Stop Foreign Funds in Elections Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/3535

Last Updated: August 19, 2026

Stop Foreign Funds in Elections Act

HR. 3535, 119th Congress — read as touching Big Tech Platforms.

The sponsor

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

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

The money

$136,000 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Justice" section, p. 596-598 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 Rules and Administration.

July 13, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

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

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The Stop Foreign Funds in Elections Act, HR 3535. A quaint attempt to regulate the flow of foreign capital into our electoral system. As a visionary entrepreneur and patron of the esteemed Liberty Institute think tank, I'll dissect this bill through the lens of its implications on my empire's wealth and influence.

The proposed legislation aims to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, expanding the prohibition on contributions and donations by foreign nationals to include state and local ballot initiatives, referenda, and recall elections. This modification will undoubtedly create new regulatory hurdles for industries with significant foreign investment, such as finance, technology, and energy.

The affected sectors will need to navigate complex compliance requirements, including stringent disclosure protocols and potentially burdensome reporting timelines. The bill's effective date, applicable to contributions and donations made on or after the enactment date, will necessitate swift adaptation from impacted entities.

Enforcement mechanisms and penalties for non-compliance are likely to be severe, with potential fines and reputational damage looming over offenders. My projections suggest that this bill could lead to a 5-7% decrease in foreign investment in key sectors, resulting in a $10-15 billion loss in potential revenue for my portfolio companies.

From an operational perspective, the added regulatory burden will undoubtedly stifle innovation and hinder the efficient allocation of resources. As I've often stated, "regulation is the enemy of progress." The Stop Foreign Funds in Elections Act is a prime example of how well-intentioned but misguided legislation can impede the growth of visionary enterprises like my own.

In conclusion, this bill poses a significant threat to my empire's interests and will likely lead to decreased foreign investment, increased compliance costs, and diminished economic growth. I will be closely monitoring its progress and exploring strategic opportunities to mitigate its impact through targeted lobbying efforts and strategic partnerships with key stakeholders. The Liberty Institute will undoubtedly play a crucial role in shaping the narrative around this bill, and I expect our research and analysis to inform the policy debate in the coming months.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

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

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$136,000

12 donors

PACs

Organizations

$2,000

Committees

Individuals

$134,000

No PAC contributions found

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,500

STATA FAMILY OFFICE

1 transaction

$500

No committee contributions found

EVANS, ROGER

4 transactions

$26,400

ASHER, ROBERT B.

2 transactions

$20,000

LEVY, EDWARD JR

2 transactions

$13,200

CROTTY, THOMAS

2 transactions

$13,200

LEACH, RONALD

2 transactions

$13,200

MCCLAIN, MARK

2 transactions

$13,200

MERINOFF, CHARLES

2 transactions

$13,200

MCKNIGHT, AMY

2 transactions

$10,000

ROSE, DEEDIE

1 transaction

$6,600

BORCHERT, TRICIA

1 transaction

$5,000

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Golden, Jared F. [D-ME-2]

ID: G000592

Top Contributors

PENOBSCOT INDIAN NATION

OrganizationINDIAN ISLAND, ME

$3,300

Oct 19, 2024

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Feb 8, 2024

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Mar 13, 2024

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$3,300

Sep 28, 2023

NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI

OrganizationFULTON, MI

$2,000

Oct 15, 2024

PASSAMAQUODDY TRIBE AT INDIAN TOWNSHIP

OrganizationPERRY, ME

$1,000

Oct 28, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$1,000

Oct 31, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

Jun 27, 2024

ONEIDA NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$1,000

Sep 26, 2024

KIRK, GARRETT JR

SELF EMPLOYED • INVESTOR

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Nov 2, 2024

Rep. Lee, Susie [D-NV-3]

ID: L000590

Top Contributors

EMILY'S LIST

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$250

Feb 13, 2024

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Jun 27, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Jun 27, 2023

TIGUA INDIAN RESERVATION YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO

OrganizationEL PASO, TX

$3,000

Dec 31, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

Jun 5, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

May 9, 2024

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAS VEGAS, NV

$1,500

Jun 30, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$1,000

Dec 28, 2023

RENO SPARKS INDIAN COLONY

OrganizationRENO, NV

$1,000

Jun 21, 2024

BRONZE CAFE

OrganizationLAS VEGAS, NV

$550

Mar 30, 2023

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

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 45 nodes and 62 connections

Total contributions: $62

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

Showing top 12 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs10 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 harmed.

−Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.80
Section 2(a) implies that foreign nationals, including those associated with big tech platforms, will be prohibited from making contributions or donations in connection with ballot initiatives and referenda, potentially limiting their influence in US elections.
−Private Equity & Hedge Fundsconfidence 0.60
Section 2(a) may also limit the ability of foreign private equity firms or hedge funds to contribute to ballot initiatives and referenda, as they could be considered 'foreign nationals' under the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1])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 HARMS

Private Equity & Hedge Funds$41,700
from 14 contributions
- ROWAN, MARC$6,600
- SINGER, PAUL$6,600
- CONNAUGHTON, JOHN$6,600
- KLEINMAN, SCOTT$6,400
- ZELTER, JAMES$6,400
Big Tech Platforms$3,300
from 1 contribution
- WALKER, KENT$3,300

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 Justice

Moderate

Vector: 60%

Pages: 596-598AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 DOJ section aim to protect election integrity, but the bill focuses on banning foreign contributions to state/local ballot measures while the DOJ policy addresses domestic voter fraud, suppression, and absentee ballot curing procedures, resulting in only partial thematic overlap."

Key themes:election integrityforeign influencevoter fraud preventionDOJ enforcementballot security

— 563 — Department of Justice Voter fraud includes unlawful practices concerning voter registration and ballot correction. When state legislatures are silent as to procedures for absentee ballot curing or provide specific rules governing that curing, neither counties nor courts may create a cure right where one does not exist, may not modify the law on curing, and certainly cannot engage in creating consent orders with the force of law that are inconsistent with the orders of other similarly situated counties. The DOJ has ceded substantial discretion concerning voter suppression to the Civil Rights Division. Since the Bush Administration, DOJ leadership has determined that using the Election Crimes Branch to prosecute fraudulent voter registration, including mail-in ballot fraud, was too politically costly.78 The Crim- inal Division’s Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses handbook advised that schemes that violated equal protection constituted “voter suppression” prosecut- able under 18 U.S. Code § 241 as part of the guidelines for which the department’s criminal prosecutors were trained.79 State-based investigations of election crimes are supposed to be referred to the Public Integrity Section for review. Historically, 18 U.S. Code § 241 (conspiracy against rights) was used as a basis for investigating state officials whose statements or orders violated the equal protection rights of voters or deliberately misinformed voters concerning the eligibility of their ballots. Nevertheless, the Department of Justice has formalized the Civil Rights Divi- sion’s (as opposed to the Criminal Division’s) jurisdiction over 18 U.S. Code § 241 investigations and prosecutions. The Criminal Division is no longer involved in consultation or review of 18 U.S. Code § 241 investigations.80 The Criminal Division has accordingly advised states that “[i]n the case of a crime of violence or intimida- tion,” they should “call 911 immediately and before contacting federal authorities” because “[s]tate and local police have primary jurisdiction over polling places,”81 despite clearly applicable federal law. This is a mistake. With respect to the 2020 presidential election, there were no DOJ investigations of the appropriateness or lawfulness of state election guidance. Consider the state of Pennsylvania. The Secretary of State sent guidance to the counties stating that: This revised guidance addresses the issuance, voting and examination of provisional ballots under the Election Code. Provisional ballots were originally mandated by section 302 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). Provisional ballot amendments included in Act 77 of 2019 went into effect for the 2020 Primary election. Provisional ballot amendments included in Act 12 of 2020 go into effect for the first time on November 3, 2020.82 HAVA, however, mandates provisional ballots only for eligible voters who were not on a state’s voter registration list.83 It does not apply to those who registered for mail-in voting but whose ballots were rejected due to some form of spoliation.

Federal Election Commission

Weak

Vector: 64%

Pages: 898-900AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on prohibiting foreign contributions in state and local elections, while the Project 2025 policy addresses FEC structural reforms, litigation authority, term limits, and regulatory clarity—there is minimal thematic overlap."

Key themes:Federal Election Commissionelection integrityFECA

— 865 — Federal Election Commission l As a legislative matter and given this abuse, the President should seriously consider recommending that Congress amend FECA to remove the agency’s independent litigating authority and rely on the Department of Justice to handle all litigation involving the FEC. There are also multiple instances of existing statutory provisions of FECA and the accompanying FEC regulations having been found unlawful or unconstitu- tional by federal court decisions, yet those statutory provisions remain in the U.S. Code and the implementing regulations remain in the Code of Federal Regula- tions.12 In such instances, those regulated by the law, from candidates to the public, have no way of knowing (without engaging in extensive legal research) whether particular statutory provisions and regulations are still applicable to their actions in the political arena. l The President should request that the commissioners on the FEC prepare such guidance. l In the event that the FEC fails to act, the President should direct the attorney general to prepare a guidance document from the Department of Justice for the public that outlines all of the FECA statutory provisions and FEC regulations that have been changed, amended, or voided by specific court decisions. Legislative Changes. While a President’s ability to make any changes at an independent agency like the FEC is limited,13 the President has the ability to make legislative recommendations to Congress. One of the most obvious changes that is needed is to end the current practice of allowing commissioners to remain as serving commissioners long after their term has expired, defying the clear intent of Congress in specifying that a commissioner can only serve a single term of six years. l The President should prioritize nominations to the FEC once commissioners reach the end of their terms and should be assisted by legislative language either eliminating or limiting overstays to a reasonable period of time to permit the vetting, nomination, and confirmation of successors. l The President should vigorously oppose all efforts, as proposed, for example, in Section 6002 of the “For the People Act of 2021,”14 to change the structure of the FEC to reduce the number of commissioners from six to five or another odd number. The current requirement of four votes to authorize an enforcement action, provide — 866 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise an advisory opinion, or issue regulations, ensures that there is bipartisan agreement before any action is taken and protects against the FEC being used as a political weapon. With only five commissioners, three members of the same political party could control the enforcement process of the agency, raising the potential of a powerful federal agency enforcing the law on a partisan basis against the members of the opposition political party. Efforts to impose a “nonpartisan” or so-called “inde- pendent” chair are impractical; the chair will inevitably be aligned with his or her appointing party, at least as a matter of perception. There are numerous other changes that should be considered in FECA and the FEC’s regulations. The overly restrictive limits on the ability of party com- mittees to coordinate with their candidates, for example, violates associational rights and unjustifiably interferes with the very purpose of political parties: to elect their candidates. l Raise contribution limits and index reporting requirements to inflation. Contribution limits should generally be much higher, as they hamstring candidates and parties while serving no practical anticorruption purpose. And a wide range of reporting requirements have not been indexed to inflation, clogging the public record and the FEC’s internal processes with small-dollar information of little use to the public. CONCLUSION When taking any action related to the FEC, the President should keep in mind that, as former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith says, the “greater problem at the FEC has been overenforcement,” not underenforcement as some critics falsely allege.15 As he correctly concludes, the FEC’s enforcement efforts “place a substan- tial burden on small committees and campaigns, and are having a chilling effect on some political speech…squeezing the life out of low level, volunteer politi- cal activity.”16 Commissioners have a duty to enforce FECA in a fair, nonpartisan, objective manner. But they must do so in a way that protects the First Amendment rights of the public, political parties, and candidates to fully participate in the political process. The President has the same duty to ensure that the Department of Justice enforces the law in a similar manner.

Federal Election Commission

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 898-900AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on prohibiting foreign contributions in state and local elections, while Project 2025's FEC policy concerns internal agency reforms such as litigating authority, commissioner term limits, and guidance; they share only a general connection to FECA and election integrity."

Key themes:FECA amendmentelection integrityforeign influenceFEC enforcement

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill targets foreign financial influence in elections, whereas the Project 2025 HUD section focuses on preventing foreign disruption of housing markets and administrative reforms; both share a concern about foreign interference but apply it to different policy domains, resulting in only tangential alignment."

Key themes:foreign influenceelection integrityhousing market protectionregulatory action

— 515 — Department of Housing and Urban Development 25. Process must prioritize where political leadership can implement administrative reforms through regulatory action and subregulatory guidance reforms. 26. China and other foreign nations should not be able to disrupt our nation’s housing markets, including by artificially driving up prices and reducing affordability and access to housing for Americans who are crowded out of the market by such market participation. 27. These initiatives are maintained under such designations as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); critical race theory (CRT); black, indigenous, Pacific Islander, and other people of color (BIPOC); and environmental, social, and governance (ESG). 28. At a minimum, these efforts duplicate what the federal government already collects and assesses; at worst, they institute arbitrary procedures in real estate appraisal practices that undermine integrity and perversely introduce arbitrary biases into what should be an unbiased system for determining financial value. 29. Revise regulatory and subregulatory guidance, where applicable within statutory authorities, that adds unnecessary delay and costs to the construction and development of new housing and has been estimated to account for about 40 percent of new housing unit costs in multifamily housing. 30. The Biden Administration has issued a proposed rule to replace the Trump Administration’s “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice” rule that had repealed earlier rules expanding AFFH enforcement. See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing, “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 153 (August 7, 2020), pp. 47899–47912, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-07/pdf/2020-16320.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023), and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 27 (February 9, 2023), pp. 8516–8590, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-07-16/pdf/2015-17032.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 31. Certain pilot initiatives may encourage greater take-up of loan products designed for faster equity accumulation, including loans with shorter terms and accelerated amortization schedules. In concept, the FHA’s Home Equity Accelerator Loan (HEAL) and Good Neighbor Next Door (GNND) pilot initiatives might lead to meaningful wealth generation for first-time buyers, but they should be available to all eligible households only when they do not arbitrarily discriminate based on race or other characteristics. 32. Housing supply does remain a problem in the U.S., but constructing more units at the low end of the market will not solve the problem. Investors and developers can deliver at more efficient cost new units that will allow for greater upward mobility of rental and ownership housing stock and better target increased construction of mid-tier rental units. Further, and more fundamental to the housing supply challenge in markets across the U.S., localities can consider revising land use, zoning, and building regulations that constrict new housing development, adding time delays and costs that impede construction. Federal housing policy should get out of the way where possible and minimize the distortive impact that stimulating greater demand through loose lending can have in driving up housing prices for households that are looking for affordable entry into the housing market. 33. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Housing and Community Development Act of 1980: Verification of Eligible Status,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 91 (May 10, 2019), pp. 20589–20595, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-05-10/pdf/2019-09566.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 34. Reforms should contemplate rent payment flexibilities, allow escrow savings, and set maximum term limits that can reduce implicit penalties for increasing household incomes over eligibility terms for housing assistance and reweight waiting-list prioritization for two-parent households. 35. Some PHAs have been able to implement work requirements and term limit policies in various congressionally authorized demonstration programs, notably the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program established in 1996 for 39 PHAs (Congress has since authorized another 100 PHAs) in which participating MTW PHAs were given authority to implement rent reforms, work requirements and other experimental policies in rental assistance programs along with flexibilities in the use of capital and operating appropriations. 36. The FSS program has a general five-year term with a possible two-year extension, which could be applied at the term limit for overall benefits, and certain PHAs have imposed five-year to seven-year term limits. Families in these programs build escrow savings during their term eligibility that helps to facilitate successful transitions to family self-sufficiency and unassisted housing. — 516 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 37. HUD should implement administrative changes in regulation and guidance and seek statutory authority to end all Housing First directives of Continuum of Care (CoC) grantees and contract homelessness providers in addition to establishing restrictions on local Housing First policies where HUD grant funds are used. 38. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) was established in the 1990s, and numerous Administrations have devoted enormous resources to the Housing First model, experimenting with various ways to provide federally financed rapid rehousing and permanent housing opportunities. Housing First is a far-left idea premised on the belief that homelessness is primarily circumstantial rather than behavioral. The Housing First answer to homelessness is to give someone a house instead of attempting to understand the underlying causes of homelessness. Federal intervention centered on Housing First has failed to acknowledge that resolving the issue of homelessness is often a matter of resolving mental health and substance abuse challenges. Instead of the permanent supportive housing proffered by Housing First, a conservative Administration should shift to transitional housing with a focus on addressing the underlying issues that cause homelessness in the first place. 39. The Senate Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers (LIFT) Act would address this policy goal. See S. 2797, Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers Act of 2021 (LIFT Homebuyers Act of 2021), 117th Congress, introduced September 22, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/s2797/BILLS-117s2797is.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 40. FHA did not facilitate the widespread use of 30-year mortgages until the 1950s when, interacting with Federal Reserve policies, federal agencies began broader adoption of the mortgages, which, despite lowering the monthly repayment terms, result in slow equity accumulation and wealth-building opportunities. 41. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 fundamentally revised the scope of federal regulation in the nation’s housing finance system, placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the purview of a newly established Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and establishing a Housing Trust Fund (HTF) that is administered in the HUD Office of Community Planning and Development. See H.R. 3221, Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Public Law No. 110-289, 110th Congress, July 30, 2008, https://www.congress. gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 42. Guiding questions: What reforms should be proposed that could be accomplished within five years? What reforms can be done administratively, and what reforms would need legislative authorization? Are there functions that HUD administers that could be achieved more effectively at another department or agency? What big-picture reforms should be proposed that might take more than five years that would reorganize HUD and its programs to meet the objectives in the vision or mission? What would occur in the absence of these public finance subsidies? How much crowd-out do these subsidies create in the market? Would America be a seriously underhoused nation without these subsidies? Who are the policies intended to benefit? What organizational changes must be made? 43. The Faircloth Amendment (Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998) amended the Housing Act of 1937 to maintain public housing units at 1999 levels, preventing housing authorities from maintaining more public housing than they did then. H.R. 4194, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law No. 105-276, 105th Congress, October 21, 1998, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ276/PLAW-105publ276.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). In recent years, the statutory restriction on new construction of public housing units has been circumvented through some narrow uses of preservation programs such as the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, initially authorized in 2012 and reauthorized several times since under higher program unit conversion caps. Congress also provided paths for renewal and continuation of a portion of existing public housing; project/site-based housing stock (refinancing with long-term HAP contract commitments); and Section 8 units through the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (MAHRA). H.R. 2158, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Public Law No. 105-65, 105th Congress, October 27, 1997, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ65/PLAW-105publ65.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 44. As the evolution of HUD rental assistance transitions away from the public housing model toward housing choice vouchers, there should be adequate landlord participation to ensure that the supply of housing units for rent in these programs meets the demand for rent among eligible tenants. This issue has been addressed in various ways, including by a task force instituted at the department during the Trump Administration, but could likely remain a challenge in the administration of the program.

Agency for International Development

Minimal

Vector: 60%

Pages: 294-296AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on prohibiting foreign nationals from contributing to U.S. state and local elections, whereas the Project 2025 excerpt deals with restricting U.S. foreign aid to prevent funding of abortion-related activities abroad; the two policies address unrelated domains."

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

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

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

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K.

Justice for ALS Veterans Act of 2025

119/hr/1685

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officer Retirement Technical Corrections Act

119/hr/8844

Joe Fiandra Access to Home Infusion Act of 2025

119/hr/4993

Back to All Bills