The bill
American Decade of Sports Act
S. 3676, 119th Congress — read as touching Entertainment & Streaming.
Sponsored by
Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV]
ID: R000608
Follow the money
The bill
S. 3676, 119th Congress — read as touching Entertainment & Streaming.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Department of State" section, p. 220-222 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 502.
July 26, 2026
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
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!
**Summary of S. 3676: American Decade of Sports Act**
**1. Main Purpose & Objectives** The bill’s stated purpose is to require the Secretary of State to develop and implement a “sports diplomacy strategy” leveraging major international sporting events hosted in the U.S. between 2024 and 2034—including the 2026 FIFA World Cup, 2028 Olympics, and various World Cups—to enhance U.S. soft power, diplomatic relationships, and global leadership. In reality, this is a transparent attempt to slap a feel-good, bipartisan veneer on the State Department’s chronic irrelevance in an era of great-power competition. The bill pretends that hosting soccer matches and track meets will somehow compensate for decades of underfunded diplomacy, hollow alliances, and a foreign policy establishment more focused on photo ops than substantive statecraft. It’s not about diplomacy—it’s about creating a bureaucratic excuse to throw parties while the world burns.
**2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill mandates two five-year sports diplomacy strategies (submitted at enactment and five years later), requiring the State Department to: define diplomatic objectives and metrics of success (read: meaningless KPIs no one will audit); partner with host cities, diaspora groups, athletes, and private sector entities (i.e., outsource the work to NGOs and corporations looking for PR); integrate sports into regional diplomacy, public diplomacy, and commercial diplomacy (because nothing says “strategic competition with China” like a volleyball clinic in Nairobi); expedite visas for athletes and spectators (a nod to the hospitality industry’s lobbying power); and detail required funding and personnel (which will inevitably be ignored or underfunded). It also renames the existing Sports Diplomacy Division as the “Office of Sports Diplomacy”—a title change so meaningless it could only be proposed by someone who thinks renaming a janitorial closet the “Office of Facilities Excellence” improves morale.
**3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders** - **State Department bureaucrats**: Forced to produce glossy strategies they’ll ignore, attend pointless interagency meetings, and pretend visa processing for beach volleyball players is a national security priority. - **Local host cities and sports leagues**: Granted federal cover to extract taxpayer subsidies under the guise of “diplomatic legacy.” - **Diaspora communities and NGOs**: Recruited as unpaid props to lend authenticity to top-down propaganda efforts. - **Athletes and tourists**: Benefit from slightly faster visas—assuming the State Department can actually execute, which it can’t. - **Taxpayers**: On the hook for funding a performative exercise in soft power theater while real diplomatic challenges—like countering Chinese influence in Africa or rebuilding trust with allies—go unaddressed. - **Voters**: Treated as easily distracted rubes who’ll believe hosting a World Cup makes America respected again.
**4. Potential Impact & Implications** This bill will have approximately zero impact on actual U.S. global leadership. It will generate reams of unread strategy documents, a few feel-good photo ops of diplomats tossing soccer balls with foreign kids, and a minor, temporary improvement in visa processing for athletes—likely reversed the moment the next administration cuts State Department funding. The real impact is symbolic: it reveals how unseriously Congress treats foreign policy, preferring to legislate feel-good distractions over hard choices about defense spending, alliance management, or countering authoritarian influence. It’s not a strategy—it’s a placebo for a nation addicted to the illusion that liking America’s sports teams equals liking its foreign policy. In short: it’s legislative sportswashing. Diagnose the patient: terminally unserious, chronically distracted, and dangerously confused about what power actually looks like. Prognosis: more of the same. Pass the popcorn—and the antipsychotics.
Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: Y000064
Top Contributors
20
ID: P000145
Top Contributors
29
ID: C001114
Top Contributors
25
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 53 nodes and 76 connections
Total contributions: $76
Showing top 17 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 4 helped.
Section 3(b)(6) mentions elevating American arts, film, and music creators to promote cultural exchange, which could benefit the entertainment industry, including streaming platforms.
Section 3(b)(2) mentions working with host cities, which could involve transportation infrastructure and services, potentially benefiting the surface transportation industry.
The bill's focus on promoting American culture and values through sports diplomacy might indirectly benefit big tech platforms that provide digital infrastructure for such events and promotions.
Section 3(b)(2) implies engagement with local communities, which includes restaurants and food services that would see an increase in demand due to the events.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
AI Analysis:
"The bill's focus on sports diplomacy as a tool for enhancing U.S. soft power and global engagement aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on strategic, relationship-based diplomacy, particularly in building cooperative partnerships and focusing on core diplomatic activities without promoting divisive cultural policies."
— 187 — Department of State United States, but at least some of them would eventually try if allowed to consolidate their operations and plan such attacks. The immediate threat they pose lies in their abilities and willingness to strike American targets in their regions of operation or to harm U.S. interests in other ways. The U.S. should support capable African military and security operations through the State Department and other federal agencies responsible for granting foreign military education, training, and security assistance. l Build a coalition of the cooperative. Rather than thinning limited federal resources by spreading funds across all countries (including some that are unsupportive or even hostile to the United States,) the next Administration should focus on those countries with which the U.S. can expect a mutually beneficial relationship. After being designated focus countries by the State Department, such nations should receive a full suite of American engagement. That said, the next Administration should still maintain a baseline level of contact even with those countries with which it has less- than-fruitful relationships in order to encourage positive developments and to be in position to seize unexpected diplomatic opportunities as they arise. l Focus on core diplomatic activities, and stop promoting policies birthed in the American culture wars. African nations are particularly (and reasonably) non-receptive to the U.S. social policies such as abortion and pro-LGBT initiatives being imposed on them. The United States should focus on core security, economic, and human rights engagement with African partners and reject the promotion of divisive policies that hurt the deepening of shared goals between the U.S. and its African partners. Europe American foreign policy has long benefited from cooperation with the countries of Europe (generally, the EU), and any conservative Administration should build on this resource. Yet the transatlantic relationship is complex, with security, trade, and political dimensions. First, the Europe, Eurasia, and Russia region is made up of relatively wealthy and technologically advanced societies that should be expected to bear a fair share of both security needs and global security architecture: The United States cannot be expected to provide a defense umbrella for countries unwilling to contribute appropriately. At stake after 2024 will be examining the status of the Wales Pledge of 2 percent of gross domestic product toward defense by NATO members. The new Administration will also want to encourage nations to exceed that pledge. Second, transatlantic trade is a significant part of the global economy, and it is in the U.S. national interest to amplify it, especially because this means weaning
AI Analysis:
"The bill aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on using public diplomacy to advance American interests, particularly through strategic communication and engagement with foreign publics. Both seek to enhance the effectiveness of State Department tools in promoting U.S. influence abroad, though the bill focuses on sports diplomacy while Project 2025 critiques broader public diplomacy inefficiencies and calls for structural reform."
— 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 — 194 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise can be carried out with and without congressional approval. Timelines for action on these fronts should be developed accordingly, but speed should be a priority. l Consolidate foreign assistance authorities. Foreign assistance is a critical foreign policy tool that is too often disconnected from the federal government’s practice of foreign policy. Bureaucrats spend significant energy resisting the use of non-emergency foreign assistance to leverage positive results for the United States, even though it is a perfectly reasonable proposition. The coordination of foreign assistance dollars is also difficult because the foreign assistance budget and foreign loan issuance authorities are divided across numerous Cabinet departments, smaller agencies, and other offices. The next Administration should take steps to ensure that future foreign assistance clearly and unambiguously supports the President’s foreign policy agenda. For example, the next administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, which is technically subordinate to the State Department, should be authorized to take on the additional role of Director of Foreign Assistance with the rank of Deputy Secretary and oversee all foreign assistance. This role—which existed briefly during the George W. Bush Administration before it was eliminated by the Obama Administration—would empower the dual-hatted official to better align and coordinate with the manifold foreign assistance programs across the federal government. The next Administration should also evaluate whether these multiple sources of foreign assistance are in the national interest and, if not, develop a plan to consolidate foreign assistance authorities. l Make public diplomacy and international broadcasting serve American interests. A key part of U.S. foreign policy is the ability to communicate with not only governments but with the peoples of the world. Indeed, in some ways, communicating directly with the public is more important than communicating with governments, particularly in times of governmental conflict or disagreement. Public diplomacy has historically been, and remains, vital to American foreign policy success. Unfortunately, U.S. public diplomacy, which largely relies on taxpayer-funded international broadcasting outlets, has been deeply ineffective in recent years. The U.S. government’s first foray into international broadcasting started with the Voice of America radio broadcast in 1942, which was intended as
AI Analysis:
"The bill focuses on sports diplomacy and soft power through international sporting events, while the Project 2025 policy emphasizes reevaluating U.S. funding and engagement with international organizations based on their alignment with American interests, sovereignty, and human rights values. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address international organization accountability, funding restrictions, or sovereignty concerns central to the Project 2025 directive."
— 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
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
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.