PARTNER Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/4490
Last Updated: September 6, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Castro, Joaquin [D-TX-20]

ID: C001091

Follow the money

The bill

PARTNER Act

HR. 4490, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Rep. Castro, Joaquin [D-TX-20]

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

The money

$69,700 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of State" section, p. 223-225 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

September 2, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

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

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. The PARTNER Act (HR 4490) - a bill so cleverly named, it's almost as if they're trying to make us believe it's actually about "partnering" with international organizations. Please.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to extend privileges and immunities to a handful of international organizations, because, you know, they just can't get enough of that sweet, sweet diplomatic immunity. The objectives are twofold: (1) to further entrench the United States in the web of international bureaucracy, and (2) to provide a convenient excuse for Congress to pretend like they're doing something meaningful.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the International Organizations Immunities Act to grant privileges and immunities to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), the Pacific Islands Forum, the Caribbean Community, and the African Union. Because, clearly, these organizations were just missing that one crucial element: immunity from prosecution.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include the aforementioned international organizations, their employees, and anyone who's ever had to deal with the bureaucratic red tape of diplomatic immunity. The stakeholders are, of course, the politicians who get to tout this bill as a "major achievement" in their re-election campaigns.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact is minimal, but the implications are deliciously cynical. By extending privileges and immunities to these organizations, Congress is essentially saying, "Hey, we trust you guys so much that we're willing to let you operate outside of our laws." It's a classic case of "diplomatic immunity as a get-out-of-jail-free card."

In reality, this bill is just another example of the United States' continued descent into the quagmire of international bureaucracy. It's a symptom of a deeper disease: the inability of politicians to make tough decisions and take responsibility for their actions.

So, let's all just take a moment to appreciate the sheer audacity of this bill. I mean, who needs accountability when you can just grant immunity to your favorite international organizations? Bravo, Congress. You've done it again.

Related Topics

International Treaties & AgreementsForeign Aid & Diplomacy
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Castro, Joaquin [D-TX-20]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$69,700
20 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$2,000
Committees
$0
Individuals
$67,700

No PAC contributions found

1
CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA
1 transaction
$1,000
2
ALABAMA COUSHATTA TRIBE
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
PARKER, ALEXANDRA
2 transactions
$6,600
2
PARKER, SEAN
2 transactions
$6,600
3
QUINONES, KARLA
1 transaction
$5,000
4
SNEIDER, ARTURO
1 transaction
$3,300
5
RAMIREZ, DANIEL N.
1 transaction
$3,300
6
SILBEY, ALEX
1 transaction
$3,300
7
GARZA, JOSE
1 transaction
$3,300
8
HARTMAN, GORDON V.
1 transaction
$3,300
9
GUERRA, HERIBERTO
1 transaction
$3,300
10
VALDEZ, ANA
1 transaction
$3,300
11
DURAN, ALBERTO
1 transaction
$3,300
12
DE LA ROSA, ASHLEY
1 transaction
$3,300
13
CANTU, ALONZO
1 transaction
$3,300
14
MANGI, SALIL
1 transaction
$3,300
15
ABREGO, CRISTOBAL
1 transaction
$3,300
16
BASTON, EVA
1 transaction
$3,300
17
DIAZ, RIGO III
1 transaction
$3,300
18
HAUBEGGER, CHRISTY
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 8 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

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

ID: K000397

Top Contributors

39

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

Rep. Olszewski, Johnny [D-MD-2]

ID: O000176

Top Contributors

25

1
CAPITOL STRATEGIES LLC
OrganizationANNAPOLIS, MD
$3,300
Aug 11, 2023
2
F L & M CORPORATION
OrganizationBALTIMORE, MD
$600
Jul 28, 2024
3
F L & M CORPORATION
OrganizationBALTIMORE, MD
$600
Jul 10, 2024
4
JONES JUNCTION, INC.
OrganizationBEL AIR, MD
$500
Mar 29, 2024
5
JONES JUNCTION, INC.
OrganizationBEL AIR, MD
$500
Mar 31, 2024
6
BURTON, ALICE L.
BURTON POLICY CONSULTING LLC • OTHER
IndividualOWINGS MILLS, MD
$4,000
Mar 19, 2024
7
BERNDT, RICHARD O.
GALLAGHER EVELIUS & JONES LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualBALTIMORE, MD
$3,300
Sep 26, 2024
8
SIDH, SUSHANT
CAPITOL STRATEGIES • CONSULTING
IndividualANNAPOLIS, MD
$3,300
Aug 28, 2024
9
DAVIS, JAMES C
REDWOOD CAPITAL • ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENT
IndividualHANOVER, MD
$3,300
Jul 2, 2024
10
GILL, GARY T.
MACKENZIE VENTURES • CEO
IndividualLUTHERVILLE, MD
$3,300
Jul 30, 2024

Rep. Johnson, Dusty [R-SD-At Large]

ID: J000301

Top Contributors

53

1
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$3,300
Oct 31, 2023
2
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Mar 31, 2023
3
CONFEDERATED TRIBES COLVILLE RESERVATION
OrganizationNESPELEM, WA
$3,300
Mar 31, 2024
4
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Mar 31, 2024
5
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$3,300
Jun 24, 2024
6
MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationMIAMI, OK
$3,000
Mar 7, 2024
7
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
OrganizationTACOMA, WA
$2,900
Jun 15, 2023
8
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$2,300
Mar 7, 2024
9
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, SC
$2,000
Dec 28, 2023
10
SISSETON-WAHPETON OYATE
OrganizationAGENCY VILLAGE, SD
$2,000
Jan 5, 2023

Rep. Case, Ed [D-HI-1]

ID: C001055

Top Contributors

29

1
CHUGACH ALASKA CORPORATION PAC (CAC PAC)
PACANCHORAGE, AK
$5,000
Feb 8, 2024
2
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Jan 16, 2024
3
TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LOUISIANA
OrganizationMANSURA, LA
$2,500
Mar 29, 2024
4
CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$1,000
Nov 6, 2023
5
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$1,000
Jun 17, 2024
6
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$1,000
Jun 30, 2024
7
CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$1,000
Sep 28, 2023
8
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$1,000
Sep 30, 2023
9
SAMISH TYEE
OrganizationANACORTES, WA
$1,000
Aug 22, 2023
10
LOUI, STEVEN
PACIFIC MARINE AND SUPPLY COMP • CHAIRMAN
IndividualHONOLULU, HI
$5,000
Mar 22, 2024

Del. Radewagen, Aumua Amata Coleman [R-AS-At Large]

ID: R000600

Top Contributors

0

No contribution data available

Rep. Foster, Bill [D-IL-11]

ID: F000454

Top Contributors

24

1
OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationRED ROCK, OK
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024
2
HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE TRIBE
OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA
$3,300
May 24, 2023
3
OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationRED ROCK, OK
$3,300
May 24, 2023
4
TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA
OrganizationBELCOURT, ND
$3,300
May 24, 2023
5
SIVANANTHAN, SIVALINGAM
SIVANANTHAN LABORATORIES • PRESIDENT
IndividualNAPERVILLE, IL
$3,300
Nov 4, 2024
6
TULLMAN, GLEN
TRANSCARENT • CEO
IndividualCHICAGO, IL
$3,300
Oct 17, 2024
7
MCINTOSH, WILLIAM A.
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualKENILWORTH, IL
$3,300
Oct 29, 2024
8
STOWELL, MARY
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualWINNETKA, IL
$3,300
Oct 31, 2024
9
KHOSLA, NEERU
CK-12 FOUNDATION • EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
IndividualPORTOLA VALLEY, CA
$3,300
Oct 21, 2024
10
MORRISON, KATE B.
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualCHICAGO, IL
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024

Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick, Sheila [D-FL-20]

ID: C001127

Top Contributors

23

1
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$500
Nov 4, 2024
2
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA
OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL
$3,300
Aug 20, 2024
3
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA
OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL
$3,300
Sep 8, 2023
4
FIGGERS, FREDDIE
FIGGERS • INVENTOR
IndividualFORT LAUDERDALE, FL
$6,600
Jun 8, 2023
5
FIGGERS, FREDDIE
IndividualFORT LAUDERDALE, FL
$6,600
Sep 25, 2023
6
MOISE, RUDOLPH
IndividualDAVIE, FL
$3,300
Oct 7, 2024
7
GEORGE, DAVID J.
REFUEL DEPOT LLC • SALES
IndividualLEADWOOD, KS
$3,300
Sep 27, 2024
8
GOLDEN, SYLVIA
NONE • RETIRED
IndividualWEST PALM BEACH, FL
$3,300
Aug 18, 2024
9
GORI, PHILIP
SELF • INVESTOR
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$3,300
Sep 16, 2024
10
MUELLER, KYLE
ZUTEK • DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES
IndividualOLATHE, KS
$3,300
Sep 27, 2024

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

ID: M001137

Top Contributors

23

1
AGUA CALIENTE BAN OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Jul 19, 2023
2
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Mar 30, 2023
3
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$2,500
Sep 30, 2024
4
CROWN, LESTER
N/A • RETIRED
IndividualCHICAGO, IL
$6,600
Jul 18, 2024
5
LIPPMAN, MARIE C.
IndividualMIAMI BEACH, FL
$5,000
Mar 7, 2023
6
CUKIERMAN, JORAM
CITADEL • FINANCE
IndividualSCARSDALE, NY
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024
7
SILVERMAN, DOUG
SENATOR INVESTMENT GROUP LP • MANAGING PARTNER
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
8
SHAMAH, ALAN
FIT FOR LIFE LLC • BUSINESS EXECUTIVE
IndividualBROOKLYN, NY
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
9
SHAMAH, JOSEPH
FIT FOR LIFE LLC • CO-FOUNDER & CEO
IndividualBROOKLYN, NY
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
10
ARMSTRONG, BRIAN
COINBASE • CEO
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Aug 29, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Castro, Joaquin [D-TX-20]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 41 nodes and 42 connections

Total contributions: $42

Top Donors - Rep. Castro, Joaquin [D-TX-20]

Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs18 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

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

Department of State

Moderate
Vector: 62%
Pages: 223-225AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The PARTNER Act aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on strategic engagement with international organizations by seeking to enhance cooperation with key regional bodies, though it does not explicitly address the cost-benefit analysis or conditional support framework advocated in the policy."

Key themes:international organizationsU.S. foreign policy engagementdiplomatic cooperationstrategic partnershipsprivileges and immunities

— 190 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the region and ensures that Russian use of Arctic waters and resources does not exceed a reasonable footprint. The U.S. should unapologetically pursue American interests in the Arctic by promoting economic freedom in the region. Economic freedom spurs prosperity, innovation, respect for the rule of law, jobs, and sustainability. Most important, economic freedom can help to keep the Arctic stable and secure. The U.S. should work to ensure that shipping lanes in the Arctic remain avail- able to all global commercial traffic and free of onerous fees and burdensome administrative, regulatory, and military requirements. While this should be the next Administration’s policy with respect to all countries that might seek to block free-flowing commercial traffic, the next Administration will clearly have to exert substantial attention toward Russia. Both the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Navy are vital tools to ensure an unmo- nopolized Arctic. It is imperative that the Navy and Coast Guard continue to expand their fleets, including planned icebreaker acquisitions, to assure Arctic access for the United States and other friendly actors. The remote and harsh con- ditions of the Arctic also make unmanned system investment and use particularly appealing for providing additional situational awareness, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. The Coast Guard should also consider upgrading facilities, such as its Barrow station, to reinforce its Arctic capabilities and demonstrate a greater commitment to the region. The People’s Republic of China has declared itself a “near-Arctic state,” which is an imaginary term non-existent in international discourse. The United States should work with like-minded Arctic nations, including Russia, to raise legitimate concerns about the PRC’s so-called Polar Silk-Road ambitions. Concerning Greenland, the opening of a U.S. consulate in Nuuk is welcome. A formal year-round diplomatic presence is an effective way for the U.S. to better understand local political and economic dynamics. Furthermore, given Green- land’s geographic proximity and its rising potential as a commercial and tourist location, the next Administration should pursue policies that enhance economic ties between the U.S. and Greenland. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS Defending and protecting the American people and advancing their interests requires the United States to engage in a broad spectrum of bilateral and multilateral relationships, including participating in international organizations. Working with other governments through international organizations like the United Nations (U.N.) can be tremendously useful—but membership in these organizations must always be understood as a means to attain defined goals rather than an end in itself. Engagement with international organizations is one relatively easy way for the U.S. to defend its interests and to seek to address problems in concert with other — 191 — Department of State nations, but it is not the only option—and American diplomats should be clear- eyed about international organizations’ strengths and weaknesses. When such institutions act against U.S. interests, the United States must be prepared to take appropriate steps in response, up to and including withdrawal. The manifest failure and corruption of the World Health Organization (WHO) during the COVID-19 pandemic is an example of the danger that international organizations pose to U.S. citizens and interests. The next Administration must end blind support for international organi- zations. If an international organization is effective and advances American interests, the United States should support it. If an international organization is ineffective or does not support American interests, the United States should not support it. Those that are effective will still require constant pressure from U.S. officials to ensure that they remain effective. Serious consideration should also be given to withdrawal from organizations that no longer have value, quietly undermine U.S. interests or goals, or disproportionately rely on U.S. financial con- tributions to survive. The Trump Administration’s “tough love” approach to international organiza- tions served American interests. For example, the Trump Administration withdrew from, or terminated funding for, the United Nations Human Rights Council, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, and the WHO. The results were redeployment of taxpayer dollars to better uses—and other organizations “getting the message” that the United States will not allow itself and its money to be used to undermine its own interests. The Biden Administration reversed many of these decisions. Currently, U.S. funding for international organizations is more than $16 billion in fiscal year 2021—a sharp increase from $10.8 billion in fiscal year 2015.19 Millions of American taxpayer dollars go to support policies and initiatives that hurt the United States and American citizens. The next Administration should direct the Secretary of State to initiate a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of U.S. participation in all international organizations. This review should take into account long-standing provisions in federal law that prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars to promote abortion, popu- lation control, and terrorist activities, as well as other applicable restrictions on funding for international organizations and agencies with a view to withholding U.S. funds in cases of abuses. International organizations should not be used to promote radical social pol- icies as if they were human rights priorities. Doing so undermines actual human rights and weakens U.S. credibility abroad. The next Administration should use its voice, influence, votes, and funding in international organizations to pro- mote authentic human rights and respect for sovereignty based on the binding

Department of State

Moderate
Vector: 62%
Pages: 217-219AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The PARTNER Act aligns moderately with Project 2025's State Department objectives by enhancing U.S. cooperation with international organizations, including the African Union, which supports broader strategic engagement in Africa—a region emphasized in Project 2025 for countering Chinese influence and terrorism. However, the bill does not directly address core Project 2025 priorities such as Iran policy, Abraham Accords expansion, or specific Middle East security pacts."

Key themes:African engagementcountering Chinese influenceinternational cooperationstrategic partnershipsdiplomatic relations

— 185 — Department of State l First, the U.S. must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear technology and delivery capabilities and more broadly block Iranian ambitions. This means, inter alia, reinstituting and expanding Trump Administration sanctions; providing security assistance for regional partners; supporting, through public diplomacy and otherwise, freedom-seeking Iranian people in their revolt against the mullahs; and ensuring Israel has both the military means and the political support and flexibility to take what it deems to be appropriate measures to defend itself against the Iranian regime and its regional proxies Hamas, Hezbollah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. l Second, the next Administration should build on the Trump Administration’s diplomatic successes by encouraging other Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, to enter the Abraham Accords. Related policies should include reversing, as appropriate, the Biden Administration’s degradation of the long-standing partnership with Saudi Arabia. The Palestinian Authority should be defunded. A further key priority is keeping Türkiye in the Western fold and a NATO ally. This includes a vigorous outreach to Türkiye to dissuade it from “hedging” toward Russia or China, which is likely to require a rethinking of U.S. support for YPG/PKK [People’s Protection Units/Kurdistan Worker’s Party] Kurdish forces, which Ankara believes are an existential threat to its security. For the foreseeable future— and much longer than one new Administration—Middle Eastern oil will play a key role in the world economy. Therefore, the U.S. must continue to support its allies and compete with its economic adversaries, including China. Relations with Saudi Arabia should be strengthened in a way that seriously curtails Chinese influence in Riyadh. l Third, it is in the U.S. national interest to build a Middle East security pact that includes Israel, Egypt, the Gulf states, and potentially India, as a second “Quad” arrangement. Protecting freedom of navigation in the Gulf and in the Red Sea/Suez Canal is vital to the world economy and therefore to U.S. prosperity as well. In North Africa, security cooperation with European allies, especially France, will be vital to limit growing Islamist threats and the incursion of Russian influence through positionings of the Wagner Group. l The U.S. cannot neglect a concern for human rights and minority rights, which must be balanced with strategic and security considerations. Special attention must be paid to challenges of religious freedom, especially the status of Middle Eastern Christians and other religious minorities, as well as the human trafficking endemic to the region. — 186 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Sub-Saharan Africa Africa’s importance to U.S. foreign policy and strategic interests is rising and will only continue to grow. Its explosive population growth, large reserves of industry-dependent minerals, proximity to key maritime shipping routes, and its collective diplomatic power ensure the continent’s global importance. Yet as Afri- ca’s strategic significance has grown, the U.S.’s relative influence there has declined. Terrorist activity on the continent has increased, while America’s competitors are making significant gains for their own national interests. The PRC’s companies dominate the African supply chain for certain minerals critical to emerging tech- nologies. African nations comprise major country-bloc elements that shield the PRC and Russia from international isolation for their human rights abuses—and African nations staunchly support PRC foreign policy goals on issues such as Hong Kong occupation, South China Seas dispute arbitration, and Taiwan. The new Administration can correct this strategic failing of existing policy by prioritizing Africa and by undertaking fundamental changes in how the United States works with African nations. At a bare minimum, the next Administration should: l Shift strategic focus from assistance to growth. Reorient the focus of U.S. overseas development assistance away from stand-alone humanitarian development aid and toward fostering free market systems in African countries by incentivizing and facilitating U.S. private sector engagement in these countries. Development aid alone does little to develop countries and can fuel corruption and violent conflict. While the United States should always be willing to offer emergency and humanitarian relief, both U.S. and African long-term interests are better served by a free market-based, private growth-focused strategy to Africa’s economic challenges. l Counter malign Chinese activity on the continent. This should include the development of powerful public diplomacy efforts to counter Chinese influence campaigns with commitments to freedom of speech and the free flow of information; the creation of a template “digital hygiene” program that African countries can access to sanitize and protect their sensitive communications networks from espionage by the PRC and other hostile actors; the recognition of Somaliland statehood as a hedge against the U.S.’s deteriorating position in Djibouti; and a focus on supporting American companies involved in industries important to U.S. national interests or that have a competitive advantage in Africa. l Counter the furtherance of terrorism. African country-based terrorist groups like Boko Haram may currently lack the capability to attack the

Department of State

Weak
Vector: 64%
Pages: 223-225AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The PARTNER Act extends privileges and immunities to international organizations, which contrasts with Project 2025's emphasis on scrutinizing and potentially withdrawing support from organizations that do not advance U.S. interests. While both address U.S. engagement with international bodies, the bill promotes broader inclusion, whereas Project 2025 advocates for conditional support based on effectiveness and alignment with American priorities."

Key themes:international organizationsU.S. foreign policydiplomatic engagementorganizational accountability

— 191 — Department of State nations, but it is not the only option—and American diplomats should be clear- eyed about international organizations’ strengths and weaknesses. When such institutions act against U.S. interests, the United States must be prepared to take appropriate steps in response, up to and including withdrawal. The manifest failure and corruption of the World Health Organization (WHO) during the COVID-19 pandemic is an example of the danger that international organizations pose to U.S. citizens and interests. The next Administration must end blind support for international organi- zations. If an international organization is effective and advances American interests, the United States should support it. If an international organization is ineffective or does not support American interests, the United States should not support it. Those that are effective will still require constant pressure from U.S. officials to ensure that they remain effective. Serious consideration should also be given to withdrawal from organizations that no longer have value, quietly undermine U.S. interests or goals, or disproportionately rely on U.S. financial con- tributions to survive. The Trump Administration’s “tough love” approach to international organiza- tions served American interests. For example, the Trump Administration withdrew from, or terminated funding for, the United Nations Human Rights Council, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, and the WHO. The results were redeployment of taxpayer dollars to better uses—and other organizations “getting the message” that the United States will not allow itself and its money to be used to undermine its own interests. The Biden Administration reversed many of these decisions. Currently, U.S. funding for international organizations is more than $16 billion in fiscal year 2021—a sharp increase from $10.8 billion in fiscal year 2015.19 Millions of American taxpayer dollars go to support policies and initiatives that hurt the United States and American citizens. The next Administration should direct the Secretary of State to initiate a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of U.S. participation in all international organizations. This review should take into account long-standing provisions in federal law that prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars to promote abortion, popu- lation control, and terrorist activities, as well as other applicable restrictions on funding for international organizations and agencies with a view to withholding U.S. funds in cases of abuses. International organizations should not be used to promote radical social pol- icies as if they were human rights priorities. Doing so undermines actual human rights and weakens U.S. credibility abroad. The next Administration should use its voice, influence, votes, and funding in international organizations to pro- mote authentic human rights and respect for sovereignty based on the binding — 192 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise international obligations contained in treaties that have been constitutionally ratified by the U.S. government. It must promote a strict text-based interpreta- tion of treaty obligations that does not consider human rights treaties as “living instruments” both within the State Department and within international organi- zations that receive U.S. funding, including by making respect for sovereignty and authentic human rights a litmus test of personnel decisions and elections processes within international organizations. The U.S. Commission on Unalienable Human Rights focused on the primacy of civil and political rights in its inaugural report, which remains an important guidepost for bilateral and multilateral engagements on human rights. The com- mission’s report is a roadmap for revamping and reenergizing U.S. human rights policy and should be the basis for both structural and policy changes throughout the State Department.20 All U.S. multilateral engagements must be reevaluated in light of the work of the commission, and initiatives that promote controversial policies must be halted and rolled back. It is paramount to create a healthy culture of respect for life, the family, sover- eignty, and authentic human rights in international organizations and agencies. To support this goal, the U.S. led an effort during the Trump Administration to forge a consensus among like-minded countries in support of human life, women’s health, support of the family as the basic unit of human society, and defense of national sovereignty. The result was the Geneva Consensus Declaration on Women’s Health and Protection of the Family.21 All U.S. foreign policy engagements that were pro- duced and expanded under the Obama and Biden Administrations must be aligned with the Geneva Consensus Declaration and the work of the U.S. Commission on Unalienable Human Rights. The U.S. government should not and cannot promote or fund abortion in inter- national programs or multilateral organizations. Technically, the United States can prevent its international funding from going toward abortions, but the U.S. will have a greater impact by including like-minded nations and building on the coali- tion launched through the Geneva Consensus Declaration, with a view to shaping the work of international agencies by functioning as a united front. The COVID-19 pandemic made it painfully clear that both international organi- zations—and some countries—are only too willing to trample human rights in the name of public health. For example, the WHO was, and remains, willing to support the suppression of basic human rights, partially because of its close relationship with human rights abusers like the PRC. The next Administration should unequivocally embrace the premise that humanity and the international community can simultaneously tackle pandem- ics and other emergent health threats without impeding the rights of people. It must also become a vocal surrogate for people in countries where rights are being suppressed in the name of health. This will likely require greater restrictions on

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

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

Full Policy Text

Related Bills