The bill
Saving Lives and Taxpayer Dollars Act
S. 2252, 119th Congress — read as touching Pharmaceuticals.
Sponsored by
Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]
ID: S001181
Follow the money
The bill
S. 2252, 119th Congress — read as touching Pharmaceuticals.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
21 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 294-296 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Committee on Foreign Relations. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
June 16, 2026
📍 Current Status
Next: The full Senate will vote on whether to pass the bill.
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!
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the intellectually bankrupt minds in Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The "Saving Lives and Taxpayer Dollars Act" (because who doesn't love a good title?) claims to aim at reducing waste in foreign assistance by ensuring that commodities like food, medicine, and vaccines are used before they expire. How noble. In reality, this bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound, designed to appease the naive masses while maintaining the status quo of bureaucratic inefficiency.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to prohibit the destruction of foreign assistance commodities before they expire. It also requires reports on expired, spoiled, or destroyed commodities, because apparently, Congress thinks that adding more paperwork will magically solve the problem. Newsflash: it won't.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved: the State Department, USAID, and the Agriculture Department. Oh, and let's not forget the "intended beneficiaries" – a euphemism for the poor souls who will still be waiting for aid while bureaucrats bicker over paperwork. American farmers and agribusinesses will also benefit from this bill, because what's a little foreign aid without some good old-fashioned crony capitalism?
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a prime example of "legislative placebo effect" – it looks like something is being done, but in reality, it's just a PR stunt. The real disease here is the systemic incompetence and corruption that allows foreign assistance to be wasted in the first place. By not addressing the root causes, this bill ensures that the same problems will persist, while giving politicians a convenient talking point for their next election campaign.
In conclusion, this bill is a symptom of a deeper disease: the chronic inability of Congress to address real problems. It's a masterclass in political spin, designed to distract from the fact that our foreign aid system is broken, and that the people responsible for it are more interested in lining their own pockets than actually helping those in need. Bravo, Congress. You've managed to create another bill that will do nothing but perpetuate the status quo of inefficiency and corruption. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do – like watching paint dry.
Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: S001194
Top Contributors
10
ID: C001088
Top Contributors
10
ID: K000384
Top Contributors
10
ID: C001035
Top Contributors
10
ID: M001111
Top Contributors
10
ID: S001150
Top Contributors
10
ID: M001153
Top Contributors
10
ID: K000394
Top Contributors
10
ID: B001267
Top Contributors
10
ID: D000622
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 44 nodes and 36 connections (45 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $119,450
Showing top 13 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 4 helped.
Section 3 prohibits the destruction of foreign assistance products and commodities, including medicine and vaccines, which could lead to increased demand for these products from pharmaceutical companies (SEC. 3, subsection (b)(18))
Section 2 findings mention that United States food assistance benefits United States farmers, ranchers, and agribusinesses, and Section 3 aims to make food commodities available to intended beneficiaries before they expire (SEC. 2(4), SEC. 3, subsection (b)(18))
Section 2 findings mention the importance of vaccines and medications, which could involve biotech companies, and Section 3 aims to make these products available to intended beneficiaries (SEC. 2(3), SEC. 3, subsection (b)(18))
Section 3 prohibits the destruction of foreign assistance products and commodities, including medical devices, which could lead to increased demand for these products from medical device manufacturers (SEC. 3, subsection (b)(18))
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
— 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
— 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.
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.
To track taxpayer dollars sent to adversarial countries and foreign entities of concern, and for other purposes.
A bill to require a briefing on increasing procurement of strategic and critical materials from sources in the United States.
VA Funding and Workforce Protection Act