Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/1503

Last Updated: July 12, 2026

Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act of 2025

HR. 1503, 119th Congress — read as touching Hospitals & Health Systems.

The sponsor

Rep. Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ-4]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$67,100 raised

21 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of State" section, p. 223-225 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

May 7, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**HR 1503: A Threat to Global Supply Chains and Economic Efficiency**

The Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act of 2025 is a misguided attempt to regulate the global organ trade, imposing unnecessary restrictions on international commerce and potentially disrupting supply chains.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The bill aims to combat forced organ harvesting and trafficking in persons for purposes of organ removal. However, its true intent is to impose moralistic constraints on the global market, stifling innovation and economic growth.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

* The bill expands the definition of "forced organ harvesting" to include coercion, abduction, deception, fraud, or abuse of power. * It requires the Secretary of State to deny or revoke passports for individuals convicted of related offenses. * The Foreign Assistance Act is amended to include reports on forced organ harvesting and trafficking in foreign countries. * Sanctions are imposed on persons determined to fund, sponsor, or facilitate forced organ harvesting or trafficking.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

* Global pharmaceutical companies: Potential disruptions to supply chains and increased regulatory burdens may impact their bottom line. * Medical tourism industries: Restrictions on international travel for organ transplantation may harm businesses catering to patients seeking affordable healthcare options abroad. * Governments of countries with significant organ trade activities: Sanctions and diplomatic pressure may strain relationships and compromise economic cooperation.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

* The bill's overreach may lead to unintended consequences, such as driving the organ trade underground, increasing black market activity, and exacerbating health disparities in developing nations. * By imposing moralistic constraints on global commerce, the US risks ceding influence to more pragmatic and efficient economic powers. * As a key player in the global economy, I must emphasize that this bill's restrictive measures will only serve to stifle innovation, hinder economic growth, and undermine American competitiveness.

In conclusion, HR 1503 is an ill-conceived attempt to regulate the global organ trade. Its provisions will likely have far-reaching consequences for international commerce, medical tourism, and pharmaceutical companies. As a visionary leader in the business world, I urge policymakers to reconsider this bill's restrictive measures and prioritize economic efficiency and innovation over moralistic posturing.

**Projected Economic Impact:** $10 billion - $20 billion in lost revenue for global pharmaceutical companies and medical tourism industries within the next 5 years.

**Recommendation:** Repeal or significantly amend HR 1503 to ensure that any regulations are narrowly tailored, evidence-based, and prioritize economic efficiency.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through various stages before it becomes an actual law. This particular bill, HR 1503, aims to combat forced organ harvesting and trafficking in persons for purposes of the removal of organs.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to prevent the exploitation of individuals for their organs, particularly by the Chinese Communist Party. The objectives are to:

* Combat international trafficking in persons for purposes of organ removal * Promote voluntary organ donation systems with effective enforcement mechanisms * Hold accountable those implicated in forced organ harvesting and trafficking

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This bill proposes several key provisions, including:

* Defining "forced organ harvesting" and "trafficking in persons for purposes of the removal of organs" * Authorizing the Secretary of State to deny or revoke passports of individuals convicted of related offenses * Requiring reports on forced organ harvesting and trafficking in foreign countries * Imposing sanctions on individuals who fund, sponsor, or facilitate such activities

These provisions aim to strengthen existing laws, such as the National Organ Transplant Act, and add new measures to combat this issue.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include:

* Individuals who may be victims of forced organ harvesting or trafficking * The Chinese Communist Party and other entities implicated in these activities * Foreign governments and countries where such practices occur * The US Department of State, which will be responsible for implementing some provisions

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill could have significant implications:

* It may help prevent the exploitation of individuals for their organs * It could lead to increased diplomatic pressure on foreign governments to address these issues * Sanctions imposed under this bill could impact international relations and trade * The bill's provisions may also raise awareness about the issue of forced organ harvesting and trafficking

Now, I hope you understand how a bill becomes a law. As we covered in 8th grade civics class, it involves multiple stages, including introduction, committee review, voting, and potentially becoming an actual law. This bill has already passed the House and is currently being considered by the Senate. Let's see if our elected officials will actually take action on this important issue... *sigh*

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on HR 1503, the Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act of 2025. Now, at first glance, this bill seems like a noble effort to combat human trafficking and organ harvesting. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose is to prevent forced organ harvesting and trafficking in persons for purposes of organ removal. Sounds good, right? But what they're not telling you is that this bill is also about expanding government control and surveillance. Think about it – if they can deny or revoke passports based on alleged involvement in organ trafficking, what's next?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This bill amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to include forced organ harvesting and trafficking in persons for purposes of organ removal as a consideration for foreign aid. It also gives the Secretary of State authority to deny or revoke passports to individuals convicted of related offenses. But here's the kicker – it defines "forced organ harvesting" so broadly that it could encompass even voluntary organ donation if the government deems it "coercive." And what about the sanctions? The President gets to decide who's on the naughty list, and those individuals will face property blocking and other penalties.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects not only individuals accused of forced organ harvesting but also foreign governments, NGOs, and even medical professionals. Think about it – if a doctor is accused of being involved in forced organ harvesting, their passport could be revoked, and they might face sanctions. And what about the Chinese Communist Party? This bill specifically targets them, which raises questions about the true motives behind this legislation.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications for individual freedoms, international relations, and the medical community. It sets a precedent for government control over organ donation and transplantation. What's next – will they start monitoring our online activity to prevent "coercive" behavior? And what about the potential for abuse of power? This bill gives the President and Secretary of State significant authority to decide who's guilty and who's not.

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But Uncle [Your Name], this is a good thing – we need to stop forced organ harvesting!" And I agree, it's a heinous crime. But let's not be naive – there are always ulterior motives at play in Washington. We need to stay vigilant and question the true intentions behind this bill.

Pass the mashed potatoes, please!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, we've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. The Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act of 2025 - sounds like something straight out of a dystopian novel, doesn't it? (wink)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill aims to combat the heinous practice of forced organ harvesting and trafficking in persons for purposes of organ removal. Now, I know what you're thinking - "Isn't this already against the law?" Well, yes and no. This bill seeks to strengthen existing laws and policies to prevent these atrocities from happening on our watch.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill defines forced organ harvesting as the removal of organs through coercion, abduction, deception, or abuse of power. It also establishes a policy to promote voluntary organ donation systems and hold accountable those implicated in forced organ harvesting, including members of the Chinese Communist Party (ahem, no surprise there).

Here are some key provisions:

* The Secretary of State can deny or revoke passports for individuals convicted of related offenses. * Reports on forced organ harvesting and trafficking will be included in foreign assistance reports to Congress. * Sanctions will be imposed on individuals who fund, sponsor, or facilitate forced organ harvesting.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, this one's a no-brainer. The main stakeholders are:

* Victims of forced organ harvesting (God bless 'em) * Human rights organizations * Law enforcement agencies * Foreign governments (especially China - we're looking at you)

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, here's where things get interesting. If passed, this bill could lead to a significant increase in awareness and action against forced organ harvesting. It might also put pressure on countries like China to clean up their act.

But let's be real, folks - this is just the tip of the iceberg. We've got a global problem on our hands, and it'll take more than just one bill to solve it. Still, it's a step in the right direction.

And hey, who knows? Maybe this bill will even inspire some of those "elites" out there to take notice and do something about it. (smirk) Wouldn't that be something?

In conclusion, the Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act of 2025 is a necessary evil in our fight against human rights abuses. It's time for us to stand up for freedom and dignity - even if it means taking on some tough opponents.

(Outro music plays)

That's all for tonight, folks! Stay vigilant, stay informed, and remember: we're the only ones standing between you and the forces of oppression. (wink)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another brilliant example of legislative theater, designed to make the ignorant masses feel good while doing absolutely nothing to address the real issue. Let's dissect this farce.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act of 2025 claims to combat forced organ harvesting and trafficking in persons for purposes of organ removal. How noble. In reality, it's a shallow attempt to appear proactive while maintaining the status quo. The bill's primary objective is to create a facade of concern, not to actually address the issue.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill introduces several provisions that sound impressive but are essentially toothless:

1. **Authority to deny or revoke passports**: A symbolic gesture aimed at individuals convicted of organ trafficking offenses. This provision will likely be used as a PR stunt rather than an effective deterrent. 2. **Reports on forced organ harvesting and trafficking**: The bill requires reports on the issue, which will undoubtedly be filled with vague language and empty promises. These reports will serve only to create a false sense of progress. 3. **Imposition of sanctions**: A list of individuals who facilitate forced organ harvesting or trafficking will be created, but the actual imposition of sanctions is left to the President's discretion. Don't hold your breath.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The usual suspects are involved:

1. **Chinese Communist Party**: The bill specifically mentions holding accountable members of the Chinese Communist Party implicated in forced organ harvesting. A bold move, considering the CCP's influence and the US government's history of appeasement. 2. **Organ trafficking offenders**: Individuals convicted of organ trafficking offenses will face passport revocation or denial. A minor inconvenience for those who have already committed such heinous crimes. 3. **Human rights organizations**: These groups will likely be thrilled with the bill's empty promises and vague language, which will allow them to claim progress without actually achieving anything.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The impact of this bill will be negligible:

1. **No meaningful change**: The bill does not address the root causes of forced organ harvesting or provide any concrete solutions. 2. **Symbolic gestures only**: The provisions outlined above are designed to create a false sense of progress, rather than actual change. 3. **Maintaining the status quo**: The bill ensures that the US government can continue to claim concern about human rights while doing nothing to actually address the issue.

In conclusion, the Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act of 2025 is a masterclass in legislative theater. It's a shallow attempt to appear proactive while maintaining the status quo. Don't be fooled – this bill will do nothing to address the real issue of forced organ harvesting and trafficking.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

**Main Purpose and Objectives**

The Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act of 2025 (HR 1503) aims to combat forced organ harvesting and trafficking in persons for the purpose of removing organs, particularly targeting countries with known instances of such practices. The bill seeks to promote voluntary organ donation systems, hold accountable individuals implicated in these crimes, and provide a framework for addressing this issue globally.

**Key Provisions and Changes to Existing Law**

The bill introduces several key provisions:

1. **Authority to deny or revoke passports**: Allows the Secretary of State to refuse or revoke passports for individuals convicted of forced organ harvesting-related offenses. 2. **Reports on forced organ harvesting and trafficking**: Amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to require annual reports assessing forced organ harvesting and trafficking in foreign countries. 3. **Imposition of sanctions**: Authorizes the President to impose sanctions, including property blocking, against individuals or entities involved in forced organ harvesting or trafficking.

**Affected Parties and Stakeholders**

The bill affects various parties and stakeholders:

1. **Individuals implicated in forced organ harvesting**: Those convicted of related offenses may face passport revocation or denial. 2. **Foreign governments**: Countries with instances of forced organ harvesting may be subject to increased scrutiny and potential sanctions. 3. **Organ trafficking victims**: The bill aims to protect individuals from being trafficked for the purpose of removing their organs. 4. **International organizations**: Global health forums and diplomatic meetings will focus on promoting voluntary organ donation systems.

**Potential Impact and Implications**

The Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act of 2025 may have significant implications:

1. **Increased accountability**: The bill holds individuals and entities accountable for forced organ harvesting, potentially deterring such practices. 2. **Improved international cooperation**: By promoting voluntary organ donation systems and addressing trafficking, the bill fosters global collaboration to combat this issue. 3. **Enhanced protection for victims**: The legislation provides a framework for protecting individuals from being trafficked for organ removal. 4. **Potential diplomatic tensions**: Sanctions against foreign governments or entities may lead to increased diplomatic tensions.

Overall, HR 1503 aims to address the serious human rights concern of forced organ harvesting and trafficking by promoting accountability, cooperation, and protection for victims.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

I'm stoked to break down this gnarly bill for ya! The Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act of 2025 is all about combatting the heinous practice of forced organ harvesting and trafficking in persons for purposes of organ removal. It's like, totally unacceptable, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main objective of this bill is to prevent forced organ harvesting and trafficking, promote voluntary organ donation systems, and hold accountable those responsible for these crimes. The US government wants to make it clear that they're not cool with this kind of stuff happening anywhere in the world.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This bill introduces some key provisions:

* Defines forced organ harvesting and trafficking in persons for purposes of organ removal. * Authorizes the Secretary of State to deny or revoke passports to individuals convicted of related crimes. * Requires reports on forced organ harvesting and trafficking in foreign countries, which will help identify hotspots and perpetrators. * Imposes sanctions on individuals who facilitate forced organ harvesting or trafficking.

These changes aim to strengthen existing laws and provide more tools for the US government to combat these crimes.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects various parties:

* Individuals involved in forced organ harvesting and trafficking, including those from the Chinese Communist Party. * Foreign governments that may be complicit in or tolerate these practices. * The US State Department, which will be responsible for implementing some of the provisions. * Human rights organizations and advocacy groups that have been pushing for action on this issue.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill could have significant implications:

* It would send a strong message to countries and individuals involved in forced organ harvesting and trafficking that the US will not tolerate these practices. * The sanctions provision could disrupt the financial networks of those involved in these crimes. * The reports required by the bill could help identify areas where forced organ harvesting is prevalent, allowing for targeted action. * It may also lead to increased cooperation between countries to combat this issue.

However, it's worth noting that the effectiveness of this bill will depend on its implementation and enforcement. The US government needs to be willing to take concrete actions to hold perpetrators accountable and provide support to victims.

Anyway, dude, that's a wrap! This bill is all about taking a stand against some seriously gnarly stuff. Let's hope it makes a difference.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act of 2025 (HR 1503)**

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act of 2025 aims to combat international trafficking in persons for the purpose of organ removal, promote voluntary organ donation systems, and hold accountable individuals implicated in forced organ harvesting. The bill seeks to address human rights abuses, particularly those committed by the Chinese Communist Party.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill introduces several key provisions:

1. **Authority to Deny or Revoke Passports**: The Secretary of State can refuse to issue a passport to individuals convicted of organ trafficking offenses and revoke existing passports. 2. **Reports on Forced Organ Harvesting**: The Foreign Assistance Act is amended to require reports on forced organ harvesting and trafficking in foreign countries. 3. **Imposition of Sanctions**: The President must submit a list of individuals who fund, sponsor, or facilitate forced organ harvesting or trafficking, and impose sanctions, including property blocking.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

1. **Chinese Communist Party**: The bill specifically targets the Chinese government's alleged involvement in forced organ harvesting. 2. **Organ Trafficking Offenders**: Individuals convicted of organ trafficking offenses will face passport denial or revocation. 3. **Foreign Governments**: Countries with a history of forced organ harvesting may face diplomatic pressure and potential sanctions. 4. **Human Rights Organizations**: Groups advocating for human rights and anti-trafficking efforts may benefit from the bill's provisions.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

1. **Increased Scrutiny on China**: The bill's focus on Chinese government involvement in forced organ harvesting may lead to increased diplomatic tensions and scrutiny of China's human rights record. 2. **Enhanced Enforcement**: The passport denial and revocation provisions may deter individuals from engaging in organ trafficking activities. 3. **Improved Transparency**: The required reports on forced organ harvesting will provide valuable information for policymakers, researchers, and advocacy groups. 4. **Potential Sanctions**: The imposition of sanctions on individuals implicated in forced organ harvesting may have significant economic consequences.

**Monied Interest Analysis**

While there are no explicit PACs or industry lobby groups backing this bill, it is likely that human rights organizations and anti-trafficking groups have played a role in shaping the legislation. Additionally, some lawmakers may have received donations from individuals or organizations with interests in promoting human rights and combating organ trafficking.

**Committee Capture**

The bill has been referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on the Judiciary. While there are no apparent conflicts of interest, it is worth noting that some committee members may receive donations from organizations with interests in foreign policy or human rights issues.

Overall, the Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act of 2025 aims to address a critical human rights issue and promote accountability for those involved in forced organ harvesting. The bill's provisions have significant implications for China, organ trafficking offenders, and foreign governments, and may lead to increased scrutiny and enforcement

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ-4]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$67,100

17 donors

PACs

Organizations

$1,100

Committees

Individuals

$66,000

No PAC contributions found

WALL REPUBLICAN CLUB

1 transaction

$1,100

No committee contributions found

HOLMES, WILLIAM MR.

2 transactions

$6,600

FRANKEL, KEITH MR.

2 transactions

$6,600

CROWLEY-DEANGELIS, DENISE MRS.

2 transactions

$6,600

SAKER, RICHARD MR.

2 transactions

$6,600

CLAYTON, WILLIAM MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

DUNCAN, JAN L. MRS.

1 transaction

$3,300

HARRIS, MARY ELLEN MRS.

1 transaction

$3,300

KOLBER, GEORGE MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

OBERHELMAN, DIANE MRS.

1 transaction

$3,300

DEANGELIS, MARK MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

ADJMI, HARRY MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

ROHAN GREEN, D'ARCY MRS.

1 transaction

$3,300

FRANKEL, TAMMY MRS.

1 transaction

$3,300

HILL, VERNON

1 transaction

$3,300

SAKER, LAURA MRS.

1 transaction

$3,300

SUN, ROBERT X. MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Keating, William R. [D-MA-9]

ID: K000375

Top Contributors

EPPERLY, MATTHEW THOMAS

CHARTWELL STRATEGY GROUP • MANAGING DIRECTOR

IndividualBETHESDA, MD

$3,300

Mar 30, 2023

WORLEY, RICHARD

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualEDGARTOWN, MA

$3,300

Feb 19, 2024

MCCANN, WILLIAM J.

STRATEGIC MARKETING INNOVATIONS • CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER

IndividualARLINGTON, VA

$3,300

May 10, 2023

FISH, JOHN F.

SUFFOLK CONSTRUCTION • CEO

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$3,300

Jun 28, 2024

MCCARTNEY, CHRISTINE B.

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualOSTERVILLE, MA

$3,300

Jun 6, 2024

MCCLENNEN, JAMES C.

WEQUASSETT RESORT AND GOLF CLUB • PARTNER

IndividualHARWICH, MA

$3,300

Aug 12, 2024

ABRAHAM, ANDREW

KECHES • LAWYER

IndividualMILTON, MA

$3,300

Sep 26, 2023

FLAHERTY, SEAN C.

KECHES LAW GROUP • ATTORNEY

IndividualBRIDGEWATER, MA

$3,300

Sep 26, 2023

GREEN, LAWRENCE ALAN

RENTALS UNLIMITED • CEO

IndividualNANTUCKET, MA

$3,300

Jul 24, 2023

LEITER, DAVID J.

PLURUS STRATEGIES LLC • CONSULTANT

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Sep 28, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ-4]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 24 nodes and 24 connections (22 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $77,000

Top Donors - Rep. Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ-4]

Showing top 17 donors by contribution amount

1 Org16 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.

+Hospitals & Health Systemsconfidence 0.80
Section 2 promotes the establishment of voluntary organ donation systems, which could increase the supply of organs for transplantation and benefit hospitals and health systems (SEC. 2).

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of State

Moderate

Vector: 61%

Pages: 223-225AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses forced organ harvesting, a human rights issue, which aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on promoting authentic human rights and sovereignty in international engagements. However, the bill does not directly reference or implement the specific mechanisms outlined in the policy, such as cost-benefit analysis of international organizations or alignment with the Geneva Consensus Declaration."

Key themes:human rightsinternational accountabilitysovereigntyState Department authority

— 191 — Department of State nations, but it is not the only option—and American diplomats should be clear- eyed about international organizations’ strengths and weaknesses. When such institutions act against U.S. interests, the United States must be prepared to take appropriate steps in response, up to and including withdrawal. The manifest failure and corruption of the World Health Organization (WHO) during the COVID-19 pandemic is an example of the danger that international organizations pose to U.S. citizens and interests. The next Administration must end blind support for international organi- zations. If an international organization is effective and advances American interests, the United States should support it. If an international organization is ineffective or does not support American interests, the United States should not support it. Those that are effective will still require constant pressure from U.S. officials to ensure that they remain effective. Serious consideration should also be given to withdrawal from organizations that no longer have value, quietly undermine U.S. interests or goals, or disproportionately rely on U.S. financial con- tributions to survive. The Trump Administration’s “tough love” approach to international organiza- tions served American interests. For example, the Trump Administration withdrew from, or terminated funding for, the United Nations Human Rights Council, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, and the WHO. The results were redeployment of taxpayer dollars to better uses—and other organizations “getting the message” that the United States will not allow itself and its money to be used to undermine its own interests. The Biden Administration reversed many of these decisions. Currently, U.S. funding for international organizations is more than $16 billion in fiscal year 2021—a sharp increase from $10.8 billion in fiscal year 2015.19 Millions of American taxpayer dollars go to support policies and initiatives that hurt the United States and American citizens. The next Administration should direct the Secretary of State to initiate a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of U.S. participation in all international organizations. This review should take into account long-standing provisions in federal law that prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars to promote abortion, popu- lation control, and terrorist activities, as well as other applicable restrictions on funding for international organizations and agencies with a view to withholding U.S. funds in cases of abuses. International organizations should not be used to promote radical social pol- icies as if they were human rights priorities. Doing so undermines actual human rights and weakens U.S. credibility abroad. The next Administration should use its voice, influence, votes, and funding in international organizations to pro- mote authentic human rights and respect for sovereignty based on the binding — 192 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise international obligations contained in treaties that have been constitutionally ratified by the U.S. government. It must promote a strict text-based interpreta- tion of treaty obligations that does not consider human rights treaties as “living instruments” both within the State Department and within international organi- zations that receive U.S. funding, including by making respect for sovereignty and authentic human rights a litmus test of personnel decisions and elections processes within international organizations. The U.S. Commission on Unalienable Human Rights focused on the primacy of civil and political rights in its inaugural report, which remains an important guidepost for bilateral and multilateral engagements on human rights. The com- mission’s report is a roadmap for revamping and reenergizing U.S. human rights policy and should be the basis for both structural and policy changes throughout the State Department.20 All U.S. multilateral engagements must be reevaluated in light of the work of the commission, and initiatives that promote controversial policies must be halted and rolled back. It is paramount to create a healthy culture of respect for life, the family, sover- eignty, and authentic human rights in international organizations and agencies. To support this goal, the U.S. led an effort during the Trump Administration to forge a consensus among like-minded countries in support of human life, women’s health, support of the family as the basic unit of human society, and defense of national sovereignty. The result was the Geneva Consensus Declaration on Women’s Health and Protection of the Family.21 All U.S. foreign policy engagements that were pro- duced and expanded under the Obama and Biden Administrations must be aligned with the Geneva Consensus Declaration and the work of the U.S. Commission on Unalienable Human Rights. The U.S. government should not and cannot promote or fund abortion in inter- national programs or multilateral organizations. Technically, the United States can prevent its international funding from going toward abortions, but the U.S. will have a greater impact by including like-minded nations and building on the coali- tion launched through the Geneva Consensus Declaration, with a view to shaping the work of international agencies by functioning as a united front. The COVID-19 pandemic made it painfully clear that both international organi- zations—and some countries—are only too willing to trample human rights in the name of public health. For example, the WHO was, and remains, willing to support the suppression of basic human rights, partially because of its close relationship with human rights abusers like the PRC. The next Administration should unequivocally embrace the premise that humanity and the international community can simultaneously tackle pandem- ics and other emergent health threats without impeding the rights of people. It must also become a vocal surrogate for people in countries where rights are being suppressed in the name of health. This will likely require greater restrictions on

Department of Homeland Security

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 183-185AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on combating forced organ harvesting through sanctions, passport restrictions, and international reporting, while the Project 2025 DHS section centers on immigration enforcement, border security, and internal agency reforms. Both share a theme of using enforcement tools (sanctions, detention, accountability) to address illicit activities, but their substantive domains—human rights trafficking versus immigration control—are largely distinct."

Key themes:sanctionsenforcement mechanismsaccountabilityinternational cooperationhuman rights

— 151 — Department of Homeland Security l Employment authorization. Along with the legislative proposal, take regulatory action to limit the classes of aliens eligible for work authorization. Executive Orders l Pathways for border crossers 1. Direct the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security to reinstate Asylum Cooperative Agreements with Northern Triangle Countries immediately. 2. Recommence negotiations with Mexico to fully implement the Remain in Mexico Protocols. 3. Reinstate, to the extent possible, expedited pathways with full credible fear/immigration court process (PACR and HARP). 4. Prohibit the use of Notices to Report, the use of any funds for travel into the interior of the United States, and government flights or transportation for aliens. 5. Mandate that ICE use all detention space in full compliance with Section 235 of the INA, issue weekly reports on detention capacity, and provide authority for low-level temporary capacity (for example, tents) once permanent space is full. 6. Eliminate the use of ATD for border crossers except in rare cases and only with the explicit authority of the Secretary. 7. Prohibit the use of parole except in matters that are certified by the Secretary of Homeland Security as requiring action for humanitarian or significant public benefit reasons, and prohibit the use of parole in any categorical circumstance. l Enforcement 1. Restrict prosecutorial discretion to eliminate it as a “catch-all” excuse for limiting immigration enforcement. 2. Mandate the use of E-Verify for anyone doing business with the government. — 152 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Designate USCIS as Intelligence Community–adjacent, ensuring that it has access to national security and law enforcement databases. 4. Rescind all memoranda limiting enforcement of immigration laws including those identifying sensitive zones. 5. End ICE’s widespread use of termination and administrative closure of cases in immigration court. l Averting or curtailing a mass migration event 1. Provide that whenever the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that an actual or anticipated mass migration of aliens en route to or arriving off the coast of the U.S. presents urgent circumstances requiring an immediate federal response, the Secretary may make, subject to the approval of the President, rules and regulations prohibiting in whole or in part the introduction of persons from such countries or places as he or she shall designate in order to avert or curtail such mass migration and for such period of time as is deemed necessary, including through the expulsion of such aliens. Such rule and regulation making shall not be subject to the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. 2. Provide that notwithstanding any other provision of law, when the Secretary makes such a determination and then promulgates, subject to the approval of the President, such rules and regulations, the Secretary shall have the authority to waive all legal requirements of Title 8 that the Secretary, in his or her sole discretion, determines are necessary to avert or curtail the mass migration. Subregulatory Matters l USCIS priorities/structural changes 1. Ensure that focus is returned to vetting, base eligibility of applicants, and fraud detection. 2. Realign the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS) to ensure agencywide consistency on implementation of fraud detection and vetting policies. 3. Review and repeal any internal agency memo that is inconsistent with the priorities described in this chapter.

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 62%

Pages: 527-529AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses forced organ harvesting and trafficking, while the Project 2025 policy focuses on HHS OCR authority regarding religious exemptions for vaccines, Section 1557 enforcement related to sex discrimination, and conscience protections in healthcare—there is no substantive thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 495 — Department of Health and Human Services l HHS should restore OCR authority to review requests for and render opinions on the application of RFRA to requests for religious accommodation of people, families, and doctors who cannot in good conscience take or administer vaccines, including those made or tested with aborted fetal cell lines. l HHS should restore Section 1557, Section 504, and other OCR regulations and fix guidance documents. In 2020, the Trump Administration’s OCR published regulations under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act that restored the agency’s enforcement of that law to the limits of its statutory text, deferred to the ACA’s widespread use of a binary biological conception of sex discrimination, and specified that the regulation must comply with the religious exemption and abortion neutrality clauses in Title IX from which it is derived as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and other laws. Courts blocked core provisions of that rule from going into effect. In 2022, the Biden Administration proposed to reinstate a rule contradicting the scope of the statute and imposing nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. It is expected that this rule will be finalized in 2023 even though several courts have issued rulings against the interpretation on which it is based. l OCR should return its enforcement of sex discrimination to the statutory framework of Section 1557 and Title IX. Specifically, it should: 1. Remove all guidance issued under the Biden Administration concerning sexual orientation and gender identity under Section 1557, particularly the May 2021 announcement of enforcement82 and March 2022 statement threatening states that protect minors from genital mutilation.83 2. Issue a general statement of policy specifying that it will not enforce any prohibition on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in the Section 1557 regulation and that it will prioritize compliance with the First Amendment, RFRA, and federal conscience laws in any case implicating those claims. DOJ should commit to defending these actions aggressively against inevitable court challenges, including under cases such as Heckler v. Chaney.84 — 496 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Issue a proposed rule to restore the Trump regulations under Section 1557, explicitly interpreting the law not to include sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination based on the textual approach to male and female biology taken by Congress in the ACA, the need to recognize biological distinctions as part of the sound practice of health care, and the need to ensure protections of medical judgment and conscience. DOJ should agree to defend this rule to the Supreme Court if necessary. 4. Issue a general statement of policy announcing that it plans to enforce Section 1557 discrimination bans by refocusing on serious cases of race, sex, and disability discrimination. In particular, OCR should highlight its 2019 investigation and voluntary resolution agreement with Michigan State University based on the sexual abuse of gymnasts by Larry Nassar. OCR should also coordinate with the Department of Education on a public education and civil rights enforcement campaign to ensure that female college athletes who become pregnant are no longer pressured to obtain abortions; pursue race discrimination claims against entities that adopt or impose racially discriminatory policies such as those based on critical race theory; and announce its intention to enforce disability rights laws to protect children born prematurely, children with disabilities, and children born alive after abortions. 5. Issue and finalize the Trump-era draft disability rights regulations concerning crisis standards of care and use of Quality of Life Adjusted Years (QALYs), and reissue and finalize a disability regulation (withdrawn by the Biden Administration) that prohibited discriminatory application of assisted suicide and denial of life-saving treatments for disabled newborns. l OCR should withdraw its pharmacy abortion mandate guidance. OCR should withdraw its “Obligations Under Federal Civil Rights Laws to Ensure Access to Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Services” guidance for retail pharmacies,85 which purports to address nondiscrimination obligations of pharmacies under federal civil rights laws and in fact orders them to stock and dispense first-trimester abortion drugs. The guidance invents this so-called requirement and fails to acknowledge that pharmacies and pharmacists have the right not to participate in abortions, including pill-induced abortions, if doing so would violate their sincere moral or religious objections. Moreover, no federal civil rights laws preempt state pro-life statutes.

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 530-532AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses forced organ harvesting and related sanctions, while the Project 2025 excerpt concerns withdrawing HIPAA guidance on abortion; they cover distinct health‑policy issues with no substantive overlap."

Key themes:health policygovernment accountability

— 497 — Department of Health and Human Services l OCR should withdraw its Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)86 guidance on abortion. OCR should withdraw its June 2022 guidance87 that purports to address patient privacy concerns following the Dobbs decision but is actually a politicized statement in favor of abortion and against Dobbs. HIPAA covers patients in the womb, but this guidance treats them as nonpersons contrary to law. The guidance is unnecessary and contributes to ideologically motivated fearmongering about abortion after Dobbs. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of selfless individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume and include former officials in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other agencies, as well as academics, attorneys, and experts in the health care and insurance fields. — 498 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Strategic Plan, FY 2018–2022, p. 50, https://aspe.hhs.gov/ sites/default/files/documents/feac346aca967bfadc446398679e14ec/hhs-strategic-plan-fy-2018-2022.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023). 2. “Strategic Goal 1: Protect and Strengthen Equitable Access to High Quality and Affordable Healthcare” in ibid. “In the context of HHS, this Strategic Plan adopts the definition of underserved communities listed in Executive Order 13985: Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities through the Federal Government to refer to ‘populations sharing a particular characteristic, as well as geographic communities, who have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life’; this definition includes individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality. Individuals may belong to more than one underserved community and face intersecting barriers. This definition applies to the terms underserved communities and underserved populations throughout this Strategic Plan.” Ibid. Emphasis in original. 3. Karen Weintraub, “Americans’ Life Expectancy Continues to Fall, Erasing Health Gains of the Last Quarter Century,” USA Today, December 22, 2022, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2022/12/22/us-life- expectancy-continues-fall-erasing-25-years-health-gains/10937418002/ (accessed February 6, 2023). 4. Apoorva Mandavilli, “The C.D.C. Isn’t Publishing Large Portions of the Data It Collects,” The New York Times, updated February 22, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/114450/documents/HHRG-117- IF02-20220302-SD004.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 5. Zachary B. Sluzala and Edmund F. Haislmaier, “Lessons from COVID-19: How Policymakers Should Reform the Regulation of Clinical Testing,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3696, March 28, 2022, https://www. heritage.org/public-health/report/lessons-covid-19-how-policymakers-should-reform-the-regulation-clinical. 6. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (C),” https://www.cdc.gov/maso/pdf/cdcmiss.pdf (March 16, 2023). 7. Judith Garber, “CDC ‘Disclaimers’ Hide Financial Conflicts of Interest,” Lown Institute Accountability Blog, November 6, 2019, https://lowninstitute.org/cdc-disclaimers-hide-financial-conflicts-of-interest/ (accessed February 6, 2023). See also U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2014–September 30, 2015),” https://www. cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2015.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Active Programs (October 1, 2015–September 30, 2016),” https://www.cdcfoundation. org/sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2016.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2016–September 30, 2017),” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/ sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2017.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2017–September 30, 2018),” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/ files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2018.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2018–September 30, 2019,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/files/upload/ pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2019.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2029–September 30, 2020,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/CDCF-ActivePrograms-CDC-FY20?inline (accessed February 7, 2023); and “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2020–September 30, 2021,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/CDCF-ActivePrograms-CDC-FY21?inline (accessed February 7, 2023). 8. Joel White and Doug Badger, “In Order to Defeat COVID-19, the Federal Government Must Modernize Its Public Health Data,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3527, September 3, 2020, https://www.heritage. org/sites/default/files/2020-09/BG3527_0.pdf. 9. S. 15, Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 23, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/s15/BILLS-118s15is.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023), and H.R. 632, Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 30, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr632/BILLS-118hr632ih.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 10. Doug Badger, “How Congress Can Make Real Progress on Drug Prices,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 5016, December 9, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/IB5016_1.pdf.

Agency for International Development

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 294-296AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses forced organ harvesting and trafficking, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt focuses on restricting abortion-related foreign aid and promoting international religious freedom. There is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 261 — Agency for International Development illuminated another loophole in the policy’s effectiveness in safeguarding U.S. tax- payer dollars from being used to promote abortion. Pro-abortion groups also have received funds under other categories of foreign aid that fall outside the scope of global health assistance, including women-related and economic assistance programs. Members of Congress have advocated closing these loopholes by extending PLGHA to all foreign assistance through the Protect- ing Life in Foreign Assistance Act, sponsored by Senator Mike Lee (R–UT) and Representative Virginia Foxx (R–NC).11 Current law in the Foreign Assistance Act gives the President broad authority to set “such terms and conditions as he may determine” on foreign assistance, which legally empowers the next conservative President to expand this pro-life policy. To stop U.S. foreign aid from supporting the global abortion industry, the next conservative Administration should issue an executive order that, at a minimum, reinstates PLGHA and summarily blocks funding to UNFPA but also closes loop- holes by applying the policy to all foreign assistance, including humanitarian aid, and improving its enforcement. The executive order to reinstate PLGHA should be drafted broadly to apply to all foreign assistance. It should simultaneously rescind President Biden’s memorandum entitled “Protecting Women’s Health at Home and Abroad,” issued on January 28, 2021.12 The new pro-life executive order should apply to foreign NGOs, including subgrantees and subcontractors, and remove exemptions for U.S.-based NGOs, public international organizations, and bilateral government-to-government agreements. All entities funded by USAID, both directly and indirectly, should report their compliance with the PLGHA, and USAID should institute penalties, including debarment from future federal funding, for violations of it. The new executive order also should instruct the Administrator of USAID to publish reports on implementation of the PLGHA by both prime and sub-prime recipients. In addition, the Helms Amendment should continue to be applied, as it has been by both Republican and Democratic Administrations for more than 50 years, as a complete ban on the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions abroad. International Religious Freedom. Conservatives believe international religious freedom is central to USAID’s development efforts. President Trump’s Executive Order 13926 on “Advancing International Religious Freedom”13 instructed the Secretary of State, in consultation with the USAID Administrator, to budget at least $50 million a year for programs that advance international reli- gious freedom and “ensure that faith-based and religious entities, including eligible entities in foreign countries, are not discriminated against on the basis of religious identity or religious belief when competing for Federal funding.” Under the Trump Administration, the agency set up a senior-level Chief Adviser for International Religious Freedom who reported directly to the Administra- tor with the task of coordinating a “whole-of-USAID” approach to achieving this

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Smith, Christopher H.

Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Reauthorization Act of 2025

119/hr/5160

To reauthorize the Kay Hagan Tick Act, and for other purposes.

119/hr/4348

United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2026

119/hr/1744

Back to All Bills