A resolution affirming that Hamas cannot retain any political or military control in the Gaza Strip.

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/sres/72

Last Updated: March 17, 2025

A resolution affirming that Hamas cannot retain any political or military control in the Gaza Strip.

SRES. 72, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC]

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

The money

$130,438 raised

30 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. 217-219 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S1751; text: 02/11/2025 CR S863)

March 12, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

📍 Current Status

Next: The full Senate will vote on whether to pass the bill.

✅

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

Summary Style:

The pedestrian machinations of Congress. Let's dissect this resolution, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives** SRES 72 is a symbolic gesture, a mere affirmation that Hamas cannot retain control in the Gaza Strip. The bill's primary objective is to appease Israel and its allies, while also posturing against Iran. This resolution is little more than a PR stunt, devoid of any meaningful legislative teeth.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill calls for the President to use economic and diplomatic tools to halt funding for Hamas from Iran and other sources. However, this provision is non-binding and lacks any concrete mechanisms for enforcement. In essence, it's a toothless declaration with no tangible impact on existing law.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The primary stakeholders are Israel, Hamas, Iran, and the United States government. The resolution's passage may provide a temporary boost to Israel's diplomatic efforts, but its long-term implications are negligible. Hamas will likely continue to operate as usual, while Iran may view this resolution as an opportunity to further consolidate its influence in the region.

**Potential Impact & Implications** From my perspective, this resolution is a non-event. It won't significantly impact my business interests or investments in the region. However, I do appreciate the bill's implicit acknowledgement of the inefficacy of traditional governance structures in addressing complex geopolitical issues. This is precisely why I've invested heavily in think tanks and research initiatives focused on privatizing foreign policy and security services.

In conclusion, SRES 72 is a symbolic exercise in futility, a distraction from the real issues at play. As a visionary entrepreneur, I'll continue to focus on shaping the future of global governance through innovative, market-driven solutions – not petty congressional resolutions. The projected impact on my wealth and influence? A paltry $0.00.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a resolution is a type of legislative proposal that expresses the opinion or sentiment of one chamber of Congress. In this case, SRES 72 is a Senate resolution affirming that Hamas cannot retain any political or military control in the Gaza Strip.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this resolution is to express the Senate's opposition to Hamas' control in the Gaza Strip and to call for action against the organization. The objectives are threefold:

1. Affirm that Hamas should not be allowed to retain any political or military control in the Gaza Strip. 2. Urge the President to use economic and diplomatic tools to halt funding for Hamas from Iran and other sources. 3. Express support for Israel's defense against attacks from Hamas, Iran, and its proxies.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This resolution does not propose any changes to existing law. It is a non-binding expression of the Senate's opinion. However, it may influence future legislative proposals or executive actions related to Hamas and the Gaza Strip.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include:

* Hamas: The Palestinian Islamist organization that has controlled the Gaza Strip since 2007. * Israel: The State of Israel, which has been the target of Hamas' attacks. * Iran: The Islamic Republic of Iran, which is accused of providing funding and support to Hamas. * The United States Government: The President and Congress may be influenced by this resolution when making decisions about foreign policy and national security.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this resolution is limited, as it does not have the force of law. However, it may:

* Influence public opinion and shape the narrative around Hamas and its activities. * Inform future legislative proposals or executive actions related to Hamas and the Gaza Strip. * Signal to Israel and other allies that the United States supports their defense against terrorist organizations.

Remember when we learned about the importance of checks and balances in our system of government? This resolution is an example of how Congress can express its opinion and influence the executive branch, even if it doesn't have the power to make law. Now, if only more people had paid attention in civics class...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round and listen closely, for I've got a tale to tell about SRES 72, the latest attempt by our so-called "representatives" in Congress to shape the narrative on Hamas and the Gaza Strip.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** On the surface, this resolution appears to be a straightforward condemnation of Hamas's actions, reaffirming their designation as a foreign terrorist organization. But, my friends, don't be fooled! The true purpose is to further entrench the Israeli government's grip on power and justify continued military intervention in the region.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The resolution calls for the President to use economic and diplomatic tools to cut off funding to Hamas from Iran and other sources. Sounds reasonable, right? But what about the elephant in the room – the billions of dollars in annual aid the US provides to Israel? This is just another example of selective outrage, folks! The real agenda here is to maintain the status quo, ensuring that Israel remains the dominant military power in the region.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The obvious stakeholders are Hamas, the Israeli government, and the Palestinian people. But let's not forget about the real puppet masters: Iran, the US, and other global powers with vested interests in the region. This resolution is just a chess move in their game of geopolitics, using the Gaza Strip as a pawn to further their own agendas.

**Potential Impact & Implications** Make no mistake, this resolution will only serve to escalate tensions in the region. By demonizing Hamas and ignoring the root causes of the conflict, we're guaranteeing more bloodshed and suffering for innocent civilians on both sides. The real impact will be felt by the Palestinian people, who'll continue to live under occupation and face brutal suppression.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "But Uncle, this is just a resolution; it's not like it's going to change anything." Ah, but that's where you're wrong! This is just another brick in the wall of propaganda, designed to shape public opinion and justify further military intervention. Wake up, sheeple!

You see, my friends, when you connect the dots between this resolution, the Israeli government's actions, and the global powers at play, a sinister picture emerges. It's all about maintaining control, suppressing dissent, and perpetuating the cycle of violence.

So, as we sit around this Thanksgiving table, let's not forget to give thanks for our freedom to question the official narrative. Let's keep digging, keep seeking truth, and never stop asking: "What's really going on here?"

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, because we've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. SRES 72 is the latest salvo in the never-ending battle for freedom and democracy in the Middle East. (wink)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This resolution is all about one thing: telling Hamas who's boss. Specifically, it affirms that those lovely folks at Hamas can't be allowed to retain any political or military control in the Gaza Strip. I mean, who needs self-governance when you've got the United States Senate looking out for your best interests? (smirk) The main objective here is to send a strong message to Hamas: "Hey, guys, knock it off with the terrorism and hostage-taking, okay?" (shrug)

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Now, I know what you're thinking: "What's new about this bill?" Well, let me tell you. This resolution calls on the President to use all economic and diplomatic tools at his disposal to halt funding for Hamas from Iran and other sources. Because, you see, freedom isn't free – it requires a healthy dose of economic coercion. (wink) Oh, and it also reaffirms our support for Israel's sovereignty against those pesky Iranian proxies.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, this one's a no-brainer. Hamas is the big loser here. I mean, who doesn't love a good terrorist organization? (rolls eyes) But seriously, folks, this bill affects not only Hamas but also Iran, Israel, and all those poor Palestinians caught in the crossfire.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, here's where things get interesting. If this resolution passes, it could lead to some serious diplomatic fallout with Iran – which, let's be real, is just a fancy way of saying "more freedom for America." (smirk) But seriously, folks, this bill has the potential to escalate tensions in the region and maybe even spark another conflict. But hey, who needs peace when you've got patriotism? (wink)

In conclusion, SRES 72 is a bold move by our fearless leaders in Congress to assert American dominance in the Middle East. It's all about freedom, folks – the freedom to tell other countries what to do and how to govern themselves. (smirk) So let's all raise a glass to this bill and the brave men and women who are fighting for our right to impose our will on others. Cheers!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another brilliant example of congressional theater, where our esteemed leaders pretend to care about something other than their own re-election and the interests of their donors.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This resolution is a masterclass in grandstanding, with the main purpose being to allow senators to virtue-signal their support for Israel while doing absolutely nothing concrete to address the situation. The objective? To look tough on terrorism, appease AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbies, and maybe, just maybe, get some campaign contributions out of it.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** There are no actual provisions or changes to existing law in this resolution. It's a non-binding statement that says "Hamas is bad" and "we should do something about it." Wow, what a bold stance. The only concrete action called for is for the President to use economic and diplomatic tools to halt funding for Hamas from Iran and other sources. Because, you know, that hasn't been tried before.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties are the usual suspects: Israel, Hamas, Iran, and the Palestinian people caught in the middle. But let's be real, this resolution is more about posturing for domestic consumption than actually addressing the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The stakeholders? AIPAC, other pro-Israel lobbies, and the senators' re-election campaigns.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this resolution? Zero. Zilch. Nada. It's a meaningless statement that will be forgotten by next week. But hey, it might get some senators a few soundbites on Fox News or CNN, so there's that. The implications? More of the same: continued inaction, more suffering for civilians, and further entrenchment of the status quo.

Diagnosis: This resolution is a classic case of "Legislative Lip Service Disease" (LLSD), where politicians pretend to care about an issue but do nothing meaningful to address it. Symptoms include grandstanding, virtue-signaling, and a complete lack of concrete action. Treatment? A healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach for hypocrisy, and a willingness to call out the obvious lies and posturing.

Prognosis: The patient (i.e., the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) will continue to suffer from LLSD until real, meaningful action is taken. But hey, at least our senators can say they "did something."

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

**Summary of SRES 72**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of Senate Resolution 72 (SRES 72) is to affirm that Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization, cannot retain any political or military control in the Gaza Strip. The resolution aims to condemn Hamas's violent actions and express support for the State of Israel's sovereignty.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The resolution:

1. Affirms that Hamas cannot be allowed to retain any political or military control in the Gaza Strip. 2. Calls upon the President to use all economic and diplomatic tools possible to halt all sources of funding for Hamas from the Islamic Republic of Iran and other sources of revenue. 3. Supports the State of Israel as it continues to defend its sovereignty against attacks from Hamas, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and other Iranian proxies.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. Hamas: The resolution directly targets Hamas's control in the Gaza Strip and seeks to cut off its funding sources. 2. The State of Israel: The resolution expresses support for Israel's sovereignty and defense against attacks from Hamas and other Iranian proxies. 3. The Islamic Republic of Iran: The resolution calls out Iran's role in providing funding, weapons, and training to Hamas. 4. Palestinian civilians: The resolution may impact the humanitarian situation in Gaza, as it seeks to restrict Hamas's control and funding.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. Increased pressure on Hamas: The resolution may lead to increased diplomatic and economic pressure on Hamas, potentially weakening its grip on the Gaza Strip. 2. Strained US-Iran relations: The resolution's condemnation of Iran's support for Hamas may further strain US-Iran relations. 3. Humanitarian implications: The resolution's focus on restricting Hamas's control and funding may have humanitarian implications for Palestinian civilians in Gaza, who rely on international aid and support. 4. Impact on Middle East peace process: The resolution's stance on Hamas's control in the Gaza Strip may influence the broader Middle East peace process, potentially affecting negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

Overall, SRES 72 is a non-binding resolution that expresses the Senate's views on Hamas's control in the Gaza Strip and its relationship with Iran. While it does not have the force of law, it may contribute to shaping US policy towards Hamas and the Middle East peace process.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this congressional bill, SRES 72, and get the lowdown on what it's all about.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This resolution is like a big ol' wave, bro – it's trying to crash down on Hamas's control in the Gaza Strip. The main purpose is to affirm that Hamas can't retain any political or military power in the area. It's like, they're saying, "Hey, Hamas, you're not welcome here, dude." The objectives are pretty clear: stop Hamas from getting funding and support from Iran, and make sure Israel can defend itself against attacks.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

This resolution is calling on the President to use all economic and diplomatic tools to halt funding for Hamas from Iran and other sources. It's like, they're saying, "Hey, Prez, you gotta cut off the cash flow, bro." There aren't any major changes to existing law, but it's more like a strong statement of intent, you know? They're reaffirming that Hamas is a terrorist organization and that the US government won't tolerate their actions.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This resolution affects a bunch of different parties, dude. First off, there's Hamas – they're the ones who are gonna lose control in the Gaza Strip if this resolution goes through. Then there's Israel – they're the ones who are getting attacked by Hamas, so they're definitely got a stake in this game. Iran is also a major player here, bro – they're the ones providing funding and support to Hamas. And finally, there's the US government – they're the ones trying to make all this happen.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The potential impact of this resolution is huge, bro. If it goes through, it could mean that Hamas loses control in the Gaza Strip, which would be a major blow to their operations. It could also lead to increased tensions between Israel and Iran, which is never good news, dude. On the other hand, if the US government can successfully cut off funding for Hamas, it could help reduce violence in the region and make things safer for everyone involved.

But here's the thing, bro – this resolution isn't just about politics; it's also about people's lives. There are innocent civilians caught in the middle of all this conflict, and they're the ones who suffer when things escalate. So, we gotta keep it real, dude – this is some serious stuff.

Anyway, that's my take on SRES 72, bro. It's a complex issue, but I tried to break it down for you in a chill way. Just remember, even though politics can be gnarly, we gotta stay informed and engaged, dude.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: SRES 72**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** SRES 72 is a Senate resolution that aims to condemn Hamas's control in the Gaza Strip and calls for the President to take economic and diplomatic measures to halt funding from Iran and other sources. The bill's primary objective is to affirm that Hamas cannot retain any political or military control in the Gaza Strip.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The resolution:

1. Reaffirms Hamas as a foreign terrorist organization, citing its intent to destroy Israel and undermine peace in the Middle East. 2. Calls on the President to use economic and diplomatic tools to halt funding for Hamas from Iran and other sources. 3. Supports Israel's defense against attacks from Hamas, Iran, and Iranian proxies.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

* Hamas: The primary target of the resolution, which seeks to undermine its control in the Gaza Strip. * Iran: Accused of providing significant financial support to Hamas, making it a key stakeholder in this legislation. * Israel: As the primary victim of Hamas's attacks, Israel is a major beneficiary of this resolution, which supports its defense against terrorist organizations. * Palestinian population: The bill's provisions may have implications for the humanitarian situation in Gaza, potentially affecting access to aid and resources.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

1. **Escalation of tensions**: This resolution may further strain relations between the US, Iran, and Hamas, potentially leading to increased violence in the region. 2. **Humanitarian consequences**: The bill's focus on halting funding for Hamas may inadvertently harm the Palestinian population, which relies heavily on aid and resources. 3. **Increased support for Israel**: The resolution's strong language in support of Israel may lead to increased diplomatic and economic backing from the US.

**Monied Interest Analysis**

* American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC): As a prominent pro-Israel lobby group, AIPAC likely supports this bill, which aligns with its goals of promoting Israeli security and interests. * Iran's influence: The resolution's focus on Iranian support for Hamas may be driven by concerns about Tehran's growing regional influence and the need to counter its proxy forces.

**Committee Capture and Conflicts of Interest**

The Committee on Foreign Relations, which discharged this bill, has a history of being influenced by pro-Israel lobby groups. Senator Graham, one of the bill's sponsors, has received significant campaign contributions from AIPAC and other pro-Israel organizations. These ties may have shaped the bill's language and objectives.

**Backroom Deals**

The resolution's swift passage through the Senate suggests that there may be behind-the-scenes agreements between lawmakers and lobby groups to advance this legislation. The involvement of multiple sponsors, including Senators Blumenthal, Cotton, Rosen, Britt, and Fetterman, indicates a coordinated effort to push this bill forward.

In summary, SRES 72 is a resolution that aims to undermine Hamas's control in the Gaza Strip by

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$130,438

24 donors

PACs

$3,833

Organizations

$6,805

Committees

Individuals

$119,800

WINRED PAC

1 transaction

$3,833

CATAWBA INDIAN NATION

1 transaction

$3,300

BEVERLY B GROSSMAN TRUST

5 transactions

$2,230

BELL FAMILY TRUST

1 transaction

$1,000

ALFRED SEYMOUR BASSLER TR

2 transactions

$200

HURD FAMILY TRUST

1 transaction

$75

No committee contributions found

FISHER, KENNETH L.

2 transactions

$13,200

BEST, SHERI

1 transaction

$6,600

HEGYI, ALBERT

1 transaction

$6,600

SUMMEY, ELLIOTT

1 transaction

$6,600

KIMBER, DAMON

1 transaction

$6,600

GERBER, SANDER R.

1 transaction

$6,600

GERBER, TRACY

1 transaction

$6,600

FISHER, SHERRILYN

1 transaction

$6,600

KAY, ALISON

1 transaction

$6,600

WESTBROOK, THAD H.

1 transaction

$6,600

MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE

1 transaction

$6,600

MANDELBLATT, ERIC

1 transaction

$6,600

STOUGHTON, SUSAN

1 transaction

$6,600

DETERMAN, MARK

1 transaction

$6,600

HILLMAN, TATNALL L. CAPT.

1 transaction

$5,800

REGAN, JOHN

1 transaction

$5,000

BROWN, MICHAEL MR.

1 transaction

$5,000

FROST, PHILLIP

1 transaction

$5,000

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]

ID: B001277

Top Contributors

OLSON, LYNDON

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualWACO, TX

$3,300

Dec 20, 2024

ALIX, JAY

ALIX PARTNERS • FOUNDER

IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI

$3,300

Oct 2, 2023

KIM, CHRISTINE M.

BBB LLC • ATTORNEY

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Oct 31, 2023

ALIX, JAY

ALIX PARTNERS • FOUNDER

IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI

$3,300

Apr 15, 2024

ROURE, RITA

PAGNY - LINCOLN HOSPITAL • PHYSICIAN

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$3,300

Apr 10, 2024

ROURE, RITA

PAGNY - LINCOLN HOSPITAL • PHYSICIAN

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$3,300

Apr 10, 2024

CHAVEZ, TOM

KRUX INC. • CEO

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Jul 13, 2024

CHAVEZ, TOM

KRUX INC. • CEO

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Jul 13, 2024

JONES, JERRY C.

LIVERAMP INC. • EXECUTIVE

IndividualLITTLE ROCK, AR

$3,300

Sep 19, 2024

NESSEL, ARIEL

NESSEL DEVELOPMENT • OWNER

IndividualROSS, CA

$3,300

Jul 12, 2024

Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR]

ID: C001095

Top Contributors

WINRED

PACARLINGTON, VA

$1,919

Mar 7, 2024

CLARK COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE

OrganizationARKADELPHIA, AR

$600

Mar 4, 2024

YELL COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE

OrganizationDARDANELLE, AR

$500

Jan 17, 2024

DARDANELLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

OrganizationDARDANELLE, AR

$400

Jan 26, 2024

RAMSEY, JASON

RAGNAR • MANAGER

IndividualBREVARD, NC

$11,600

Jul 11, 2023

KLINGENSTEIN, THOMAS D. MR.

COHEN KLINGENSTEIN LLC • INVESTMENT COUNSELOR

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$11,600

Sep 28, 2023

MCINERNEY, THOMAS

BLUFF POINT ASSOCIATES • INVESTOR

IndividualWESTPORT, CT

$11,600

Oct 24, 2023

MCMAHON, LINDA E. MRS.

AMERICA FIRST POLICY INSTITUTE • SELF-EMPLOYED

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$11,600

Oct 31, 2023

CHIAPPA, CARL

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualOLD CHATHAM, NY

$11,600

Nov 9, 2023

SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$11,600

Jan 11, 2024

Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV]

ID: R000608

Top Contributors

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationTACOMA, WA

$3,700

Jul 31, 2024

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Sep 30, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Sep 30, 2023

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$3,300

Dec 28, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Mar 10, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Mar 10, 2023

SYUCAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION

OrganizationEL CAJON, CA

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Mar 28, 2024

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Sep 30, 2024

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

Sen. Britt, Katie Boyd [R-AL]

ID: B001319

Top Contributors

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Sep 14, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Oct 11, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$2,500

Oct 29, 2024

HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP

OrganizationRICHMOND, VA

$1,000

Jul 25, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

May 1, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Nov 9, 2023

STRONG, MIRANDA

CALISTA • DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

IndividualANCHORAGE, AK

$5,000

Sep 20, 2023

STEPHENS, TYLER

FIERCE GOVERNMENT RELATIONS • LOBBYIST

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Jul 1, 2023

SINGER, PAUL

ELLIOTT INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • CO-CEO, CO-CIO, PRESIDENT

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Jul 6, 2023

SINGER, PAUL

ELLIOTT INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • CO-CEO, CO-CIO, PRESIDENT

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Jul 9, 2023

Sen. Fetterman, John [D-PA]

ID: F000479

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$2,000

Feb 9, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Nov 29, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jun 18, 2024

SIMMS, RONALD

RONALD SIMMS REAL ESTATE • PRINCIPAL

IndividualBEVERLY HILLS, CA

$6,700

Jun 18, 2024

SIMMS, RONALD

IndividualBEVERLY HILLS, CA

$3,400

Aug 15, 2024

ADLERSTEIN, ARI

SELF EMPLOYED • FINANCIAL ADVISOR

IndividualMERION STATION, PA

$3,300

Dec 12, 2024

GOLDMAN, AMIR

SUSQUEHANNA INTERNATIONAL GROUP • VENTURE CAPITALIST

IndividualBALA CYNWYD, PA

$3,300

Oct 6, 2024

GOLDMAN, AMIR

SUSQUEHANNA INTERNATIONAL GROUP • VENTURE CAPITALIST

IndividualBALA CYNWYD, PA

$3,300

Oct 6, 2024

LEPRINO, TERRY

LEPRINO FOODS • OWNER

IndividualDENVER, CO

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

MAYER, ABRAHAM

AFTON PROPERTIES • PRINCIPAL

IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA

$3,300

Dec 12, 2024

Donor Network - Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 74 nodes and 45 connections (61 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $166,757

Top Donors - Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC]

Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC5 Orgs18 Individuals

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: 61%

Pages: 217-219AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"SRES 72 directly supports the Project 2025 goal of countering Iranian influence by cutting off Hamas funding, backing Israel's defense against Iranian proxies, and advocating economic/diplomatic pressure on Iran, aligning closely with the policy's objectives."

Key themes:Iran sanctionsHamas funding cutoffIsrael supportCountering Iranian proxiesMiddle East security

— 185 — Department of State l First, the U.S. must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear technology and delivery capabilities and more broadly block Iranian ambitions. This means, inter alia, reinstituting and expanding Trump Administration sanctions; providing security assistance for regional partners; supporting, through public diplomacy and otherwise, freedom-seeking Iranian people in their revolt against the mullahs; and ensuring Israel has both the military means and the political support and flexibility to take what it deems to be appropriate measures to defend itself against the Iranian regime and its regional proxies Hamas, Hezbollah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. l Second, the next Administration should build on the Trump Administration’s diplomatic successes by encouraging other Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, to enter the Abraham Accords. Related policies should include reversing, as appropriate, the Biden Administration’s degradation of the long-standing partnership with Saudi Arabia. The Palestinian Authority should be defunded. A further key priority is keeping Türkiye in the Western fold and a NATO ally. This includes a vigorous outreach to Türkiye to dissuade it from “hedging” toward Russia or China, which is likely to require a rethinking of U.S. support for YPG/PKK [People’s Protection Units/Kurdistan Worker’s Party] Kurdish forces, which Ankara believes are an existential threat to its security. For the foreseeable future— and much longer than one new Administration—Middle Eastern oil will play a key role in the world economy. Therefore, the U.S. must continue to support its allies and compete with its economic adversaries, including China. Relations with Saudi Arabia should be strengthened in a way that seriously curtails Chinese influence in Riyadh. l Third, it is in the U.S. national interest to build a Middle East security pact that includes Israel, Egypt, the Gulf states, and potentially India, as a second “Quad” arrangement. Protecting freedom of navigation in the Gulf and in the Red Sea/Suez Canal is vital to the world economy and therefore to U.S. prosperity as well. In North Africa, security cooperation with European allies, especially France, will be vital to limit growing Islamist threats and the incursion of Russian influence through positionings of the Wagner Group. l The U.S. cannot neglect a concern for human rights and minority rights, which must be balanced with strategic and security considerations. Special attention must be paid to challenges of religious freedom, especially the status of Middle Eastern Christians and other religious minorities, as well as the human trafficking endemic to the region. — 186 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Sub-Saharan Africa Africa’s importance to U.S. foreign policy and strategic interests is rising and will only continue to grow. Its explosive population growth, large reserves of industry-dependent minerals, proximity to key maritime shipping routes, and its collective diplomatic power ensure the continent’s global importance. Yet as Afri- ca’s strategic significance has grown, the U.S.’s relative influence there has declined. Terrorist activity on the continent has increased, while America’s competitors are making significant gains for their own national interests. The PRC’s companies dominate the African supply chain for certain minerals critical to emerging tech- nologies. African nations comprise major country-bloc elements that shield the PRC and Russia from international isolation for their human rights abuses—and African nations staunchly support PRC foreign policy goals on issues such as Hong Kong occupation, South China Seas dispute arbitration, and Taiwan. The new Administration can correct this strategic failing of existing policy by prioritizing Africa and by undertaking fundamental changes in how the United States works with African nations. At a bare minimum, the next Administration should: l Shift strategic focus from assistance to growth. Reorient the focus of U.S. overseas development assistance away from stand-alone humanitarian development aid and toward fostering free market systems in African countries by incentivizing and facilitating U.S. private sector engagement in these countries. Development aid alone does little to develop countries and can fuel corruption and violent conflict. While the United States should always be willing to offer emergency and humanitarian relief, both U.S. and African long-term interests are better served by a free market-based, private growth-focused strategy to Africa’s economic challenges. l Counter malign Chinese activity on the continent. This should include the development of powerful public diplomacy efforts to counter Chinese influence campaigns with commitments to freedom of speech and the free flow of information; the creation of a template “digital hygiene” program that African countries can access to sanitize and protect their sensitive communications networks from espionage by the PRC and other hostile actors; the recognition of Somaliland statehood as a hedge against the U.S.’s deteriorating position in Djibouti; and a focus on supporting American companies involved in industries important to U.S. national interests or that have a competitive advantage in Africa. l Counter the furtherance of terrorism. African country-based terrorist groups like Boko Haram may currently lack the capability to attack the

Department of State

Strong

Vector: 58%

Pages: 217-219AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"SRES 72 aligns closely with Project 2025's Middle East and North Africa policy objectives, particularly in countering Iranian influence, supporting Israel's defense against Iranian proxies like Hamas, and blocking Iranian ambitions through diplomatic and economic tools."

Key themes:Iranian influenceHamas as Iranian proxyIsrael supporteconomic and diplomatic pressureregional security

— 184 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l A hemisphere-centered approach to industry and energy. The next Administration has a golden opportunity to make key economic changes that will not only provide tremendous economic opportunities for Americans but will also serve as an economic boon to the entire Western Hemisphere. First, the United States must do everything possible, with both resources and messaging, to shift global manufacturing and industry from more distant points around the globe (especially from the increasingly hostile and human rights-abusing PRC) to Central and South American countries. “Re-hemisphering” manufacturing and industry closer to home will not only eliminate some of the more recent supply-chain issues that damaged the U.S. economy but will also represent a significant economic improvement for parts of the Americas in need of growth and stabilization. Similarly, the United States must work with Mexico, Canada, and other countries to develop a hemisphere-focused energy policy that will reduce reliance on distant and manipulable sources of fossil fuels, restore the free flow of energy among the hemisphere’s largest producers, and work together to increase energy production, including for nations that are looking for dramatic economic expansion. l A “local” approach to security threats. Western Hemisphere nations, including those in the Caribbean, arguably have stronger cultural and historical ties to the United States than most other countries and regions in the world. Yet Central and South America are moving rapidly into the sphere of anti-American, external state actors, including the PRC, Iran, and Russia. Specific countries in the Americas, such as Venezuela, Colombia, Guyana, and Ecuador, are either increasingly regional security threats in their own rights or are vulnerable to hostile extra-continental powers. The U.S. has an opportunity to lead these democratic neighbors to fight against the external pressure of threats from abroad and address local regional security concerns. This leadership and collaboration must span all tools at the disposal of U.S. allies and partners, including security-focused cooperation. Middle East and North Africa The next Administration must re-engage with Middle Eastern and North Afri- can nations and not abandon the region. Without U.S. leadership, the region may tumble further into chaos or fall prey to American adversaries. This recommen- dation requires a multi-dimensional strategy. — 185 — Department of State l First, the U.S. must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear technology and delivery capabilities and more broadly block Iranian ambitions. This means, inter alia, reinstituting and expanding Trump Administration sanctions; providing security assistance for regional partners; supporting, through public diplomacy and otherwise, freedom-seeking Iranian people in their revolt against the mullahs; and ensuring Israel has both the military means and the political support and flexibility to take what it deems to be appropriate measures to defend itself against the Iranian regime and its regional proxies Hamas, Hezbollah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. l Second, the next Administration should build on the Trump Administration’s diplomatic successes by encouraging other Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, to enter the Abraham Accords. Related policies should include reversing, as appropriate, the Biden Administration’s degradation of the long-standing partnership with Saudi Arabia. The Palestinian Authority should be defunded. A further key priority is keeping Türkiye in the Western fold and a NATO ally. This includes a vigorous outreach to Türkiye to dissuade it from “hedging” toward Russia or China, which is likely to require a rethinking of U.S. support for YPG/PKK [People’s Protection Units/Kurdistan Worker’s Party] Kurdish forces, which Ankara believes are an existential threat to its security. For the foreseeable future— and much longer than one new Administration—Middle Eastern oil will play a key role in the world economy. Therefore, the U.S. must continue to support its allies and compete with its economic adversaries, including China. Relations with Saudi Arabia should be strengthened in a way that seriously curtails Chinese influence in Riyadh. l Third, it is in the U.S. national interest to build a Middle East security pact that includes Israel, Egypt, the Gulf states, and potentially India, as a second “Quad” arrangement. Protecting freedom of navigation in the Gulf and in the Red Sea/Suez Canal is vital to the world economy and therefore to U.S. prosperity as well. In North Africa, security cooperation with European allies, especially France, will be vital to limit growing Islamist threats and the incursion of Russian influence through positionings of the Wagner Group. l The U.S. cannot neglect a concern for human rights and minority rights, which must be balanced with strategic and security considerations. Special attention must be paid to challenges of religious freedom, especially the status of Middle Eastern Christians and other religious minorities, as well as the human trafficking endemic to the region.

Department of State

Strong

Vector: 57%

Pages: 214-216AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"SRES 72 aligns with Project 2025's Iran policy by advocating for the use of economic and diplomatic tools to counter Iranian support for Hamas, reflecting a hardline stance against the Iranian regime and its proxies, consistent with the document's call to cease appeasement and increase pressure on Iran."

Key themes:Iran sanctionscountering terrorismdiplomatic pressuresupport for Israelopposition to Iranian proxies

— 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

Department of State

Minimal

Vector: 57%

Pages: 220-222AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"SRES 72 focuses on condemning Hamas and supporting Israel in the Middle East, while the Project 2025 State Department excerpt discusses Africa, Europe, NATO, and transatlantic relations—there is no thematic or geographic overlap between the two."

— 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

Department of Homeland Security

Minimal

Vector: 57%

Pages: 183-185AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on condemning Hamas, supporting Israel, and cutting off Hamas funding from Iran, which is a foreign policy/national security issue unrelated to the domestic immigration enforcement and DHS policies outlined in the Project 2025 excerpt."

— 151 — Department of Homeland Security l Employment authorization. Along with the legislative proposal, take regulatory action to limit the classes of aliens eligible for work authorization. Executive Orders l Pathways for border crossers 1. Direct the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security to reinstate Asylum Cooperative Agreements with Northern Triangle Countries immediately. 2. Recommence negotiations with Mexico to fully implement the Remain in Mexico Protocols. 3. Reinstate, to the extent possible, expedited pathways with full credible fear/immigration court process (PACR and HARP). 4. Prohibit the use of Notices to Report, the use of any funds for travel into the interior of the United States, and government flights or transportation for aliens. 5. Mandate that ICE use all detention space in full compliance with Section 235 of the INA, issue weekly reports on detention capacity, and provide authority for low-level temporary capacity (for example, tents) once permanent space is full. 6. Eliminate the use of ATD for border crossers except in rare cases and only with the explicit authority of the Secretary. 7. Prohibit the use of parole except in matters that are certified by the Secretary of Homeland Security as requiring action for humanitarian or significant public benefit reasons, and prohibit the use of parole in any categorical circumstance. l Enforcement 1. Restrict prosecutorial discretion to eliminate it as a “catch-all” excuse for limiting immigration enforcement. 2. Mandate the use of E-Verify for anyone doing business with the government. — 152 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Designate USCIS as Intelligence Community–adjacent, ensuring that it has access to national security and law enforcement databases. 4. Rescind all memoranda limiting enforcement of immigration laws including those identifying sensitive zones. 5. End ICE’s widespread use of termination and administrative closure of cases in immigration court. l Averting or curtailing a mass migration event 1. Provide that whenever the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that an actual or anticipated mass migration of aliens en route to or arriving off the coast of the U.S. presents urgent circumstances requiring an immediate federal response, the Secretary may make, subject to the approval of the President, rules and regulations prohibiting in whole or in part the introduction of persons from such countries or places as he or she shall designate in order to avert or curtail such mass migration and for such period of time as is deemed necessary, including through the expulsion of such aliens. Such rule and regulation making shall not be subject to the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. 2. Provide that notwithstanding any other provision of law, when the Secretary makes such a determination and then promulgates, subject to the approval of the President, such rules and regulations, the Secretary shall have the authority to waive all legal requirements of Title 8 that the Secretary, in his or her sole discretion, determines are necessary to avert or curtail the mass migration. Subregulatory Matters l USCIS priorities/structural changes 1. Ensure that focus is returned to vetting, base eligibility of applicants, and fraud detection. 2. Realign the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS) to ensure agencywide consistency on implementation of fraud detection and vetting policies. 3. Review and repeal any internal agency memo that is inconsistent with the priorities described in this chapter.

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.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Sen. Graham, Lindsey

Secure America Act

119/s/2

End Sanctuary Cities Act of 2026

119/s/3805

Designating the Russian Federation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism Act

119/s/2805

Back to All Bills