S. 3257

S. 3257: Mental Health in Aviation Act of 2025

Reported by Committee John Hoeven (R) SENATE_BILL — 119th Congress
Plain English Summary

The Mental Health in Aviation Act of 2025 aims to update Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations to better support pilots and air traffic controllers who disclose mental health conditions. The bill seeks to normalize seeking mental health help among aviation professionals by revising medical rules, funding examiner training, and launching public information campaigns to reduce stigma. It also sets timelines and reporting requirements to improve trust and safety in aviation.

Positive Media Summary

Supporters of the bill commend its efforts to address mental health stigma in the aviation industry. They highlight the importance of creating an environment where aviation professionals feel safe to disclose mental health issues without fear of professional repercussions. The bill's provisions for funding examiner training and public campaigns are seen as proactive steps toward enhancing overall aviation safety.

Negative Media Summary

Critics express concerns that the bill's implementation could be complex and resource-intensive. They worry about potential delays in revising FAA regulations and the effectiveness of public campaigns in changing entrenched attitudes. Some also question whether the allocated funding is sufficient to achieve the bill's ambitious goals.

Conflict of Interest Analysis Deep Analysis
1/10
Risk Level
Low
Total Donations
$1,260,000,000
PAC Percentage
0%
Policy Area
Transportation and Public Works

The bill S. 3257: Mental Health in Aviation Act of 2025 is sponsored by John Hoeven, a Republican, who has received significant donations from Health Professionals and Retired individuals. There are no direct overlaps detected between the bill subjects and the sponsor's top donor industries, which significantly reduces the potential for conflicts of interest. The lobbying activity in this bill's policy area is diverse, with various organizations involved, but none of them appear to directly link to the sponsor's top donor industries. The College of Healthcare Information Management Executives, which could potentially have an interest in the bill, has spent $30,000 on lobbying, but it is not clear whether this is related to the bill or not. The total overlap amount is $0, indicating no financial connection between the sponsor's donors and the bill's subject matter.

Lobbying Activity — Who's Pushing?

Organizations that lobbied on issues related to this bill's policy area.

Client Lobbying Firm Amount
AMERICAN RIVERS ACTION FUND AMERICAN RIVERS ACTION FUND $120,000
COLLEGE OF HEALTHCARE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT EXECUTIVES COLLEGE OF HEALTHCARE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT EXECUTIVES $30,000
WINDOW COVERING MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION NORTHSTAR EK LLC $30,000
SHINE TECHNOLOGIES NORTHSTAR EK LLC $30,000
PRIVATE CARE ASSOCIATION INC HOLLRAH LLC $10,000
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS AND ADVISORS NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS AND ADVISORS undisclosed
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WORKFORCE BOARDS NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WORKFORCE BOARDS undisclosed
MYSTERY SHOPPING PROVIDERS ASSOCIATION, INC. HOLLRAH LLC undisclosed
COALITION TO PRESERVE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS HOLLRAH LLC undisclosed
TOBACCO-FREE KIDS ACTION FUND SACHS MEDIA. INC. undisclosed
NATIONAL GRANGE OF THE ORDER OF PATRONS OF HUSBANDRY THE NATIONAL GRANGE OF THE ORDER OF PATRONS OF HUSBANDRY undisclosed
SYENSQO USA LLC RIDGELINE ADVOCACY GROUP LLC undisclosed
PUEBLO OF JEMEZ DENTONS US LLP undisclosed
INVIVYD, INC. KING & SPALDING LLP undisclosed
EUROPORT, INC. MO STRATEGIES, INC. undisclosed

Source: Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) filings, 2026

Sponsor's Top Donor Industries

Top industries funding John Hoeven, ranked by total contributions.

Health Professionals $960,000,000
Individuals: $960,000,000 PACs: $0
Retired $300,000,000
Individuals: $300,000,000 PACs: $0

Source: OpenSecrets.org (Center for Responsive Politics)

TheBillRoom is free and independent. No ads, no subscriptions, no political funding. If this analysis was useful, reader support keeps it running.
Support Us