Protecting Global Fisheries Act of 2026

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/1369
Last Updated: May 14, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]

ID: K000384

Follow the money

The bill

Protecting Global Fisheries Act of 2026

S. 1369, 119th Congress — read as touching Agribusiness.

The sponsor

Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]

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

The money

$138,300 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Agency for International Development" 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

Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 322.

February 9, 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 Senate

🏛️

House 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 esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Protecting Global Fisheries Act of 2026 is a bill that claims to combat illegal, unreported, or unregulated (IUU) fishing and trade in endangered species. How noble. In reality, it's just another excuse for the US government to exert its influence on the global stage, while pretending to care about the environment.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill authorizes the President to impose sanctions on foreign individuals or entities involved in IUU fishing or trade in endangered species. Oh, how original. It's not like we've seen this same tired tactic used before as a thinly veiled excuse for economic warfare. The bill also requires the Secretary of State to prioritize collaboration with friendly countries (read: those who do our bidding) and to use the US voice at the United Nations to urge greater action against IUU fishing.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are affected by this bill: foreign governments, corporations, and individuals involved in the fishing industry. But let's be real, the real stakeholders here are the politicians who get to grandstand about environmental issues while lining their pockets with campaign donations from special interest groups.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "do as I say, not as I do." The US government will use it to lecture other countries about IUU fishing while ignoring its own complicity in the problem. The sanctions will likely harm innocent parties, such as fishermen and their families, while doing little to address the root causes of IUU fishing.

In conclusion, this bill is a symptom of a deeper disease: the US government's addiction to playing global cop while ignoring its own corruption and hypocrisy. It's a cynical attempt to appear environmentally conscious while serving the interests of powerful lobbies and politicians. I give it two thumbs down, and a healthy dose of skepticism.

Related Topics

Wildlife & Endangered SpeciesClimate Change & Sustainability
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$138,300
19 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$9,800
Committees
$0
Individuals
$128,500

No PAC contributions found

1
THE CHICKASAW NATION
3 transactions
$4,300
2
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
3 transactions
$2,000
3
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000
4
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
1 transaction
$1,000
5
CHEROKEE NATION
1 transaction
$1,000
6
STONEHALL FARM
1 transaction
$500

No committee contributions found

1
BROWN, MARY K.
2 transactions
$15,100
2
THOMAS, TORI WINKLER
2 transactions
$13,200
3
BERG, MILDRED
2 transactions
$13,200
4
MILLER, CAROLE
2 transactions
$13,200
5
LAUDER, LEONARD A.
2 transactions
$12,000
6
MARQUEZ, DARIO O. JR
2 transactions
$11,600
7
SEMANS, TRUMAN T.
2 transactions
$10,000
8
BROWN, SCOTT S.
1 transaction
$9,200
9
SHUMADINE, CONRAD
1 transaction
$6,700
10
COLLEY, MARK D.
1 transaction
$6,600
11
CRAIG, FRANCES B.
1 transaction
$6,200
12
CHAI, CHUCKRA
1 transaction
$6,200
13
SCRIPPS, WENDY
1 transaction
$5,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 5 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]

ID: C001075

Top Contributors

10

1
YAWITZ, JESS B. MR.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO
$14,000
Jun 11, 2024
2
MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE
DMM PROPRIETA MANAGEMENT • MANAGER
IndividualASPEN, CO
$9,900
Nov 2, 2023
3
MANDELBLATT, ERIC
SOROBAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LP • MANAGING PARTNER
IndividualASPEN, CO
$9,900
Nov 2, 2023
4
JAYASINGHE, SAMAN K. DR.
SELF-EMPLOYED • PHYSICIAN
IndividualBATON ROUGE, LA
$9,900
Jun 13, 2024
5
KARP, ALEXANDER C.
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES • CEO
IndividualBEDFORD, NH
$9,900
Apr 16, 2024
6
OBERNDORF, SUSAN
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$9,900
Jun 5, 2024
7
OBERNDORF, WILLIAM
OBERNDORF ENTERPRISES • OWNER
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$9,900
Jun 5, 2024
8
YAWITZ, ALICE G.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualST. LOUIS, MO
$9,900
Jun 18, 2024
9
GRIGSBY, BOBBI F. MRS.
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualBATON ROUGE, LA
$6,600
Dec 23, 2024
10
GRIGSBY, L. LANE MR.
CAJUN INDUSTRIES LLC • CHAIRMAN EMERITUS
IndividualBATON ROUGE, LA
$6,600
Dec 23, 2024

Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM]

ID: H001046

Top Contributors

10

1
JSTREETPAC
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$1,000
Apr 19, 2024
2
SAN PABLO LYTTON TRIBE
OrganizationSAN PABLO, CA
$21,600
Oct 5, 2023
3
PUEBLO OF LAGUNA
OrganizationLAGUNA, NM
$5,800
Sep 30, 2024
4
PUEBLO OF SAN ILDEFONSO
OrganizationSANTA FE, NM
$5,000
Oct 30, 2024
5
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$5,000
Oct 23, 2024
6
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$5,000
Dec 5, 2023
7
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$5,000
Oct 15, 2024
8
SAN PABLO LYTTON TRIBE
OrganizationSAN PABLO, CA
$3,962
May 10, 2024
9
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
10
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024

Sen. Curtis, John R. [R-UT]

ID: C001114

Top Contributors

10

1
KELLER INVESTMENTS PROPERTIES
OrganizationCENTERVILLE, UT
$29,800
Dec 31, 2023
2
SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationSUQUAMISH, WA
$1,000
Aug 14, 2024
3
TENNIS & SUN LC
OrganizationSALT LAKE CITY, UT
$1,000
Jun 10, 2024
4
BGR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, LLC
OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC
$1,000
Mar 25, 2024
5
FUGAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES INC
OrganizationSALT LAKE CITY, UT
$1,000
Sep 13, 2023
6
STEEL, SHAWN
STEEL & EISNER, LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualSURFSIDE, CA
$10,000
Mar 25, 2024
7
STEEL, SHAWN
STEEL & EISNER, LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualSURFSIDE, CA
$10,000
Mar 25, 2024
8
BAKER, PAUL
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualTUCSON, AZ
$6,600
Jun 5, 2024
9
BAKER, PAUL
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualTUCSON, AZ
$6,600
Jun 5, 2024
10
BERKLEY, WILLIAM
WRBC • CHAIRMAN
IndividualKEY LARGO, FL
$6,600
Jun 7, 2024

Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]

ID: S001217

Top Contributors

0

No contribution data available

Sen. McCormick, David [R-PA]

ID: M001243

Top Contributors

10

1
SIG SAUER PAC
PACPORTSMOUTH, NH
$2,500
Oct 4, 2024
2
SEGURO MEDICO LLC
OrganizationREADING, PA
$10,000
Aug 21, 2024
3
CLEMENTS MIDWAY PARTNERS LLC
OrganizationSALT LAKE CITY, UT
$10,000
Sep 16, 2024
4
BLOOMSBURG INDUSTRIAL VENTURES LLC
OrganizationBLOOMSBURG, PA
$4,000
Apr 23, 2024
5
SUN CENTER LP
OrganizationASTON, PA
$2,500
Dec 12, 2023
6
UTILITY ADVISORY GROUP LLC
OrganizationHAVERTOWN, PA
$1,500
May 7, 2024
7
MODEVITY LLC
OrganizationMALVERN, PA
$1,500
May 24, 2024
8
O'DONNELL PARTNERS LLC
OrganizationMALVERN, PA
$1,500
May 24, 2024
9
KRAUSE & ASSOCIATES LP
OrganizationAUSTIN, TX
$1,000
Dec 20, 2023
10
BLOOMSBURG INDUSTRIAL VENTURES LLC
OrganizationBLOOMSBURG, PA
$700
Apr 23, 2024

Donor Network - Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 73 nodes and 42 connections (80 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $254,800

Top Donors - Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

6 Orgs13 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • −Agribusinessconfidence 0.80

    Section 4(d)(4)(B) excludes from humanitarian exception transactions for sale of food or agricultural commodities obtained through illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing, which could affect agribusiness involved in such supply chains.

  • Section 4(d)(4)(B) excludes from humanitarian exception transactions for sale of food or agricultural commodities obtained through illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing, which could affect meat and dairy processors if their products are sourced from such fishing.

  • −Crop Producersconfidence 0.70

    Section 4(d)(4)(B) excludes from humanitarian exception transactions for sale of food or agricultural commodities obtained through illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing, which could affect crop producers if their products are sourced from such fishing.

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.

Agency for International Development

Weak
Vector: 63%
Pages: 294-296AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on combating illegal fishing through sanctions and international cooperation, while the Project 2025 USAID section centers on pro-life funding restrictions, religious freedom, and procurement reform. Both involve foreign policy engagement but address distinct substantive areas, resulting only a tangential connection."

Key themes:foreign assistanceinternational cooperationpolicy enforcement

— 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.

Department of State

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

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on combating illegal fishing and protecting marine ecosystems through international cooperation and sanctions, while the Project 2025 State Department section emphasizes Arctic strategy, economic freedom, and skepticism toward international organizations. There is minimal thematic overlap, with only a tangential connection through advocacy at the UN."

Key themes:international cooperationUnited Nations advocacy

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

Department of the Treasury

Weak
Vector: 61%
Pages: 736-738AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on combating illegal fishing and protecting endangered species through international cooperation and sanctions, while the Project 2025 policy centers on reforming CFIUS to address national security threats from China, particularly regarding greenfield investments and penalty standardization. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address foreign investment, national security screening, or Treasury-led CFIUS reforms."

Key themes:sanctionsinternational cooperation

— 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.

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