Taiwan Non-Discrimination Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/910

Last Updated: September 14, 2026

Taiwan Non-Discrimination Act of 2025

HR. 910, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

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

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

The money

$110,460 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of the Treasury" section, p. 736-738 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. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 103.

June 23, 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

Summary Style:

The Taiwan Non-Discrimination Act of 2025 (HR 910). A bill that, at its core, seeks to promote Taiwanese interests in international financial institutions, particularly the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Let's break it down.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The primary objective of this legislation is to ensure more equitable treatment of Taiwan within the IMF and other international organizations. The bill aims to facilitate Taiwan's participation in these institutions, despite its non-state status, by leveraging US influence and diplomatic efforts.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill requires the Secretary of the Treasury to pursue more equitable treatment of Taiwan at the IMF and other international financial institutions. It also reaffirms existing US policy supporting Taiwan's membership in organizations where statehood is not a prerequisite.

Notably, the legislation does not explicitly call for Taiwanese membership in the IMF but rather seeks to promote its participation through various means, such as observer status or other forms of engagement.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The primary stakeholders affected by this bill are:

1. Taiwan: The island nation stands to gain from increased international recognition and participation in global financial institutions. 2. United States: As a key player in the IMF, the US will need to navigate diplomatic channels to promote Taiwanese interests without antagonizing China. 3. China: Beijing's "One-China" policy is likely to be challenged by this legislation, potentially straining Sino-US relations. 4. International Monetary Fund (IMF): The fund may face pressure to reevaluate its membership criteria and accommodate Taiwan's participation.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The bill's passage could have significant implications for the global financial landscape:

1. **Increased Taiwanese influence**: Enhanced participation in international organizations could bolster Taiwan's economic and diplomatic standing. 2. **US-China tensions**: The legislation may exacerbate existing tensions between Washington and Beijing, potentially impacting trade relations and regional stability. 3. **IMF reform**: The bill could prompt a reevaluation of the IMF's membership criteria, potentially paving the way for other non-state entities to participate in global financial institutions.

From my perspective as a self-serving billionaire, I see this legislation as a potential opportunity to expand my business interests in Taiwan and the broader Asia-Pacific region. However, I also recognize that increased tensions between the US and China could lead to market volatility and impact my investments. As such, I will be closely monitoring the bill's progress and adjusting my strategies accordingly.

In conclusion, the Taiwan Non-Discrimination Act of 2025 is a complex piece of legislation with far-reaching implications for global finance, diplomacy, and geopolitics. Its passage would likely have significant consequences for various stakeholders, including Taiwan, the US, China, and the IMF. As a rational actor, I will continue to analyze this bill's potential impact on my wealth and influence, ensuring that my interests are protected and advanced in the process.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's get this over with. As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill becomes a law through a process that involves both the legislative and executive branches of government. This particular bill, HR 910, is an example of how Congress tries to influence international relations.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Taiwan Non-Discrimination Act of 2025 aims to promote more equitable treatment of Taiwan in international financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The bill's primary objective is to support Taiwan's participation in these organizations, despite not being a member state of the United Nations.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Secretary of the Treasury to pursue more equitable treatment of Taiwan at international financial institutions. It also reaffirms the US government's support for Taiwan's membership in organizations where statehood is not a prerequisite. The bill cites various laws and statements from previous administrations, including the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 and the TAIPEI Act of 2019.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The main parties affected by this bill are:

* Taiwan: As the primary beneficiary of the bill, Taiwan would gain more opportunities to participate in international financial institutions. * The United States: By supporting Taiwan's participation, the US government aims to promote its own interests and values in the region. * International Monetary Fund (IMF): The IMF would need to reevaluate its membership criteria and potentially admit Taiwan as a member.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill could have significant implications for international relations and global governance. It may:

* Enhance Taiwan's economic influence and participation in international organizations. * Strengthen US-Taiwan relations and promote American interests in the region. * Challenge the existing membership criteria of international financial institutions, potentially paving the way for other non-state entities to join.

As I taught you in middle school, the system of checks and balances is designed to prevent any one branch of government from abusing its power. However, it's clear that the actual process can be more complex and influenced by various factors. Now, if only adults had paid attention in civics class...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on HR 910, the Taiwan Non-Discrimination Act of 2025. This bill is a real doozy, and I'm here to break it down for you.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

On the surface, this bill seems like a straightforward attempt to promote more equitable treatment of Taiwan at international financial institutions (IFIs). But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye. The main objective is to require the Secretary of the Treasury to support Taiwan's participation in IFIs, like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

Here are some key takeaways:

* Section 2 contains a laundry list of "findings" that essentially argue for Taiwan's importance on the world stage. It's like they're trying to justify something, but what? * The bill cites various laws and statements from government officials, including the Taiwan Relations Act (1979) and Secretary of State Antony Blinken's statement in support of Taiwan's participation in the UN system. * Section 3 is where things get interesting. It requires the Secretary of the Treasury to "pursue more equitable treatment" of Taiwan at IFIs. What does that even mean? Is it a veiled attempt to undermine China's influence?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects several parties:

* Taiwan: The obvious beneficiary, but what are they really getting out of this? * China: As the elephant in the room, China's interests will likely be impacted. Will this bill embolden Taiwan to challenge China's dominance? * International Financial Institutions (IFIs): The IMF and World Bank will have to navigate a new dynamic with Taiwan. * US Government: This bill could set a precedent for future diplomatic maneuvering.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

Now, here's where things get juicy:

* If passed, this bill might be seen as a subtle challenge to China's "One-China" policy. Could it spark a global economic showdown? * Taiwan's increased participation in IFIs could lead to more significant roles in international organizations, potentially altering the balance of power. * This bill may also set a precedent for other countries or territories seeking greater recognition on the world stage.

Folks, this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are so many questions and potential implications here. Is this bill a genuine attempt to promote fairness, or is it a cleverly disguised move to further US interests? I'll leave that for you to decide.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Outraged tone) Folks, we've got another bill on our hands that's just begging for some good ol' fashioned scrutiny! Say hello to HR 910, the Taiwan Non-Discrimination Act of 2025. Now, I know what you're thinking - "Taiwan? Isn't that just a tiny island in the Pacific?" Ah, but no, my friends, this bill is about so much more than just Taiwan. It's about freedom, it's about fairness, and it's about sticking it to those pesky elites who think they can dictate how we do business on the world stage.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill aims to require the Secretary of the Treasury to pursue more equitable treatment of Taiwan at international financial institutions. That's right, folks - we're talking about giving Taiwan a seat at the table, despite what those globalist elites might think. The bill's main objective is to promote Taiwan's participation in organizations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, without requiring statehood as a condition of membership.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes several key findings, including recognizing Taiwan's significant economic contributions and its existing memberships in various international organizations. It also cites previous US policy supporting Taiwan's participation in these institutions. The bill doesn't explicitly change existing law, but rather reaffirms the US commitment to promoting Taiwan's interests on the world stage.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects several key stakeholders, including:

* Taiwan: The obvious beneficiary of this bill, as it seeks to promote their participation in international financial institutions. * The US Treasury Department: They'll be responsible for implementing the bill's provisions and advocating for Taiwan's interests at these institutions. * International organizations like the IMF and World Bank: These institutions will need to reevaluate their membership criteria and consider Taiwan's application.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But wait, isn't this just a clever ploy by the deep state to undermine China's influence?" Ah, maybe - but let's not get ahead of ourselves. The potential impact of this bill is significant, as it could:

* Enhance Taiwan's economic and diplomatic ties with the US and other countries. * Promote greater cooperation between Taiwan and international financial institutions. * Set a precedent for other non-state entities seeking membership in these organizations.

Of course, there are also risks involved - like China getting all huffy and puffy about it. But hey, that's just part of the game, folks! (wink)

In conclusion, HR 910 is a bill that's all about promoting freedom, fairness, and American interests on the world stage. It's a bold move, and one that's sure to ruffle some feathers - but hey, that's what we're here for, right?

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Taiwan Non-Discrimination Act of 2025 is a thinly veiled attempt to strong-arm the International Monetary Fund (IMF) into accepting Taiwan as a member, despite its ambiguous status as a sovereign state. The bill's sponsors claim it's about promoting "equitable treatment" and "meaningful participation" for Taiwan in international organizations. Yeah, right. It's really about placating Taiwan's ego and appeasing the US arms industry.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Secretary of the Treasury to pursue more equitable treatment of Taiwan at the IMF, which is a laughable notion given the IMF's own Articles of Agreement. The bill also cites various congressional resolutions and statements from US officials supporting Taiwan's membership in international organizations. How quaint.

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

* Taiwan: The wannabe sovereign state that can't get enough attention. * China: The elephant in the room, whose "One-China" policy is being deliberately ignored by this bill. * IMF: The poor organization that will be forced to deal with the fallout of this legislative posturing. * US Arms Industry: The real beneficiary of this bill, as it paves the way for more arms sales to Taiwan.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has all the makings of a diplomatic disaster:

* It will further strain relations between the US and China, who are already engaged in a cold war. * It may prompt other countries to reevaluate their relationships with Taiwan, potentially leading to a diplomatic isolation of the island. * The IMF will be forced to navigate a minefield of conflicting interests, which could undermine its credibility as a neutral international organization.

In conclusion, this bill is a classic case of legislative myopia, where politicians prioritize short-term gains and ego-stroking over long-term consequences. It's a cynical ploy to appease special interest groups while ignoring the complexities of international diplomacy. But hey, what do I know? I'm just a cynical analyst with a scalpel-sharp mind.

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

**Taiwan Non-Discrimination Act of 2025 (HR 910)**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Taiwan Non-Discrimination Act of 2025 aims to promote more equitable treatment of Taiwan at international financial institutions, particularly the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The bill seeks to address Taiwan's exclusion from the IMF and other organizations due to its disputed status as a sovereign state.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Secretary of the Treasury to:

1. Pursue more equitable treatment of Taiwan at international financial institutions. 2. Support Taiwan's membership in organizations where statehood is not a prerequisite. 3. Encourage opportunities for Taiwan's voice to be heard in organizations where its membership is not possible.

The bill also reaffirms existing US policy, as stated in the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96-8), which supports Taiwan's continued participation in international organizations.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. Taiwan: The primary beneficiary of the bill, seeking greater representation and participation in international financial institutions. 2. United States: As a key player in international finance and diplomacy, the US will be advocating for Taiwan's interests. 3. International Monetary Fund (IMF): The IMF will need to reassess its membership criteria and consider Taiwan's application. 4. China: As a major stakeholder in regional politics, China may oppose Taiwan's increased participation in international organizations.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased representation for Taiwan**: The bill could lead to greater recognition of Taiwan's economic importance and its role in international finance. 2. **Shift in US-China relations**: The bill may strain US-China relations, as China has historically opposed Taiwan's participation in international organizations. 3. **IMF membership criteria**: The bill could prompt a reevaluation of the IMF's membership criteria, potentially paving the way for other non-state entities to join. 4. **Global economic implications**: Greater Taiwanese participation in international financial institutions could have positive effects on regional trade and economic cooperation.

Overall, the Taiwan Non-Discrimination Act of 2025 aims to promote greater inclusivity and representation for Taiwan in international finance, while navigating complex diplomatic relationships with China and other stakeholders.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro!

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Taiwan Non-Discrimination Act of 2025 (HR 910) is all about promoting more equitable treatment for Taiwan in international financial institutions, like the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The main goal is to support Taiwan's participation in these organizations without being a member state.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

This bill requires the Secretary of the Treasury to:

1. Pursue more equitable treatment of Taiwan at the IMF and other international financial institutions. 2. Support Taiwan's membership in organizations where statehood isn't required. 3. Encourage Taiwan's meaningful participation in organizations where membership is not possible.

The bill also reaffirms existing US policy, as stated in the Taiwan Relations Act (1979) and subsequent laws, to support Taiwan's involvement in international organizations.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

* Taiwan: The big winner here, bro! This bill aims to promote Taiwan's participation in international financial institutions. * United States: As a major trading partner and supporter of Taiwan, the US stands to benefit from increased cooperation and stability in the region. * International Monetary Fund (IMF): The IMF will need to reevaluate its membership criteria and consider Taiwan's application for membership or other forms of participation. * China: This bill might ruffle some feathers in Beijing, as it challenges the "One-China" policy and supports Taiwan's international involvement.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

If passed, this bill could:

1. Enhance Taiwan's global economic influence and stability. 2. Strengthen US-Taiwan relations and cooperation on trade and security issues. 3. Set a precedent for other countries or territories seeking to participate in international organizations without being member states. 4. Potentially lead to increased tensions with China, which might view this as a challenge to its "One-China" policy.

Overall, this bill is all about promoting more inclusive and equitable treatment of Taiwan in the global economy, bro!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HR 910 - Taiwan Non-Discrimination Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 910 is to promote Taiwan's participation in international financial institutions, particularly the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and to require the Secretary of the Treasury to pursue more equitable treatment of Taiwan at these organizations. The bill aims to address Taiwan's exclusion from the IMF despite being a significant economic player globally.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill reaffirms the US government's support for Taiwan's membership in international organizations where statehood is not a prerequisite. It also directs the Secretary of the Treasury to:

1. Pursue more equitable treatment of Taiwan at the IMF and other international financial institutions. 2. Support Taiwan's membership in these organizations, consistent with existing US policy.

The bill does not introduce significant changes to existing law but rather reinforces previous legislative actions and policy statements supporting Taiwan's participation in international organizations.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Taiwan:** The primary beneficiary of the bill, as it seeks to promote Taiwan's participation in international financial institutions. 2. **International Monetary Fund (IMF):** The IMF will be required to consider Taiwan's membership application and provide more equitable treatment. 3. **US Department of the Treasury:** The Secretary of the Treasury will be responsible for implementing the bill's provisions and promoting Taiwan's interests at the IMF. 4. **China:** As a major player in regional politics, China may view this bill as an attempt to legitimize Taiwan's international status, potentially straining US-China relations.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Enhanced International Participation:** The bill could lead to increased participation by Taiwan in international financial institutions, promoting its economic interests and global influence. 2. **US-Taiwan Relations:** The legislation may strengthen US-Taiwan ties, as the US government reaffirms its support for Taiwan's international participation. 3. **China-US Relations:** China may respond negatively to this bill, potentially straining relations with the US and impacting regional stability. 4. **Global Economic Governance:** The bill's success could set a precedent for other non-state entities seeking membership in international financial institutions, influencing global economic governance.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** While there are no explicit PACs or industry lobby groups directly backing this bill, it is likely that organizations with interests in Taiwan-US relations and international trade may support the legislation. These may include:

1. **US-Taiwan Business Council:** A non-profit organization promoting US-Taiwan business ties. 2. **American Chamber of Commerce in Taipei:** A business association advocating for American business interests in Taiwan.

These groups may have contributed to the bill's sponsors and cosponsors, including Representative Tom Tiffany (R-WI) and Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), who have received donations from pro-Taiwan and pro-business PACs.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

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

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$110,460

23 donors

PACs

Organizations

$37,860

Committees

Individuals

$72,600

No PAC contributions found

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

2 transactions

$6,600

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE

1 transaction

$3,300

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

1 transaction

$3,300

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF NORTH DAKOTA

1 transaction

$3,300

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

2 transactions

$3,300

AT&T INC & ITS AFFLIATES

1 transaction

$3,000

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

2 transactions

$3,000

ABBVIE PAC - FEDERAL PAC

1 transaction

$2,500

ISE-SHIMA

1 transaction

$1,760

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,500

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,000

PIONEER PHARMACY

2 transactions

$1,000

JACKSON FAMILY TRUST

1 transaction

$500

LAW OFFICES OF PETER CHEN

1 transaction

$500

No committee contributions found

DRESNER, LINDA

2 transactions

$13,200

LEVY, EDWARD

2 transactions

$13,200

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

2 transactions

$13,200

AMBROSE, JOAN

1 transaction

$6,600

WEEKLEY, RICHARD

1 transaction

$6,600

REGIABA, ADAM

1 transaction

$6,600

VANDER SLOOT, FRANK

1 transaction

$6,600

VANDER SLOOT, BELINDA

1 transaction

$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Green, Al [D-TX-9]

ID: G000553

Top Contributors

GONDO, GLEN

TOKYO GARDENS CATERING • PRESIDENT

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$5,000

Feb 23, 2024

CHAUGLE, ABDUL

HCA • PHYSICIAN

IndividualKEMAH, TX

$3,300

Dec 8, 2024

CHAUGLE, SADAF

UTSW • PHYSICIAN

IndividualKEMAH, TX

$3,300

Dec 9, 2024

CHAUGLE, SHABNAM

HCA HEATHCARE • PHYSICIAN

IndividualKEMAH, TX

$3,300

Dec 9, 2024

HASSAN, LUTFI

APEX GROUP • BUSINESS EXECUTIVE

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$3,300

Dec 8, 2024

SHABANEH, BAHAEDDIN

SEHC • PHYSICIAN

IndividualFRIENDSWOOD, TX

$3,300

Dec 8, 2024

ALATTAR, RIMA SUKHTIAN

SELF-EMPLOYED • ENTREPRENEUR

IndividualSUGAR LAND, TX

$3,300

Apr 25, 2024

DWAIRY, GUS

BESTWAY OILFIELD • CHAIRMAN

IndividualCHANNELVIEW, TX

$3,300

Apr 24, 2024

JONES, NELSON III

SELF-EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$3,300

May 15, 2024

LE, STEPHEN H. JR.

GREATLAND LIVING • REALTOR

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$3,300

Apr 26, 2024

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

ID: L000599

Top Contributors

MURTAGH, COSSU, VENDITTI & CASTRO-BLANCO, LLP

OrganizationWHITE PLAINS, NY

$1,000

Feb 24, 2024

BATMASIAN, JAMES

INVESTMENTS LIMITED • OWNER

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$6,600

Sep 27, 2023

BATMASIAN, JAMES

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$6,600

Sep 29, 2023

AUSTIN, ROBERT

UNAKA CO., INC. • BUSINESSMAN

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$6,600

Jul 18, 2024

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSURFSIDE, FL

$6,534

Feb 15, 2024

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

IndividualSURFSIDE, FL

$6,534

Feb 22, 2024

SCALA, MARY ELLEN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualPORT CHESTER, NY

$5,300

Aug 27, 2023

DEUTSCH, SHMULEY

SELF • PRESIDENT

IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY

$3,900

Jun 24, 2024

DEUTSCH, SHMULEY

IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY

$3,900

Jun 25, 2024

PERLMUTTER, RAFUEL

GOLDEN TASTE • CEO

IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY

$3,400

Jun 24, 2024

Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-36]

ID: L000582

Top Contributors

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Sep 24, 2024

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Dec 19, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Jun 4, 2024

DEMOCRACY ENGINE

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$2,000

May 19, 2024

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$2,000

Jun 21, 2024

ONEIDA NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$1,000

Oct 8, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

Sep 28, 2024

SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION

OrganizationEL CAJON, CA

$1,000

Aug 20, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

Dec 27, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$1,000

Oct 3, 2023

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

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 63 nodes and 72 connections

Total contributions: $72

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

Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount

15 Orgs8 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 the Treasury

Moderate

Vector: 63%

Pages: 736-738AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's focus on countering China's geopolitical influence by advocating for Taiwan's greater inclusion in international financial institutions, which serves as a strategic counterweight to Chinese pressure. However, it does not directly address the specific Treasury-led CFIUS reforms or ownership leverage adjustments emphasized in the Project 2025 text."

Key themes:China geopolitical threatTreasury Department roleInternational financial institutionsTaiwan's international participationCountering Chinese influence

Department of the Treasury

Moderate

Vector: 62%

Pages: 736-738AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's focus on Treasury leveraging international financial institutions to counter China and enhance U.S. strategic influence, though it does not address CFIUS reforms, greenfield investment scrutiny, or financial warfare initiatives outlined in the policy."

Key themes:Treasuryinternational financial institutionsChina counterstrategyfinancial leverageTaiwan participation

— 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 the Treasury

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 733-735AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on increasing Taiwan's participation in international financial institutions like the IMF, while Project 2025 advocates for the U.S. to withdraw from the IMF and World Bank entirely, opposing their influence and funding. This creates a fundamental divergence in approach, despite both addressing U.S. engagement with international financial institutions."

Key themes:International Monetary FundTreasury DepartmentInternational financial institutionsU.S. foreign economic policy

— 701 — Department of the Treasury administers these reporting programs, most of this expense is mandated by Con- gress, not the IRS. One of the primary reasons that Congress mandates ever-increasing infor- mation reporting is that the Treasury Department and the Joint Committee on Taxation staff almost always overestimate how much revenue will be gained from still more burdensome information reporting, and they do not estimate or report private compliance costs. Congress and the Treasury Department must undertake a serious review of the information reporting regime and reduce the burden on the public—especially small businesses. Small businesses suffer disproportionately from complexity and administrative burdens. Costs do not increase linearly with size, so elevated administrative costs have an adverse effect on the competitiveness of small firms. Budget. The operating budget of the IRS should be held constant in real terms. The resources allocated to the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate should be increased by at least 20 percent (about $44 million). The Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion should be closed. Provided that IT management is changed; an effective, well-considered implementation plan is adopted; and serious oversight is put in place, additional resources dedicated solely to IT modernization may be warranted. INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS The Treasury Department should withdraw from Senate consideration the Protocol Amending the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters.48 The protocol will lead to substantially more transnational identity theft, crime, industrial espionage, financial fraud, and suppression of political oppo- nents and religious or ethnic minorities by authoritarian and corrupt governments, including China, Colombia, Nigeria, and Russia. Unlike the original multilateral convention, the amended convention is open to all governments—including many that are either hostile to the United States, have serious corruption problems, or have inadequate privacy protections. The new Administration should also oppose the multilateral Competent Authority Agreement on Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information.49 International organizations such as the OECD, the World Bank, and the Inter- national Monetary Fund espouse economic theories and policies that are inimical to American free market and limited government principles. The global elites who operate the IMF regularly advance higher taxes and big centralized government. The IMF has intervened in American policy debates—and has even recommended that the U.S. raise taxes. The IMF’s record of advancing global financial stability has been mixed at best. Its development assistance and lending programs in third- world countries have more often than not retarded growth rather than advancing it. The Treasury Department plays an important role in these international institutions and should force reforms and new policies. The U.S., however, should — 702 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise withdraw from both the World Bank and the IMF and terminate its financial con- tribution to both institutions. If the U.S. is to provide economic assistance or humanitarian aid to other nations, it should do so unilaterally—not through the pass-throughs of international aid orga- nizations, non-governmental organizations, or other nations. These organizations and countries simply create expensive middle-men, while U.S. funds are intercepted before being distributed to those in need. Also, these foreign entities have interests that do not coincide with American national security and economic interests. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY Treasury should make balancing the federal budget a mission-critical objective. The federal budget absorbs enormous resources from the economy, both in money taken from taxpayers and in money borrowed. The budget should be balanced by driving down federal spending while maintaining a strong national defense and not raising taxes. To reduce interest payments on the debt, Treasury should lock in current rel- atively low interest rates by issuing longer duration bonds, and even consider creating a 50-year treasury bill. Most of the federal debt rolls over on average about every three to four years. But interest rates, even with the latest Federal Reserve rate increases, are still below the 5 percent historical average. Treasury would thus save taxpayers money during the next several decades by issuing fewer short-term notes that will probably have to be rolled over at higher rates in the future. To promote transparency of finances, each year Americans should receive a financial statement of the U.S. government alerting citizens of the revenues, expen- ditures, deficit, and debt for the preceding fiscal year. The statement should also include this individual family’s pro-rata share of the debt based on family size. INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS The Treasury must act more assertively in international financial institutions to protect and advance U.S. national interests—and oppose those that do not. It should employ a carrot-and-stick approach by increasing its activity and commitment to those financial institutions that are willing and able to adjust to this new approach and by zeroing out or potentially exiting those institutions that rely on U.S. capital while advancing agendas that run counter to U.S. interests. l A major emphasis of effecting this change must be the addition of a large new cadre of U.S. professionals and contractors at these international financial institutions. l The U.S. must insist on the hiring and support of this human capital as a condition to future funding.

Trade

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 813-815AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on securing equitable treatment for Taiwan in international financial institutions, while the Project 2025 trade section emphasizes reducing U.S. trade deficits through reciprocal tariffs and addressing nontariff barriers. Both concern U.S. economic engagement abroad but address different mechanisms and objectives."

Key themes:international economic policyU.S. trade interestsreciprocity

— 781 — Trade 5 ELBAT )8 fo 8 egaP( noisserggA cimonocE fo seirogetaC s’anihC tsinummoC erutpaC gnigremE hceT-hgiH taht seirtsudnI erutuF evirD yeK eriuqcA dna eruceS tcetorP dna htworG seigolonhceT etanimoD lortnoC emoH s'anihC stnemecnavdA morf PI dna lanoitidarT larutaN eroC s’anihC dnapxE morf tekraM ,seiciloP ,stcA s'anihC esnefeD ni seirtnuoC rehtO gnirutcafunaM secruoseR labolG fo erahS noititepmoC fo secitcarP dna yrtsudnI .S.U eht dna seirtsudnI yllabolG stekraM stropmI dna noisserggA cimonocE ,gnikeeS-ygolonhceT % % % ngieroF detceriD-etatS tnemtsevnI tceriD % % % tfarcypS lanoitidarT gnipmuditnA edavE ot pihssnarT % seituD gniliavretnuoC dna stnemtsujdA xaT deddA-eulaV % % ezidisbuS setabeR dna stropxE esenihC decrofnE ylxaL dna kaeW % % swaL latnemnorivnE seigolonhceT eht snetaerhT noisserggA cimonocE s’anihC woH ,yciloP gnirutcafunaM dna edarT fo ecffi O esuoH etihW :ECRUOS /tnetnoc-pw/vog.sevihcra.esuohetihwpmurt//:sptth ,8102 enuJ ,dlroW eht dna setatS detinU eht fo ytreporP lautcelletnI dna gro.egatireh A .)3202 ,12 hcraM dessecca( fdp.FDP-81.81.6-tropeR-ygolonhceT-anihC-LANIF/60/8102/sdaolpu — 782 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise reduction in the U.S. bilateral trade deficit with India. Similarly, if Taiwan were to reduce its tariffs to U.S. levels, the size of the U.S. bilateral trade deficit with Taiwan would fall by 6 percent. If the U.S. imposed a mirror tariff, its bilateral trade deficit with Taiwan would fall by 59 percent. These results again underscore the high degree of unfair, unbalanced, and nonreciprocal trade that currently exists between the U.S. and much of the rest of the world, which penalizes American farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and workers because of the WTO-MFN conundrum. These simulations also demon- strate that implementation of the USRTA most likely would substantially reduce the U.S. trade deficit while creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs. These benefits notwithstanding, however, the U.S. would still face a substantial over- all trade deficit and substantial bilateral trade deficits with many of its major trading partners. Why might this be so? Because under WTO rules, America still faces numerous nonreciprocal nontariff barriers around the world. For example, one of America’s largest trading partners, Japan, runs a significant bilateral trade surplus in goods with the U.S.—more than $70 billion a year. While Japan has relatively low tariffs, it ranks high on the nontariff barrier scale. In such cases, which are numerous, pas- sage of the USRTA would likely also be very helpful in reducing nontariff barriers. This is because under the powers provided by the USRTA, if a foreign country imposes significantly higher nontariff barriers, then the President has the authority to “negotiate and seek to enter into an agreement” that “commits the country to… eliminate [its] nontariff barriers.”16 If the country refuses to come to the negoti- ating table and lower its nontariff barriers, the President has the authority to levy reciprocal duties to offset or mirror those barriers. In summary, passage of the USRTA would go a long way toward leveling the playing field for American farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and workers who are now forced to compete in an intrinsically unfair, unbalanced, and nonreciprocal WTO-MFN system. Nor is the USRTA necessarily the only possible legislative way to address this issue. In 2017, then-House Speaker Paul Ryan (R–WI) and then-House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R–TX) proposed a “border adjust- ment tax.” The proposed border adjustment would have eliminated the ability of corporations to deduct the cost of imports while eliminating the tax on income attributable to exports. This border adjustment tax would have shifted the U.S. corporate income tax from an origin-based tax applying to the production of goods and services in the United States to a destination-based tax applying to the con- sumption of goods and services in the U.S. This tax—strongly opposed by American multinational corporations and big- box retailers—not only would have leveled the playing field with respect to WTO rules, but also would have provided an innovative alternative to the application of

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 642-644AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Taiwan Non-Discrimination Act of 2025 focuses on Taiwan's participation in international financial institutions like the IMF, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt concerns U.S. pension reform, TSP investment restrictions related to China, and PBGC oversight—there is no substantive thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 609 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies l DOL should exercise its oversight of the FRTIB to prohibit investments in China. l Congress should enact legislation prohibiting investment of the TSP in China. PENSION REFORMS. Public Pension Plan Disclosure. Residents of states that responsibly manage their public pension plans (pension plans for State and local government employ- ees) should not be responsible for bailing out states that do not do so. Money is ultimately fungible, so federal aid to States can effectively be used to free up other State funds for pension contributions. Although the federal government does not impose funding rules on public pension plans, these plans should be required to disclose the fair market value of plan assets and liabilities (using the Treasury yield curve as the discount rate) on an annual basis. In the aggregate, these plans were underfunded on a market basis by $6.501 trillion as of Fiscal Year (FY) 2021, even though the plans reported underfunding of only $1.076 trillion using overly optimistic assumptions. l Disclose the fair market value of plan assets and liabilities. Congress should require public pension funds to disclose the fair market value of plan assets and liabilities (using the Treasury yield curve as the discount rate) on an annual basis. Multiemployer Plans. At the request of multiemployer union pension plans, the government has given such plans much more lenient rules and discretion over funding than it has given to single-employer plans. Multiemployer plans have been severely mismanaged, and the plans have abused the discretion and deference given them by federal law and enforcement agencies to make promises that they cannot keep. As a result, these plans are generally severely underfunded, with $757 billion in aggregate underfunding, and a funding level of just 42 percent. The Biden Admin- istration has provided a massive taxpayer bailout to some of these plans, but without any needed reforms. Even worse, it gave out funds in excess of what the law allows. l Congress should reform multiemployer pensions to give participants in these plans the same protections as those in single-employer plans. Liabilities should be measured similarly to single-employer plans. Workers should be able to earn benefits at any employer in the plan, but liabilities should be divided amongst employers, instead of the current illusory joint and several liability under which no one is ultimately responsible for making up underfunding. Troubled plans should be prohibited from — 610 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise making new pension promises. More timely and detailed reporting should be imposed. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Cor- poration (PBGC) insures benefits for private sector pension plans, with separate single-employer and multiemployer insurance programs. l The PBGC’s annual report must be submitted on time, and with timely data that uses fair-market value principles to calculate the PBGC’s finances. The PBGC has been submitting portions of statutorily required annual reports many months late and using out-of-date data. And PBGC's data on plans is almost five years old. These problematic practices make it difficult for Congress to become aware of serious problems in the insurance programs, which received a bailout of over $85 billion in the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act. The PBGC should use existing statutory authority to protect workers, retirees, employers, and taxpayers by closely monitoring and taking appropriate remedial action with regard to badly run and underfunded multiemployer union pension plans, including termination where appropriate. The PBGC's refusal to use such authority helped cause its multiemployer program deficit to go from less than $500 million in 2008 to over $65 billion in 2017. l Congress should increase the variable rate premium on underfunding and eliminate the per-participant cap in order to appropriately take into account risk and limit the degree to which well-funded pension plans must subsidize underfunded plans. Reforms should proportionately reduce the fixed per-participant premium to ease the burden on well-funded plans and also increase premiums on multiemployer plans to match single-employer plans. Improving Access to Employee Stock Ownership Plans. Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) are ERISA-covered employee retirement savings plans that allow employees to receive compensation in the form of equity in their employer business. These arrangements enable employees to formally partici- pate as investors in how their employers’ businesses are run. And they also align employer–employee incentives by giving employees a greater financial stake in the success of their employers. With over half of small businesses owned by business owners over the age of 55, ESOPs also create advantageous succession oppor- tunities that support the continuity of local businesses and regional economic

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. Kim, Young

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 340 East 1st Street in Tustin, California, as the "Ursula Ellen Kennedy Post Office Building".

119/hr/3350

STOP Payments Fraud Act of 2026

119/hr/9331

Credit Access and Inclusion Act of 2026

119/hr/5402

Back to All Bills