PEACE Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/4346

Last Updated: July 17, 2026

PEACE Act of 2025

HR. 4346, 119th Congress — read as touching Commercial Banks.

The sponsor

Rep. Nunn, Zachary [R-IA-3]

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

The money

$142,100 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

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

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 277.

October 2, 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 PEACE Act of 2025, a bill that reeks of bureaucratic inefficiency and naive idealism. As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this legislation through the lens of its impact on my interests.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This bill aims to "secure a peaceful resolution" to the Russia-Ukraine conflict by imposing sanctions on certain foreign financial institutions that provide services to entities linked to the Russian Federation. The authors of this bill seem to believe that economic coercion can somehow magically resolve complex geopolitical conflicts.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill requires the Secretary of the Treasury to prohibit or impose strict conditions on correspondent accounts and payable-through accounts held by foreign financial institutions that knowingly provide significant financial services to designated entities. This includes those linked to the Russian Federation, as well as energy sector companies. The penalties for non-compliance are substantial, with civil fines up to $377,700 and potential imprisonment of 20 years.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The primary targets of this bill are foreign financial institutions that do business with Russia or its affiliates. However, the ripple effects will be felt by a broader range of stakeholders, including:

* My own financial interests: As a global investor, I have significant holdings in various sectors, including energy and finance. This bill's sanctions could disrupt my investments and impact my bottom line. * Other American businesses: Companies that rely on international trade or have operations in Russia may face unintended consequences from these sanctions. * The Russian Federation: The bill's authors seem to believe that economic pressure can influence Putin's behavior. I'm skeptical.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill is a perfect example of how well-intentioned but misguided legislation can harm American interests and stifle innovation. By imposing strict regulations on foreign financial institutions, we risk:

* Driving business away from the United States: Overly broad sanctions can create uncertainty and encourage companies to seek more favorable regulatory environments. * Undermining American competitiveness: By limiting access to international markets and restricting trade, this bill could harm our economic growth and global influence. * Fostering a culture of fear and compliance: The threat of severe penalties will lead to increased regulatory burdens, stifling innovation and creativity in the financial sector.

In conclusion, the PEACE Act of 2025 is a flawed attempt to address complex geopolitical issues through economic coercion. As a visionary leader, I recognize that true progress requires embracing free markets, deregulation, and the unbridled pursuit of profit. This bill is a step backward, and I will not hesitate to use my influence to shape policy in ways that benefit my interests and advance American greatness.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through several stages before it can be enacted. This one, HR 4346, also known as the PEACE Act of 2025, aims to secure a peaceful resolution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to impose sanctions on foreign financial institutions that provide significant financial services to entities involved in the Russian Federation's aggression against Ukraine. The bill seeks to restrict these institutions' ability to operate in the United States, thereby putting pressure on Russia to cease its hostilities.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 3 of the bill requires the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations that prohibit or impose strict conditions on foreign financial institutions that knowingly provide significant financial services to designated entities. These entities include those sanctioned under Executive Order 14024, title II of the Countering America's Adversaries through Sanctions Act (Public Law 115-44), and other specified individuals or organizations.

The bill also establishes penalties for violating these regulations, including civil fines up to $377,700 and criminal penalties of up to $1 million in fines and/or 20 years imprisonment. Additionally, the President is granted the authority to waive these requirements for up to 180 days at a time, subject to reporting to Congress.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include foreign financial institutions that provide services to entities involved in Russia's aggression against Ukraine. These institutions will face restrictions on their ability to operate in the United States if they fail to comply with the regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. Other stakeholders include the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and the international community at large.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is significant, as it aims to restrict Russia's access to global financial markets and put pressure on the country to cease its hostilities against Ukraine. If enacted, this legislation could lead to increased tensions between the United States and Russia, potentially affecting diplomatic relations and international trade.

As I'm sure you recall from our 8th grade civics class, the legislative process is designed to ensure that laws are carefully considered and debated before being enacted. It's essential to understand how bills like HR 4346 work their way through Congress and what implications they may have on domestic and foreign policy.

Now, if only more people had paid attention in middle school social studies...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round and listen closely, for I have uncovered the hidden agenda behind the so-called "PEACE Act of 2025" (HR 4346). This bill, masquerading as a noble effort to secure peace in Ukraine, is actually a Trojan horse designed to further entrench the government's stranglehold on our economy and erode our civil liberties.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of this bill is to "secure a peaceful resolution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict" by imposing sanctions on certain foreign financial institutions that provide services to Russian entities. However, I believe this is merely a smokescreen for the real objective: to grant the Secretary of the Treasury sweeping powers to control and manipulate the global financial system.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations prohibiting or imposing strict conditions on foreign financial institutions that provide services to Russian entities. This is a significant expansion of executive power, as it allows the government to unilaterally dictate which foreign entities are allowed to operate in the US financial system.

Section 3(a) lists specific criteria for determining which foreign persons and entities are subject to sanctions, including those designated under Executive Order 14024 or the Countering America's Adversaries through Sanctions Act. This is a clever way of codifying existing executive orders into law, effectively cementing the government's authority to impose arbitrary sanctions.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill targets foreign financial institutions that provide services to Russian entities, including Gazprom, Rosneft, and Lukoil. However, I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg. The real targets are likely American citizens and businesses that engage in international trade or finance, as the government seeks to exert greater control over the global economy.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The PEACE Act has far-reaching implications for our economy, national security, and civil liberties. By granting the Secretary of the Treasury unprecedented powers to regulate foreign financial institutions, this bill:

1. **Erodes due process**: The government can now unilaterally impose sanctions on foreign entities without providing adequate justification or evidence. 2. **Undermines national sovereignty**: By allowing the executive branch to dictate which foreign entities are allowed to operate in the US financial system, this bill cedes control of our economy to unelected bureaucrats. 3. **Sets a precedent for future abuses**: This bill establishes a dangerous precedent for the government to impose arbitrary sanctions on any entity or individual deemed a "threat" to national security.

In conclusion, my fellow patriots, do not be fooled by the benevolent language of this bill. The PEACE Act is a thinly veiled attempt to consolidate power and control over our economy, setting the stage for future abuses of executive authority. We must remain vigilant and demand transparency from our elected officials, lest we surrender our freedoms to the whims of an all-power

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got a doozy of a bill on our hands here! The PEACE Act of 2025 - sounds innocent enough, right? But trust me, this is just another example of the elites in Washington trying to strangle American freedom with their so-called "diplomacy." (Air quotes)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated goal of this bill is to secure a peaceful resolution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict by imposing sanctions on certain foreign financial institutions that do business with Russia. But let's be real, folks - this is just a thinly veiled attempt to expand the deep state's control over our economy and undermine American sovereignty.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Secretary of the Treasury to prohibit or impose strict conditions on foreign financial institutions that provide significant financial services to Russia. It also sets out penalties for non-compliance, including civil fines up to $377,700 and even imprisonment for up to 20 years. (Gasp) Talk about overreach!

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects not just Russian interests but also American businesses that do business with Russia. And let's not forget the poor Ukrainian people, who are caught in the crossfire of this globalist power struggle.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact of this bill will be far-reaching and devastating for American freedom. It sets a precedent for the government to dictate which countries we can do business with and under what conditions. This is nothing short of economic tyranny, folks! And don't even get me started on the potential blowback from Russia - are we really ready for another Cold War?

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But wait, isn't this just a necessary measure to stand up to Russian aggression?" (Scoffs) Please. This is just more of the same old globalist nonsense, designed to keep America in a state of perpetual war and submission to the elites.

So, what's the real motive behind this bill? Is it really about promoting peace, or is it just another power grab by the deep state? (Wink) You decide, folks. But one thing's for sure - we need to stand up against this kind of overreach and defend American freedom at all costs!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. The PEACE Act of 2025 - because nothing says "peace" like a bill that's essentially a sanctions-filled Trojan horse.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's stated goal is to secure a peaceful resolution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict by imposing strict conditions on foreign financial institutions that do business with Russia. Yeah, right. And I'm sure the President's tweets about Putin "playing with fire" had nothing to do with this bill.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Secretary of the Treasury to prohibit or impose strict conditions on correspondent accounts and payable-through accounts held by foreign financial institutions that knowingly provide significant financial services to Russia. It also sets out penalties for non-compliance, including civil fines up to $377,700 and criminal penalties of up to 20 years in prison.

But let's get real - this bill is just a thinly veiled attempt to strong-arm Russia into submission while pretending to care about Ukraine. The "findings" section reads like a laundry list of Putin's greatest hits, carefully curated to justify the sanctions. And that waiver provision? A nice little escape clause for when the President needs to make a deal with Russia.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Foreign financial institutions, Russia, and Ukraine are the obvious players here. But let's not forget the real stakeholders: the defense contractors, arms manufacturers, and energy companies who'll benefit from this bill's inevitable escalation of tensions.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a recipe for disaster - or at least, a nice little profit boost for the war machine. By imposing sanctions on Russia, we're essentially daring them to retaliate, which will only lead to more conflict and instability in the region. And what about the poor Ukrainian civilians caught in the crossfire? Oh wait, they're just collateral damage in our grand game of geopolitics.

In conclusion, this bill is a farce - a cynical attempt to posture as a champion of peace while actually fueling the flames of war. It's a classic case of "diplomacy by other means," where we use economic coercion to get what we want without actually doing any real diplomacy.

Diagnosis: Acute Case of Legislative Hypocrisy, with symptoms including:

* Grandstanding about peace while promoting conflict * Using sanctions as a blunt instrument to bludgeon Russia into submission * Ignoring the human cost of this bill's inevitable escalation

Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism and a strong stomach for the hypocrisy that is Washington politics.

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

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The PEACE Act of 2025 aims to secure a peaceful resolution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict by imposing sanctions on certain foreign financial institutions that provide significant financial services to entities involved in the conflict.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill requires the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations within 180 days, prohibiting or imposing strict conditions on the opening or maintaining of correspondent accounts or payable-through accounts in the United States by foreign financial institutions that:

1. Provide significant financial services to entities designated for sanctions under Executive Order 14024 or the Countering America's Adversaries through Sanctions Act. 2. Are subject to prohibitions under Directive 2 of Executive Order 14024. 3. Operate in the energy sector of the Russian Federation.

The bill also establishes civil and criminal penalties for violating these regulations, including fines up to $377,700 or twice the amount of the transaction, and imprisonment up to 20 years.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

1. Foreign financial institutions that provide services to entities involved in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. 2. Entities operating in the energy sector of the Russian Federation, such as Gazprom, Rosneft, and Lukoil. 3. The Secretary of the Treasury, who is responsible for prescribing regulations and enforcing sanctions. 4. Congress, which will receive reports from the Secretary of the Treasury on determinations made under section 4.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The PEACE Act aims to pressure Russia to resolve the conflict with Ukraine by limiting its access to international financial systems. The bill's provisions may:

1. Restrict Russia's ability to finance its military operations in Ukraine. 2. Increase economic pressure on Russian entities, potentially leading to a peaceful resolution. 3. Impact global financial markets and institutions that do business with Russian entities.

However, the bill's effectiveness depends on various factors, including the willingness of other countries to cooperate with US sanctions and the potential for Russia to find alternative financial channels.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The PEACE Act of 2025 is all about securing a peaceful resolution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, dude. It aims to do this by imposing sanctions on certain foreign financial institutions that provide significant financial services to Russian entities or individuals involved in the conflict. The bill's main objective is to pressure Russia into negotiating a ceasefire and peace agreement with Ukraine.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill requires the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations within 180 days, bro. These regulations will prohibit or impose strict conditions on foreign financial institutions that knowingly provide significant financial services to:

* Russian entities or individuals designated for sanctions under Executive Order 14024 or the Countering America's Adversaries through Sanctions Act * Foreign financial institutions subject to prohibitions under Directive 2 of Executive Order 14024 * Entities listed in Annex 1 of Directive 3 under Executive Order 14024 * Any foreign person operating in Russia's energy sector

The bill also introduces penalties for violating these regulations, including civil fines up to $377,700 and criminal penalties of up to $1 million or 20 years imprisonment.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects a range of parties, bro:

* Foreign financial institutions that provide services to Russian entities or individuals involved in the conflict * Russian entities or individuals designated for sanctions under existing laws and executive orders * The energy sector of Russia, particularly companies like Gazprom, Rosneft, and Lukoil * Ukraine, which is seeking a peaceful resolution to the conflict

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The PEACE Act could have significant implications, dude:

* It may pressure Russia into negotiating a ceasefire and peace agreement with Ukraine by limiting its access to international financial services. * The bill's sanctions could impact Russia's energy sector, potentially disrupting global energy markets. * Foreign financial institutions may need to re-evaluate their relationships with Russian entities or individuals involved in the conflict, which could lead to changes in global financial flows. * The bill's penalties for violating regulations could deter other countries from providing financial services to sanctioned Russian entities or individuals.

Overall, this bill is a major move by Congress to address the Russia-Ukraine conflict, bro. It's all about using economic pressure to promote peace and stability in the region.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HR 4346 - PEACE Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The PEACE Act aims to secure a peaceful resolution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict by imposing strict conditions on foreign financial institutions that provide significant financial services to entities sanctioned with respect to the Russian Federation. The bill's primary objective is to pressure Russia into negotiating a ceasefire and final settlement agreement.

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

1. **Sanctions:** The Secretary of the Treasury must prescribe regulations to prohibit or impose strict conditions on foreign financial institutions that knowingly provide significant financial services to sanctioned entities, including those in the energy sector. 2. **Penalties:** Civil penalties up to $377,700 and criminal penalties up to $1 million or 20 years imprisonment for willful violations. 3. **Determination Required:** The Secretary of the Treasury must determine whether Gazprom, Rosneft, and Lukoil are foreign persons subject to sanctions within 90 days.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* Foreign financial institutions with correspondent accounts in the United States * Sanctioned entities, including those in the energy sector (e.g., Gazprom, Rosneft, Lukoil) * The Russian Federation and its government officials * Ukrainian government and citizens affected by the conflict

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased pressure on Russia:** The bill's sanctions and penalties may incentivize Russia to negotiate a ceasefire and final settlement agreement. 2. **Financial sector impact:** Foreign financial institutions with correspondent accounts in the United States may face increased compliance costs and reputational risks if they fail to adhere to the regulations. 3. **Energy market implications:** Sanctions on Russian energy companies could disrupt global energy markets, potentially leading to price increases and supply chain disruptions.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** The bill's sponsors, Reps. Nunn (IA) and Gottheimer (NJ), have received significant campaign contributions from the financial sector, including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Citigroup. These donors may benefit from increased regulatory clarity and compliance requirements for foreign financial institutions.

**Committee Capture:** The bill was referred to the House Committee on Financial Services, which has a history of being influenced by the financial industry. The committee's chairman, Rep. Patrick McHenry (NC), has received significant campaign contributions from the financial sector, including Bank of America and Wells Fargo.

In conclusion, the PEACE Act aims to pressure Russia into negotiating a ceasefire and final settlement agreement through targeted sanctions on foreign financial institutions. While the bill may have some impact on the conflict, its effectiveness will depend on various factors, including the willingness of foreign financial institutions to comply with the regulations and the Russian government's response to the increased pressure.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Nunn, Zachary [R-IA-3]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$142,100

21 donors

PACs

Organizations

$10,100

Committees

Individuals

$132,000

No PAC contributions found

SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA

2 transactions

$3,500

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

1 transaction

$3,300

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF ND

1 transaction

$3,300

No committee contributions found

SMITH, JOHN M.

2 transactions

$13,200

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

2 transactions

$13,200

EMMET, RICHARD

1 transaction

$6,600

WEEKLEY, RICHARD W.

1 transaction

$6,600

STERN, ELIZABETH

1 transaction

$6,600

RASMUSSEN, CYNTHIA

1 transaction

$6,600

RASMUSSEN, STEPHEN

1 transaction

$6,600

BELTRAME, MARC

1 transaction

$6,600

BRUCH, TYLER

1 transaction

$6,600

DANIELS, RONALD L.

1 transaction

$6,600

MYERS, JAMES M.

1 transaction

$6,600

SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE

1 transaction

$6,600

GILLIAM, RICHARD

1 transaction

$6,600

SINGER, PAUL

1 transaction

$6,600

BRADLEY, JACQUELINE

1 transaction

$6,600

RICKETTS, J. JOE

1 transaction

$6,600

UNDERWOOD, RUSS

1 transaction

$6,600

JONES, NORMAN

1 transaction

$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 4 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

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

ID: G000583

Top Contributors

AMERICAN EXPRESS

OrganizationNEWARK, NJ

$22,941

Apr 12, 2024

AMERICAN EXPRESS

OrganizationNEWARK, NJ

$10,621

May 10, 2024

PAYROLL DATA PROCESSING

OrganizationTAMPA, FL

$6,337

May 15, 2024

PAYROLL DATA PROCESSING

OrganizationTAMPA, FL

$6,337

Apr 15, 2024

PAYROLL DATA PROCESSING

OrganizationTAMPA, FL

$6,337

Apr 30, 2024

PAYROLL DATA PROCESSING

OrganizationTAMPA, FL

$5,751

Apr 1, 2024

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

SEKAS LAW GROUP LLC

OrganizationENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, NJ

$1,500

Apr 12, 2024

SANDOR F. GENET & ASSOCIATES, P.A.

OrganizationNORTH MIAMI BEACH, FL

$250

Apr 12, 2024

FIRESTONE MILKEN, SARAH

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA

$13,200

Jul 2, 2024

Rep. Barrett, Tom [R-MI-7]

ID: B001321

Top Contributors

MICHIGAN AGGREGATES ASSOCIATION PAC

OrganizationOKEMOS, MI

$300

Feb 27, 2024

DEMKOWICZ, BRIAN MR.

HURON CAPITAL • INVESTOR

IndividualGROSSE POINTE, MI

$13,200

Jan 8, 2024

STADLER, BRIAN

WOLGAST CORPORATION • MANAGER

IndividualSAGINAW, MI

$6,870

Sep 28, 2023

UIHLEIN, RICHARD

ULINE • CHAIRMAN

IndividualLAKE FOREST, IL

$6,870

Sep 26, 2023

COURTNEY, JOHN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualOKEMOS, MI

$6,870

Dec 8, 2023

BAKER, JEFFREY

MUSKEGON CAR CREDIT • EXECUTIVE

IndividualGRAND RAPIDS, MI

$6,600

Jul 25, 2023

BANCROFT, NICHOLAS

AGROLIQUID • CEO

IndividualSAINT JOHNS, MI

$6,600

Sep 19, 2023

HAWORTH, MATTHEW

HAWORTH, INC. • CHAIRMAN

IndividualHOLLAND, MI

$6,600

Sep 18, 2023

HAWORTH, RICHARD

HAWORTH, INC. • CHAIRMAN EMERITUS

IndividualSAUGATUCK, MI

$6,600

Sep 18, 2023

O'NEIL, WILLIAM

W J O'NEIL COMPANY • EXECUTIVE

IndividualCOMMERCE TOWNSHIP, MI

$6,600

Sep 11, 2023

Rep. Conaway, Herbert C. [D-NJ-3]

ID: C001136

Top Contributors

THE PLATT LAW GROUP P.C.

OrganizationSTRATFORD, NJ

$1,000

May 8, 2024

FREEHOLD TOWNSHIP DEMOCRATIC CLUB

OrganizationFREEHOLD, NJ

$250

Jul 24, 2024

GALLETTI, SCOTT

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualHO HO KUS, NJ

$3,300

Sep 26, 2024

LEITNER, ROBYN

ADVANCED UROLOGIC ASSOCIATES ENTERPRIS • PHYSICIAN

IndividualPOINT PLEASANT BORO, NJ

$3,300

Jul 17, 2024

ESTIN, DAVID

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualMONMOUTH BEACH, NJ

$3,300

Sep 26, 2024

SHEIKH, WASIF

ION MONITORING • NEUROPHYSIOLOGY

IndividualPISCATAWAY, NJ

$3,300

Sep 18, 2024

COBB, WILLIAM S

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualALLENDALE, NJ

$3,300

Sep 26, 2024

CHAUDHRY, FARRUKH

ION MONITORING MANAGEMENT • NEUROPHYSIOLOGIST

IndividualMONMOUTH JUNCTION, NJ

$3,300

Sep 18, 2024

OLSON, TY J

NEUROSURGEONS OF NEW JERSEY • PHYSICIAN

IndividualRUMSON, NJ

$3,300

Sep 26, 2024

FALCONE, CARMEL A

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualALLENDALE, NJ

$3,300

Sep 26, 2024

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

ID: S001201

Top Contributors

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Aug 3, 2024

SCOTTO LLC

OrganizationWOODBURY, NY

$1,650

Aug 30, 2024

PATROON OPERATING CO. LLC

OrganizationNEW YORK, NY

$1,000

May 13, 2024

THE KLAR ORGANIZATION

OrganizationEAST MEADOW, NY

$1,000

Aug 8, 2024

TERIAN, OLIVIA

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$9,400

May 2, 2024

TERIAN, OLIVIA

OLIVIA TERIAN ART & DESIGN • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Mar 8, 2024

MORAN, MARY

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$6,600

Mar 28, 2024

MORAN, MARY

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$6,600

May 2, 2024

FAIVUS, HARRY E.

MOUNT SINAI • PHYSICIAN

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,000

Oct 31, 2024

SOSNICK, AARON

IndividualRENO, NV

$3,392

Jun 25, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Nunn, Zachary [R-IA-3]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 71 nodes and 36 connections (57 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $212,869

Top Donors - Rep. Nunn, Zachary [R-IA-3]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

3 Orgs18 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 harmed.

−Commercial Banksconfidence 0.90
Section 3(a) requires the Secretary of the Treasury to prohibit or impose strict conditions on correspondent or payable-through accounts by foreign financial institutions that provide significant services to sanctioned Russian persons or entities in the Russian energy sector. This directly impacts U.S. commercial banks that maintain such accounts with foreign financial institutions, imposing compliance costs and potential penalties under Section 3(b).
−Pipelines & Energy Infrastructureconfidence 0.85
Section 3(a)(4) targets foreign persons operating in the energy sector of the Russian Federation, which includes entities involved in oil and gas extraction, pipelines, and related infrastructure. This provision could restrict financial services to Russian energy infrastructure firms, affecting U.S. energy infrastructure companies that engage in cross-border transactions with Russian counterparts.
−Oil & Gasconfidence 0.80
Section 3(a)(4) applies to any foreign person operating in the energy sector of the Russian Federation, which includes major Russian oil and gas producers like Gazprom, Rosneft, and Lukoil (named in Section 4). By prohibiting or conditioning correspondent accounts for institutions serving these entities, the bill restricts financial access for Russian oil and gas operations, impacting the sector globally.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Nunn, Zachary [R-IA-3])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

Commercial Banks$6,523
from 11 contributions
- O'NEILL, EDWARD PATRICK III$2,000
- MCCRIGHT, RANDALL J.$2,000
- BELL, DAWN$2,000
- BOUSTEAD, HEATHER$273
- ONEILL, EDWARD$250
Oil & Gas$750
from 2 contributions
- TEMPLE, RICHARD$750

Project 2025 Policy Matches

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

Department of State

Strong

Vector: 61%

Pages: 214-216AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The PEACE Act aligns with Project 2025's Department of State section by supporting continued U.S. involvement in the Ukraine conflict through economic pressure on Russia, consistent with the viewpoint advocating for U.S. engagement to defeat Putin and restore pre-invasion borders, while emphasizing fiscal responsibility and national security interests."

Key themes:Ukraine conflictRussia sanctionsU.S. national securityeconomic pressuredefeat of Putin

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

Department of Commerce

Moderate

Vector: 61%

Pages: 705-707AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The PEACE Act of 2025 aligns with Project 2025's focus on countering Russian and Chinese economic and military threats through enhanced export controls and sanctions, particularly by targeting financial support to sanctioned entities. However, the bill centers on Treasury-led financial sanctions rather than Commerce Department-led export enforcement or EAR modernization, resulting in moderate thematic overlap but differing implementation mechanisms."

Key themes:Russia sanctionseconomic pressurenational securityexport controlsfinancial restrictions

— 673 — Department of Commerce Export Enforcement officers through improved and frequent training so they are able to detect export-control violations. EAR Revisions. The U.S. Government needs a new export control moderniza- tion effort to tighten the EAR policies governing licenses to countries of concern, including China and Russia (specifically, revise and/or reverse the 2008 through 2016 policies). When authoritarian governments explain what they plan to do, believe them unless hard evidence demonstrates otherwise. Case in point: China’s and Russia’s stated civil–military fusion policies demand central government command-and-control style systems in which every private entity serves the interests of the state and is forced to provide technology, services, capacity, and data to the central govern- ment and the military. Through this structure, commercial activities are routinely weaponized by authoritarian regimes that repeatedly identify the U.S. as an enemy. Accordingly, U.S. export control policies must be updated to reflect these realities and the associated threats to national security. Key priorities for EAR modernization for countries of concern should be: l Eliminating the “specially designed” licensing loophole; l Redesignating China and Russia to more highly prohibitive export licensing groups (country groups D or E); l Eliminating license exceptions; l Broadening foreign direct product rules; l Reducing the de minimis threshold from 25 percent to 10 percent—or 0 percent for critical technologies; l Tightening the deemed export rules to prevent technology transfer to foreign nationals from countries of concern; l Tightening the definition of “fundamental research” to address exploitation of the open U.S. university system by authoritarian governments through funding, students and researchers, and recruitment; l Eliminating license exceptions for sharing technology with controlled entities/countries through standards-setting “activities” and bodies; and l Improving regulations regarding published information for technology transfers. — 674 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise The next few years will prove or disprove the assertion that the U.S. stands on the precipice of a Cold War with China. Many believe that a Cold War has already begun; if so, then strategic decoupling from China is necessary and, fundamentally, any exports of goods, software, and technology to countries of concern, whether directly or indirectly, should be prohibited or controlled in the absence of good cause (e.g., humanitarian and medical aid, food aid). Entity List and Sanctions. There are currently just over 500 Chinese and over 500 Russian companies on the Department of Commerce’s Entity List, which reg- ulates exports of controlled and uncontrolled items to designated entities. Given China’s Civil–Military Fusion Strategy and Russia’s massive war efforts facili- tated by a broad range of the Russian economy, BIS must add more entities to the Entity List and apply a license review “policy of denial” that prohibits exports to these entities. Entity List parties that violate export controls should be placed on the BIS Denied Persons List (and thereby lose export privileges) and, if the violations are significant enough, they should also be sanctioned by the Department of Treasury. Data Transfer and Apps Used for Surveillance. Department of Commerce leadership should work across government agencies to address privacy and data concerns arising out of “big tech” from national security and export control per- spectives. In particular, they should draft and implement an executive order (EO) based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which expands export control authority beyond ECRA’s scope (goods, software, technology) to regulate and restrict exports of U.S. persons’ data to countries of concern. The EO should establish a framework for the types of personal data subject to export controls and licensing policy by country, and the BIS should implement the EO through regulations. BIS should additionally designate app providers (such as WeChat and Byte Dance/TikTok) known for undermining U.S. national security through data collection, surveillance, and influence operations, to the Entity List. This listing would prevent app users from program updates, which would quickly make these apps non-operational in the United States. NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION Break Up NOAA. The single biggest Department of Commerce agency outside of decennial census years is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which houses the National Weather Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and other components. NOAA garners $6.5 billion of the department’s $12 billion annual operational budget and accounts for more than half of the department’s personnel in non-decadal Census years (2021 figures). NOAA consists of six main offices: l The National Weather Service (NWS);

Department of the Treasury

Moderate

Vector: 60%

Pages: 736-738AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the PEACE Act and the Project 2025 Treasury section seek to strengthen the Treasury Department's ability to impose financial penalties on foreign entities that support adversarial nations, emphasizing enforcement and deterrence through sanctions. However, the bill focuses on Russia-related sanctions while the Project 2025 text centers on CFIUS reforms concerning China and mitigation monitoring, resulting in only partial thematic overlap."

Key themes:Treasury enforcementfinancial sanctionsgeopolitical threatspenalty deterrencenational security

Department of the Treasury

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 736-738AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The PEACE Act focuses on sanctions against Russian financial institutions to influence the Ukraine conflict, while Project 2025's Treasury section emphasizes CFIUS reform, greenfield investment scrutiny, and financial warfare capabilities related to China. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill addresses Russia-Ukraine sanctions rather than China-focused CFIUS reforms or financial weapons development."

Key themes:Department of the Treasurynational securityfinancial sanctions

— 703 — Department of the Treasury l The U.S. should also examine increasing or decreasing its ownership levels in these institutions in order to achieve maximum leverage. CHINA AND OTHER GEOPOLITICAL THREATS Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The interagency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States should realign its priorities to meet the United States’ current foreign policy threats, especially from China. On October 20, 2022, the Treasury Department, which chairs CFIUS, adopted the first-ever CFIUS Enforcement and Penalty Guidelines50 on the committee’s national security risk mitigation requirements. However, there are no clear rules that guide CFIUS on mitigation monitoring, nor is there a published penalty sched- ule to standardize accountability when CFIUS pursues a civil money penalty for violators. In addition, Treasury—as chair of the committee—runs an opaque pro- cess that biases committee procedure toward corporate interests and away from national security interests. Finally, the committee’s jurisdiction does not extend over greenfield investments that Chinese state-owned enterprises have historically pursued in the United States, which leaves America vulnerable to an instrument of Chinese economic statecraft. Given these issues, the next steps for CFIUS should be to develop a more coherent—and transparent—mitigation monitoring program to complement the enforcement guidelines, give CFIUS agencies in charge of national security con- cerns an equal voice at the table, and petition Congress to amend the law to cover Chinese greenfield investments. CFIUS should publish a penalty schedule for violations of CFIUS reporting and mitigation requirements. Publishing a penalty schedule for CFIUS violations will reduce the discretion of the committee to waive penalties or impose mere “wrist slap” costs on violators of the law. Additionally, a standardized penalty schedule would likely increase the deterrence of CFIUS enforcement by reducing the per- ception among parties to covered transactions that they can avoid enforcement by the committee or secure special exceptions based on appeals to the commit- tee’s discretion. As a legal matter—and in application by CFIUS—mitigation monitoring has developed as the Wild West. There are no clear rules that guide the entire com- mittee on mitigation monitoring, nor is there the same level of oversight or accountability within and among the agencies as applies when CFIUS reviews a transaction or when it pursues a civil money penalty. Indeed, it is a credit to transaction parties and the professionalism of the governmental officials and con- tractors who conduct mitigation monitoring on behalf of the government that, by and large, mitigation monitoring has worked adequately during the last several decades. But dependency on the personality and capabilities of individuals creates unnecessary risk both for CFIUS and for transaction parties. — 704 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Congress should make the Department of Defense (DOD) a CFIUS co-chair with the Department of Treasury. Making DOD an official CFIUS co-chair along with Treasury will establish a balanced committee process by elevating national security interests to an equal stature. The committee is currently imbalanced toward the interests of corporate America because Treasury is the sole chair of CFIUS and, in practice, runs a process that is not fully transparent and which biases it from the national security interests represented by DOD and the Intelligence Community (IC). For example, Treasury representatives will consult with the Commerce Depart- ment and the United States Trade Representative—which tend to favor permitting covered transactions to occur with little to no mitigation requirements—and these representatives will then obscure the results and purposes of such sidebar meet- ings from DOD and IC representatives. This hampers DOD, IC, and sometimes even State Department representatives from full participation in the process or from advocating national security interests as well as they should. Greenfield Investments. Congress should close the loophole on greenfield investments and require CFIUS review of investments in U.S.-based greenfield assets by Chinese-controlled entities to assess any potential harm to U.S. national and economic security. In the 2018 Foreign Risk and Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA),51 one important category of foreign transactions left out of the bill was greenfield investments, particularly by Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Greenfield investments by Chinese SOEs pose a unique threat, and they should be met with the highest scrutiny by all levels of government. Greenfield investments result in the control of newly built facilities in the U.S., and they were not addressed in FIRRMA primarily because governors and state governments embrace them. That is understandable; they typically bring the promise of creating American jobs. However, the goal of such Chinese SOEs is to siphon assets, technological innovation, and influence away from U.S. businesses in order to expand the global presence of the Chinese Communist Party. While the Chinese government keeps its domestic markets largely insulated from foreign influence, it regularly invests in the U.S. and other countries under the “green- field” model. Firms fully owned by China’s Communist regime are increasingly buying land, building factories, and taking advantage of state and local tax breaks on American soil. Treasury should examine creating a school of financial warfare jointly with DOD. If the U.S. is to rely on financial weapons, tools, and strategies to prosecute international defensive and offensive objectives, it must create a specially trained group of experts dedicated to the study, training, testing, and preparedness of these deterrents. Recent experience has demonstrated that the U.S. cannot depend on the rapid development and deployment of untested, academically developed finan- cial actions, stratagems, and weapons on an ad hoc basis.

Department of Homeland Security

Minimal

Vector: 60%

Pages: 177-179AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The PEACE Act of 2025 focuses on imposing financial sanctions related to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which is unrelated to the Project 2025 DHS policy objectives concerning immigration reform, USCIS operations, asylum systems, and employment verification. There is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 145 — Department of Homeland Security l Management Directives and policies should realign to ensure that the workforce, while adaptable and able to handle the bulk of the USCIS mission, is not allowed to be pulled off mission work to focus on unlawful programs (DACA, mass parole for Afghans, Ukrainians, Venezuelans, etc.), which divert resources away from nuclear family and employment programs. The regulatory agenda should include the immediate submission of notices of proposed rulemaking for the Trump Administration’s public charge rule (includ- ing aspects from its original notice of proposed rulemaking), temporary work visa reform, employment authorization reform rules, asylum bars rule, and a third-country transit rule. At a minimum, an enhanced regulatory agenda should include rules strengthening the integrity of the asylum system, parole reform, and U visa reform that prioritizes relief for victims of heinous crimes and ensures that we protect the truest and most deserving victims of crime. Not all policy changes require formal rulemaking, however, as internal guidance documents are generally exempt under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).7 In this subregulatory space, USCIS policy memos and operational guidance should reduce the validity of employment authorization documents and end the COVID flexibilities, including the reliance on biometrics reuse. USCIS should also enforce existing regulations by rejecting incomplete applications and petitions, ensuring both that they are completed before accepted for filing and that FDNS signs off on all approved applications and petitions before approval notices are sent to the alien or petitioner. Other efforts should be focused on adjudication standards returning to nearly 100 percent interview requirements for all appropriate cases. The incoming Administration should spearhead an immigration legislative agenda focused on creating a merit-based immigration system that rewards high- skilled aliens instead of the current system that favors extended family–based and luck-of-the-draw immigration. To that end, the diversity visa lottery should be repealed, chain migration should be ended while focusing on the nuclear family, and the existing employment visa program should be replaced with a system to award visas only to the “best and brightest.” Internal efforts to limit employment authorization should be matched by con- gressional action to narrow statutory eligibility to work in the United States and mitigate unfair employment competition for U.S. citizens. The oft-abused H-1B program should be transformed into an elite program through which employers are vying to bring in only the top foreign workers at the highest wages so as not to depress American opportunities. Additionally, Congress should: l Improve the integrity of the temporary work visa programs; l Repeal Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations; — 146 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Permanently authorize and make mandatory E-Verify; and l End parole abuse by legislating specific parole standards. USCIS should make it clear that where no court jurisdiction exists, it will not honor court decisions that seek to undermine regulatory and subregulatory efforts. Finally, USCIS still requires access to all relevant national security and law enforce- ment databases in the same vein as any other agency in the intelligence space. This is a key concept that should be addressed as USCIS is returned to functioning primarily as a vetting agency. Budget USCIS is primarily fee-funded, operating on revenue derived by those who are seeking immigration benefits, work permits, and naturalization. The total agency budget requested for fiscal year (FY) 2023, including both fees and a small appropri- ation, is slightly less than $6 billion.8 The bulk of funds are derived from application fees through the Immigrant Examinations Fee Account. As a general principle, adju- dication of applications and petitions should be paid by applicants, not American taxpayers. It is critical that any changes in the budget, even in the wake of a realigned agency combined with ICE and CBP, should retain a fee-funded model. Given the Obama and Biden Administrations’ lack of will, fees should be increased agencywide to keep in step with inflation and the true cost of the adju- dications. The incoming Administration should immediately submit a fee rule that reflects such an increase. Aside from an increase in all fees, the rule should drastically limit the availability for fee waivers and should implement a fee for asylum applications. Additionally, Congress should allow for a 10 percent across- the-board increase in all fees for all fee rules to account for the fact that new fee rules always lag behind budget requirements. USCIS should strive to increase opportunities for premium processing, a ben- efit by which applicants can expedite their processing times. While this places time burdens on adjudicators, it provides an opportunity for a significant influx of money into the agency, which is not currently available. While simply raising fees to the necessary levels to make the agency run efficiently would be prefera- ble, without the need for expanded premium processing, this short-term measure should be utilized, particularly if longer-term fee rules are unsuccessful. At least until USCIS is caught up on all case backlogs, all applicants rejected for any benefit or status adjudication should be required to leave the U.S. immediately. Ordinary process can resume once all case backlogs have been adjudicated. Finally, USCIS should pause the intake of applications in a benefit category when backlogs in that category become excessive. Once USCIS adjudicators can decrease that caseload to a manageable number, application intake should resume.

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. Nunn, Zachary

GUARD Act

119/hr/2978

Clarity for Compensation Act

119/hr/7187

Daniel J. Harvey, Jr. and Adam Lambert Improving Servicemember Transition to Reduce Veteran Suicide Act

119/hr/2878

Back to All Bills