Locally Led Development and Humanitarian Response Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/6196
Last Updated: May 18, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Jacobs, Sara [D-CA-51]

ID: J000305

Follow the money

The bill

Locally Led Development and Humanitarian Response Act

HR. 6196, 119th Congress — read as touching Private Equity & Hedge Funds.

The sponsor

Rep. Jacobs, Sara [D-CA-51]

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

The money

$82,900 raised

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

The alignment

62% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 294-296 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 by the Yeas and Nays: 36 - 10.

March 25, 2026

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

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the intellectually bankrupt members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Locally Led Development and Humanitarian Response Act (HR 6196) claims to promote a model of locally led development and humanitarian response, expanding engagement with local actors and increasing the local partner base. How quaint. In reality, this bill is a desperate attempt to rebrand the same old failed foreign aid policies with a trendy new label.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill proposes a slew of changes, including increasing direct funding to local entities, promoting local leadership, and simplifying access to US foreign assistance resources. Oh, please, do tell me more about how you plan to achieve this without actually addressing the underlying issues of corruption, inefficiency, and bureaucratic red tape. It's like trying to treat a patient with a Band-Aid when they need open-heart surgery.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved: local partners, foreign governments, NGOs, and the US foreign assistance agency. All of these parties will be affected by this bill, but let's be real, they're all just pawns in a game of bureaucratic musical chairs. The real beneficiaries will be the contractors, consultants, and lobbyists who will feast on the carcass of taxpayer dollars.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has all the potential to achieve what every other well-intentioned but poorly executed foreign aid initiative has: nothing. It will likely result in more waste, corruption, and inefficiency, with a side of feel-good rhetoric and empty promises. The only thing that might change is the branding on the aid packages, from "Country Ownership" to "Locally Led Development." Meanwhile, the underlying disease of bureaucratic incompetence and corruption will continue to metastasize.

In conclusion, HR 6196 is a textbook example of legislative placebo effect – it looks good on paper, but it's just a sugar pill designed to make everyone feel better without actually addressing the real problems. The diagnosis is clear: a bad case of " Politician-itis," characterized by symptoms of self-serving grandstanding, bureaucratic ineptitude, and a complete disregard for the well-being of the people they claim to serve. Prognosis: more of the same old nonsense, with a healthy dose of cynicism and contempt for the intelligence of the American people.

Related Topics

Foreign Aid & DiplomacyFederal Budget & Appropriations
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Jacobs, Sara [D-CA-51]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$82,900
25 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$15,900
Committees
$0
Individuals
$67,000

No PAC contributions found

1
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
2 transactions
$6,600
2
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
3
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$2,000
4
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000
5
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000
6
ONEIDA NATION
1 transaction
$1,000
7
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
WILSON, MIKAYLA
2 transactions
$6,600
2
BLUE, ALLEN
2 transactions
$6,600
3
JACOBS, MARA
1 transaction
$4,300
4
HESS, LAWRENCE
1 transaction
$3,300
5
HESS, SUZANNE
1 transaction
$3,300
6
MOORES, JENNIFER
1 transaction
$3,300
7
LAHLOU, R'NELLE
1 transaction
$3,300
8
ANDERSON, JENNIFER
1 transaction
$3,300
9
BARTON, RICK
1 transaction
$3,300
10
CEDERQUIST, GARY
1 transaction
$3,300
11
GAFFEN, YEHUDI
1 transaction
$3,300
12
RICE, SPEEDY
1 transaction
$3,300
13
ROGERS, JAMES F.
1 transaction
$3,300
14
CHERRY, ADAM
1 transaction
$3,300
15
HAIDER, JASON
1 transaction
$3,300
16
SCHREIBER, BRETT
1 transaction
$3,300
17
COHN, KAREN
1 transaction
$3,300
18
CLARKE, JUDY
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

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

ID: K000397

Top Contributors

10

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

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

ID: L000599

Top Contributors

10

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

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

ID: S000344

Top Contributors

10

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

Donor Network - Rep. Jacobs, Sara [D-CA-51]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 74 nodes and 37 connections (72 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $113,000

Top Donors - Rep. Jacobs, Sara [D-CA-51]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

7 Orgs18 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 harmed.

  • Section 7(c) limits local competition authority to awards not exceeding $25,000,000 and 10 percent of the amounts appropriated to the relevant foreign assistance agency each fiscal year, potentially reducing opportunities for private equity firms.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.

Introduction

Moderate61.6%
Pages: 294-296

— 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

Introduction

Moderate61.6%
Pages: 294-296

— 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.

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills