This chapter is about the agency that helps small firms. It says the agency has drifted from its job. It wants pandemic loan fraud chased down. It also wants small firms left out of new rules unless someone signs off.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 752 in the PDF
What the document says
“Congress should presumptively exempt small businesses from new agency rules to force agencies to seek Advocacy’s input”
The chapter states that agencies currently avoid the Office of Advocacy's input by construing their rules as not having significant economic impact on small entities. Under the proposal new rules would apply to small businesses only with Advocacy signoff under specified criteria. It also asks that regulatory flexibility analysis cover indirect as well as direct costs.
What the document actually says
“Congress should presumptively exempt small businesses from new agency rules to force agencies to seek Advocacy’s input”
That sentence, in plain words
Start by leaving small firms out of new rules. That makes agencies ask first.
What this is about
New rules can hit small firms hard. One office is meant to speak for them. The book says small firms should be left out unless that office agrees.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. The nearest is the Regulatory Freeze Pending Review memorandum of January 20, 2025, which bars agencies from proposing or issuing any rule until a new agency head reviews it and asks them to consider postponing effective dates by 60 days. It pauses rules for everyone rather than exempting small businesses from them, it is temporary, and it gives the Office of Advocacy no role and sets no criteria for applying a rule to small entities. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “must”Who acts: SBA, DOJHow: internal managementp. 753 in the PDF
What the document says
“Entities receiving PPP loans that did not meet eligibility for forgiveness must be required to pay back the money.”
The chapter cites the inspector general saying managing pandemic stimulus lending is the greatest challenge facing the agency. It asks whether the agency has authority to reverse forgiveness decisions and, if so, to reverse them for the loans in question, investigate, and refer to the Justice Department any recipient found to have knowingly misrepresented eligibility, naming Planned Parenthood affiliates among the possible subjects. It also suggests bringing in private-sector expertise to close the programs out.
What the document actually says
“Entities receiving PPP loans that did not meet eligibility for forgiveness must be required to pay back the money.”
That sentence, in plain words
Some firms got loans forgiven that should not have been. They must pay the money back.
What this is about
During the pandemic the government lent firms money. Much of it did not have to be paid back. The book says some never qualified. It wants that money returned.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. No candidate concerns Paycheck Protection Program loans or forgiveness decisions. The nearest in idea is Public Law 119-56, which improves how the Department of Veterans Affairs repays benefits misused by a fiduciary. It is about recovering veterans' benefits from a third party, not about reversing loan forgiveness or collecting pandemic business loans. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: SBA, CongressHow: legislationp. 754 in the PDF
What the document says
“Work with Congress to assess the extent to which disaster loans should be offered by another agency rather than the SBA and explore private-sector channels for administering the loans.”
The chapter cites the agency's difficulties administering the program, fraud and abuse in the pandemic disaster loan program, and the inspector general's concern that systemic problems in the lending program undermine the agency's work.
What the document actually says
“Work with Congress to assess the extent to which disaster loans should be offered by another agency rather than the SBA and explore private-sector channels for administering the loans.”
That sentence, in plain words
Ask if another agency should make these loans. Ask if banks should too.
What this is about
After a disaster, this agency lends money to rebuild. The book says it has run that badly. It says another body might do it better.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. No candidate addresses the Small Business Administration's disaster loan program or where it should sit. The nearest is Public Law 119-102, which amends the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 so that agricultural producers can reach Emergency Conservation Program funds more easily. That is disaster aid run by the Agriculture Department under its own authority, not a transfer of the SBA's disaster loans to another agency or to private lenders. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 758 in the PDF
What the document says
“SBREFA panel requirements should be extended to all federal agencies.”
The panel process lets small businesses give input on agency rulemakings, gives them procedural rights, and allows judicial review where an agency violates the process. It currently applies to only some agencies.
What the document actually says
“SBREFA panel requirements should be extended to all federal agencies.”
That sentence, in plain words
These review panels apply to some agencies. They should apply to all of them.
What this is about
Small firms get a say on some new rules. A panel hears them. The book says every agency should have to use one.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed comes close. No candidate touches the small business review panel process or the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The two closest by title are unrelated: rule-2026-15798 concerns labor arbitration panels at the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, and law-small-business-innovation-economic-security-act extends the SBIR and STTR research programs without altering any rulemaking procedure. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: Congress, SBAHow: legislationp. 755 in the PDF
What the document says
“Ensure the enactment of stricter rules requiring that SBIR funds must be expended on capital investments in the United States.”
The research programs direct a fixed share of federal research spending to small firms: 3.2 percent of extramural research budgets at larger agencies, and a further 0.45 percent under a related program. The chapter says research has shown that this small share of federal research spending is disproportionately effective.
What the document actually says
“Ensure the enactment of stricter rules requiring that SBIR funds must be expended on capital investments in the United States.”
That sentence, in plain words
This grant money must be spent here at home.
What this is about
The government funds research at small firms. The book says that money should be spent here. It should not go abroad.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Public Law 119-83 extends the SBIR and STTR programs and adds a security screen: agencies must evaluate whether an applicant presents a security risk, may deny an award for a tie to an entity on any of eight named lists, and must assess foreign ownership and the financial ties of a firm and its employees to a foreign country. It acts on foreign exposure in the same programs, but it never requires that award money be spent on capital investments in the United States, which is what the proposal asks for. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: PresidentHow: appointmentp. 758 in the PDF
What the document says
“the Administrator should have the requisite experience, skills, and knowledge to ensure that the SBA fulfills its statutory authorities.”
The chapter says the post should not be treated as symbolic or messaging-related as some past Administrations have viewed it, that the Administrator and key staff should have experience in small-business finance and investment or administrative law, and notes that during the pandemic the agency was often forced to outsource key decisions to the Treasury.
What the document actually says
“the Administrator should have the requisite experience, skills, and knowledge to ensure that the SBA fulfills its statutory authorities.”
That sentence, in plain words
The head of this agency should know the work. It is not a job for a figurehead.
What this is about
This agency lends money and backs loans. The book says its head needs real experience in finance. It says the job has been treated as a title.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing among the candidates is an appointment. The nearest is the Small Business Administration's final rule of January 2, 2026 revising the Small Business Investment Company regulations, which changes licensing and investment rules inside the agency and says nothing about who leads it or what experience that person should have. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
Karen Kerrigan, “Small Business Administration,” in Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, edited by Paul Dans and Steven Groves (The Heritage Foundation, 2023), pp. 745-764. https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
This page
“Small Business Administration,” Project 2025, chapter 25. Read the Mandate, https://readthemandate.org/project-2025/chapter-25/ (retrieved October 7, 2026).
Cite the document when the claim is about what the document says. Cite this page when the indexing, the wording or the record of what has happened is what is being relied on.
What This Page Covers, and What It Leaves Out
Recommendations on accountability, pandemic lending cleanup, regulatory relief for small firms, disaster loans, research programs and agency leadership.
The chapter's account of the agency's budget history and its detailed treatment of individual loan guarantee programs.
Several proposals concern reviewing or assessing something rather than changing it, and each entry shows the document's own word for it distinction.
