Rescissions Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/2067
Last Updated: September 2, 2025

Sponsored by

Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO]

ID: S001227

Follow the money

The bill

Rescissions Act of 2025

S. 2067, 119th Congress — read as touching Print & Broadcast Media.

The sponsor

Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO]

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

The money

$158,400 raised

25 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. 223-225 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Star Print ordered on the bill.

September 1, 2025

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

(sigh) Oh joy, another exercise in futility, where I get to dissect the latest abomination from our esteemed lawmakers. The Rescissions Act of 2025 - a bill that's about as honest as a politician's promise.

Let's start with the "rescissions" themselves. A whopping $6.3 billion is being "rescinded" from various programs, which sounds impressive until you realize it's just a fancy way of saying "we're taking back money we never intended to spend in the first place." It's like a bad joke: "Hey, let's allocate billions for international organizations and then 'rescind' it when no one's looking!"

Now, let's take a look at the programs and agencies affected. The biggest losers are:

* International Organizations (Contributions to International Organizations): -$201 million * Global Health Programs: -$900 million * Migration and Refugee Assistance: -$800 million * Complex Crises Fund: -$43 million * Democracy Fund: -$83 million

Notable increases? Ha! Don't make me laugh. The only "increase" is in the amount of bureaucratic doublespeak used to justify these "rescissions."

Riders or policy provisions? Oh, you bet. There are plenty of goodies hidden in this bill, like a bad rash on a politician's backside. For example, Section 2(a) allows the President to unilaterally rescind funds without Congressional approval. Because who needs oversight when you have an imperial presidency?

Fiscal impact and deficit implications? (chuckles) You want me to take this seriously? The bill claims it will reduce the deficit by $6.3 billion over 10 years, but we all know that's just a fantasy. It's like saying a patient with stage IV cancer is going to be cured by a magic pill.

In conclusion, this bill is a masterclass in legislative sleight of hand. It's a shell game designed to make it look like our lawmakers are being fiscally responsible while actually doing nothing of the sort. I give it two thumbs down and a strong recommendation for a healthy dose of skepticism.

Diagnosis: Terminal case of bureaucratic nonsense, with symptoms including excessive use of jargon, blatant disregard for transparency, and a severe lack of accountability. Prognosis: Poor. Treatment: A strong dose of reality and a healthy dose of outrage from the American people.

Related Topics

Human Rights & Global DevelopmentPublic Health & Pandemic Response
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$158,400
23 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$13,000
Committees
$0
Individuals
$145,400

No PAC contributions found

1
ELEVATE MISSOURI
2 transactions
$6,700
2
TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA TRIBE
1 transaction
$2,900
3
PETER J SPALITTO DDS PC
1 transaction
$2,900
4
KIRKWOOD PLUMBING INC
1 transaction
$500

No committee contributions found

1
POPOLO, JOE
2 transactions
$13,200
2
WALTON, TROY
1 transaction
$11,600
3
PFAUTCH, ROY
1 transaction
$11,600
4
ROSS, DONALD
1 transaction
$10,000
5
TAYLOR, ANDREW
1 transaction
$6,600
6
TAYLOR, BARBARA
1 transaction
$6,600
7
KELSEY, J DAVID
1 transaction
$6,600
8
FOGEL, DAVID
1 transaction
$6,600
9
PALOMO, OSWALDO
1 transaction
$6,600
10
TAMASI, DAVID
1 transaction
$6,600
11
MCKNIGHT, ANDREW
1 transaction
$6,600
12
POPOLO, CHRIS
1 transaction
$6,600
13
ASHWORTH, CAROL
1 transaction
$6,600
14
ASHWORTH, JIMMY
1 transaction
$6,600
15
GIBBS, HALLIE H.
1 transaction
$6,600
16
GIDWITZ, RONALD J.
1 transaction
$6,600
17
STEWARD, DAVE
1 transaction
$6,600
18
MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE
1 transaction
$6,600
19
MANDELBLATT, ERIC
1 transaction
$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Sen. Paul, Rand [R-KY]

ID: P000603

Top Contributors

10

1
MACRICOSTAS, GEORGE C. MR.
RAGINGWIRE ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS INC. • EXECUTIVE BOARD SERVICE
IndividualINCLINE VILLAGE, NV
$13,200
Apr 29, 2024
2
ANDREESSEN, LAURA ARRILLAGA
SELF-EMPLOYED • PHILANTHROPIST
IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA
$6,600
Apr 25, 2024
3
ANDREESSEN, MARC
ANDREESSEN HOROWITZ • CO-FOUNDER
IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA
$6,600
Apr 25, 2024
4
KARVELA, ELENI
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualINCLINE VILLAGE, NV
$6,600
Apr 29, 2024
5
COLBERT, THOMAS W. MR.
COMMUNITY BANCHARES OF MS. • BANKING
IndividualFLOWOOD, MS
$5,000
Oct 11, 2024
6
HALL, SANDY MRS.
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualMIDLAND, TX
$3,300
Oct 1, 2024
7
GATES, RORY
SENATE • ANALYST
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Oct 7, 2024
8
MCPHEE, MICHAEL
PHALCON LTD • PRESIDENT
IndividualGOSHEN, CT
$3,300
Oct 27, 2024
9
MCPHEE, MICHAEL
PHALCON LTD • PRESIDENT
IndividualGOSHEN, CT
$3,300
Dec 2, 2024
10
FORBES, SEAN
SC FORBES VENTURES VII • CHAIRMAN
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024

Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]

ID: B001243

Top Contributors

10

1
FRIENDS OF COMMUNITY ONCOLOGY PAC
PACVIRGINIA BEACH, VA
$5,000
Apr 12, 2023
2
THE COGGIN GROUP
OrganizationMURFREESBORO, TN
$2,900
Mar 9, 2023
3
THE COGGIN GROUP
OrganizationMURFREESBORO, TN
$2,500
Mar 9, 2023
4
DOSS BROTHERS FARM
OrganizationLAWRENCEBURG, TN
$1,000
Apr 17, 2024
5
DOSS BROTHERS FARM
OrganizationLAWRENCEBURG, TN
$1,000
Mar 18, 2024
6
BL PARTNERS GROUP LLC
OrganizationARLINGTON, VA
$500
Mar 17, 2023
7
KING, RODNEY W.
SELF-EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY
IndividualGERMANTOWN, TN
$13,200
Apr 4, 2024
8
BEAN, BILL G.
HANNING & BEAN ENTERPRISES INC. • REAL ESTATE INVESTOR
IndividualCOLUMBIA CITY, IN
$10,000
May 1, 2024
9
SMITH, THOMAS
PRESCOTT INVESTORS INC. • INVESTOR
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$10,000
May 13, 2024
10
GAMBLE, KATHRYN
UNAKA CO • BUSINESS EXECUTIVE
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$9,900
Jul 15, 2024

Sen. Lummis, Cynthia M. [R-WY]

ID: L000571

Top Contributors

10

1
HEGYI, ALBERT P
1ST FINANCIAL BANK USA • BANKER
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Dec 6, 2023
2
MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualASPEN, CO
$6,600
Sep 26, 2024
3
MANDELBLATT, ERIC
SOROBAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LP • MANAGING PARTNER
IndividualASPEN, CO
$6,600
Sep 26, 2024
4
SAMANI, PYAHM
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$5,800
Aug 8, 2023
5
CASCARILLA, MARISSA
NA • HOMEMAKER
IndividualMIAMI, FL
$3,700
Apr 1, 2024
6
CASCARILLA, CHARLES
PAXOS • CEO
IndividualMIAMI, FL
$3,700
Apr 1, 2024
7
DOWNS, RAISSA
TARPLIN, DOWNS AND YOUNG, LLC • CONSULTANT
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,600
Dec 12, 2024
8
SCARAMUCCI, ANTHONY
SKYBRIDGE • MANAGING PARTNER
IndividualPLANDOME, NY
$3,435
Jul 30, 2024
9
HOBART, ROBERT
VENTURE GOVERNMENT STRATEGIES • CONSULTANT
IndividualNASHVILLE, TN
$3,435
Aug 5, 2024
10
HOLDING, KATHLEEN MS.
SUNLIGHT RANCH CO. • EXECUTIVE
IndividualDAYTON, WY
$3,300
Dec 6, 2023

Sen. Tuberville, Tommy [R-AL]

ID: T000278

Top Contributors

10

1
BROAD METRO LLC
OrganizationOLD WESTBURY, NY
$3,300
Apr 18, 2023
2
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Apr 28, 2023
3
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$2,900
Feb 20, 2023
4
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$2,900
Apr 28, 2023
5
SUMMERLIN FARMS
OrganizationMOULTRIE, GA
$1,000
Oct 8, 2023
6
KENT HANCE BUSINESS
OrganizationLUBBOCK, TX
$1,000
Aug 17, 2023
7
SUMMERLIN FARMS
OrganizationMOULTRIE, GA
$1,000
Sep 8, 2023
8
KENT HANCE BUSINESS
OrganizationLUBBOCK, TX
$1,000
Sep 16, 2023
9
BEACH ICE LLC
OrganizationMOULTRIE, GA
$500
Oct 8, 2023
10
LEELAND VENTURES LLC
OrganizationHAMPTON COVE, AL
$500
Dec 4, 2023

Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]

ID: E000295

Top Contributors

10

1
SAC & FOX TRIBE OF MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA
OrganizationTAMA, IA
$5,000
Aug 29, 2023
2
SAC & FOX TRIBE OF MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA
OrganizationTAMA, IA
$1,700
Sep 28, 2023
3
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
May 21, 2024
4
ABEL, ANDREA MS.
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualDES MOINES, IA
$50,000
Feb 7, 2023
5
MCINERNEY, THOMAS E. MR.
BLUFF POINT ASSOC. CORPORATION • VENTURE INVESTOR
IndividualWESTPORT, CT
$50,000
Feb 22, 2023
6
NICOLLS, BOB MR.
MONARCH • REAL ESTATE
IndividualFRANKTOWN, CO
$25,000
Mar 17, 2023
7
GRAY, C. BOYDEN
SELF-EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$25,000
Mar 29, 2023
8
CATSIMATIDIS, JOHN A. MR.
UNITED REFINING COMPANY • CHARIMAN & CEO
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$25,000
May 16, 2023
9
KOTICK, ROBERT MR.
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD • CEO
IndividualSANTA MONICA, CA
$16,600
Dec 20, 2024
10
VINCZE, CHRISTOPHER
TRC COMPANIES INC. • CHAIRMAN AND CEO
IndividualTEQUESTA, FL
$15,800
Nov 6, 2023

Sen. Banks, Jim [R-IN]

ID: B001299

Top Contributors

10

1
STOCKAMP FOUNDATION
OrganizationCOLUMBIA CITY, IN
$100
Feb 26, 2024
2
NEAL, ROLLIE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualCLARKSBURG, WV
$13,068
Mar 12, 2023
3
NEAL, ROLLIE
IndividualCLARKSBURG, WV
$13,068
Mar 21, 2023
4
SALAMONE, CHRISTOPHER J
IndividualFAIRPORT, NY
$12,000
Feb 8, 2024
5
BARKLEY, JOSH
BARKLEY BUILDERS INC • GENERAL CONTRACTOR
IndividualOSSIAN, IN
$6,700
Apr 3, 2023
6
THRIFT, PAUL
THOMPSON THRIFT • CEO
IndividualTERRE HAUTE, IN
$6,700
Feb 28, 2023
7
MUSELMAN, ROGER C.
DRG HOLDINGS, LLC • CHAIRMAN
IndividualBERNE, IN
$6,700
Mar 28, 2023
8
WALTERS, KENNETH
JAYCO • PRESIDENT AND CEO
IndividualGRANGER, IN
$6,700
Sep 1, 2023
9
DUMEZICH, DANA A.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualMARCO ISLAND, FL
$6,600
Jun 15, 2023
10
RAMSEY, JASON
IndividualBREVARD, NC
$6,600
May 8, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 68 nodes and 40 connections (52 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $232,200

Top Donors - Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO]

Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount

4 Orgs19 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • Section 2(b)(21)(A)-(B) rescinds amounts made available for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for fiscal years 2026 and 2027, which directly harms public broadcasters (e.g., PBS, NPR) that rely on this funding.

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: 223-225AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill rescinds funding from international organizations and global health programs, aligning with Project 2025's goal of reducing U.S. financial support to ineffective or adversarial international institutions and redirecting funds to better uses. Both emphasize fiscal accountability and skepticism toward multilateral entities that may undermine U.S. interests."

Key themes:funding rescissionsinternational organizationsglobal health programsfiscal responsibilityU.S. interest alignment

— 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

Strong
Vector: 60%
Pages: 226-228AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill rescinds funding from international health organizations and global health programs, directly aligning with Project 2025's objective to cut federal dollars to the WHO and similar entities pending policy adjustments. Both emphasize reducing U.S. financial support to international organizations unless they serve American interests or undergo reform."

Key themes:funding reductionsinternational organizationsglobal healthforeign assistance reformfiscal accountability

— 193 — Department of State the supply of federal dollars to the WHO and other health-focused international organizations pending adjustment of their policies. The United States must return to treating international organizations as vehi- cles for promoting American interests—or take steps to extract itself from those organizations. SHAPING THE FUTURE Development of a grand foreign policy strategy is key to the next Administra- tion’s success, but without addressing structural and related issues of the State Department, this strategy will be at risk. The Hart–Rudman Commission called for a significant restructuring of the State Department specifically and foreign assis- tance programs generally, stating that funding increases could only be justified if there was greater confidence that institutions would use their funding effectively.22 Sadly, the exact opposite has occurred. The State Department has metastasized in structure and resources, but neither the function of the department nor the use of taxpayer dollars has improved. The next Administration can take steps to remedy these deficiencies. The State Department’s greatest problem is certainly not an absence of resources. As noted, the department boasts tens of thousands of employees and billions of dollars of funding—including significant amounts of discretionary fund- ing. It also exists among a broader array of federal agencies that are duplicative, particularly when it comes to the provision of direct and indirect foreign assistance. Realistically, meaningful reform of the State Department will require significant streamlining. Below are some key structural and operational recommendations that will be essential for the next Administration’s success, and which will lay crucial founda- tions for other necessary reforms. l Develop a reorganization strategy. Despite periodic attempts by previous Administrations (including the Trump Administration) to make more than cosmetic changes to the State Department, its structure has remained largely unchanged since the 20th century.23 The State Department will better serve future Administrations, regardless of party, if it were to be meaningfully streamlined. The next Administration should develop a complete hypothetical reorganization of the department—one which would tighten accountability to political leadership, reduce overhead, eliminate redundancy, waste fewer taxpayer resources, and recommend additional personnel-related changes for improvement of function. Such reorganization could be creative, but also carefully review specific structure-related problems that have been documented over the years. This reorganization effort would necessarily assess what office closures

Agency for International Development

Moderate
Vector: 60%
Pages: 312-314AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill rescinds funding from USAID-administered international programs, which aligns with Project 2025's goal of reducing foreign aid spending and realigning it with national interests, though it does not implement the specific personnel, training, or ideological reforms outlined in the policy."

Key themes:foreign assistance spending reductionUSAID program fundingfiscal conservatism in aid

— 279 — Agency for International Development clearances, and other components of the hiring process that are necessary for immediate onboarding while coordinating with the White House to bring in new appointees and make internal career employee changes. On Day One, USAID should halt all agencywide training and replace it with training modules to advance the President’s agenda. The Administration should appoint a Senior Accountable Official (SAO) to report on the agency’s adherence to Administration policy priorities, including on Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance, critical race theory, climate change, gender, and diversity and inclusion. It should also create a program to staff hard-to-fill positions overseas. Finally, the Administration should create a recruiting program for veterans and other groups to participate in career job opportunities at USAID. Former mis- sionaries, veterans, members of diasporas, and faith community stakeholders with overseas experience should be recruited to work at USAID on Schedule A appoint- ments, as Institutional Services Contractors, as Personal Services Contractors, and as Foreign Service Officers. CONCLUSION The next conservative Administration will have a unique opportunity to realign U.S. foreign assistance with American national interests and the principles of good governance and more accurately reflect the U.S. taxpayer’s unmatched charita- ble desire to help those in need. It can build on a strong baseline of conservative reforms undertaken by the Trump Administration to counter Communist China’s strategy of world domination. However, this will require that bold steps are taken on Day One to undo the gross misuse of foreign aid by the current Administration to promote a radical ideology that is politically divisive at home and harms our global standing. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume, but Dr. William Steiger, Bethany Kozma, and Dr. Alma Golden deserve special mention. The author assumes full responsibility for the content of this chapter, and no views expressed therein should be attributed to any other individual. — 280 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. S. 1983, Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, Public Law No. 87-195, 87th Congress, September 4, 1961, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-75/pdf/STATUTE-75-Pg424-2.pdf (accessed January 19, 2023). 2. U.S. Agency or International Development, “Journey to Self-Reliance Fact Sheet,” June 3, 2020, https://2017-2020.usaid.gov/documents/1870/journey-self-reliance-fact-sheet#:~:text=WHAT%20 IS%20THE%20JOURNEY%20TO%20SELF-RELIANCE%3F%20USAID%20is,greater%20 developmentoutcomesandworktowardatimewhenforeignassistanceisnolongernecessary.%20 It%E2%80%99s%20called%20the%20Journey%20to%20Self-Reliance (accessed March 17, 2023). 3. News release, “U.S. Agency for International Development Administrator Mark Green’s Interview with C-Span’s ‘Newsmakers’ Host Susan Swain and Washington Post’s Carl Morello and Wall Street Journal’s Ben Kesling,” U.S. Agency for International Development, November 26, 2018, https://2017-2020.usaid.gov/news- information/press-releases/nov-26-2018-administrator-mark-green-interview-cspan-newsmakers (accessed March 17, 2023). 4. U.S. Agency for International Development, Digital Strategy 2020–2024, https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/ files/2022-05/USAID_Digital_Strategy.pdf.pdf://www.usaid.gov/digital-development/usaid-digital-strategy (accessed March 17, 2023). 5. “U.S. Strategic Framework for the Indo-Pacific,” declassified in part by Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Robert C. O’Brien, January 5, 2021, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp- content/uploads/2021/01/IPS-Final-Declass.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023), and Robert C. O’Brien, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, “A Free and Open Indo-Pacific,” January 5, 2021, https:// trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/OBrien-Expanded-Statement.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 6. News Release, “Fact Sheet: Prioritizing Climate in Foreign Policy and National Security,” The White House, October 21, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/10/21/fact-sheet- prioritizing-climate-in-foreign-policy-and-national-security/ (accessed January 28, 2023). 7. U.S. Agency for International Development, Climate Strategy 2020–2030, April 2022, https://www.usaid.gov/ sites/default/files/2022-11/USAID-Climate-Strategy-2022-2030.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 8. Adva Saldinger, “USAID Steps Up ‘Languishing’ Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Effort,” Devex.com, December 15, 2021, http://www.devex.com/news/usaid-steps-up-languishing-diversity-equity-and-inclusion- effort-102316 (accessed January 28, 2021). 9. U.S. Agency for International Development, “Gender Equity and Women Empowerment,” https://www.usaid. gov/gender-equality-and-womens-empowerment (accessed January 30, 2023). 10. U.S. Agency for International Development, “Integrating Gender Equality and Female Empowerment in USAID’s Program Cycle,” ADS Chapter 25, partial revision date January 22, 2021, https://www.usaid.gov/sites/ default/files/2022-12/205.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 11. S. 137, Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance Act, 117th Congress, introduced January 28, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/137#:~:text=Protecting%20Life%20in%20Foreign%20 Assistance%20Act.%20This%20bill,support%20for%20an%20entity%20that%20conducts%20 such%20activities (accessed January 20, 2023), and H.R. 534, Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance Act, 117th Congress, introduced January 28, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house- bill/534?s=1&r=450 (accessed January 20, 2023). 12. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., “Memorandum on Protecting Women’s Health at Home and Abroad,” Memorandum for the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, The White House, January 28, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/28/memorandum- on-protecting-womens-health-at-home-and-abroad/ (accessed March 18, 2023). 13. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13926, “Advancing International Religious Freedom,” June 2, 2020, in Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 109 (June 5, 2020), pp. 34951–34953, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2020-06-05/pdf/2020-12430.pdf (accessed January 20, 2023). 14. 22 Code of Federal Regulations § 205.1, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-22/chapter-II/part-205 (accessed March 18, 2023). 15. Contributor’s notes from internal USAID meetings.

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