Taiwan International Solidarity Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/2416
Last Updated: July 12, 2026

Sponsored by

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

ID: C001078

Follow the money

The bill

Taiwan International Solidarity Act

HR. 2416, 119th Congress.

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. 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 5, 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

Another exercise in legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Taiwan International Solidarity Act (HR 2416) is a thinly veiled attempt to poke China in the eye while pretending to support Taiwan's sovereignty. The bill's primary objective is to amend the Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement Initiative (TAIPEI) Act of 2019, which was already a masterclass in diplomatic doublespeak.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes several changes to existing law, including:

* Clarifying that United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 (XXVI) did not address Taiwan's representation or sovereignty (because, of course, China would never try to manipulate international organizations). * Instructing US representatives in international organizations to resist China's efforts to distort decisions and language regarding Taiwan (as if they weren't already doing so). * Encouraging US allies and partners to oppose China's attempts to undermine Taiwan's diplomatic relationships (because that's exactly what the world needs – more nations taking sides).

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

* The People's Republic of China, which will undoubtedly respond with its characteristic subtlety and restraint. * Taiwan, which will likely be thrilled to have the US Congress pretending to care about its sovereignty (again). * US allies and partners, who will be expected to take sides in this manufactured drama.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a perfect example of legislative posturing. It's a symbolic gesture designed to appease Taiwan and annoy China, without actually accomplishing anything meaningful. The real impact will be:

* Increased tensions between the US and China (because that's exactly what we need – more conflict). * A further erosion of trust in international organizations (as if they weren't already compromised). * A boost to the egos of the bill's sponsors, who can now claim to have "done something" about Taiwan.

In conclusion, HR 2416 is a textbook case of legislative grandstanding. It's a shallow attempt to score political points while ignoring the underlying complexities of international relations. But hey, at least it'll make for some great theater – and that's all that really matters in Washington, right?

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

💰 Campaign Finance Network

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

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$69,150
18 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$2,900
Committees
$0
Individuals
$66,000

No PAC contributions found

1
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
1 transaction
$2,900

No committee contributions found

1
PUNARO, ARNOLD
2 transactions
$6,600
2
PUNARO, JULIA
2 transactions
$6,600
3
HALE, KAREN
2 transactions
$6,600
4
PHILLIPS, STERLING
2 transactions
$6,600
5
HERSHMAN, MICHAEL J.
1 transaction
$3,300
6
TRONE, DAVID
1 transaction
$3,300
7
MISENER, PAUL E
1 transaction
$3,300
8
RABAUT, TOM W
1 transaction
$3,300
9
WALKER, KENT
1 transaction
$3,300
10
CARLSON, TERESA
1 transaction
$3,300
11
GURU, RAM
1 transaction
$3,300
12
HALL SR, DON
1 transaction
$3,300
13
HALL, DAVID
1 transaction
$3,300
14
ABOD, CARAH
1 transaction
$3,300
15
ABOD, KIM
1 transaction
$3,300
16
BERBERIAN, ANNETTE
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Kim, Young [R-CA-40]

ID: K000397

Top Contributors

10

1
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Dec 21, 2023
2
HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE
OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA
$3,300
Jul 28, 2023
3
OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationRED ROCK, OK
$3,300
Jul 28, 2023
4
TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF NORTH DAKOTA
OrganizationBELCOURT, ND
$3,300
Jul 28, 2023
5
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Sep 30, 2024
6
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Jul 25, 2024
7
AT&T INC & ITS AFFLIATES
OrganizationSACRAMENTO, CA
$3,000
Mar 5, 2024
8
ABBVIE PAC - FEDERAL PAC
OrganizationSACRAMENTO, CA
$2,500
Sep 30, 2023
9
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$2,300
Oct 25, 2024
10
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$2,000
Oct 28, 2024

Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9]

ID: C001068

Top Contributors

10

1
SEIU COPE (SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION)
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,000
Nov 5, 2024
2
SEIU COPE (SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION)
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$2,000
Nov 5, 2024
3
KEENEY, MIKE
LEWIS THOMASON • LEWIS THOMASON
IndividualMEMPHIS, TN
$3,300
Feb 6, 2024
4
RITCHEY, JANICE C
IndividualMEMPHIS, TN
$3,300
Jun 30, 2024
5
RITCHEY, KENT
WOLFCHASE TOYOTA • AUTOMOBILE DEALER
IndividualMEMPHIS, TN
$3,300
Jun 30, 2024
6
WALTON, CHRISTY
IndividualBENTONVILLE, AR
$3,300
Jun 30, 2024
7
KEENEY, MICHAEL
LEWIS THOMASON • ATTORNEY
IndividualMEMPHIS, TN
$3,300
May 25, 2023
8
SEGAL, GORDON
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualMEMPHIS, TN
$3,300
Apr 10, 2023
9
SMITH, FREDERICK
FEDEX • CEO
IndividualMEMPHIS, TN
$3,300
Jul 31, 2024
10
BEKTAS, MELIH
SELF EMPLOYED • ENGINEER
IndividualNORTH PROVIDENCE, RI
$3,000
Oct 19, 2023

Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1]

ID: F000466

Top Contributors

10

1
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$1,500
Dec 31, 2024
2
STATA FAMILY OFFICE
Organization
$500
Apr 26, 2024
3
ASHER, ROBERT B.
IndividualGWYNEDD VALLEY, PA
$10,000
Oct 9, 2024
4
ASHER, ROBERT B.
ASHER CHOCOLATES • CHAIRMAN
IndividualGWYNEDD VALLEY, PA
$10,000
Sep 30, 2024
5
LEVY, EDWARD JR
EDW C LEVY CO • CHAIRMAN
IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI
$6,600
Feb 26, 2024
6
CROTTY, THOMAS
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$6,600
Feb 27, 2024
7
EVANS, ROGER
GREYLOCK PARTNERS • PARTNER EMERITUS
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$6,600
Feb 27, 2024
8
LEACH, RONALD
NPX ONE • CHAIRMAN & CEO
IndividualGENEVA, IL
$6,600
Feb 28, 2024
9
MCCLAIN, MARK
SAILPOINT • CEO
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$6,600
Mar 2, 2024
10
CROTTY, THOMAS
IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$6,600
Mar 8, 2024

Rep. Suozzi, Thomas R. [D-NY-3]

ID: S001201

Top Contributors

10

1
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Aug 3, 2024
2
SCOTTO LLC
OrganizationWOODBURY, NY
$1,650
Aug 30, 2024
3
PATROON OPERATING CO. LLC
OrganizationNEW YORK, NY
$1,000
May 13, 2024
4
THE KLAR ORGANIZATION
OrganizationEAST MEADOW, NY
$1,000
Aug 8, 2024
5
TERIAN, OLIVIA
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$9,400
May 2, 2024
6
TERIAN, OLIVIA
OLIVIA TERIAN ART & DESIGN • BUSINESS OWNER
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Mar 8, 2024
7
MORAN, MARY
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualGREENWICH, CT
$6,600
Mar 28, 2024
8
MORAN, MARY
IndividualGREENWICH, CT
$6,600
May 2, 2024
9
FAIVUS, HARRY E.
MOUNT SINAI • PHYSICIAN
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,000
Oct 31, 2024
10
SOSNICK, AARON
IndividualRENO, NV
$3,392
Jun 25, 2024

Rep. Min, Dave [D-CA-47]

ID: M001241

Top Contributors

10

1
SYCUAN BANK OF KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$3,300
Jun 30, 2023
2
SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA
OrganizationLEMOORE, CA
$3,300
Jun 11, 2024
3
SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA
OrganizationLEMOORE, CA
$3,300
Jun 11, 2024
4
YOCHA DEHE WINTUN NATION
OrganizationBROOKS, CA
$3,300
Sep 25, 2023
5
YOCHA DEHE WINTUN NATION
OrganizationBROOKS, CA
$3,300
Jul 11, 2024
6
BARONA BANK OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA
$2,500
Jun 30, 2023
7
VIEJAS BANK OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS
OrganizationALPINE, CA
$2,500
Jun 30, 2023
8
SYCUAN BANK OF KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$2,000
Jun 30, 2023
9
SYCUAN BANK OF KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$1,300
Jun 30, 2023
10
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$1,000
Aug 5, 2024

Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5]

ID: G000583

Top Contributors

10

1
AMERICAN EXPRESS
OrganizationNEWARK, NJ
$22,941
Apr 12, 2024
2
AMERICAN EXPRESS
OrganizationNEWARK, NJ
$10,621
May 10, 2024
3
PAYROLL DATA PROCESSING
OrganizationTAMPA, FL
$6,337
May 15, 2024
4
PAYROLL DATA PROCESSING
OrganizationTAMPA, FL
$6,337
Apr 15, 2024
5
PAYROLL DATA PROCESSING
OrganizationTAMPA, FL
$6,337
Apr 30, 2024
6
PAYROLL DATA PROCESSING
OrganizationTAMPA, FL
$5,751
Apr 1, 2024
7
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
8
SEKAS LAW GROUP LLC
OrganizationENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, NJ
$1,500
Apr 12, 2024
9
SANDOR F. GENET & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
OrganizationNORTH MIAMI BEACH, FL
$250
Apr 12, 2024
10
FIRESTONE MILKEN, SARAH
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA
$13,200
Jul 2, 2024

Rep. Sherman, Brad [D-CA-32]

ID: S000344

Top Contributors

10

1
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$2,000
Oct 30, 2023
2
MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS
$2,000
Oct 5, 2023
3
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$2,000
Sep 30, 2024
4
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$1,300
Oct 21, 2024
5
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA
$1,000
Oct 28, 2024
6
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$700
Oct 21, 2024
7
AHMED, TAIMOOR
MARKHOR LOGISTICS • CEO
IndividualSACRAMENTO, CA
$3,300
Mar 30, 2023
8
GARHWAL, HARI
GARHWAL, CHAN & WILLIAMS • CPA
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Mar 23, 2023
9
GARHWAL, HARI
GARHWAL, CHAN & WILLIAMS • CPA
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Mar 23, 2023
10
GARHWAL, SANJEEV
WWMG • PHYSICIAN
IndividualSEATTLE, WA
$3,300
Mar 29, 2023

Rep. Bera, Ami [D-CA-6]

ID: B001287

Top Contributors

10

1
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$250
Nov 5, 2024
2
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$250
Oct 31, 2024
3
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$2,000
Jun 30, 2024
4
DOERR, JOHN L. III
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualSAN CARLOS, CA
$6,600
Sep 30, 2023
5
DOERR, JOHN L. III
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualSAN CARLOS, CA
$6,600
Sep 30, 2023
6
DOERR, JOHN L. III
IndividualSAN CARLOS, CA
$6,600
Sep 30, 2023
7
DOERR, JOHN L. III
IndividualSAN CARLOS, CA
$6,600
Sep 30, 2023
8
DOERR, ANN HOWLAND
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualSAN CARLOS, CA
$3,300
Sep 29, 2023
9
DOERR, ANN HOWLAND
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualSAN CARLOS, CA
$3,300
Sep 29, 2023
10
DOERR, JOHN L. III
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualSAN CARLOS, CA
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023

Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17]

ID: L000599

Top Contributors

10

1
MURTAGH, COSSU, VENDITTI & CASTRO-BLANCO, LLP
OrganizationWHITE PLAINS, NY
$1,000
Feb 24, 2024
2
BATMASIAN, JAMES
INVESTMENTS LIMITED • OWNER
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$6,600
Sep 27, 2023
3
BATMASIAN, JAMES
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$6,600
Sep 29, 2023
4
AUSTIN, ROBERT
UNAKA CO., INC. • BUSINESSMAN
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$6,600
Jul 18, 2024
5
SILVERMAN, JEFFREY
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSURFSIDE, FL
$6,534
Feb 15, 2024
6
SILVERMAN, JEFFREY
IndividualSURFSIDE, FL
$6,534
Feb 22, 2024
7
SCALA, MARY ELLEN
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualPORT CHESTER, NY
$5,300
Aug 27, 2023
8
DEUTSCH, SHMULEY
SELF • PRESIDENT
IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY
$3,900
Jun 24, 2024
9
DEUTSCH, SHMULEY
IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY
$3,900
Jun 25, 2024
10
PERLMUTTER, RAFUEL
GOLDEN TASTE • CEO
IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY
$3,400
Jun 24, 2024

Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1]

ID: T000468

Top Contributors

10

1
LAS VEGAS PAIUTE TRIBE
OrganizationLAS VEGAS, NV
$3,300
Dec 31, 2023
2
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Feb 1, 2024
3
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$2,500
Jun 30, 2024
4
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA
$1,500
Jun 30, 2023
5
RENO-SPARKS INDIAN COLONY
OrganizationRENO, NV
$1,000
Jun 11, 2024
6
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$1,000
Sep 8, 2023
7
NET2LINK, LLC
OrganizationPEMBROKE PINES, FL
$250
Oct 23, 2024
8
CHANG, RONIE
GOLDEN REAL ESTATE & INVESTMENTS • REALTOR
IndividualLAS VEGAS, NV
$3,300
Nov 2, 2024
9
PRITZKER, JAY
STATE OF ILLINOIS • GOVERNOR
IndividualCHICAGO, IL
$3,300
Oct 18, 2024
10
SCHMIDT, ERIC
HILLSPIRE LLC • MANAGER
IndividualPALO ALTO, CA
$3,300
Oct 23, 2024

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

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 55 nodes and 37 connections (41 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $115,200

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

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

1 Org1 Committee16 Individuals

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: 62%
Pages: 223-225AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 2416 aligns with Project 2025's State Department policy by advocating for a more assertive U.S. stance in international organizations, resisting Chinese influence, and promoting U.S. interests—particularly regarding Taiwan's participation—mirroring the call to use U.S. influence to counter actions that undermine American interests and sovereignty in multilateral forums."

Key themes:international organization reformcountering Chinese influenceU.S. interests in multilateral bodiessovereignty and human rightsstrategic use of U.S. influence

— 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

Section 2: The Common Defense

Moderate
Vector: 59%
Pages: 125-127AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and Project 2025 seek to counter China's efforts to isolate or subordinate Taiwan, emphasizing allied cooperation and prioritizing Taiwan's security, though the bill focuses on diplomatic measures while Project 2025 emphasizes military denial defense and force planning."

Key themes:TaiwanChina competitionAllied cooperationDenial defenseDiplomatic support

— 93 — Department of Defense U.S. access to the world’s most important market. Preventing this from happening must be the top priority for American foreign and defense policy. Beijing presents a challenge to American interests across the domains of national power, but the military threat that it poses is especially acute and signif- icant. China is undertaking a historic military buildup that includes increasing capability for power projection not only in its own region, but also far beyond as well as a dramatic expansion of its nuclear forces that could result in a nuclear force that matches or exceeds America’s own nuclear arsenal. The most severe immediate threat that Beijing’s military poses, however, is to Taiwan and other U.S. allies along the first island chain in the Western Pacific. If China could subordinate Taiwan or allies like the Philippines, South Korea, and Japan, it could break apart any balancing coalition that is designed to prevent Bei- jing’s hegemony over Asia. Accordingly, the United States must ensure that China does not succeed. This requires a denial defense: the ability to make the subordi- nation of Taiwan or other U.S. allies in Asia prohibitively difficult. Critically, the United States must be able to do this at a level of cost and risk that Americans are willing to bear given the relative importance of Taiwan to China and to the U.S. The United States and its allies also face real threats from Russia, as evidenced by Vladimir Putin’s brutal war in Ukraine, as well as from Iran, North Korea, and transnational terrorism at a time when decades of ill-advised military operations in the Greater Middle East, the atrophy of our defense industrial base, the impact of sequestration, and effective disarmament by many U.S. allies have exacted a high toll on America’s military. This is a grim landscape. The United States needs to deal with these threats forthrightly and with strength, but it also needs to be realistic. It cannot wish away these problems. Rather, it must confront them with a clear-eyed recognition of the need for choice, discipline, and adequate resources for defense. In this light, U.S. defense strategy must identify China unequivocally as the top priority for U.S. defense planning while modernizing and expanding the U.S. nuclear arsenal and sustaining an efficient and effective counterterrorism enterprise. U.S. allies must also step up, with some joining the United States in taking on China in Asia while others take more of a lead in dealing with threats from Russia in Europe, Iran, the Middle East, and North Korea. The reality is that achieving these goals will require more spending on defense, both by the United States and by its allies, as well as active support for reindustrialization and more support for allies’ productive capacity so that we can scale our free- world efforts together. Needed Reforms l Prioritize a denial defense against China. U.S. defense planning should focus on China and, in particular, the effective denial defense of Taiwan. — 94 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise This focus and priority for U.S. defense activities will deny China the first island chain. 1. Require that all U.S. defense efforts, from force planning to employment and posture, focus on ensuring the ability of American forces to prevail in the pacing scenario and deny China a fait accompli against Taiwan. 2. Prioritize the U.S. conventional force planning construct to defeat a Chinese invasion of Taiwan before allocating resources to other missions, such as simultaneously fighting another conflict. l Increase allied conventional defense burden-sharing. U.S. allies must take far greater responsibility for their conventional defense. U.S. allies must play their part not only in dealing with China, but also in dealing with threats from Russia, Iran, and North Korea. 1. Make burden-sharing a central part of U.S. defense strategy with the United States not just helping allies to step up, but strongly encouraging them to do so. 2. Support greater spending and collaboration by Taiwan and allies in the Asia–Pacific like Japan and Australia to create a collective defense model. 3. Transform NATO so that U.S. allies are capable of fielding the great majority of the conventional forces required to deter Russia while relying on the United States primarily for our nuclear deterrent, and select other capabilities while reducing the U.S. force posture in Europe. 4. Sustain support for Israel even as America empowers Gulf partners to take responsibility for their own coastal, air, and missile defenses both individually and working collectively. 5. Enable South Korea to take the lead in its conventional defense against North Korea. l Implement nuclear modernization and expansion. The United States manifestly needs to modernize, adapt, and expand its nuclear arsenal. Russia maintains and is actively brandishing a very large nuclear arsenal, but China is also undertaking a historic nuclear breakout.

Department of State

Weak
Vector: 59%
Pages: 220-222AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses Taiwan's international participation and countering China's isolation efforts, whereas the Project 2025 excerpt focuses on State Department priorities for Africa, Europe, and South/Central Asia with no mention of Taiwan or China. Overlap is limited to general State Department foreign policy themes."

Key themes:State Departmentforeign policydiplomatic engagement

— 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.

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.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills