Burma GAP Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/4140

Last Updated: September 10, 2026

Burma GAP Act

HR. 4140, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

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

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

The money

$80,100 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Health and Human Services" section, p. 533-535 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 44 - 5.

July 21, 2025

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:

The Burma GAP Act, HR 4140. A bill that reeks of sentimentalism and naivety about the complexities of global politics and human rights. Let me break it down for you in terms of what truly matters: wealth, power, and influence.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This bill is a feel-good attempt to address the humanitarian crisis in Burma, specifically targeting the Rohingya minority. Its primary objectives are to provide protection, support, and accountability for human rights abuses. How quaint.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill proposes various measures, including:

1. Humanitarian assistance: Providing aid to Rohingya refugees and internally displaced persons. 2. Accountability: Promoting investigations into human rights abuses and crimes against humanity. 3. Diplomatic efforts: Encouraging the Burmese government to address the root causes of the crisis.

These provisions are nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to impose Western values on a complex, non-Western society. The bill's authors seem oblivious to the fact that their actions may inadvertently destabilize the region and create new opportunities for extremist groups to flourish.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The primary stakeholders in this bill are:

1. Rohingya refugees and internally displaced persons: The intended beneficiaries of humanitarian assistance. 2. Burmese government: The target of diplomatic pressure and potential sanctions. 3. Human rights organizations: Groups that will likely benefit from increased funding and attention. 4. Western governments: Countries like the United States, which may see this bill as a way to assert their moral authority on the global stage.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

From my perspective, this bill has several implications:

1. Increased regulatory burden: The bill's provisions will likely lead to new regulations and bureaucratic hurdles for businesses operating in Burma. 2. Potential economic instability: Sanctions and diplomatic pressure may destabilize the Burmese economy, creating opportunities for extremist groups to exploit. 3. Inefficient allocation of resources: Humanitarian assistance may be misallocated or inefficiently distributed, perpetuating dependency rather than promoting self-sufficiency.

In conclusion, the Burma GAP Act is a misguided attempt to impose Western values on a complex, non-Western society. Its provisions will likely create more problems than they solve, and its impact will be felt primarily by those who are not truly invested in the region's well-being – namely, Western governments and human rights organizations.

As someone who has built their fortune on disrupting inefficient systems and exploiting opportunities for growth, I can confidently say that this bill is a recipe for disaster. It's a prime example of how emotional, knee-jerk reactions to complex problems can lead to unintended consequences and wasted resources.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have more important things to attend to – like optimizing my portfolio and identifying the next big opportunity for growth.

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, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process to become an actual law.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Burma GAP Act (HR 4140) aims to provide protection, support, and humanitarian assistance to Rohingya refugees and internally displaced people in Burma. The bill also seeks to promote accountability for genocide and crimes against humanity committed against the Rohingya population. Remember when we learned about the importance of human rights and international law? This bill is trying to uphold those principles.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill has several key provisions, including:

* Providing humanitarian assistance to Rohingya refugees and internally displaced people in Burma * Promoting accountability for genocide and crimes against humanity committed against the Rohingya population * Supporting solutions to respect the human rights and dignity of Rohingya * Empowering Rohingya civilian leadership in diaspora communities, refugee camps, and inside Burma

The bill also references various reports and resolutions from the United Nations and the US House of Representatives, which have condemned the atrocities committed against the Rohingya. As I explained in class, these findings are crucial in shaping policy and informing legislative decisions.

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

* Rohingya refugees and internally displaced people in Burma * The government of Burma (Myanmar) * International organizations, such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees * Humanitarian aid agencies * Governments of countries that have provided humanitarian assistance to Rohingya refugees

**Potential Impact & Implications** If passed, this bill could lead to increased humanitarian assistance and support for Rohingya refugees and internally displaced people in Burma. It may also promote accountability for genocide and crimes against humanity committed against the Rohingya population.

However, as we discussed in class, the actual impact of a law depends on various factors, including its implementation, funding, and international cooperation. The bill's success will depend on the ability of governments, international organizations, and humanitarian agencies to work together to address the complex issues surrounding the Rohingya crisis.

Now, I hope this summary has refreshed your memory on how bills become laws and the importance of understanding legislative processes. As I always said in class, "It's not just about memorizing dates and events; it's about understanding the underlying principles and mechanisms that shape our world."

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow Americans, gather 'round and listen closely, for I have uncovered the truth behind this so-called "Burma GAP Act". On the surface, it appears to be a benevolent bill aimed at providing humanitarian assistance to Rohingya refugees in Burma. But, my friends, do not be fooled! There's more to this bill than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of HR 4140 is to provide protection, support, and humanitarian assistance to Rohingya refugees and internally displaced people in Burma, while promoting accountability for genocide and crimes against humanity. Sounds noble, right? But what about the real agenda?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This bill is not just a simple aid package; it's a Trojan horse. It aims to:

* Establish a new framework for holding perpetrators of genocide accountable (Section 3, Statement of Policy). Who decides who's guilty? The UN? The US government? * Provide "holistic support" to the Rohingya community, which could be code for cultural and social engineering. * Collaborate with other countries and international organizations to implement coordinated measures for upholding Rohingya dignity and human rights. Sounds like a recipe for global governance.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill affects not only Rohingya refugees but also:

* The government of Burma (Myanmar), which will be pressured to comply with US demands. * Other countries, as the US seeks to coordinate international efforts to address the crisis. * International organizations, such as the UN, which will play a key role in implementing the bill's provisions.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications:

* It sets a precedent for US intervention in foreign conflicts under the guise of humanitarian aid. * It expands the definition of genocide and crimes against humanity, potentially creating new avenues for prosecution and punishment. * It empowers international organizations to dictate policy and enforce human rights standards, eroding national sovereignty.

Wake up, America! This bill is not just about helping refugees; it's about advancing a global agenda that undermines our nation's independence and autonomy. Mark my words: this is just the beginning of a slippery slope toward a New World Order.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round. We've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. The Burma GAP Act - sounds like something out of a bad spy novel, doesn't it? (wink)

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

So, what's this bill all about? Well, it's supposed to provide protection and support to the Rohingya refugees in Burma (or Myanmar, if you want to get technical). Now, I know some of my fellow patriots might be thinking, "Wait a minute, why are we getting involved in another country's business?" And believe me, I'm right there with you. But apparently, our esteemed lawmakers think it's high time we stuck our noses into Burma's affairs and started telling them how to treat their own people.

The bill claims to promote accountability for genocide and crimes against humanity (because, of course, the UN says so). It also wants to provide humanitarian assistance to those poor Rohingya folks. Aw, shucks, who wouldn't want to help out some downtrodden refugees, right? (eyeroll)

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

Now, let's get into the nitty-gritty. This bill would:

* Provide funding for humanitarian aid and support to Rohingya refugees * Promote accountability for genocide and crimes against humanity (because we all know how effective that's been in the past) * Support the empowerment of Rohingya civilian leadership (read: more foreign meddling) * Collaborate with other countries to "uphold the dignity" of Rohingya (whatever that means)

Oh, and get this - it would also require the Secretary of State to report on the situation in Burma every six months. Because, you know, we need more bureaucratic red tape.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

Well, it's pretty obvious who the main stakeholders are here: the Rohingya refugees themselves, the Burmese government (which will likely just ignore us), and our own State Department (which will get to spend even more of your tax dollars on "humanitarian aid").

But let's not forget about the real winners here - the liberal elites who get to virtue-signal about how much they care about human rights. I mean, it's not like they're actually doing anything meaningful to help these people...

**Potential Impact & Implications**

So, what's the potential impact of this bill? Well, if passed, it might:

* Provide some temporary relief for Rohingya refugees (yay, humanitarian aid!) * Embolden our State Department to keep meddling in foreign affairs (boo, more bureaucracy!) * Give liberal elites a warm fuzzy feeling about how much they care about human rights (aww, isn't that sweet?)

But let's be real - this bill is just another example of our government trying to impose its will on other countries. I mean, who are we to tell Burma how to treat their own people? It's none of our business.

And don't

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

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

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Burma GAP Act (HR 4140) claims to provide protection, support, and humanitarian assistance to Rohingya refugees and internally displaced people in Burma. How noble. In reality, it's a thinly veiled attempt to appear concerned about human rights while doing little to address the root causes of the crisis.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill reiterates the United States' commitment to preventing genocide and promoting accountability for crimes against humanity. Wow, what a bold move. It also calls for increased humanitarian assistance, which will undoubtedly be used as a Band-Aid to cover up the festering wound of systemic oppression.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The Rohingya people, of course, are the supposed beneficiaries of this bill. However, given the track record of similar legislation, it's unlikely they'll see any meaningful improvements in their situation. The real stakeholders here are the politicians and bureaucrats who get to pat themselves on the back for "doing something" about the crisis.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill will likely have a negligible impact on the ground, as it fails to address the underlying issues driving the Rohingya crisis. Instead, it will provide a convenient talking point for lawmakers to claim they're committed to human rights, all while maintaining the status quo of inaction. The real implications are that this bill will further entrench the cycle of violence and oppression, ensuring that the Rohingya people remain vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.

Diagnosis: This bill suffers from a severe case of " Legislative Lip Service Syndrome" (LLSS), characterized by empty rhetoric, lack of concrete action, and a healthy dose of self-congratulation. The symptoms are clear:

* Grandiose statements about human rights and accountability * Vague promises of humanitarian assistance * Complete failure to address the root causes of the crisis

Prognosis: This bill will likely pass with minimal opposition, as lawmakers eagerly grasp at the opportunity to appear concerned about human rights without actually doing anything meaningful. The Rohingya people will continue to suffer, and the cycle of violence and oppression will persist.

Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach for bureaucratic doublespeak, and a willingness to call out the obvious lies and half-measures that pass for "policy" in Washington.

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

**Burma GAP Act (HR 4140) Summary**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Burma Genocide Accountability and Protection Act, or the Burma GAP Act, aims to provide protection, support, and humanitarian assistance to Rohingya refugees and internally displaced people in Burma. The bill seeks to promote accountability for genocide and crimes against humanity committed against the Rohingya population and address the root causes of these atrocities.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill establishes a comprehensive policy framework to address the Rohingya crisis, including:

1. Upholding Article I of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 2. Preventing and ending atrocities committed against Rohingya by addressing root causes, holding perpetrators accountable, and supporting human rights and dignity. 3. Empowering Rohingya civilian leadership in diaspora communities, refugee camps, and inside Burma. 4. Providing holistic support to overcome decades of systematic persecution and discrimination.

The bill also requires the Secretary of State to report on the implementation of these policies and provide recommendations for further action.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. Rohingya refugees and internally displaced people in Burma. 2. The government of Burma, particularly the military and security forces. 3. The United States government, including the Department of State and USAID. 4. International organizations, such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other relevant agencies. 5. Humanitarian organizations providing assistance to Rohingya refugees.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The Burma GAP Act has significant implications for:

1. **Accountability:** The bill promotes accountability for genocide and crimes against humanity committed against the Rohingya population, which may lead to increased pressure on the Burmese government to take responsibility for these atrocities. 2. **Humanitarian Assistance:** The bill provides a framework for continued humanitarian assistance to Rohingya refugees, addressing their basic needs, such as food, shelter, and healthcare. 3. **Regional Stability:** By addressing the root causes of the Rohingya crisis, the bill may contribute to regional stability in Southeast Asia, reducing the risk of further violence and displacement. 4. **US Foreign Policy:** The Burma GAP Act reflects a strong commitment by the US government to uphold human rights and prevent atrocities, which may influence US foreign policy decisions in similar contexts.

Overall, the Burma GAP Act is a comprehensive response to the Rohingya crisis, addressing both immediate humanitarian needs and long-term solutions for accountability, justice, and peace.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down the Burma GAP Act, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This bill is all about providing protection, support, and humanitarian assistance to Rohingya refugees and internally displaced people in Burma (also known as Myanmar). The main goal is to promote accountability for genocide and crimes against humanity committed against the Rohingya. It's like, we gotta hold those responsible accountable, you know?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill makes some key changes:

* It acknowledges that the atrocities committed against the Rohingya constitute genocide and crimes against humanity. * It calls for the US government to support solutions that respect human rights and uphold the dignity of Rohingya people. * It emphasizes the importance of involving Rohingya community representatives in decision-making processes. * It provides funding for humanitarian assistance, including food aid and protection services.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects a bunch of different parties, bro:

* Rohingya refugees and internally displaced people in Burma * The US government, particularly the State Department and USAID * International organizations like the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) * Other countries that are part of the international community

**Potential Impact & Implications**

If this bill becomes law, it could have some major implications:

* It could help hold perpetrators of genocide and crimes against humanity accountable. * It could provide much-needed humanitarian assistance to Rohingya refugees and internally displaced people. * It could promote a more inclusive and peaceful Burma by supporting the empowerment of Rohingya civilian leadership. * However, it's also possible that the bill could face opposition from countries or groups that don't want to acknowledge or address the atrocities committed against the Rohingya.

Overall, this bill is like, a big step in the right direction, bro. It acknowledges the gravity of the situation and calls for action to support the Rohingya people. But, it's also just one part of a bigger puzzle – we gotta keep pushing for more comprehensive solutions to address the root causes of this crisis.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Burma GAP Act (HR 4140) aims to provide protection, support, and humanitarian assistance to Rohingya refugees and internally displaced people in Burma. The bill promotes accountability for genocide and crimes against humanity committed against the Rohingya minority.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill reaffirms the US commitment to preventing and punishing genocide, as outlined in Article I of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It also:

1. Calls for holding perpetrators accountable for atrocities committed against Rohingya. 2. Supports solutions that respect human rights and uphold the dignity of Rohingya. 3. Ensures Rohingya involvement and representation in decision-making processes.

The bill does not introduce significant changes to existing law but rather reinforces previous resolutions and statements, such as H. Res. 1091 (2018), which recognized atrocities against Rohingya as crimes against humanity and genocide.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

Key stakeholders include:

1. Rohingya refugees and internally displaced people in Burma. 2. The Burmese military and government. 3. Humanitarian organizations, such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the World Food Program (WFP). 4. Governments of countries hosting Rohingya refugees, particularly Bangladesh.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The bill's potential impact is significant:

1. Increased humanitarian assistance: The US has been a leading contributor to humanitarian efforts in response to the Rohingya crisis. 2. Enhanced accountability: By reaffirming the need for accountability, the bill may pressure the Burmese military and government to address human rights abuses. 3. Improved protection for Rohingya: The bill's emphasis on protecting human rights and dignity could lead to better living conditions and reduced violence against Rohingya.

However, potential implications also include:

1. Diplomatic tensions: The bill's strong stance on accountability may strain US-Burma relations. 2. Funding challenges: The World Food Program estimates that $83 million is needed to maintain full rations for refugees through May 2026, which could be a challenge in the current funding environment.

**Monied Interest Analysis**

While there are no obvious monied interests directly backing this bill, humanitarian organizations and advocacy groups focused on human rights and refugee issues may have influenced its development. These groups often receive funding from philanthropic organizations, such as the Open Society Foundations, and may have contributed to shaping the bill's language and objectives.

**Committee Capture**

The bill was referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, which has a history of being influenced by humanitarian and human rights organizations. The committee's chair, Representative Meeks, has received campaign contributions from groups like the Human Rights Campaign and the National Iranian American Council, which may have an interest in promoting human rights and accountability.

**Donor Analysis**

A review of campaign finance data reveals that sponsors and cosponsors of the bill have received donations from various organizations, including:

1. Representative Meeks (D-NY): Received

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

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

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$80,100

21 donors

PACs

Organizations

$9,100

Committees

Individuals

$71,000

No PAC contributions found

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$5,800

AGUA CALIENTE BAN OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

No committee contributions found

CROWN, LESTER

1 transaction

$6,600

ARMSTRONG, BRIAN

2 transactions

$6,600

LIPPMAN, MARIE C.

1 transaction

$5,000

CUKIERMAN, JORAM

1 transaction

$3,300

SILVERMAN, DOUG

1 transaction

$3,300

SHAMAH, ALAN

1 transaction

$3,300

SHAMAH, JOSEPH

1 transaction

$3,300

FRIEDMAN, AVI

1 transaction

$3,300

HARMALA, ROBERT

1 transaction

$3,300

MINSKOFF, EDWARD J.

1 transaction

$3,300

POLLACK, BRUCE

1 transaction

$3,300

FOOKSMAN, EUGENE

1 transaction

$3,300

TISCH, JONATHAN

1 transaction

$3,300

ZEEV, OREN

1 transaction

$3,300

PITTMAN, ALVIN L.

1 transaction

$3,300

RADOW, LINDA

1 transaction

$3,300

RADOW, NORMAN

1 transaction

$3,300

WEINBERG, DEBRA

1 transaction

$3,300

RUSH, STEPHEN

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. McCaul, Michael T. [R-TX-10]

ID: M001157

Top Contributors

SOUTH SPUR LP

OrganizationHOUSTON, TX

$3,300

Jan 31, 2024

TRACEY FOX KING & WALTERS

OrganizationHOUSTON, TX

$1,000

Feb 17, 2023

CHILDS, JOHN W.

JW CHILDS ASSOCIATES • OWNER

IndividualVERO BEACH, FL

$50,000

Dec 12, 2023

LANIER, BECKY MRS.

LANIER LAW FIRM • ATTORNEY

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$50,000

Mar 4, 2024

LANIER, MARK W.

LANIER LAW FIRM • ATTORNEY

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$50,000

Mar 4, 2024

CHILDS, JOHN W

IndividualVERO BEACH, FL

$38,400

Mar 15, 2024

CHILDS, JOHN W.

JW CHILDS ASSOCIATES • OWNER

IndividualVERO BEACH, FL

$38,400

May 7, 2024

CHILDS, JOHN W

IndividualVERO BEACH, FL

$33,400

Nov 14, 2024

CARLTON, C. CRAIG MR.

C.C. CARLTON INDUSTRIES • OWNER

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$25,000

Feb 13, 2024

LUROS, HILARY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSUGAR LAND, TX

$25,000

Feb 27, 2024

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

ID: B001287

Top Contributors

AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$250

Nov 5, 2024

AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$250

Oct 31, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$2,000

Jun 30, 2024

DOERR, JOHN L. III

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualSAN CARLOS, CA

$6,600

Sep 30, 2023

DOERR, JOHN L. III

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualSAN CARLOS, CA

$6,600

Sep 30, 2023

DOERR, JOHN L. III

IndividualSAN CARLOS, CA

$6,600

Sep 30, 2023

DOERR, JOHN L. III

IndividualSAN CARLOS, CA

$6,600

Sep 30, 2023

DOERR, ANN HOWLAND

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualSAN CARLOS, CA

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

DOERR, ANN HOWLAND

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualSAN CARLOS, CA

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

DOERR, JOHN L. III

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualSAN CARLOS, CA

$3,300

Sep 30, 2023

Rep. Huizenga, Bill [R-MI-4]

ID: H001058

Top Contributors

POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationDOWAGIAC, MI

$3,300

Dec 11, 2023

THALOP LLC

OrganizationINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$1,000

Aug 29, 2024

BARREL DOG, LLC

OrganizationHOLLAND, MI

$1,000

Sep 1, 2024

NOAH HOMES LLC

OrganizationINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$1,000

Sep 30, 2024

THALOP LLC

OrganizationINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$1,000

Sep 30, 2024

B&B DAIRY

OrganizationPLAINVIEW, TX

$500

Jul 28, 2024

B&B DAIRY

OrganizationPLAINVIEW, TX

$500

Sep 5, 2024

STRAIGHT LINE RED ANGUS

OrganizationBANGOR, MI

$250

Jul 23, 2024

VAN ANDEL, AMY

THE STEVE AND AMY VAN ANDEL FOUNDATION • EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

IndividualADA, MI

$75,000

Mar 29, 2024

VAN ANDEL, STEPHEN

AMWAY • CHAIRMAN

IndividualADA, MI

$75,000

Mar 29, 2024

Rep. Carson, André [D-IN-7]

ID: C001072

Top Contributors

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,500

May 22, 2023

INDIANA IMPORT LLC

OrganizationFISHERS, IN

$1,000

Nov 11, 2023

MNAYMEH, HALA

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualCORAL GABLES, FL

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

DE LA CRUZ, FABIO

WESTON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT • PARTNER

IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

KHAN, AZHER M

CALDERON TEXTILES • PRESIDENT

IndividualCARMEL, IN

$3,300

Dec 8, 2023

HOGAN, ALAN P.

THE HOGAN GROUP, INC. • CONSULTANT

IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$3,300

Feb 22, 2023

JOHNSON, LACY M.

ICE MILLER • ATTORNEY

IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$3,300

Mar 16, 2023

STACK, ANN M.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$3,300

Feb 22, 2023

ABDALLA, MIKE A.

MAGNA PROPERTIES • PRESIDENT

IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$3,300

Mar 11, 2024

MAMOUN, IHSAN

SDI RADIOLOGY • PHYSICIAN

IndividualSEFFNER, FL

$3,300

Jan 23, 2024

Rep. Costa, Jim [D-CA-21]

ID: C001059

Top Contributors

TABLE MOUNTAIN RANCHERIA

OrganizationFRIANT, CA

$3,300

Oct 30, 2023

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Sep 18, 2024

JJF SP TRUST

OrganizationSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Sep 30, 2024

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RANCH

OrganizationFRESNO, CA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$1,000

Jul 31, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

Sep 8, 2023

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$1,000

May 19, 2023

CHAPPELL-MCLULLAR TRUST

OrganizationHONOLULU, HI

$500

Mar 2, 2024

ARK, MANDEEP

SELF EMPLOYED • INTERPRETER

IndividualFRESNO, CA

$6,500

Aug 14, 2024

AFZAL, TEHMINA

SELF EMPLOYED • INTERPRETER

IndividualCHINO HILLS, CA

$6,500

Aug 14, 2024

Rep. Jackson, Jonathan L. [D-IL-1]

ID: J000309

Top Contributors

DUDA, KENNETH

ARISTA NETWORKS INC. • SOFTWARE ENGINEERING

IndividualMENLO PARK, CA

$6,600

Jun 21, 2024

GUPTA, ANUJA

VERANDAH • FOUNDER

IndividualHANOVER PARK, IL

$6,600

Mar 19, 2024

BURKLE, RON

THE YUCAIPA COMPANIES, LLC • MANAGING PARTNER

IndividualWEST HOLLYWOOD, CA

$6,600

Apr 16, 2024

DUDA, KENNETH

ARISTA NETWORKS INC. • SOFTWARE ENGINEERING

IndividualMENLO PARK, CA

$6,600

Jun 21, 2024

KAMANZI, OLIVIER

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$5,000

Jun 29, 2024

ADAMS, HAYDEN

UNISWAP LABS • FOUNDER AND CEO

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Aug 14, 2024

CHU MA, SUM

SELF • RESTURANT OWNER

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$3,300

Aug 27, 2024

DUDA, JENNIFER

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualMENLO PARK, CA

$3,300

Jul 24, 2024

GABLE, WILLIE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualNEW ORLEANS, LA

$3,300

Sep 14, 2024

KNOWLING, ROBERT

EAGLES LANDING PARTNERS • EXECUTIVE

IndividualGLENNVILLE, GA

$3,300

May 21, 2024

Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-12]

ID: N000002

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

KRAMER DILLOF LIVINGSTON & MOORE

OrganizationNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Aug 3, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON DAKOTA POLITICAL COMMITTEE

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

Jun 6, 2023

TONIO BURGOS & ASSOCIATES

OrganizationTRINITY, NY

$1,000

Aug 1, 2023

VILLAGE INDEPENDENT DEMOCRATS

OrganizationNEW YORK, NY

$300

Sep 21, 2023

JOSEPHSON, JOHN H

SESAC MUSIC GROUP • CEO

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

LAWRENCE, DOUGLAS

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

RECHLER, DEBBY

HOMEMAKER

IndividualGLEN HEAD, NY

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

RUBIN, JUDY

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Oct 17, 2024

ALIX, JAY

JAY ALIX & ASSOCIATES • EXECUTIVE

IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI

$3,300

Sep 4, 2023

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

ID: L000599

Top Contributors

MURTAGH, COSSU, VENDITTI & CASTRO-BLANCO, LLP

OrganizationWHITE PLAINS, NY

$1,000

Feb 24, 2024

BATMASIAN, JAMES

INVESTMENTS LIMITED • OWNER

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$6,600

Sep 27, 2023

BATMASIAN, JAMES

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$6,600

Sep 29, 2023

AUSTIN, ROBERT

UNAKA CO., INC. • BUSINESSMAN

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$6,600

Jul 18, 2024

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSURFSIDE, FL

$6,534

Feb 15, 2024

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

IndividualSURFSIDE, FL

$6,534

Feb 22, 2024

SCALA, MARY ELLEN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualPORT CHESTER, NY

$5,300

Aug 27, 2023

DEUTSCH, SHMULEY

SELF • PRESIDENT

IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY

$3,900

Jun 24, 2024

DEUTSCH, SHMULEY

IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY

$3,900

Jun 25, 2024

PERLMUTTER, RAFUEL

GOLDEN TASTE • CEO

IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY

$3,400

Jun 24, 2024

Rep. Khanna, Ro [D-CA-17]

ID: K000389

Top Contributors

1850 WILLIAMS INVESTORS LLC

OrganizationALAMO, CA

$3,300

Mar 5, 2024

SIRHAN, MOTASIM

ELIXIR • EXECUTIVE

IndividualMILPITAS, CA

$13,200

Jan 3, 2024

PAPIER, SUSAN

WERBA RUBIN PAPIER WEALTH MANAGEMENT • EXECUTIVE

IndividualSAN JOSE, CA

$13,200

Mar 29, 2024

CLEMENS, NICOLE

PARAMOUNT GLOBAL • EXECUTIVE

IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA

$13,200

Mar 30, 2024

PAPIER, JASON

WERBA RUBIN PAPIER WEALTH MANAGEMENT • EXECUTIVE

IndividualSAN JOSE, CA

$13,200

Mar 29, 2024

COGEN, JACK

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$13,200

May 15, 2024

CLEMENS, NICOLE

IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA

$12,200

Mar 31, 2024

YOUNIS, QASAR

APPLIED INTUITION • EXECUTIVE

IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA

$9,900

Mar 31, 2024

PAPIER, SUSAN

IndividualSAN JOSE, CA

$9,900

Mar 31, 2024

PAPIER, JASON

IndividualSAN JOSE, CA

$9,900

Mar 31, 2024

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

ID: K000397

Top Contributors

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Dec 21, 2023

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Jul 28, 2023

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Jul 28, 2023

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF NORTH DAKOTA

OrganizationBELCOURT, ND

$3,300

Jul 28, 2023

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Sep 30, 2024

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Jul 25, 2024

AT&T INC & ITS AFFLIATES

OrganizationSACRAMENTO, CA

$3,000

Mar 5, 2024

ABBVIE PAC - FEDERAL PAC

OrganizationSACRAMENTO, CA

$2,500

Sep 30, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$2,300

Oct 25, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$2,000

Oct 28, 2024

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

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 52 nodes and 58 connections

Total contributions: $58

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

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs19 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 Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Burma GAP Act focuses on international humanitarian aid, genocide accountability, and support for Rohingya refugees, while the Project 2025 HHS section centers on domestic health policy issues such as abortion restrictions, conscience protections, and gender-affirming care guidance. Both touch on health-related assistance, but their substantive objectives and policy domains are largely unrelated."

Key themes:health assistancehumanitarian aidnondiscrimination

— 501 — Department of Health and Human Services 54. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of Civil Rights, and Office of the Secretary, “Special Responsibilities of Medicare Hospitals in Emergency Cases and Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Critical Health and Human Service Programs or Activities,” draft of Proposed Rule, January 14, 2021, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/infants-nprm.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 55. H.R. 26, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https:// www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr26/BILLS-118hr26pcs.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 56. H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7/BILLS-118hr7ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 57. S. 401, Conscience Protection Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced February 24, 2021, https://www.congress. gov/117/bills/s401/BILLS-117s401is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 58. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Office of the Secretary, “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Notice of Tribal Consultation, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 149 (August 4, 2022), pp. 47824–47920, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-04/pdf/2022-16217.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 59. Ibid., p. 47916. 60. The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Administration. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, “Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 142 (July 24, 2019), pp. 35570–55581, https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/24/2019-15670/revision-of-categorical-eligibility-in-the- supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap (accessed March 17, 2023). 61. 45 Code of Federal Regulations § 75.300(c) and (d), https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/ subchapter-A/part-75/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFR911e5e1a30bfbcb/section-75.300 (accessed March 17, 2023). 62. H.R. 1750, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1750/BILLS-117hr1750ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023), and S. 656, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/ s656/BILLS-117s656is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 63. S. 3949, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-348, 117th Congress, January 25, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ348/PLAW-117publ348.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 64. Kelsey Y. Santamaria, “Child Migrants at the Border: The Flores Settlement Agreement and Other Legal Developments,” Congressional Research Service In Focus No. IF11799, April 1, 2021, https://crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11799 (accessed March 17, 2023). 65. Report, Building a Happy Home: Marriage Education as a Tool to Strengthen Families, Social Capital Project Report No. 1-22, March 2022, p. 17, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3d102525-6f0d-48ed- 92f4-d71edd468ad6/building-a-happy-home.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). The cover of the report reflects that the Social Capital Project is “[a] project of the Joint Economic Committee – Republicans.” 66. See, for example, Alan J. Hawkins, “Are Federally Supported Relationship Education Programs for Lower-Income Individuals and Couples Working? A Review of Evaluation Research,” American Enterprise Institute, September 2019, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 67. H.R. 8404, Respect for Marriage Act, Public Law No. 117-228, 117th Congress, December 13, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 68. Madison Marino, “Over 1,000 Safety Violations Mar Head Start. Children Deserve Better,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 10, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/over-1000-safety- violations-mar-head-start-children-deserve-better. 69. American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 70. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 22 (February 2, 2023), pp. 7236–7281, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-02-02/pdf/2023-01981.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 502 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 71. 42 U.S. Code § 238n, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/238n (accessed March 17, 2023). 72. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, “Early Childhood Health,” last reviewed October 2022, https://mchb.hrsa.gov/programs-impact/focus-areas/early- childhood-health (accessed March 17, 2023). 73. American Pregnancy Association, “Having a Doula—What Are the Benefits?” https://americanpregnancy. org/healthy-pregnancy/labor-and-birth/having-a-doula/#:~:text=Other%20studies%20have%20shown%20 that%20having%20a%20doula,massage%20to%20reduce%20stress%20and%20anxiety%20during%20labor (accessed March 17, 2023). 74. S. 2372, VA MISSION [Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks] Act of 2018, Public Law No. 115-182, 115th Congress, June 6, 2018, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ182/ PLAW-115publ182.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 75. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 11 (January 19, 2021), pp. 5694–5764, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-19/pdf/2021-00597.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 76. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Compliance with Statutory Program Integrity Requirements,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 42 (March 4, 2029), pp. 7714–7791, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-03-04/pdf/2019-03461.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 77. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Ensuring Access to Equitable, Affordable, Client-Centered, Quality Family Planning Services,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 192 (October 7, 2021), pp. 56144–56180, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2021-10-07/pdf/2021-21542.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 78. S. 624, Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, 118th Congress, introduced March 2, 2023, https://www. congress.gov/118/bills/s624/BILLS-118s624is.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 79. 50 U.S. Code Chapter 55, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-55 (accessed March 22, 2023). 80. 18 U.S. Code § 13, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/13 (accessed March 18, 2023). 81. Bowen v. American Hospital Association, 476 U.S. 610 (1986), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/ usrep/usrep476/usrep476610/usrep476610.pdf (accessed 22, 2023). 82. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, “Notification of Interpretation and Enforcement of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,” Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 99 (May 25, 2021), pp. 27984–27985, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2021-05-25/pdf/2021-10477.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 83. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “HHS Notice and Guidance on Gender Affirming Care, Civil Rights, and Patient Privacy,” March 2, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hhs- ocr-notice-and-guidance-gender-affirming-care.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 84. Heckler v. Chaney, 420 U.S. 821 (1985), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/470/821.html (accessed March 18, 2022). 85. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “Guidance to Nation’s Retail Pharmacies: Obligations Under Federal Civil Rights Laws to Ensure Access to Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Services,” content last reviewed July 14, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/ special-topics/reproductive-healthcare/pharmacies-guidance/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. H.R. 3103, “Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-191, 104th Congress, August 21, 1996, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ191/PLAW-104publ191.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. U.S. Department of Human Services, “HIPAA Privacy Rule and Disclosures of Information Relating to Reproductive Health Care,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, (accessed March 18, 2023). See also “Protecting the Privacy and Security of Your Health Information When Using Your Personal Cell Phone or Tablet,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/guidance/ cell-phone-hipaa/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023).

Agency for International Development

Weak

Vector: 58%

Pages: 294-296AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Burma GAP Act focuses on humanitarian aid, accountability, and empowerment for Rohingya refugees, while the Project 2025 USAID section emphasizes pro-life restrictions, international religious freedom, and procurement reform. Both involve U.S. foreign assistance, but their substantive objectives differ significantly, resulting only a tangential connection."

Key themes:humanitarian assistanceUSAID fundingforeign aid

— 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 — 262 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise priority. It created a robust genocide-response capability. USAID affirmed the agency’s partnerships with faith-based organizations through its rule on “Partic- ipation by Religious Organizations in USAID Programs;”14 “Partnership Guidance and Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for Faith Based Organizations;” and “Legal Guidance and Answers to FAQs for USAID Staff.” Today, USAID officials and their progressive partners have resisted efforts to promote religious freedom, especially as it relates to abortion and gender ideology, which are anathema to the traditional societies where USAID funds programs (in addition to many U.S. taxpayers). U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken repudiated his predecessor’s focus on religious freedom. The next conservative Administration must champion the core American value of religious freedom, which correlates significantly with poverty reduction, eco- nomic growth, and peace. It should train all USAID staff on the connection between religious freedom and development; integrate it into all of the agency’s programs, including the five-year Country Development and Coordination Strategies due for updates in 2025; strengthen the missions’ relationships with local faith-based leaders; and build on local programs that are serving the poor. Congress should appropriate funding to USAID specifically to support persecuted religious minori- ties in line with Executive Order 13926. Streamlining Procurement and Localizing the Partner Base. USAID is a grantmaking and contracting agency that disburses billions of dollars of federal funding in developing countries through implementing partners, such as U.N. agen- cies, international NGOs, for-profit companies, and local nongovernmental entities. In rare instances, such as in Jordan and Ukraine, the agency provides direct budget support to finance the operations of host-country governments. USAID far more often counts on expensive and ineffective large contracts and grants to carry out its programs. It justifies these practices based on speed and a lower administrative burden on its institutional capacity. Partnering and procurement reform was a pillar of the Trump Administration’s effort to secure better development results, cut costs, and advance the Journey to Self-Reliance strategy of exiting countries from aid. In December 2018, USAID launched its first Acquisition and Assistance Strategy to streamline procurement processes; introduce innovation into its programming; and diversify its partner base away from large, expensive, and partisan implementers. The strategy counted on local NGOs, including faith-based entities already on the ground, to provide the agency with less costly and more effective alternatives to the aid giants. The strategy also prioritized global partnerships with the private sector—corporations, investors, diasporas, and private philanthropies—the source of real capital invest- ment, innovation, and efficiencies that can maximize the impact of taxpayer dollars. Under the Biden Administration, despite rhetoric to the contrary, the aid industrial complex has recaptured the agency and stifled further reforms.

Agency for International Development

Weak

Vector: 58%

Pages: 294-296AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Burma GAP Act focuses on humanitarian aid, accountability, and protection for Rohingya refugees, while the Project 2025 excerpt centers on pro-life restrictions in foreign aid and international religious freedom. The only tangential connection is their shared concern with USAID-administered foreign assistance and broader religious freedom considerations."

Key themes:foreign aidhumanitarian assistanceinternational religious freedom

Department of State

Weak

Vector: 58%

Pages: 211-213AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both documents involve refugee-related policy and the State Department's role, but the Burma GAP Act focuses on providing humanitarian aid and accountability for Rohingya abroad, whereas the Project 2025 excerpt emphasizes curtailing U.S. refugee admissions and strengthening immigration enforcement, resulting in divergent objectives."

Key themes:refugee assistancehumanitarian aidState Department responsibilitiesimmigration policyaccountability for atrocities

— 178 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise interior immigration enforcement. This Administration’s humanitarian crisis—which is arguably the greatest humanitarian crisis in the modern era, one which has harmed Americans and foreign nationals alike—will take many years and billions of dollars to fully address. One casualty of the Biden Administration’s behavior will be the current form of the U.S. Refugee Admission Program (USRAP). The federal government’s obligation to shift national security–essential screening and vetting resources to the forged border crisis will necessitate an indefinite curtailment of the number of USRAP refugee admissions. The State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, which administers USRAP, must shift its resources to challenges stemming from the current immigration situation until the crisis can be contained and refugee-focused screening and vetting capacity can reasonably be restored. l Strengthening bilateral and multilateral immigration-focused agreements. Restoration of both domestic security and the integrity of the U.S. immigration system should start with rapid reactivation of several key initiatives in effect at the conclusion of the Trump Administration. Reimplementation of the Remain in Mexico policy, safe third-country agreements, and other measures to address the influx of non-Mexican asylum applicants at the United States–Mexico border must be Day One priorities. Although the State Department must rein in the C-175 authorities of other agencies, the Department of Homeland Security should retain (or regain) C-175 authorities for negotiating bilateral and multilateral security agreements. l Evaluation of national security–vulnerable visa programs. To protect the American people, the State Department, in coordination with the White House and other security-focused agencies, should evaluate several key security-sensitive visa programs that it manages. Key programs include, but should not be limited to, the Diversity Visa program, the F (student) visa program, and J (exchange visitor) visa program. The State Department’s evaluation must ensure that these programs are not only consistent with White House immigration policy, but also align with its national security obligations and resource limitations. PIVOTING ABROAD Personnel and management adjustments are crucial preludes to refocus the State Department’s mission, which is implementing the President’s foreign policy agenda and, in so doing, ensuring that the interests of American citizens are given

Small Business Administration

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 786-788AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Burma GAP Act focuses on humanitarian aid, genocide accountability, and Rohingya refugee protection, while the Project 2025 SBA section addresses COVID-19 loan fraud, disaster loan administration, and religious entity eligibility—there is no substantive policy overlap."

— 753 — Small Business Administration COVID-19 Lending Program Accountability and Cleanup. A major immediate priority for the next Administration should be a final accounting and accelerated cleanup of fraudulent COVID-19 loan and grant activity. As noted by the SBA IG, “managing COVID-19 stimulus lending is the greatest overall challenge facing SBA, and it may likely continue to be for many years as the agency grapples with fraud in the programs….”40 The next Administration should: l Consider bringing in private-sector support and expertise to close out these programs. Forgiveness and fraud must be dealt with as swiftly as possible, and law enforcement officials must pursue fraud vigorously. Entities receiving PPP loans that did not meet eligibility for forgiveness must be required to pay back the money. For example, under the CARES Act,41 PPP loan applicants generally were eligible only if, together with all their affiliates, they had no more than 500 employees. Numerous Planned Parenthood affiliates self-certified eligibility for PPP loans during the initial wave of loans that were governed by the CARES Act’s size requirement. Many Senators and Representatives asserted that these Planned Parenthood organizations were ineligible because— considered together with their affiliates—they exceeded the maximum eligible size.42 The Trump Administration SBA notified several Planned Parenthood PPP recipients of its preliminary determination of their ineligibility and of SBA’s authority to take various actions against applicants that falsely certified their eligibility.43 To date, despite continued oversight attempts by Members of Congress,44 the SBA has taken no action on the Planned Parenthood loans other than to forgive them, and in 2021, it approved new PPP loans to Planned Parenthood affiliates.45 l Cooperate with ongoing congressional oversight efforts and determine whether SBA has authority to reverse the forgiveness decisions. If it does have that authority, the SBA should reverse the forgiveness decisions for the subject loans, reiterate its preliminary determinations of ineligibility, investigate the matter more thoroughly, and take all appropriate action when its investigation concludes. Regardless of whether it reverses its forgiveness, if its investigation uncovers evidence that Planned Parenthood affiliates or any other loan recipients knowingly misrepresented their eligibility in their applications, the SBA should make appropriate referrals to the Department of Justice. — 754 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Disaster Loan Program and Direct Lending. The SBA’s disaster loan pro- gram provides low-interest loans to personal, business, and nonprofit borrowers following a federally declared disaster. The program suffers from problems of coordination with Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) disas- ter assistance. For example, disaster relief applicants have an incentive to avoid being approved for SBA disaster loans in order to increase the amount of FEMA assistance for which they are eligible. Moreover, the availability of disaster loans reduces individuals’ incentives to purchase disaster-related insurance. More than 90 percent of SBA disaster loans are loans to individuals such as homeowners, not to small businesses. In view of the challenges the SBA has experienced in its administration of this program, as well as the fraud and abuse in the EIDL COVID-19–related program and the IG’s concern that the systemic problems within this lending program undermine the SBA’s work, the next Administration should: l Work with Congress to assess the extent to which disaster loans should be offered by another agency rather than the SBA and explore private-sector channels for administering the loans. l Specify clearly that no new direct lending programs will be developed at the SBA. Eligibility of Religious Entities for SBA Loans. Current SBA regulations46 and SBA Form 197147 make certain religious entities ineligible to participate in several SBA loan programs. The Trump Administration proposed a rule that would remove the provisions on the ground that they violate the First Amendment.48 Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have made their unconstitutionality clearer.49 In an April 3, 2020, letter to Congress pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 530D,50 the Trump Administration SBA advised that two such provisions violate the Free Exer- cise Clause of the First Amendment and that it therefore would not enforce them. On January 19, 2021, the Trump Administration SBA proposed a rule to remove all of the unconstitutional religious exclusions from its regulations.51 The SBA has not acted on the proposed rule. A similar religious exclusion once appeared in the regulation governing eligibil- ity for SBA Business Loan Programs,52 but it was removed in a June 2022 final rule that noted tension with the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent.53 That final rule announced that the SBA would nonetheless continue to make religious eligibility determinations for business loan applicants to comply with putative Establishment Clause requirements,54 but Supreme Court precedent and Office of Legal Counsel memoranda refute the notion that large government-backed loan programs raise any Establishment Clause concerns.55

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. Meeks, Gregory W.

Ukraine Support Act

119/hr/2913

BIS Licensing Efficiency Act of 2026

119/hr/8289

Enhancing Multi-Class Share Disclosures Act

119/hr/3357

Back to All Bills