of the President of the United States
Estimated Size: 100
- The bill targets individuals who are family members or financial associates of the President of the United States.
- This includes those who have received security clearance contrary to recommendations from agencies like the FBI.
- Family members of the President typically include a small number of people, potentially less than 50, depending on how many familial relations are actively seeking or holding roles that require security clearance.
- Financial associates are those with business or financial ties to the President and are more variable in number.
- Overall, the directly targeted group is small, as it requires both a close relationship to the President and involvement in a situation involving a contested security clearance.
Reasoning
- The policy designed primarily affects a very small and specific group of individuals who are directly tied to the President, which makes it unlikely to impact the broader population directly.
- Given the budget limitations, the policy will likely focus on high-profile cases and ensuring transparency in security clearance processes rather than a wide enforcement action.
- Most average citizens will not be directly aware of or influenced by this policy, leading to very localized impact to a small section of governance-related personnel and their families.
- The Cantril Wellbeing Scores are used as a rough gauge of personal security and government trust, which are minimally impacted for most citizens due to the niche focus of the policy.
Simulated Interviews
Securities Analyst (Washington D.C.)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems to uphold integrity within government security operations.
- It may improve trust in the system knowing there's less nepotism.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Government Employee (California)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It doesn't directly impact me, but I'm glad to see some oversight in security clearances.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Financial Advisor (New York)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy's focus on accountability could positively impact business environments by reducing unforeseen risks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Political Science Graduate Student (Texas)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this are crucial for maintaining transparency and preventing abuse of power.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired (Florida)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This seems like a good step in maintaining government integrity, even though it doesn't directly affect me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Defense Contractor (Virginia)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good to see some accountability measures being enforced for high-clearance positions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Journalist (Illinois)
Age: 32 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring process transparency is vital, hopefully, this policy means we'll see fewer ethical lapses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Political Activist (Ohio)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a component of necessary checks and balances. More awareness can drive larger policy change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Business Owner (Georgia)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Every policy that curbs mismanagement or favoritism is beneficial to a fair market environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
College Professor (North Carolina)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a necessary measure to maintain ethical governance standards and could be a practical case study.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Key Considerations
- The primary cost drivers are the need for additional background investigations and compliance with notification requirements.
- The policy targets a highly specific group which limits its fiscal impact.
- Administrative and operational adjustments will be necessary for implementation and compliance.