Biodefense Diplomacy Enhancement Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/7653
Last Updated: June 30, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Self, Keith [R-TX-3]

ID: S001224

Follow the money

The bill

Biodefense Diplomacy Enhancement Act

HR. 7653, 119th Congress — read as touching Biotech & Research.

The sponsor

Rep. Self, Keith [R-TX-3]

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

The money

$105,700 raised

21 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. 220-222 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: 46 - 0.

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 inhabitants of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Biodefense Diplomacy Enhancement Act (HR 7653) claims to enhance diplomatic engagement on international biotechnology and biosecurity matters. How quaint. In reality, it's a thinly veiled attempt to expand the US's biosecurity empire, strengthen its grip on NATO, and create new avenues for exporting American biotech interests.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill proposes to:

* Develop a "NATO Biodefense Strategy" (because who doesn't love a good acronym?) to enhance cooperation with NATO member states on biotechnology, biosurveillance, and biological threat countermeasures. * Create an "International Biotechnology, Biosecurity, and Biodefense Cooperation Strategy" to expand cooperation with non-NATO allies and partners. Because, of course, the US needs more ways to exert its influence globally. * Strengthen export control policies for biotechnology items that could pose national security risks if used for military purposes. Ah, yes, because the US has such a stellar track record of responsible arms exports.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects:

* NATO member states: Because who doesn't love being told what to do by the US? * Non-NATO allies and partners: Who will be courted with promises of cooperation and "enhanced" biodefense capabilities. * Biotech companies: Which will no doubt benefit from increased government funding and export opportunities. * The American people: Who will foot the bill for this latest exercise in diplomatic posturing.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has all the hallmarks of a classic case of "diplomatic lupus" – a chronic condition characterized by an excessive reliance on bureaucratic jargon, a lack of transparency, and a tendency to prioritize special interests over actual security concerns. The potential impact includes:

* Further entrenchment of US dominance in global biotech markets. * Increased militarization of biodefense research, because what could possibly go wrong with that? * A heightened risk of biotech-related accidents or intentional misuse, given the lack of meaningful oversight and regulation.

In conclusion, HR 7653 is a textbook example of legislative malpractice – a cynical attempt to advance US interests under the guise of "diplomacy" and "cooperation." It's a disease, really – a chronic condition that afflicts the body politic, caused by an excess of hubris, a deficiency of critical thinking, and a bad case of bureaucratic flatulence.

Related Topics

International Treaties & AgreementsForeign Aid & DiplomacyPublic Health & Pandemic Response
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Self, Keith [R-TX-3]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$105,700
20 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$300
Committees
$0
Individuals
$105,400

No PAC contributions found

1
TUCKER HILL HOA
1 transaction
$300

No committee contributions found

1
CHALIN, THOMAS
2 transactions
$11,600
2
MULLIGI, GINO
1 transaction
$9,000
3
FRITCHER, SAMMY
1 transaction
$6,600
4
LOBB, PAT
1 transaction
$6,600
5
MYERS, ROBERT
1 transaction
$6,600
6
HUFFINES, RAY
1 transaction
$6,600
7
MOSES, FRED
1 transaction
$6,600
8
LI, QINGSONG
1 transaction
$6,000
9
UIHLEIN, RICHARD
1 transaction
$5,800
10
HILTON, W.D.
1 transaction
$5,000
11
KORCA, YLBER
1 transaction
$5,000
12
SMAJLI, MARIO
1 transaction
$5,000
13
KRASNIQI, BLERINA
1 transaction
$4,500
14
QUILLIN, GEORGE
1 transaction
$4,000
15
ADAMS, CAROL A
1 transaction
$3,300
16
DEASON, DARWIN
1 transaction
$3,300
17
MCCLELLAND, MARK
1 transaction
$3,300
18
KELLOGG, DAVID H
1 transaction
$3,300
19
HILTON, MARY JEAN
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 6 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Keating, William R. [D-MA-9]

ID: K000375

Top Contributors

10

1
EPPERLY, MATTHEW THOMAS
CHARTWELL STRATEGY GROUP • MANAGING DIRECTOR
IndividualBETHESDA, MD
$3,300
Mar 30, 2023
2
WORLEY, RICHARD
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualEDGARTOWN, MA
$3,300
Feb 19, 2024
3
MCCANN, WILLIAM J.
STRATEGIC MARKETING INNOVATIONS • CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
IndividualARLINGTON, VA
$3,300
May 10, 2023
4
FISH, JOHN F.
SUFFOLK CONSTRUCTION • CEO
IndividualBOSTON, MA
$3,300
Jun 28, 2024
5
MCCARTNEY, CHRISTINE B.
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualOSTERVILLE, MA
$3,300
Jun 6, 2024
6
MCCLENNEN, JAMES C.
WEQUASSETT RESORT AND GOLF CLUB • PARTNER
IndividualHARWICH, MA
$3,300
Aug 12, 2024
7
ABRAHAM, ANDREW
KECHES • LAWYER
IndividualMILTON, MA
$3,300
Sep 26, 2023
8
FLAHERTY, SEAN C.
KECHES LAW GROUP • ATTORNEY
IndividualBRIDGEWATER, MA
$3,300
Sep 26, 2023
9
GREEN, LAWRENCE ALAN
RENTALS UNLIMITED • CEO
IndividualNANTUCKET, MA
$3,300
Jul 24, 2023
10
LEITER, DAVID J.
PLURUS STRATEGIES LLC • CONSULTANT
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Sep 28, 2023

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 LOGISTICS • CEO
IndividualSACRAMENTO, CA
$3,300
Mar 30, 2023
8
GARHWAL, HARI
GARHWAL, CHAN & WILLIAMS • CPA
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Mar 23, 2023
9
GARHWAL, HARI
GARHWAL, CHAN & WILLIAMS • CPA
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Mar 23, 2023
10
GARHWAL, SANJEEV
WWMG • PHYSICIAN
IndividualSEATTLE, WA
$3,300
Mar 29, 2023

Rep. Baird, James R. [R-IN-4]

ID: B001307

Top Contributors

10

1
TORCHBEARER PUBLIC AFFAIRS
OrganizationCARMEL, IN
$1,000
Apr 10, 2024
2
NICOSON, JON
NICOSON FARMING INC • FARMER
IndividualCORY, IN
$6,600
Aug 25, 2023
3
BAIRD, BEAU
SELF • RANCHER
IndividualGREENCASTLE, IN
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023
4
GOODRICH, CHARLES D
GAYLOR ELECTRIC, INC. • VICE PRESIDENT
IndividualNOBLESVILLE, IN
$3,300
Jun 30, 2024
5
CARRIER, JAMISON
RELENTLESS DEALER SERVICES • FOUNDER
IndividualGREENWOOD, IN
$3,300
Mar 11, 2024
6
WALTON, ROBERT S
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualBENTONVILLE, AR
$3,300
Mar 31, 2024
7
NICOSON, BARBRA
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualCORY, IN
$3,300
Jul 8, 2024
8
NICOSON, JON
NICOSON FARMING INC • FARMER
IndividualCORY, IN
$3,300
Jul 8, 2024
9
NESSEL, ARIEL
ENTREPRENEUR • ENTREPRENEUR
IndividualROSS, CA
$2,500
Apr 14, 2023
10
LANGLEY, THOMAS
LANGLEY CONSULTING • CONSULTANT
IndividualATHENS, AL
$2,000
Sep 29, 2023

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 LIMITED • OWNER
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
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSURFSIDE, FL
$6,534
Feb 15, 2024
6
SILVERMAN, JEFFREY
IndividualSURFSIDE, FL
$6,534
Feb 22, 2024
7
SCALA, MARY ELLEN
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualPORT CHESTER, NY
$5,300
Aug 27, 2023
8
DEUTSCH, SHMULEY
SELF • PRESIDENT
IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY
$3,900
Jun 24, 2024
9
DEUTSCH, SHMULEY
IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY
$3,900
Jun 25, 2024
10
PERLMUTTER, RAFUEL
GOLDEN TASTE • CEO
IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY
$3,400
Jun 24, 2024

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

ID: L000590

Top Contributors

10

1
EMILY'S LIST
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$250
Feb 13, 2024
2
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Jun 27, 2023
3
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Jun 27, 2023
4
TIGUA INDIAN RESERVATION YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO
OrganizationEL PASO, TX
$3,000
Dec 31, 2023
5
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Jun 5, 2023
6
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
May 9, 2024
7
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAS VEGAS, NV
$1,500
Jun 30, 2024
8
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$1,000
Dec 28, 2023
9
RENO SPARKS INDIAN COLONY
OrganizationRENO, NV
$1,000
Jun 21, 2024
10
BRONZE CAFE
OrganizationLAS VEGAS, NV
$550
Mar 30, 2023

Rep. Ross, Deborah K. [D-NC-2]

ID: R000305

Top Contributors

10

1
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$1,000
Dec 8, 2023
2
COOPER, JOHN D JR.
NOT EMPLOYED • CONTRACTOR/ENGINEER
IndividualRALEIGH, NC
$6,600
May 8, 2023
3
MARTIN, LOUISE PORTER
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualRALEIGH, NC
$4,600
Dec 29, 2023
4
WILKES, NANCY
UNC HOSPITALS • PHYSICIAN
IndividualCHAPEL HILL, NC
$3,300
Oct 31, 2024
5
ALLEN, DIANA
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualCARY, NC
$3,300
Dec 30, 2023
6
ALSOP, JOSEPH
ALSOP LOUIE PARTNERS • VENTURE PARTNER
IndividualBEVERLY, MA
$3,300
Dec 29, 2023
7
ALSUP, WILLIAM B III
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Oct 17, 2023
8
BEEUWKES, REINIER
ISCHEMIX • CEO
IndividualCONCORD, MA
$3,300
Dec 31, 2023
9
DEBNAM, CAREY
SELF EMPLOYED • PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
IndividualRALEIGH, NC
$3,300
Dec 21, 2023
10
DEBNAM, SESHA F
DEBNAM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC • PROPERTY MANAGER
IndividualRALEIGH, NC
$3,300
Dec 21, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Self, Keith [R-TX-3]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 52 nodes and 36 connections (31 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $153,550

Top Donors - Rep. Self, Keith [R-TX-3]

Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount

1 Org19 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • +Biotech & Researchconfidence 0.90

    Section 2(b)(6) evaluates opportunities for expanded NATO capabilities to research, develop, and deploy biotechnology for international security purposes; Section 2(c)(1) explores potential areas of cooperation with major non-NATO allies in biotechnology; Section 2(d)(2)(A) proposes commitments or agreements to expand cooperation on international security matters relating to biotechnology; Section 2(d)(2)(B) assesses feasibility of coordinating export control efforts related to biotechnology ite

  • +Medical Devicesconfidence 0.70

    Biotechnology and biodefense efforts may involve diagnostics and detection tools, which are medical devices. Sections 2(b)(5) and 2(b)(6) mention detection, attribution, and deployment of biotechnology for security purposes, which could include biosensors and diagnostic devices, benefiting medical device manufacturers.

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: 63%
Pages: 220-222AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill’s focus on strengthening diplomatic cooperation with allies and NATO on biodefense aligns with Project 2025’s emphasis on core diplomatic engagement, building coalitions with cooperative partners, and enhancing allied security capabilities."

Key themes:diplomatic engagementalliance cooperationbiodefense/securityNATO strategyexport control coordination

— 187 — Department of State United States, but at least some of them would eventually try if allowed to consolidate their operations and plan such attacks. The immediate threat they pose lies in their abilities and willingness to strike American targets in their regions of operation or to harm U.S. interests in other ways. The U.S. should support capable African military and security operations through the State Department and other federal agencies responsible for granting foreign military education, training, and security assistance. l Build a coalition of the cooperative. Rather than thinning limited federal resources by spreading funds across all countries (including some that are unsupportive or even hostile to the United States,) the next Administration should focus on those countries with which the U.S. can expect a mutually beneficial relationship. After being designated focus countries by the State Department, such nations should receive a full suite of American engagement. That said, the next Administration should still maintain a baseline level of contact even with those countries with which it has less- than-fruitful relationships in order to encourage positive developments and to be in position to seize unexpected diplomatic opportunities as they arise. l Focus on core diplomatic activities, and stop promoting policies birthed in the American culture wars. African nations are particularly (and reasonably) non-receptive to the U.S. social policies such as abortion and pro-LGBT initiatives being imposed on them. The United States should focus on core security, economic, and human rights engagement with African partners and reject the promotion of divisive policies that hurt the deepening of shared goals between the U.S. and its African partners. Europe American foreign policy has long benefited from cooperation with the countries of Europe (generally, the EU), and any conservative Administration should build on this resource. Yet the transatlantic relationship is complex, with security, trade, and political dimensions. First, the Europe, Eurasia, and Russia region is made up of relatively wealthy and technologically advanced societies that should be expected to bear a fair share of both security needs and global security architecture: The United States cannot be expected to provide a defense umbrella for countries unwilling to contribute appropriately. At stake after 2024 will be examining the status of the Wales Pledge of 2 percent of gross domestic product toward defense by NATO members. The new Administration will also want to encourage nations to exceed that pledge. Second, transatlantic trade is a significant part of the global economy, and it is in the U.S. national interest to amplify it, especially because this means weaning — 188 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Europe of its dependence on China. However, there are also transatlantic trade tensions that disturb the U.S.–EU relationship and that have been evident across Administrations. The U.S. must undertake a comprehensive review of trade arrangements between the EU and the United States to assure that U.S. businesses are treated fairly and to build productive reciprocity. Outside the EU, trade with the post-Brexit U.K. needs urgent development before London slips back into the orbit of the EU. Third, in the wake of Brexit, EU foreign policy now takes place without U.K. input, which disadvantages the United States, given that the U.K. has historically been aligned with many U.S. positions. Therefore, U.S. diplomacy must be more attentive to inner-EU developments, while also developing new allies inside the EU—especially the Central European countries on the eastern flank of the EU, which are most vulnerable to Russian aggression. South and Central Asia Many key American interests and responsibilities are found in South and Central Asia. Specifically, continuing to advance the bilateral relationship with India to mutual benefit is a crucial objective for U.S. policy. India plays a crucial role in countering the Chinese threat and securing a free and open Indo–Pacific. It is a critical security guarantor for the key routes of air and sea travel linking East and West and an important emerging U.S. economic partner. For instance, the 2019 Department of Defense Indo–Pacific Strategy Report noted that the Indian Ocean area “is at the nexus of global trade and commerce, with nearly half of the world’s 90,000 commercial vessels and two thirds of global oil trade traveling through its sea lanes. The region boasts some of the fastest-growing economies on Earth.”14 Meanwhile, the threat of transnational terrorism remains acute. The humiliat- ing withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan after a 20-year military campaign has created new challenges. It has provided an opportunity to reset the deeply troubled U.S.–Pakistan relationship and reassess U.S. counterterrorism strategy in the region. The long-standing India–Pakistan rivalry and tensions regarding the disputed territory of Kashmir continue to pose risks to regional stability, especially because both countries are nuclear powers. The State Department’s role in strengthening the regional security and eco- nomic framework linking the U.S and India is crucial. In addition, the department has important functional responsibilities in dealing with a range of threats from nuclear proliferation to transnational proliferation. While American statecraft should also seek to improve bilateral relations throughout the region, U.S. policy must be clear-eyed and realistic about the perfidiousness of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the military–political rule in Pakistan. There can be no expecta- tion of normal relations with either.

Department of State

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

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on enhancing diplomatic engagement and cooperation on biodefense and biotechnology with allies and international organizations, while Project 2025 emphasizes reevaluating U.S. participation in international organizations based on their alignment with American interests and sovereignty. Both share a concern for U.S. effectiveness in multilateral engagements, though the bill promotes cooperation whereas Project 2025 advocates conditional support or withdrawal."

Key themes:international organizationsU.S. foreign policysovereigntymultilateral engagementState Department leadership

— 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

Department of State

Moderate
Vector: 61%
Pages: 208-210AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on the State Department advancing the President's foreign policy agenda through interagency coordination and strategic diplomacy, particularly in addressing national security threats. Both focus on strengthening U.S. global leadership in biodefense and security cooperation with allies, though the bill does not specifically address immigration or China-related priorities highlighted in the Project 2025 excerpt."

Key themes:foreign policy coordinationinteragency collaborationnational securityallied cooperationstrategic diplomacy

— 176 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Secretary of State should work as part of an agile foreign policy team along with the National Security Advisor, the Secretary of Defense, and other agency heads to flesh out and advance the President’s foreign policy. Bureaucratic stovepipes of the past should be less important than commitment to, and achievement of, the President’s foreign policy agenda. The State Department’s role in these interagency discussions must reflect the President’s clear direction and disallow resources and tools to be used in any way that detracts from the presidentially directed mission. Coordinate with Congress. Congress has both the statutory and appropri- ations authority to impact the State Department’s operations and has a strong interest in key aspects of American foreign policy. The department must therefore take particular care in its interaction with Congress, since poor interactions with Congress, regardless of intentions, could trigger congressional pushback or have other negative impacts on the President’s agenda. This will require particularly strong leadership of the Department of State’s Bureau of Legislative Affairs. The Secretary of State and political leadership should ensure full coordination with the White House regarding congressional engage- ment on any State Department responsibility. This may lead to, for example, the President authorizing the State Department to engage with Members of Congress and relevant committees on certain issues (including statutorily designated con- gressional consultations), but to remain “radio silent” on volatile or designated issues on which the White House wants to be the primary or only voice. All such authorized department engagements with Congress must be driven and handled by political appointees in conjunction with career officials who have the relevant expertise and are willing to work in concert with the President’s political appoin- tees on particularly sensitive matters. Respond Vigorously to the Chinese Threat. The State Department recently opened the Office of China Coordination, or “China House.” This office is intended to bring together experts inside and outside the State Department to coordinate U.S. government relations with China “and advance our vision for an open, inclu- sive international system.”7 Whether China House will streamline U.S. government communication, consensus, and action on China policy—given the presence of other agencies with strong competing or adverse interests—remains to be seen. The unit is dependent on adequate and competent staff being assigned by other bureaus within the State Department. Nonetheless, the concept is one a Republican Administration should support mutatis mutandis. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been “at war” with the U.S. for decades. Now that this reality has been accepted throughout the gov- ernment, the State Department must be prepared to lead the U.S. diplomatic effort accordingly. The centralization of efforts in one place is critical to this end. Review Immigration and Domestic Security Requirements. Arguably, the department’s most noteworthy challenge on the global stage has been its handling — 177 — Department of State of immigration and domestic security issues, which are inextricably related. The State Department’s apparent posture toward these two issues, which are of para- mount importance to the American people, has historically been that they are of lesser importance than other issues and that they can be treated as concessions in broader diplomatic engagements. In other instances in which access to the U.S. in the form of immigrant (permanent) and nonimmigrant (temporary) visas could potentially serve as diplomatic leverage, it is almost never used. To some degree, the State Department and many of its personnel appear to view the U.S. immigra- tion system less as a tool for strengthening the United States and more as a global welfare program. To ensure the safety, security, and prosperity of all Americans, this must change. Below are several key areas in which the department’s formal and informal postures must adjust to reflect the current immigration and domestic security environment: l Visa reciprocity. The United States should strictly enforce the doctrine of reciprocity when issuing visas to all foreign nationals. For too long, the U.S. has provided virtually unfettered access to foreign nationals from countries that do not respond in kind—including countries that are actively hostile to U.S. interests and nationals. Mandatory reciprocity will convey the necessary reality that other countries do not have an unfettered right to U.S. access and must reciprocally offer favorable visa-based access to U.S. nationals. The State Department’s reaction time to other countries’ changes in visa policies with respect to the U.S. must be streamlined to ensure it can be updated in real time. l Section 243(d) visa sanctions. Visa sanctions under section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA),8 enacted into law to motivate countries to accept the return of any nationals who have been ordered removed from the U.S., should be quickly and fully enforced. Recalcitrant countries that do not accept receipt of their returned nationals will risk the suspension of issuance of all immigrant visas, all nonimmigrant visas, or all visas. These country-specific sanctions should remain in place until the sanctioned country accepts the return of all its removal-pending nationals and formally commits to future, regular acceptance of its nationals. Black- letter implementation of this law will demonstrate a heretofore lacking seriousness to the international community that other nations must respect U.S. immigration laws and work with federal authorities to accept returning nationals—or lose access to the United States. l Rightsizing refugee admissions. The Biden Administration has engineered what is nothing short of a collapse of U.S. border security and

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