The bill
Iran Human Rights, Internet Freedom, and Accountability Act of 2026
S. 3900, 119th Congress — read as touching Cybersecurity.
Sponsored by
Sen. McCormick, David [R-PA]
ID: M001243
Follow the money
The bill
S. 3900, 119th Congress — read as touching Cybersecurity.
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 "Introduction" section, p. 214-216 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 119th Congress. The "Iran Human Rights, Internet Freedom, and Accountability Act of 2026" - a bill so dripping with sanctimony, it's a wonder the pages don't stick together.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is a classic case of "look over here, not over there." Its primary objective is to feign concern for human rights in Iran while actually serving as a Trojan horse for furthering American interests and expanding internet access - read: surveillance capabilities. The bill's sponsors, Mr. McCormick and Ms. Rosen, are either naive or cynical (I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter). They're using the Iranian people's struggles as a pretext to push for increased U.S. involvement in the region.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, because who doesn't love a good game of legislative Jenga? It updates the strategy for promoting internet freedom in Iran, including the use of virtual private networks (VPNs) and direct-to-cell satellite technologies. Oh, and it ensures that sanctions don't impede companies from providing technology to Iranian civilians - how noble. The Secretary of State is tasked with coordinating these efforts, because what could possibly go wrong when you put a politician in charge of promoting "internet freedom"?
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The Iranian people, of course, are the supposed beneficiaries of this bill. But let's be real, they're just pawns in a larger game. The real stakeholders are the U.S. government, American tech companies, and the military-industrial complex. This bill is a gift to them, wrapped in a bow of humanitarian rhetoric.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is multifaceted. On the surface, it may lead to increased internet access for Iranian civilians, which could be a positive development. However, it's more likely to result in:
1. Increased U.S. surveillance and data collection on Iranian citizens. 2. Further destabilization of the region, as the U.S. inserts itself into Iran's internal affairs under the guise of "promoting human rights." 3. A boost to American tech companies, which will profit from providing "internet freedom" technologies to Iran. 4. A convenient distraction from the U.S.'s own human rights abuses and internet censorship issues.
In conclusion, this bill is a masterclass in legislative misdirection. It's a cynical attempt to advance American interests while pretending to care about human rights. I'll give it two thumbs down - not that anyone in Congress will listen. After all, they're too busy congratulating themselves on their "bold" move to actually read the fine print.
Sen. McCormick, David [R-PA]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No committee contributions found
This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: R000608
Top Contributors
10
ID: C001114
Top Contributors
10
ID: G000555
Top Contributors
10
ID: B001299
Top Contributors
10
ID: S001150
Top Contributors
10
ID: C001035
Top Contributors
10
ID: K000367
Top Contributors
10
ID: C001047
Top Contributors
10
ID: B001288
Top Contributors
10
ID: S001198
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 67 nodes and 45 connections (48 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $361,186
Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.
Section 7 provides for cybersecurity training and tools for civil society in Iran, which could benefit cybersecurity companies by increasing demand for their services.
Section 3 and Section 4 promote internet freedom in Iran, which could benefit telecommunications companies by expanding their market and services.
The development of low-cost, easily scalable, and rapidly deployable technologies to counter internet shutdowns (Section 4) might involve AI and cloud infrastructure, potentially benefiting companies in this sector.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. McCormick, David [R-PA])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.
— 181 — Department of State Instead of pressuring the Iranian theocracy to move toward democracy, the Obama Administration threw the brutal regime an economic lifeline by giving hundreds of billions of dollars to the Iranian government and providing other sanc- tions relief. This economic relief did not moderate the regime, but emboldened its brutality, its efforts to expand its nuclear weapons programs, and its support for global terrorism. Former President Obama has admitted his lack of support for the Green Movement during his Administration was an error and blamed it on poor advisors—yet those same advisors are involved with the Biden Administration’s insistence on reducing pressure on the theocracy and resurrecting a nuclear deal. The next Administration should neither preserve nor repeat the mistakes of the Obama and Biden Administrations. The correct future policy for Iran is one that acknowledges that it is in U.S. national security interests, the Iranian people’s human rights interests, and a broader global interest in peace and stability for the Iranian people to have the democratic government they demand. This decision to be free of the country’s abusive leaders must of course be made by the Iranian people, but the United States can utilize its own and others’ economic and diplo- matic tools to ease the path toward a free Iran and a renewed relationship with the Iranian people. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Once a model of democracy and a true U.S. ally, the Bolivarian Republic of Ven- ezuela (Venezuela) has all but collapsed under the Communist regimes of the late Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro. In the 24 years since Hugo Chavez was first elected Venezuelan president in 1999, the country has violently cracked down on pro-democracy citizens and organizations, shattered its once oil-rich economy, empowered domestic criminal cartels, and helped fuel a hemispheric refugee crisis. Venezuela has swung from being one of the most prosperous, if not the most prosperous, country in South America to being one of the poorest. Its Communist leadership has also drawn closer to some of the United States’ greatest interna- tional foes, including the PRC and Iran, which have long sought a foothold in the Americas. Indeed, Venezuela serves as a reminder of just how fragile democratic institutions that are not maintained can be. To contain Venezuela’s Communism and aid international partners, the next Administration must take important steps to put Venezuela’s Communist abusers on notice while making strides to help the Venezuelan people. The next Administration must work to unite the hemisphere against this significant but underestimated threat in the Southern Hemisphere. Russia One issue today that starkly divides conservatives is the Russia–Ukraine con- flict. The common ground seems to be recognition that presidential leadership in 2025 must chart the course.
— 181 — Department of State Instead of pressuring the Iranian theocracy to move toward democracy, the Obama Administration threw the brutal regime an economic lifeline by giving hundreds of billions of dollars to the Iranian government and providing other sanc- tions relief. This economic relief did not moderate the regime, but emboldened its brutality, its efforts to expand its nuclear weapons programs, and its support for global terrorism. Former President Obama has admitted his lack of support for the Green Movement during his Administration was an error and blamed it on poor advisors—yet those same advisors are involved with the Biden Administration’s insistence on reducing pressure on the theocracy and resurrecting a nuclear deal. The next Administration should neither preserve nor repeat the mistakes of the Obama and Biden Administrations. The correct future policy for Iran is one that acknowledges that it is in U.S. national security interests, the Iranian people’s human rights interests, and a broader global interest in peace and stability for the Iranian people to have the democratic government they demand. This decision to be free of the country’s abusive leaders must of course be made by the Iranian people, but the United States can utilize its own and others’ economic and diplo- matic tools to ease the path toward a free Iran and a renewed relationship with the Iranian people. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Once a model of democracy and a true U.S. ally, the Bolivarian Republic of Ven- ezuela (Venezuela) has all but collapsed under the Communist regimes of the late Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro. In the 24 years since Hugo Chavez was first elected Venezuelan president in 1999, the country has violently cracked down on pro-democracy citizens and organizations, shattered its once oil-rich economy, empowered domestic criminal cartels, and helped fuel a hemispheric refugee crisis. Venezuela has swung from being one of the most prosperous, if not the most prosperous, country in South America to being one of the poorest. Its Communist leadership has also drawn closer to some of the United States’ greatest interna- tional foes, including the PRC and Iran, which have long sought a foothold in the Americas. Indeed, Venezuela serves as a reminder of just how fragile democratic institutions that are not maintained can be. To contain Venezuela’s Communism and aid international partners, the next Administration must take important steps to put Venezuela’s Communist abusers on notice while making strides to help the Venezuelan people. The next Administration must work to unite the hemisphere against this significant but underestimated threat in the Southern Hemisphere. Russia One issue today that starkly divides conservatives is the Russia–Ukraine con- flict. The common ground seems to be recognition that presidential leadership in 2025 must chart the course. — 182 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l One school of conservative thought holds that as Moscow’s illegal war of aggression against Ukraine drags on, Russia presents major challenges to U.S. interests, as well as to peace, stability, and the post-Cold War security order in Europe. This viewpoint argues for continued U.S. involvement including military aid, economic aid, and the presence of NATO and U.S. troops if necessary. The end goal of the conflict must be the defeat of Russian President Vladimir Putin and a return to pre-invasion border lines. l Another school of conservative thought denies that U.S. Ukrainian support is in the national security interest of America at all. Ukraine is not a member of the NATO alliance and is one of the most corrupt nations in the region. European nations directly affected by the conflict should aid in the defense of Ukraine, but the U.S. should not continue its involvement. This viewpoint desires a swift end to the conflict through a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia. l The tension between these competing positions has given rise to a third approach. This conservative viewpoint eschews both isolationism and interventionism. Rather, each foreign policy decision must first ask the question: What is in the interest of the American people? U.S. military engagement must clearly fall within U.S. interests; be fiscally responsible; and protect American freedom, liberty, and sovereignty, all while recognizing Communist China as the greatest threat to U.S. interests. Thus, with respect to Ukraine, continued U.S. involvement must be fully paid for; limited to military aid (while European allies address Ukraine’s economic needs); and have a clearly defined national security strategy that does not risk American lives. Regardless of viewpoints, all sides agree that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is unjust and that the Ukrainian people have a right to defend their homeland. Furthermore, the conflict has severely weakened Putin’s military strength and provided a boost to NATO unity and its importance to European nations. The next conservative President has a generational opportunity to bring res- olution to the foreign policy tensions within the movement and chart a new path forward that recognizes Communist China as the defining threat to U.S. interests in the 21st century. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Peace and stability in Northeast Asia are vital interests of the United States. The Republic of Korea (South Korea) and Japan are critical allies for ensuring a free and open Indo–Pacific. They are indispensable military, economic, diplomatic, and technology partners. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, or North
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.