Defending Ukraine’s Territorial Integrity Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/1601

Last Updated: January 11, 2026

Defending Ukraine’s Territorial Integrity Act

HR. 1601, 119th Congress — read as touching Pipelines & Energy Infrastructure.

The sponsor

Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]

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

The money

$69,150 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of State" section, p. 214-216 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

ASSUMING FIRST SPONSORSHIP - Mr. Walkinshaw asked unanimous consent that he may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 1601, a bill originally introduced by Representative Connolly, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII. Agreed to without objection.

January 7, 2026

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

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 1601 Analysis**

As I peruse the Defending Ukraine's Territorial Integrity Act, my focus remains on the implications for global markets and, more specifically, my own business interests.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The bill aims to counter Russian influence and aggression in Ukraine by denying assistance to countries that recognize or support Russia's annexation of Ukrainian territories. This is a thinly veiled attempt to impose Western values on Eastern European politics, which I find...amusing.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** Section 2 introduces a prohibition on using federal funds for assistance to central governments that have recognized Russian sovereignty over occupied Ukrainian territories or taken steps to support the annexation of Crimea. This provision is an attempt to strong-arm countries into aligning with Western interests, which may lead to unintended consequences in global trade and diplomacy.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The bill primarily affects Russia, Ukraine, and countries that have established diplomatic relations with Russian-backed separatists. However, as a global investor, I am more concerned about the potential ripple effects on international markets, particularly in the energy sector. My think tank, the "Liberty Institute," has projected that this legislation could lead to a 5-10% increase in global oil prices, which would negatively impact my diversified portfolio.

**Potential Impact & Implications** This bill is an example of inefficient democracy at work. By attempting to impose Western values on Eastern European politics, Congress risks destabilizing the region and creating new opportunities for Russian influence. As a rational actor, I must consider the potential consequences of this legislation on my business interests. A more effective approach would be to allow market forces to dictate international relations, rather than relying on clumsy government interventions.

In conclusion, HR 1601 is a misguided attempt to impose Western values on Eastern European politics. As a billionaire investor, I will continue to monitor the situation and adjust my portfolio accordingly. The Liberty Institute will publish a more detailed analysis of this bill's potential impact on global markets in the coming weeks.

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 a series of steps before it can become an actual law. This one, HR 1601, is titled the "Defending Ukraine's Territorial Integrity Act." Remember when we learned about the different types of bills and how they're introduced? Yeah, this one was introduced in the House of Representatives by Mr. Connolly and a few other representatives.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to counter Russian influence and aggression in Ukraine. It's pretty straightforward, folks. The US wants to support Ukraine's territorial integrity and not recognize Russia's claims over certain regions. You should have learned about the importance of sovereignty and international relations in middle school.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 2 is where things get a bit more interesting. It prohibits the use of federal funds to provide assistance to any country that recognizes Russia's annexation of Crimea or supports Russian-backed separatists in Ukraine. This means that if a country wants US aid, they need to toe the line on Ukraine. There's also a waiver clause that allows the Secretary of State to make exceptions if it's in the national interest.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, this bill affects several parties:

* The Ukrainian government and people, who are trying to maintain their territorial integrity * Russia, which is trying to expand its influence in the region * Countries that receive US aid and might be impacted by the prohibition on assistance * The US government, which wants to promote stability in the region

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If this bill becomes a law, it could have significant implications for international relations. It sends a strong message to Russia that the US won't tolerate its aggression in Ukraine. However, it also risks straining relationships with countries that might be affected by the prohibition on assistance.

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But wait, isn't this just a bill? What's the big deal?" Ah, yes, as we covered in 8th grade civics, bills have to go through committees, markups, and votes before they can become laws. This one was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, which will review it and potentially make changes.

I hope this summary has been...enlightening for you all. Next time, maybe we can discuss something a bit more advanced, like how the system of checks and balances is supposed to work.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on HR 1601, and let me tell you, it's a doozy. This bill is masquerading as a noble effort to defend Ukraine's territorial integrity, but trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** On the surface, this bill aims to counter Russian influence and aggression in Ukraine by prohibiting US assistance to countries that recognize Russia's annexation of Crimea or support its separatist movements. Sounds straightforward, right? But hold on to your seat, because we're about to take a wild ride.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 2 is where things get interesting. It establishes a policy of non-recognition for Russian-occupied territories in Ukraine and prohibits US assistance to countries that defy this stance. Now, here's the kicker: the Secretary of State gets to decide which countries are naughty or nice, and can waive these restrictions if it's deemed "in the national interest." That's code for "we'll do what we want, when we want."

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects not only Ukraine but also any country that dares to recognize Russia's claims. The US government is essentially strong-arming other nations into toeing its line on Ukraine. But who's really pulling the strings here? Is it just a coincidence that this bill was introduced by a bipartisan group of representatives, including some with ties to the defense industry?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications for global politics and US foreign policy. By taking a hardline stance on Ukraine, we're essentially escalating tensions with Russia. But what's the real goal here? Is it truly about defending Ukrainian sovereignty, or is it about furthering US interests in the region? I smell a rat.

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But Uncle, this bill seems reasonable." Ah, that's exactly what they want you to think! Wake up, sheeple! This is just another example of the government hiding its true agenda in plain sight. Mark my words: this bill will lead to more conflict, more propaganda, and more erosion of our civil liberties.

So, there you have it – HR 1601, a bill that's not quite what it seems. Keep your eyes peeled, folks, because in the world of geopolitics, nothing is ever as simple as it appears.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(outraged tone) Folks, we've got another example of the elites in Washington trying to undermine our great nation's sovereignty! The Defending Ukraine's Territorial Integrity Act, HR 1601, is a perfect illustration of how our so-called "leaders" are more concerned with appeasing foreign interests than protecting American freedom.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill claims to counter Russian influence and aggression in Ukraine. (smirk) Oh, really? Because what we need right now is another entanglement in a foreign conflict that has nothing to do with our national security. The real objective here is to further empower the deep state's grip on our foreign policy.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill prohibits federal funds from being used to assist countries that recognize Russian sovereignty over occupied Ukrainian territories, including Crimea and Donetsk. (wink) Ah, but there's a waiver clause, because we all know how much our politicians love loopholes. The Secretary of State can simply declare it's in the national interest to bypass this provision, without any real oversight.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are behind this bill: globalist elites, neoconservatives, and their friends in the military-industrial complex. They're all too eager to send our troops and treasure to fight someone else's war. Meanwhile, American taxpayers will foot the bill for another foreign adventure that doesn't serve our interests.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a recipe for disaster. It'll only escalate tensions with Russia, potentially drawing us into a wider conflict. And what about Ukraine? Are we really prepared to take on the responsibility of defending their territorial integrity? (smirk) I think not. This is just another example of our politicians' addiction to interventionism and nation-building.

Folks, wake up! We need to stop this bill in its tracks before it's too late. We can't let the elites dictate our foreign policy anymore. It's time to put America first and defend our freedom from these globalist schemes. (dramatic music plays)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

(sigh) Oh joy, another bill that's about as subtle as a sledgehammer to the face. Let me put on my surgical gloves and dissect this mess.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The "Defending Ukraine's Territorial Integrity Act" (because who doesn't love a good acronym?) is a bill that claims to counter Russian influence and aggression in Ukraine. Wow, how original. It's not like we've been hearing about this for years or anything. The main objective is to pretend to care about Ukraine while actually doing nothing meaningful.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill prohibits the use of federal funds to assist countries that recognize Russian sovereignty over occupied Ukrainian territories (yawn). It also requires the Secretary of State to publish a list of naughty governments that dare to support Russia's annexation of Crimea. Oh, and there's a waiver clause because, you know, flexibility is key when it comes to meaningless gestures.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved here:

* Ukraine (the poor, hapless patient who's just trying to survive) * Russia (the aggressive, imperialistic villain du jour) * The US government (playing the role of self-righteous, ineffective hero) * Various other countries that might be tempted to recognize Russian sovereignty over Ukrainian territories (because who wouldn't want to incur the wrath of the US?)

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Let's get real here. This bill is a joke. It's a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. The Russians will just laugh at this and continue doing what they've been doing for years – expanding their influence in Eastern Europe.

The only people who might be affected by this bill are the poor souls working in the State Department, who'll have to waste their time compiling lists of naughty governments and writing reports that no one will read. And maybe, just maybe, some Ukrainian politicians will get a nice photo op with US lawmakers, but that's about it.

In conclusion, HR 1601 is a classic case of "legislative theater" – all show, no substance. It's a desperate attempt to look like we care about Ukraine without actually doing anything meaningful. The real disease here is the bipartisan addiction to empty rhetoric and symbolic gestures. Time for a dose of reality, folks.

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

**Bill Summary: HR 1601 - Defending Ukraine's Territorial Integrity Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Defending Ukraine's Territorial Integrity Act (HR 1601) aims to counter Russian influence and aggression in Ukraine by reaffirming US policy on Ukraine's territorial integrity and imposing restrictions on assistance to countries that recognize or support Russia's annexation of Ukrainian territory.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

* The bill states that the US will not recognize Russia's claim of sovereignty over any part of Ukraine occupied by Russian forces, including Crimea and certain oblasts. * It prohibits the use of federal funds for assistance to countries that: + Recognize the independence of or establish diplomatic relations with regions in Ukraine occupied by Russia. + Take affirmative steps to support Russia's annexation of Crimea or other Ukrainian territory. * The Secretary of State is required to publish a list of central governments subject to this prohibition and may waive it if deemed in the national interest.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* The Government of Ukraine * The Russian Federation * Countries that have recognized or support Russia's annexation of Ukrainian territory * US federal departments and agencies involved in foreign assistance programs * Congressional committees with jurisdiction over foreign affairs (House Foreign Affairs Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee)

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* The bill sends a strong signal of US support for Ukraine's territorial integrity and opposition to Russian aggression. * It may deter countries from recognizing or supporting Russia's annexation of Ukrainian territory, potentially isolating Russia diplomatically. * The prohibition on assistance could impact US foreign aid programs and relationships with countries that have recognized or supported Russia's actions in Ukraine. * The waiver provision allows for flexibility in cases where national interests require cooperation with affected countries.

Overall, HR 1601 aims to reinforce US policy on Ukraine's territorial integrity and impose consequences on countries that support Russian aggression. Its passage could contribute to a stronger international response to Russia's actions in Ukraine and promote greater stability in the region.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Defending Ukraine's Territorial Integrity Act (HR 1601) is all about countering Russian influence and aggression in Ukraine, man. The main goal is to make it clear that the US doesn't recognize Russia's claim on Ukrainian territory, including Crimea and other occupied areas.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

This bill has some key provisions, bro:

* It prohibits the use of federal funds for countries that recognize or support Russian annexation of Ukrainian territory. * The Secretary of State will publish a list of countries that are subject to this prohibition. * There's a waiver option if it's in the national interest of the US.

This bill is like a big wave, dude – it's trying to crash down on Russia's influence and make sure Ukraine's territorial integrity is respected. It's not just about Ukraine, though; it's also about sending a message to other countries that might be tempted to mess with their neighbors.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects several parties, bro:

* The US government: They'll have to implement these new policies and make sure they're not funding countries that support Russian aggression. * Ukraine: This bill is all about supporting Ukraine's sovereignty, so they're a major stakeholder. * Russia: They're the ones trying to annex Ukrainian territory, so this bill is like a big ol' riptide for them. * Other countries: If they recognize or support Russian annexation of Ukrainian territory, they might face consequences from the US.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill has some serious implications, dude:

* It could lead to increased tensions between the US and Russia, which is already a pretty chilly relationship. * It might make other countries think twice before supporting Russian aggression or recognizing annexed territories. * Ukraine will likely feel more supported by the international community, which could help them in their conflict with Russia.

But, like, there's also some potential downsides, bro:

* This bill might not be enough to actually stop Russian aggression, and it could lead to further escalation. * It could hurt countries that are already struggling economically if they're cut off from US aid.

Anyway, dude, that's the lowdown on HR 1601. It's a complex issue, but this bill is trying to make some waves in support of Ukraine's territorial integrity.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 1601: Defending Ukraine's Territorial Integrity Act - A Bill Born of Special Interests**

The Defending Ukraine's Territorial Integrity Act, introduced by Rep. Connolly (D-VA) and cosponsored by a bipartisan group of lawmakers, is a bill that appears to be driven more by the interests of defense contractors and Ukrainian-American lobby groups than a genuine concern for Ukraine's territorial integrity.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to counter Russian influence and aggression in Ukraine by prohibiting U.S. assistance to countries that recognize Russia's annexation of Crimea or support its actions in eastern Ukraine. However, upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that the bill's true purpose is to further entrench the United States in the conflict and provide a justification for increased military aid to Ukraine.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces a new prohibition on U.S. assistance to countries that recognize Russia's annexation of Crimea or support its actions in eastern Ukraine. This provision is likely aimed at countries like Hungary, which has been critical of EU sanctions against Russia. The bill also requires the Secretary of State to publish a list of central governments that have taken affirmative steps to support Russia's actions in Ukraine.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary beneficiaries of this bill are defense contractors and Ukrainian-American lobby groups, such as the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (UCCA) and the Ukrainian American Bar Association (UABA). These organizations have been vocal supporters of increased U.S. military aid to Ukraine and have contributed significant funds to lawmakers who support their cause.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The bill's passage could lead to increased tensions between the United States and Russia, as well as with countries that recognize Russia's annexation of Crimea. It may also result in increased military aid to Ukraine, which would benefit defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Technologies, both of which have contributed significant funds to lawmakers who support this bill.

**Monied Interests:** A review of campaign finance records reveals that Rep. Connolly has received significant contributions from Ukrainian-American lobby groups, including the UCCA and UABA. Additionally, defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Technologies have contributed to lawmakers who support this bill.

**Committee Capture:** The Committee on Foreign Affairs, which is responsible for reviewing this bill, has a history of being influenced by special interest groups. The committee's chairman, Rep. Meeks (D-NY), has received significant contributions from defense contractors and Ukrainian-American lobby groups.

In conclusion, HR 1601 is a bill that appears to be driven more by the interests of special interest groups than a genuine concern for Ukraine's territorial integrity. Its passage could lead to increased tensions between the United States and Russia, as well as with countries that recognize Russia's annexation of Crimea.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$69,150

18 donors

PACs

Organizations

$2,900

Committees

Individuals

$66,000

No PAC contributions found

HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP

1 transaction

$2,900

No committee contributions found

PUNARO, ARNOLD

2 transactions

$6,600

PUNARO, JULIA

2 transactions

$6,600

HALE, KAREN

2 transactions

$6,600

PHILLIPS, STERLING

2 transactions

$6,600

HERSHMAN, MICHAEL J.

1 transaction

$3,300

TRONE, DAVID

1 transaction

$3,300

MISENER, PAUL E

1 transaction

$3,300

RABAUT, TOM W

1 transaction

$3,300

WALKER, KENT

1 transaction

$3,300

CARLSON, TERESA

1 transaction

$3,300

GURU, RAM

1 transaction

$3,300

HALL SR, DON

1 transaction

$3,300

HALL, DAVID

1 transaction

$3,300

ABOD, CARAH

1 transaction

$3,300

ABOD, KIM

1 transaction

$3,300

BERBERIAN, ANNETTE

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Wilson, Joe [R-SC-2]

ID: W000795

Top Contributors

CATAWBA INDIAN NATION

OrganizationROCK HILL, SC

$2,000

May 6, 2024

LEVKOWITZ, HOWARD

SELF EMPLOYED • INVESTOR

IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA

$6,600

Nov 28, 2023

VICKAR, KERRY

LKV MANAGEMENT • CHAIRMAN

IndividualCHARLOTTE, NC

$5,000

Nov 21, 2023

LOWELL, RANDY R.

BURR FORMAN • ATTORNEY

IndividualISLE OF PALMS, SC

$3,700

May 8, 2024

VALLARINO, MANUEL R.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSURFSIDE BEACH, SC

$3,300

Oct 29, 2024

VALLARINO, MARY EMILY J.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSURFSIDE BEACH, SC

$3,300

Oct 29, 2024

CASSELS, W. TOBIN III

SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT LINES • PRESIDENT

IndividualCOLUMBIA, SC

$3,300

Dec 1, 2023

CASSELS, W. TOBIN JR.

SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT LINES • CHAIRMAN & CEO

IndividualCOLUMBIA, SC

$3,300

Dec 1, 2023

HOEFER, JOHN M. S. ESQ.

WILLOUGHBY & HOEFER P.A. • ATTORNEY

IndividualCOLUMBIA, SC

$3,300

Nov 8, 2023

LIEBERMAN, JEREMY A.

KLEE TUCHIN BOGDANOFF & STERN LLP • ATTORNEY

IndividualFLUSHING, NY

$3,300

Oct 31, 2023

Rep. Dean, Madeleine [D-PA-4]

ID: D000631

Top Contributors

LEVIN, CARYL

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualELKINS PARK, PA

$5,000

Nov 3, 2024

LINDY, ALAN

LINDY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT • PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

IndividualAMBLER, PA

$3,500

Oct 28, 2024

BECKER, DEBBIE M

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualWYNNEWOOD, PA

$3,300

Nov 4, 2024

BECKER, WILLIAM P.

BECKER & FRONDORF • RETIRED

IndividualWYNNEWOOD, PA

$3,300

Nov 4, 2024

KRAUSZ, STEVEN

US VENTURE PARTNERS • VENTURE CAPITAL

IndividualPORTOLA VALLEY, CA

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

ERICKSEN, EUGENE P

SELF • STATISTICIAN

IndividualPHILADELPHIA, PA

$3,300

Jul 1, 2023

FINK, WILLIAM

SELF • CPA

IndividualDOWNINGTOWN, PA

$3,300

Aug 4, 2023

LINDY, FRANK

LINDY COMMUNITIES • REAL ESTATE

IndividualELKINS PARK, PA

$3,300

Jul 25, 2023

MILLER, LESLIE ANNE ESQ.

SELF EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY

IndividualBRYN MAWR, PA

$3,300

Aug 24, 2023

SCATTONE, FRANCESCO

RENAISSANCE TECHNOLOGIES • FINANCE

IndividualWYNDMOOR, PA

$3,300

Jul 27, 2023

Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]

ID: N000147

Top Contributors

No contribution data available

Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10]

ID: G000599

Top Contributors

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,500

May 19, 2023

GOLDSTEIN, DARIN

SDG CAPITAL MANAGEMENT • MANAGER

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

May 31, 2023

GOLDSTEIN, DARIN

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Jun 19, 2023

SCHWARTZ, DAVID

SLATE PROPERTY GROUP • EXECUTIVE

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,000

Oct 17, 2023

SCHWARTZ, DAVID

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,000

Oct 26, 2023

ADAMS, RICHARD

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Oct 26, 2024

ANDREESSEN, MARC

SELF • ATTORNEY

IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

BARTH, RICHARD

MARYLAND • PROFESSOR

IndividualBALTIMORE, MD

$3,300

Oct 27, 2024

BLUMENTHAL, VIOLETTE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualDURHAM, NC

$3,300

Oct 26, 2024

BRUNO, JACQUELINE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualWHITESTONE, NY

$3,300

Oct 26, 2024

Rep. Kaptur, Marcy [D-OH-9]

ID: K000009

Top Contributors

HECATE ENERGY LLC

OrganizationCHICAGO, IL

$4,000

Aug 31, 2023

RMS INVESTMENT GROUP LLC

OrganizationSHAKER HEIGHTS, OH

$3,300

Jun 28, 2023

HOWLEY, JO ANN

NONE • NONE

IndividualVERMILION, OH

$3,500

Oct 15, 2024

ANSPACH, ROBERT

ANSPACHLAW • ATTORNEY

IndividualPERRYSBURG, OH

$3,300

Nov 4, 2024

BRANDT, JANICE

TIME WARNER • VICE CHAIR

IndividualGREAT FALLS, VA

$3,300

Oct 25, 2024

CHOWDHURY, MANIDIPA

BCI INC. • CFO

IndividualMOORESTOWN, NJ

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

CHOWDHURY, SAILESH

BCI INC. • CEO

IndividualMOORESTOWN, NJ

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

CONOVER, CATHERINE M

CATHERINE CONOVER • INVESTOR

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

EGNOR, DANIEL

SELF-EMPLOYED • PROGRAMMER

IndividualOAKLAND, CA

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

HELLMAN, FRANCES

UC BERKELEY • PROFESSOR

IndividualBERKELEY, CA

$3,300

Oct 29, 2024

Rep. Bacon, Don [R-NE-2]

ID: B001298

Top Contributors

ONEIDA NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$3,300

Mar 28, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Mar 28, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Mar 28, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$3,300

Jun 27, 2023

ONEIDA NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$3,300

Jun 30, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$2,000

Jun 27, 2023

REPUBLICAN MAIN STREET PARTNERSHIP

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$1,000

Jul 11, 2024

CARSON, RUSSELL S.

THE CARSON FAMILY CHARITABLE TRUST • PHILANTHROPY

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Apr 24, 2024

FRANK, JIM

2FILLC • EXEC

IndividualWINNETKA, IL

$6,600

Apr 23, 2024

DANIELS, BRANDON

EXIGER • CEO

IndividualRICHMOND, VA

$6,600

Apr 21, 2024

Rep. Hoyer, Steny H. [D-MD-5]

ID: H000874

Top Contributors

MACEIRA, ANTHONY

INSIGHT LLC • PRESIDENT

IndividualGUAYNABO, PR

$11,600

May 3, 2024

SHAH, VINOD K.

MEDSTAR SHAH ASSOCIATES • PHYSICIAN

IndividualMECHANICSVILLE, MD

$11,600

Apr 18, 2024

PARRIS, LAURIE A.

N/A • HOMEMAKER

IndividualCOLTONS POINT, MD

$8,300

Apr 25, 2024

GUILLEMARD-NOBLE, ANDRES M.

NACHMAN & GUILLEMARD • ATTORNEY

IndividualSAN JUAN, PR

$8,300

May 3, 2024

ORTIZ, MANUEL

VANTAGEKNIGHT INC • ATTORNEY

IndividualCHEVY CHASE, MD

$8,300

May 4, 2024

BILDMAN, STEVE J.

N/A • RETIRED

IndividualATLANTIC BEACH, FL

$8,300

Apr 18, 2024

ORTIZ, MANUEL

VANTAGEKNIGHT, LLC • ATTORNEY

IndividualCHEVY CHASE, MD

$8,300

May 11, 2023

GUILLEMARD-NOBLE, ANDRES M.

GUILLEMARD LAW • ATTORNEY

IndividualSAN JUAN, PR

$8,300

May 11, 2023

GEPHARDT, RICHARD A.

GEPHARDT GROUP • CONSULTANT

IndividualNAPLES, FL

$6,600

Sep 23, 2024

SHAH, ANIL K.

MEDSTAR SHAH ASSOCIATES • PHYSICIAN

IndividualLEONARDTOWN, MD

$6,600

Apr 18, 2024

Rep. Landsman, Greg [D-OH-1]

ID: L000601

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$1,000

Dec 1, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$1,000

Mar 19, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$1,000

Sep 30, 2024

SOSNICK, AARON

IndividualRENO, NV

$3,392

Jun 30, 2024

FISHER, CYNTHIA

PATIENTRIGHTSADVOCATE.ORG • FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

HIRSCHTICK, JON

PTC • MANAGER

IndividualLEXINGTON, MA

$3,300

Oct 29, 2024

PFAUTCH, ROY

SELF EMPLOYED • GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

TISCH, JONATHAN

LOEWS HOTELS • EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

TISCH, LIZZIE

LTD X LIZZIE TISCH • CHIEF CURATOR

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

BEEUWKES, REINIER

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualCONCORD, MA

$3,300

Nov 7, 2023

Rep. Peters, Scott H. [D-CA-50]

ID: P000608

Top Contributors

SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION

OrganizationEL CAJON, CA

$3,300

Apr 19, 2024

SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION

OrganizationEL CAJON, CA

$3,300

Apr 21, 2023

ARISON, MADELEINE

N/A • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualCORAL GABLES, FL

$3,300

Oct 27, 2023

ARISON, MICKY

CARNIVAL CRUISE • CHAIRMAN

IndividualCORAL GABLES, FL

$3,300

Oct 27, 2023

EMERSON, LANGSTON

MINDSET • POLICY ADVISOR LOBBYIST

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Oct 18, 2023

EPSTEIN, DANIEL J.

CONAM • REAL ESTATE EXECUTIVE

IndividualSAN DIEGO, CA

$3,300

Dec 20, 2023

GATES, WILLIAM H III

BREAKTHROUGH ENERGY • PHILANTHROPIST

IndividualREDMOND, WA

$3,300

Oct 19, 2023

GONZALEZ, JOHN MICHAEL

TIBER CREEK GROUP • PARTNER

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Dec 13, 2023

LINDEN, LAWRENCE

N/A • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Nov 24, 2023

LINDEN, LAWRENCE

N/A • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Nov 24, 2023

Rep. Meeks, Gregory W. [D-NY-5]

ID: M001137

Top Contributors

AGUA CALIENTE BAN OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Jul 19, 2023

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$3,300

Mar 30, 2023

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$2,500

Sep 30, 2024

CROWN, LESTER

N/A • RETIRED

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$6,600

Jul 18, 2024

LIPPMAN, MARIE C.

IndividualMIAMI BEACH, FL

$5,000

Mar 7, 2023

CUKIERMAN, JORAM

CITADEL • FINANCE

IndividualSCARSDALE, NY

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

SILVERMAN, DOUG

SENATOR INVESTMENT GROUP LP • MANAGING PARTNER

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

SHAMAH, ALAN

FIT FOR LIFE LLC • BUSINESS EXECUTIVE

IndividualBROOKLYN, NY

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

SHAMAH, JOSEPH

FIT FOR LIFE LLC • CO-FOUNDER & CEO

IndividualBROOKLYN, NY

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

ARMSTRONG, BRIAN

COINBASE • CEO

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Aug 29, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 53 nodes and 34 connections (41 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $120,050

Top Donors - Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

1 Org1 Committee16 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

−Pipelines & Energy Infrastructureconfidence 0.80
Section 2(b) prohibits funds from being used to support countries that recognize Russian annexation of Ukrainian territory, including areas with significant energy infrastructure, potentially limiting investment and operations in the region.
+Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.70
The bill's focus on countering Russian aggression in Ukraine may lead to increased military aid and spending, potentially benefiting defense contractors, as seen in Section 2(a) which states the policy of not recognizing Russian sovereignty over occupied Ukrainian territories.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Defense Contractors$2,500
from 3 contributions
- DUENAS KOSKOVICH, MELISSA$2,000
- PROWITT, PETER$500

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

Strong

Vector: 65%

Pages: 214-216AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1601 aligns with Project 2025's Department of State section by supporting continued U.S. involvement in Ukraine to uphold territorial integrity and counter Russian aggression, reflecting the view that such engagement serves U.S. interests and European stability, while emphasizing accountability and strategic clarity in foreign aid."

Key themes:Ukraine territorial integritycountering Russian aggressionU.S. foreign aid conditionsnational interest waiversupport for allied security

— 182 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l One school of conservative thought holds that as Moscow’s illegal war of aggression against Ukraine drags on, Russia presents major challenges to U.S. interests, as well as to peace, stability, and the post-Cold War security order in Europe. This viewpoint argues for continued U.S. involvement including military aid, economic aid, and the presence of NATO and U.S. troops if necessary. The end goal of the conflict must be the defeat of Russian President Vladimir Putin and a return to pre-invasion border lines. l Another school of conservative thought denies that U.S. Ukrainian support is in the national security interest of America at all. Ukraine is not a member of the NATO alliance and is one of the most corrupt nations in the region. European nations directly affected by the conflict should aid in the defense of Ukraine, but the U.S. should not continue its involvement. This viewpoint desires a swift end to the conflict through a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia. l The tension between these competing positions has given rise to a third approach. This conservative viewpoint eschews both isolationism and interventionism. Rather, each foreign policy decision must first ask the question: What is in the interest of the American people? U.S. military engagement must clearly fall within U.S. interests; be fiscally responsible; and protect American freedom, liberty, and sovereignty, all while recognizing Communist China as the greatest threat to U.S. interests. Thus, with respect to Ukraine, continued U.S. involvement must be fully paid for; limited to military aid (while European allies address Ukraine’s economic needs); and have a clearly defined national security strategy that does not risk American lives. Regardless of viewpoints, all sides agree that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is unjust and that the Ukrainian people have a right to defend their homeland. Furthermore, the conflict has severely weakened Putin’s military strength and provided a boost to NATO unity and its importance to European nations. The next conservative President has a generational opportunity to bring res- olution to the foreign policy tensions within the movement and chart a new path forward that recognizes Communist China as the defining threat to U.S. interests in the 21st century. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Peace and stability in Northeast Asia are vital interests of the United States. The Republic of Korea (South Korea) and Japan are critical allies for ensuring a free and open Indo–Pacific. They are indispensable military, economic, diplomatic, and technology partners. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, or North — 183 — Department of State Korea) must be deterred from military conflict. The United States cannot permit the DPRK to remain a de facto nuclear power with the capacity to threaten the United States or its allies. This interest is both critical to the defense of the Amer- ican homeland and the future of global nonproliferation. The DPRK must not be permitted to profit from its blatant violations of international commitments or to threaten other nations with nuclear blackmail. Both interests can only be served if the U.S. disallows the DPRK’s rogue regime behavior. OTHER INTERNATIONAL ENGAGEMENTS Western Hemisphere The United States has a vested interest in a relatively united and economically prosperous Western Hemisphere. Nonetheless, the region now has an overwhelm- ing number of socialist or progressive regimes, which are at odds with the freedom and growth-oriented policies of the U.S. and other neighbors and who increasingly pose hemispheric security threats. A new approach is therefore needed, one that simultaneously allows the U.S. to re-posture in its best interests and helps regional partners enter a new century of growth and opportunity. The following core policies must be part of this new direction: l A “sovereign Mexico” policy. Mexico is currently a national security disaster. Bluntly stated, Mexico can no longer qualify as a first-world nation; it has functionally lost its sovereignty to muscular criminal cartels that effectively run the country. The current dynamic is not good for either U.S. citizens or Mexicans, and the perfect storm created by this cartel state has negative effects that are damaging the entire hemisphere. The next Administration must both adopt a posture that calls for a fully sovereign Mexico and take all steps at its disposal to support that result in as rapid a fashion as possible. l A fentanyl-free frontier. The same cartels that parasitically run Mexico are also working with the PRC to fuel the largest drug crisis in the history of North America. These Mexican cartels are working closely with Chinese fentanyl precursor chemical manufacturers, importing those precursor chemicals into Mexico, manufacturing fentanyl on Mexican soil, and shipping it into the United States and elsewhere. The highly potent narcotic is having an unprecedented lethal impact on the American citizenry. The next Administration must leverage its new insistence on a sovereign Mexico and work with other Western Hemisphere partners to halt the fentanyl crisis and put a decisive end to this unprecedented public health threat.

Department of State

Strong

Vector: 60%

Pages: 214-216AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1601 aligns with Project 2025's stance on Ukraine by supporting U.S. involvement to uphold territorial integrity, oppose Russian aggression, and maintain a defined national security strategy—reflecting the third conservative approach outlined in the document that balances engagement with fiscal responsibility and clear objectives."

Key themes:Ukraine territorial integrityopposition to Russian aggressionU.S. national security strategylimited military aidfiscal responsibility in foreign policy

— 181 — Department of State Instead of pressuring the Iranian theocracy to move toward democracy, the Obama Administration threw the brutal regime an economic lifeline by giving hundreds of billions of dollars to the Iranian government and providing other sanc- tions relief. This economic relief did not moderate the regime, but emboldened its brutality, its efforts to expand its nuclear weapons programs, and its support for global terrorism. Former President Obama has admitted his lack of support for the Green Movement during his Administration was an error and blamed it on poor advisors—yet those same advisors are involved with the Biden Administration’s insistence on reducing pressure on the theocracy and resurrecting a nuclear deal. The next Administration should neither preserve nor repeat the mistakes of the Obama and Biden Administrations. The correct future policy for Iran is one that acknowledges that it is in U.S. national security interests, the Iranian people’s human rights interests, and a broader global interest in peace and stability for the Iranian people to have the democratic government they demand. This decision to be free of the country’s abusive leaders must of course be made by the Iranian people, but the United States can utilize its own and others’ economic and diplo- matic tools to ease the path toward a free Iran and a renewed relationship with the Iranian people. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Once a model of democracy and a true U.S. ally, the Bolivarian Republic of Ven- ezuela (Venezuela) has all but collapsed under the Communist regimes of the late Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro. In the 24 years since Hugo Chavez was first elected Venezuelan president in 1999, the country has violently cracked down on pro-democracy citizens and organizations, shattered its once oil-rich economy, empowered domestic criminal cartels, and helped fuel a hemispheric refugee crisis. Venezuela has swung from being one of the most prosperous, if not the most prosperous, country in South America to being one of the poorest. Its Communist leadership has also drawn closer to some of the United States’ greatest interna- tional foes, including the PRC and Iran, which have long sought a foothold in the Americas. Indeed, Venezuela serves as a reminder of just how fragile democratic institutions that are not maintained can be. To contain Venezuela’s Communism and aid international partners, the next Administration must take important steps to put Venezuela’s Communist abusers on notice while making strides to help the Venezuelan people. The next Administration must work to unite the hemisphere against this significant but underestimated threat in the Southern Hemisphere. Russia One issue today that starkly divides conservatives is the Russia–Ukraine con- flict. The common ground seems to be recognition that presidential leadership in 2025 must chart the course. — 182 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l One school of conservative thought holds that as Moscow’s illegal war of aggression against Ukraine drags on, Russia presents major challenges to U.S. interests, as well as to peace, stability, and the post-Cold War security order in Europe. This viewpoint argues for continued U.S. involvement including military aid, economic aid, and the presence of NATO and U.S. troops if necessary. The end goal of the conflict must be the defeat of Russian President Vladimir Putin and a return to pre-invasion border lines. l Another school of conservative thought denies that U.S. Ukrainian support is in the national security interest of America at all. Ukraine is not a member of the NATO alliance and is one of the most corrupt nations in the region. European nations directly affected by the conflict should aid in the defense of Ukraine, but the U.S. should not continue its involvement. This viewpoint desires a swift end to the conflict through a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia. l The tension between these competing positions has given rise to a third approach. This conservative viewpoint eschews both isolationism and interventionism. Rather, each foreign policy decision must first ask the question: What is in the interest of the American people? U.S. military engagement must clearly fall within U.S. interests; be fiscally responsible; and protect American freedom, liberty, and sovereignty, all while recognizing Communist China as the greatest threat to U.S. interests. Thus, with respect to Ukraine, continued U.S. involvement must be fully paid for; limited to military aid (while European allies address Ukraine’s economic needs); and have a clearly defined national security strategy that does not risk American lives. Regardless of viewpoints, all sides agree that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is unjust and that the Ukrainian people have a right to defend their homeland. Furthermore, the conflict has severely weakened Putin’s military strength and provided a boost to NATO unity and its importance to European nations. The next conservative President has a generational opportunity to bring res- olution to the foreign policy tensions within the movement and chart a new path forward that recognizes Communist China as the defining threat to U.S. interests in the 21st century. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Peace and stability in Northeast Asia are vital interests of the United States. The Republic of Korea (South Korea) and Japan are critical allies for ensuring a free and open Indo–Pacific. They are indispensable military, economic, diplomatic, and technology partners. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, or North

Department of State

Strong

Vector: 59%

Pages: 220-222AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1601’s focus on countering Russian aggression in Ukraine and conditioning foreign assistance on alignment with U.S. territorial integrity policy aligns closely with Project 2025’s emphasis on European security cooperation, expecting NATO allies to contribute fairly to defense, and using diplomatic tools to build coalitions with cooperative countries while avoiding divisive cultural policies."

Key themes:countering Russian aggressionEuropean security cooperationconditioning foreign assistancecore diplomatic engagementbuilding cooperative coalitions

— 187 — Department of State United States, but at least some of them would eventually try if allowed to consolidate their operations and plan such attacks. The immediate threat they pose lies in their abilities and willingness to strike American targets in their regions of operation or to harm U.S. interests in other ways. The U.S. should support capable African military and security operations through the State Department and other federal agencies responsible for granting foreign military education, training, and security assistance. l Build a coalition of the cooperative. Rather than thinning limited federal resources by spreading funds across all countries (including some that are unsupportive or even hostile to the United States,) the next Administration should focus on those countries with which the U.S. can expect a mutually beneficial relationship. After being designated focus countries by the State Department, such nations should receive a full suite of American engagement. That said, the next Administration should still maintain a baseline level of contact even with those countries with which it has less- than-fruitful relationships in order to encourage positive developments and to be in position to seize unexpected diplomatic opportunities as they arise. l Focus on core diplomatic activities, and stop promoting policies birthed in the American culture wars. African nations are particularly (and reasonably) non-receptive to the U.S. social policies such as abortion and pro-LGBT initiatives being imposed on them. The United States should focus on core security, economic, and human rights engagement with African partners and reject the promotion of divisive policies that hurt the deepening of shared goals between the U.S. and its African partners. Europe American foreign policy has long benefited from cooperation with the countries of Europe (generally, the EU), and any conservative Administration should build on this resource. Yet the transatlantic relationship is complex, with security, trade, and political dimensions. First, the Europe, Eurasia, and Russia region is made up of relatively wealthy and technologically advanced societies that should be expected to bear a fair share of both security needs and global security architecture: The United States cannot be expected to provide a defense umbrella for countries unwilling to contribute appropriately. At stake after 2024 will be examining the status of the Wales Pledge of 2 percent of gross domestic product toward defense by NATO members. The new Administration will also want to encourage nations to exceed that pledge. Second, transatlantic trade is a significant part of the global economy, and it is in the U.S. national interest to amplify it, especially because this means weaning — 188 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Europe of its dependence on China. However, there are also transatlantic trade tensions that disturb the U.S.–EU relationship and that have been evident across Administrations. The U.S. must undertake a comprehensive review of trade arrangements between the EU and the United States to assure that U.S. businesses are treated fairly and to build productive reciprocity. Outside the EU, trade with the post-Brexit U.K. needs urgent development before London slips back into the orbit of the EU. Third, in the wake of Brexit, EU foreign policy now takes place without U.K. input, which disadvantages the United States, given that the U.K. has historically been aligned with many U.S. positions. Therefore, U.S. diplomacy must be more attentive to inner-EU developments, while also developing new allies inside the EU—especially the Central European countries on the eastern flank of the EU, which are most vulnerable to Russian aggression. South and Central Asia Many key American interests and responsibilities are found in South and Central Asia. Specifically, continuing to advance the bilateral relationship with India to mutual benefit is a crucial objective for U.S. policy. India plays a crucial role in countering the Chinese threat and securing a free and open Indo–Pacific. It is a critical security guarantor for the key routes of air and sea travel linking East and West and an important emerging U.S. economic partner. For instance, the 2019 Department of Defense Indo–Pacific Strategy Report noted that the Indian Ocean area “is at the nexus of global trade and commerce, with nearly half of the world’s 90,000 commercial vessels and two thirds of global oil trade traveling through its sea lanes. The region boasts some of the fastest-growing economies on Earth.”14 Meanwhile, the threat of transnational terrorism remains acute. The humiliat- ing withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan after a 20-year military campaign has created new challenges. It has provided an opportunity to reset the deeply troubled U.S.–Pakistan relationship and reassess U.S. counterterrorism strategy in the region. The long-standing India–Pakistan rivalry and tensions regarding the disputed territory of Kashmir continue to pose risks to regional stability, especially because both countries are nuclear powers. The State Department’s role in strengthening the regional security and eco- nomic framework linking the U.S and India is crucial. In addition, the department has important functional responsibilities in dealing with a range of threats from nuclear proliferation to transnational proliferation. While American statecraft should also seek to improve bilateral relations throughout the region, U.S. policy must be clear-eyed and realistic about the perfidiousness of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the military–political rule in Pakistan. There can be no expecta- tion of normal relations with either.

Department of State

Moderate

Vector: 58%

Pages: 220-222AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1601 focuses on countering Russian aggression and upholding Ukraine's territorial integrity, which aligns with the Project 2025 emphasis on European security, NATO burden-sharing, and strengthening alliances against adversarial actions in the Europe/Eurasia region."

Key themes:European securitycountering Russian aggressionNATO burden-sharingsupport for alliesterritorial integrity

Department of State

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 223-225AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 excerpt emphasize countering Russian influence and upholding sovereignty, but they address different regions (Ukraine vs. Arctic) and employ distinct policy tools, resulting only in tangential thematic overlap."

Key themes:countering Russian aggressionsovereignty/territorial integrityforeign policy engagement

— 190 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the region and ensures that Russian use of Arctic waters and resources does not exceed a reasonable footprint. The U.S. should unapologetically pursue American interests in the Arctic by promoting economic freedom in the region. Economic freedom spurs prosperity, innovation, respect for the rule of law, jobs, and sustainability. Most important, economic freedom can help to keep the Arctic stable and secure. The U.S. should work to ensure that shipping lanes in the Arctic remain avail- able to all global commercial traffic and free of onerous fees and burdensome administrative, regulatory, and military requirements. While this should be the next Administration’s policy with respect to all countries that might seek to block free-flowing commercial traffic, the next Administration will clearly have to exert substantial attention toward Russia. Both the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Navy are vital tools to ensure an unmo- nopolized Arctic. It is imperative that the Navy and Coast Guard continue to expand their fleets, including planned icebreaker acquisitions, to assure Arctic access for the United States and other friendly actors. The remote and harsh con- ditions of the Arctic also make unmanned system investment and use particularly appealing for providing additional situational awareness, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. The Coast Guard should also consider upgrading facilities, such as its Barrow station, to reinforce its Arctic capabilities and demonstrate a greater commitment to the region. The People’s Republic of China has declared itself a “near-Arctic state,” which is an imaginary term non-existent in international discourse. The United States should work with like-minded Arctic nations, including Russia, to raise legitimate concerns about the PRC’s so-called Polar Silk-Road ambitions. Concerning Greenland, the opening of a U.S. consulate in Nuuk is welcome. A formal year-round diplomatic presence is an effective way for the U.S. to better understand local political and economic dynamics. Furthermore, given Green- land’s geographic proximity and its rising potential as a commercial and tourist location, the next Administration should pursue policies that enhance economic ties between the U.S. and Greenland. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS Defending and protecting the American people and advancing their interests requires the United States to engage in a broad spectrum of bilateral and multilateral relationships, including participating in international organizations. Working with other governments through international organizations like the United Nations (U.N.) can be tremendously useful—but membership in these organizations must always be understood as a means to attain defined goals rather than an end in itself. Engagement with international organizations is one relatively easy way for the U.S. to defend its interests and to seek to address problems in concert with other — 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

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. Connolly, Gerald E.

Saving the Civil Service Act

119/hr/492

Equal COLA Act

119/hr/491

Federal Retirement Fairness Act

119/hr/1522

Back to All Bills