A resolution condemning Beijing's destruction of Hong Kong's democracy and rule of law.

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/sres/98

Last Updated: May 7, 2025

A resolution condemning Beijing's destruction of Hong Kong's democracy and rule of law.

SRES. 98, 119th Congress — read as touching Big Tech Platforms.

The sponsor

Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID]

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

The money

$69,035 raised

21 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. 211-213 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 57.

April 27, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The SRES 98 resolution condemning Beijing's destruction of Hong Kong's democracy and rule of law is a non-binding, symbolic gesture that holds little weight in the grand scheme of global politics and economics. As a seasoned analyst, I'll dissect this bill through the lens of its potential impact on my interests.

**New regulations being created or modified:** None. This resolution does not introduce new regulations or modify existing ones. It's merely a statement of disapproval.

**Affected industries and sectors:** The bill's focus on Hong Kong's democracy and rule of law may have indirect implications for businesses operating in the region, particularly those involved in finance, trade, and logistics. However, the lack of concrete regulatory changes means that most industries will not be directly affected.

**Compliance requirements and timelines:** As this is a non-binding resolution, there are no compliance requirements or timelines to speak of.

**Enforcement mechanisms and penalties:** None. The resolution relies on moral suasion rather than coercive measures.

**Economic and operational impacts:** The bill's passage may lead to increased scrutiny of businesses operating in Hong Kong, potentially affecting their reputation and access to international markets. However, the lack of concrete regulatory changes means that the economic impact will be minimal.

From my perspective, this resolution is a distraction from more pressing issues, such as the need for deregulation and free market reforms. The real challenge lies in navigating the complex web of global regulations and finding opportunities for growth and consolidation. This bill does little to address those concerns.

In conclusion, SRES 98 is a symbolic gesture that holds little weight in the world of high-stakes politics and economics. As a billionaire analyst, I'll continue to focus on the real drivers of wealth creation and power consolidation – not empty resolutions that fail to deliver tangible results.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this resolution, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill like SRES 98 is a proposed law that needs to go through the legislative process before it becomes a law. This one's a Senate resolution, which means it doesn't have the force of law but rather expresses the opinion of the Senate.

Now, this resolution condemns Beijing's actions in Hong Kong and calls for various measures to be taken. But what's important here is that it's not creating new regulations or modifying existing ones directly. Instead, it's a statement of intent from the Senate. However, if we were to see follow-up legislation, it could potentially impact industries like finance, trade, and international relations.

As for affected industries and sectors, this resolution doesn't specifically target any particular industry, but its implications could be far-reaching. Hong Kong's status as an international financial center is mentioned, which suggests that the Senate is concerned about the potential economic fallout from Beijing's actions.

Compliance requirements and timelines aren't directly applicable here since this is a non-binding resolution. However, if future legislation were to arise from this, it would likely involve compliance measures for businesses operating in Hong Kong or with ties to China.

Enforcement mechanisms and penalties are also not explicitly stated in this resolution. Nevertheless, the Senate could potentially propose legislation that includes sanctions or other punitive measures against individuals or entities deemed to be complicit in Beijing's actions.

The economic and operational impacts of this resolution are largely symbolic at this point. However, if it were to lead to further action from the US government, it could have significant implications for trade relationships between the US, China, and Hong Kong. The Senate is essentially putting pressure on Beijing to respect Hong Kong's autonomy and democratic institutions.

Remember when we learned about checks and balances in 8th grade? This resolution is an example of the legislative branch exercising its authority to influence foreign policy and hold other governments accountable for their actions. Now, if only more people had paid attention back then...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round! Today, we're going to dissect the so-called "SRES 98" bill, a resolution that's supposedly condemning Beijing's destruction of Hong Kong's democracy and rule of law. But don't be fooled – this is just a smokescreen for something much more sinister.

Let's start with the new regulations being created or modified. This bill doesn't explicitly mention any new regulations, but it does reference the "Hong Kong national security law" and the "Article 23 Ordinance." These laws are nothing but thinly veiled attempts to stifle dissent and opposition in Hong Kong. Mark my words, these laws will be used as a pretext to silence anyone who dares to speak out against the Chinese government.

Now, let's talk about affected industries and sectors. This bill doesn't specifically mention any industries or sectors, but it does imply that Hong Kong's status as an international financial center is at risk. Ah, but what if I told you that this is just a ruse? What if the real intention behind this bill is to pave the way for China to become the dominant player in global finance?

Compliance requirements and timelines are nonexistent in this bill, which raises more red flags. Why would Congress pass a resolution without any clear guidelines or deadlines? It's almost as if they're trying to create a sense of urgency while keeping their true intentions hidden.

Enforcement mechanisms and penalties are also suspiciously absent from this bill. But don't worry, I've got my eyes on the fine print. Buried deep within the text is a mention of "transnational repression" – code for China's attempts to silence dissidents abroad. This is just a clever way for the government to justify its own surveillance and censorship efforts.

Now, let's talk about economic and operational impacts. On the surface, this bill seems like a noble attempt to defend democracy in Hong Kong. But scratch beneath the surface, and you'll find that it's actually a Trojan horse for China's expansionist ambitions. By undermining Hong Kong's autonomy, China can gain control over key trade routes and financial institutions.

In conclusion, my friends, SRES 98 is not what it seems. It's a wolf in sheep's clothing, designed to distract us from the real agenda: China's rise to global dominance. Wake up, sheeple! The truth is out there – you just have to know where to look.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

Another meaningless resolution from the esteemed members of Congress, who are clearly more concerned with grandstanding than actual governance.

Let's dissect this farce:

**Diagnosis:** "Condemning Beijing's destruction of Hong Kong's democracy and rule of law" is just a fancy way of saying "we're mad at China, but we won't actually do anything about it."

**Symptoms:**

* The resolution is filled with vague language and empty condemnations, but lacks any concrete actions or consequences for China. * The sponsors of this bill are more interested in scoring political points than addressing the actual issues on the ground. * The resolution's focus on Hong Kong's democracy and rule of law is a convenient distraction from the real issue: China's increasing influence over global trade and finance.

**New regulations being created or modified:** None. This is just a non-binding resolution, which means it has no teeth and won't actually change anything.

**Affected industries and sectors:** None directly, but the bill's language about Hong Kong's status as an international financial center might be of interest to banks and financial institutions.

**Compliance requirements and timelines:** Since this is just a resolution, there are no compliance requirements or timelines. It's all just empty posturing.

**Enforcement mechanisms and penalties:** Ha! Don't make me laugh. There are no enforcement mechanisms or penalties because this resolution is toothless.

**Economic and operational impacts:** Zero. This bill won't have any actual impact on the economy or operations of businesses. It's just a feel-good exercise for politicians to pretend they care about human rights.

In conclusion, SRES 98 is a classic case of "legislative theater," where politicians engage in empty posturing to distract from their own ineptitude and lack of action. The real disease here is the corruption and cowardice that prevents our elected officials from taking meaningful action against China's human rights abuses.

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

**Bill Summary: SRES 98 - Condemning Beijing's Destruction of Hong Kong's Democracy and Rule of Law**

This resolution condemns the Government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) for undermining democracy and rule of law in Hong Kong. The bill highlights the PRC's actions, including the passage of the Hong Kong national security law and the Article 23 Ordinance, which have led to the erosion of fundamental rights and freedoms in Hong Kong.

**New Regulations:**

The resolution does not create new regulations but rather expresses the sense of Congress regarding the situation in Hong Kong. However, it calls for the PRC to respect the autonomy of Hong Kong and uphold its commitments under the "one country, two systems" principle.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:**

* Financial sector: The bill notes that Hong Kong has become a hub for the transshipment of export-controlled goods and sanctions evasion, which may impact global financial institutions operating in Hong Kong. * International trade: The resolution highlights concerns about Hong Kong's role in supporting Russia's defense industrial base and enabling its war of aggression against Ukraine.

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:**

There are no specific compliance requirements or timelines outlined in the resolution. However, it calls for the PRC to take immediate action to address the concerns raised in the bill.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:**

The resolution does not establish any enforcement mechanisms or penalties. Instead, it serves as a statement of Congressional intent, expressing concern about the situation in Hong Kong and calling on the PRC to respect its commitments under international law.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:**

* The bill may lead to increased scrutiny of business operations in Hong Kong, particularly those involving export-controlled goods or sanctions evasion. * Global financial institutions operating in Hong Kong may face reputational risks if they are seen as complicit in the PRC's actions undermining democracy and rule of law. * The resolution may also impact international trade relationships between Hong Kong and other countries, potentially leading to increased tensions and economic instability.

Overall, this resolution serves as a statement of Congressional intent, condemning the PRC's actions in Hong Kong and calling for respect for democracy and rule of law. While it does not establish new regulations or enforcement mechanisms, it may have implications for businesses operating in Hong Kong and global financial institutions with ties to the region.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, SRES 98, condemning Beijing's destruction of Hong Kong's democracy and rule of law.

**New Regulations Being Created or Modified**

This resolution doesn't create new regulations per se, but it's a call to action for the US government to take a stronger stance against China's actions in Hong Kong. It highlights the erosion of democratic freedoms and the rule of law in Hong Kong since 1997. The bill specifically mentions the "Hong Kong national security law" and the "Article 23 Ordinance," which have been used to suppress dissent and undermine the independence of Hong Kong's institutions.

**Affected Industries and Sectors**

The affected industries are mostly related to finance, trade, and international relations. Hong Kong's status as a global financial hub is at risk due to China's increasing control over the territory. The bill mentions that Hong Kong has become a hub for transshipping export-controlled goods and sanctions evasion, which could have implications for companies operating in these sectors.

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines**

There aren't any specific compliance requirements or timelines mentioned in this resolution. However, it calls on the US government to take action against China's actions in Hong Kong, which could lead to future regulations or sanctions affecting American businesses operating in the region.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties**

The bill doesn't specify enforcement mechanisms or penalties, but it urges the US government to consider taking action against individuals and entities responsible for undermining democracy in Hong Kong. This could include sanctions, visa restrictions, or other measures.

**Economic and Operational Impacts**

The economic and operational impacts of this resolution are mostly related to the potential consequences of China's actions in Hong Kong. If the US takes a stronger stance against China, it could lead to increased tensions between the two nations, affecting trade and investment flows. American businesses operating in Hong Kong may face increased scrutiny or restrictions, which could impact their operations.

In summary, this bill is more of a statement of intent than a regulatory measure. It highlights the concerns about China's actions in Hong Kong and urges the US government to take action. While it doesn't create new regulations, it could lead to future measures that affect American businesses operating in the region.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Analysis of SRES 98: Condemning Beijing's Destruction of Hong Kong's Democracy**

This resolution, sponsored by Senator Risch (R-ID) and cosponsored by a bipartisan group of senators, condemns the Chinese government's erosion of democracy and rule of law in Hong Kong. While the bill does not introduce new regulations or compliance requirements, it highlights the deteriorating situation in Hong Kong and its implications for global trade, finance, and security.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:**

1. **Finance:** The resolution notes that Hong Kong has become a hub for sanctions evasion and export-controlled goods transshipment, which could impact financial institutions operating in the region. 2. **Trade:** The bill's focus on China's actions in Hong Kong may lead to increased scrutiny of trade relationships between the US and China, potentially affecting companies involved in international trade. 3. **Technology:** The resolution mentions the use of technology to suppress dissent and undermine democracy in Hong Kong, which could have implications for tech companies operating in the region.

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:**

None explicitly stated in the bill. However, the resolution's condemnation of China's actions may lead to future legislative or regulatory efforts that could impact US businesses operating in Hong Kong or with Chinese entities.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:**

The bill does not introduce new enforcement mechanisms or penalties. Instead, it serves as a statement of Congressional intent, which may inform future policy decisions related to China and Hong Kong.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:**

1. **Reputation Risk:** Companies operating in Hong Kong or with Chinese entities may face reputational risks due to the deteriorating human rights situation in the region. 2. **Regulatory Uncertainty:** The resolution's focus on China's actions in Hong Kong may lead to increased regulatory uncertainty for US businesses operating in the region, potentially affecting investment decisions and operations. 3. **Trade Disruptions:** Future legislative or regulatory efforts related to China and Hong Kong could disrupt trade relationships between the US and China, impacting companies involved in international trade.

**Monied Interest Analysis:**

While there are no explicit PACs or industry lobby groups backing this bill, it is likely that human rights organizations, democracy advocacy groups, and some business interests may support the resolution. The bill's sponsors and cosponsors have received donations from various sources, including:

* Senator Risch (R-ID): Received donations from defense contractors, financial institutions, and tech companies. * Senator Shaheen (D-NH): Received donations from human rights organizations, labor unions, and some business interests.

**Committee Capture:**

The bill was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, which has a history of bipartisan cooperation on issues related to China and human rights. However, it is worth noting that some committee members have received significant donations from industries with interests in China, such as defense contractors and financial institutions.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$69,035

18 donors

PACs

Organizations

$1,000

Committees

Individuals

$68,035

No PAC contributions found

CRW RESOURCES

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

GRANIERI, ROBERT

2 transactions

$6,600

HEGYI, ALBERT

2 transactions

$6,600

PFAUTCH, ROY

2 transactions

$6,600

SNELL, PETER

1 transaction

$5,000

KAYALI, ZEID

1 transaction

$3,500

MOORE, JEFFREY

1 transaction

$3,435

KTELEH, TAREK

1 transaction

$3,300

ALAAMA, ABDUL M.D.

1 transaction

$3,300

ASHOURI, DIANA

1 transaction

$3,300

DIAB, MOHAMED KHEIR

1 transaction

$3,300

MOUJTAHED, SAED

1 transaction

$3,300

MONSEN, MARION F

1 transaction

$3,300

ABDRABBO, FAWAZ

1 transaction

$3,300

HOLDING, CHRISTINE S.

1 transaction

$3,300

HOLDING, KATHLEEN

1 transaction

$3,300

HOLDING, STEPHEN E.

1 transaction

$3,300

MONSEN, PEDER

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]

ID: S001181

Top Contributors

TILT LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE LLC

OrganizationPLYMOUTH, MI

$250

Feb 6, 2024

HAWASH, NOUR

BLINK TECH INC. • VICE PRESIDENT

IndividualDUNN LORING, VA

$6,600

Dec 12, 2024

HAWASH, NOUR

IndividualDUNN LORING, VA

$6,600

Dec 23, 2024

HAWASH, NOUR

BLINK TECH INC. • VICE PRESIDENT

IndividualDUNN LORING, VA

$3,300

Dec 12, 2024

HAWASH, NOUR

BLINK TECH INC. • VICE PRESIDENT

IndividualDUNN LORING, VA

$3,300

Dec 12, 2024

HAWASH, SAFA

ACCLIVITY LLC • BUSINESS CONSULTANT

IndividualDUNN LORING, VA

$3,300

Dec 11, 2024

HAWASH, SAFA

ACCLIVITY LLC • BUSINESS CONSULTANT

IndividualDUNN LORING, VA

$3,300

Dec 11, 2024

JONDY, JENAN

N/A • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualFLUSHING, MI

$3,300

Dec 16, 2024

KANDIL, MARIAM

SELF-EMPLOYED • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualGREAT FALLS, VA

$3,300

Dec 16, 2024

KANDIL, MARIAM

SELF-EMPLOYED • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualGREAT FALLS, VA

$3,300

Dec 16, 2024

Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE]

ID: C001088

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$3,300

Dec 27, 2023

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$1,700

Dec 27, 2023

CHEN, YU

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualMIAMI, FL

$3,300

Dec 17, 2024

MIRZAIE, REZA

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT LLP • ATTORNEY

IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA

$3,300

Oct 7, 2024

CHEN, YU

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualMIAMI, FL

$3,300

Dec 17, 2024

WASSERMAN, CASEY

WASSERMAN • CEO

IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

ZHAO, PENG

CITADEL SECURITIES • CEO

IndividualMIAMI, FL

$3,300

Dec 17, 2024

WASSERMAN, CASEY

WASSERMAN • CEO

IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

ZHAO, PENG

CITADEL SECURITIES • CEO

IndividualMIAMI, FL

$3,300

Dec 17, 2024

MIRZAIE, REZA

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT LLP • ATTORNEY

IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA

$3,300

Oct 7, 2024

Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]

ID: C001075

Top Contributors

YAWITZ, JESS B. MR.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$14,000

Jun 11, 2024

MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE

DMM PROPRIETA MANAGEMENT • MANAGER

IndividualASPEN, CO

$9,900

Nov 2, 2023

MANDELBLATT, ERIC

SOROBAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LP • MANAGING PARTNER

IndividualASPEN, CO

$9,900

Nov 2, 2023

JAYASINGHE, SAMAN K. DR.

SELF-EMPLOYED • PHYSICIAN

IndividualBATON ROUGE, LA

$9,900

Jun 13, 2024

KARP, ALEXANDER C.

PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES • CEO

IndividualBEDFORD, NH

$9,900

Apr 16, 2024

OBERNDORF, SUSAN

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$9,900

Jun 5, 2024

OBERNDORF, WILLIAM

OBERNDORF ENTERPRISES • OWNER

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$9,900

Jun 5, 2024

YAWITZ, ALICE G.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualST. LOUIS, MO

$9,900

Jun 18, 2024

GRIGSBY, BOBBI F. MRS.

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualBATON ROUGE, LA

$6,600

Dec 23, 2024

GRIGSBY, L. LANE MR.

CAJUN INDUSTRIES LLC • CHAIRMAN EMERITUS

IndividualBATON ROUGE, LA

$6,600

Dec 23, 2024

Sen. Warnock, Raphael G. [D-GA]

ID: W000790

Top Contributors

JME GROUP

OrganizationSTONE MOUNTAIN, GA

$2,900

Jun 30, 2023

JME GROUP

OrganizationSTONE MOUNTAIN, GA

$2,900

Jul 18, 2024

PORTFOLIO ONE

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$1,250

Mar 17, 2023

MCKENNEY HOUSE LLC

OrganizationFORT WASHINGTON, MD

$1,000

Jun 30, 2023

WATKINS WATKINS & WATKINS LLC

OrganizationCARROLLTON, GA

$1,000

Feb 17, 2023

SCR CONSULTING LLC

OrganizationATLANTA, GA

$500

Feb 17, 2023

GIBSON, DAVID H.

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$26,750

Mar 31, 2023

ROBBINS, BONNIE

IndividualSEATTLE, WA

$12,118

Mar 31, 2023

ROBBINS, BONNIE

IndividualSEATTLE, WA

$12,118

Jul 18, 2024

KERR, WILLIAM G.

IndividualOKLAHOMA CITY, OK

$9,625

Mar 31, 2023

Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY]

ID: M000355

Top Contributors

REYNOLDS, WAYNE

ACADEMY SERVICES CORPORATION • CEO

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$8,000

Nov 1, 2024

DUNNING, JAMES

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualKUTTAWA, KY

$6,600

Nov 29, 2024

RYLAND, MERLE MR.

RYSING ADVISORY & RESEARCH, LLC • MANAGING DIRECTOR

IndividualLAS VEGAS, NV

$5,600

Oct 16, 2023

ANDERSON, SCOTT

ZIONS BANK • BANKER

IndividualSALT LAKE CITY, UT

$5,000

Sep 14, 2023

ANDERSON, SCOTT

ZIONS BANK • BANKER

IndividualSALT LAKE CITY, UT

$5,000

Sep 14, 2023

KIMBELL, JEFFREY J. MR.

SELF • HEALTH CARE CONSULTANT

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$5,000

Dec 29, 2023

STEWARD, DAVID

WORLD WIDE TECH • CEO

IndividualMARYLAND HEIGHTS, MO

$5,000

Nov 10, 2023

BAILEY, CATHERINE T

VOLUNTEER • VOLUNTEER

IndividualGLENVIEW, KY

$5,000

Aug 28, 2024

BAILEY, IRVING W II

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$5,000

Sep 20, 2024

RYLAND, MERLE A MR.

CWH HOLDING CORP • MANAGEMENT

IndividualLAS VEGAS, NV

$5,000

Jul 30, 2024

Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]

ID: K000384

Top Contributors

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$2,300

Jun 18, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,000

Jun 26, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$1,000

Jun 18, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jun 25, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,000

Jun 18, 2024

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$1,000

Oct 15, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$1,000

Dec 29, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$600

Oct 25, 2023

STONEHALL FARM

OrganizationTHE PLAINS, VA

$500

Jun 30, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$400

Oct 25, 2023

Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID]

ID: C000880

Top Contributors

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$2,000

Dec 19, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Apr 30, 2024

ONEIDA NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$1,000

Sep 10, 2024

RENO-SPARKS INDIAN COLONY

OrganizationRENO, NV

$500

Sep 10, 2024

ARNOLD, JOHN D. MR.

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$6,600

May 6, 2024

LEPRINO, TERRY L

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualDENVER, CO

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

BUKOWSKY, BRANT

MORTGAGE RESEARCH CENTER • ENTREPRENEUR

IndividualCOLUMBIA, MO

$3,300

Oct 9, 2023

BUKOWSKY, BROCK

VETERANS UNITED • FINANCE

IndividualCOLUMBIA, MO

$3,300

Nov 28, 2023

SILBEY, ALEXANDER

ATS COMMUNICATIONS, INC. • CONSULTANT

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Dec 21, 2023

Sen. Hassan, Margaret Wood [D-NH]

ID: H001076

Top Contributors

WOODS, ANDREW L.

LIBERTY PARTNERS GROUP • ATTORNEY

IndividualFORT MYERS, FL

$4,300

Jun 29, 2023

WOODS, ANDREW L.

IndividualFORT MYERS, FL

$3,900

Jul 12, 2023

BEKENSTEIN, ANITA

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualWAYLAND, MA

$3,300

Oct 4, 2023

BEKENSTEIN, JOSH

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualWAYLAND, MA

$3,300

Oct 4, 2023

HUNTER, DANIEL

SELF-EMPLOYED • PLAYWRIGHT & TEACHER

IndividualCAMBRIDGE, MA

$3,300

Dec 6, 2023

KLARMAN, SETH

THE BAUPOST GROUP • CEO

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$3,300

Dec 18, 2023

SCHWARTZ, GABRIEL

DAVIDSON KEMPNER • INVESTMENT MANAGER

IndividualBROOKLYN, NY

$3,300

Oct 16, 2023

SWINDELL, C. DAVID

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$3,300

Oct 10, 2023

KORN, WILLIAM T.

NSRA • RADIOLOGIST

IndividualWABAN, MA

$3,300

Mar 29, 2023

KORN, WILLIAM T.

NSRA • RADIOLOGIST

IndividualWABAN, MA

$3,300

Mar 29, 2023

Sen. Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD]

ID: V000128

Top Contributors

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jun 3, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Apr 25, 2024

BROE, PATRICK

FOUNDER • BROE GROUP

IndividualDENVER, CO

$5,000

Sep 17, 2024

BROE, PAULA

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualDENVER, CO

$5,000

Sep 17, 2024

FUSTOK, OMAR

SELF EMPLOYED • HEALTHCARE

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$3,300

Dec 6, 2024

HUSAIN, NOMAAN K.

HUSAIN LAW • ATTORNEY

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$3,300

Dec 5, 2024

HUSAIN, NOMAAN K.

HUSAIN LAW • ATTORNEY

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$3,300

Dec 5, 2024

JAVED, MOHAMMAD SHAHID

TRUE INSURANCE SOLUTIONS • REAL ESTATE

IndividualBEAUMONT, TX

$3,300

Dec 4, 2024

JAVED, MOHAMMAD SHAHID

TRUE INSURANCE SOLUTIONS • REAL ESTATE

IndividualBEAUMONT, TX

$3,300

Dec 4, 2024

JAVED, MUHAMMAD TAHIR

RICELAND HEALTHCARE • CEO

IndividualBEAUMONT, TX

$3,300

Dec 4, 2024

Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]

ID: B001243

Top Contributors

FRIENDS OF COMMUNITY ONCOLOGY PAC

PACVIRGINIA BEACH, VA

$5,000

Apr 12, 2023

THE COGGIN GROUP

OrganizationMURFREESBORO, TN

$2,900

Mar 9, 2023

THE COGGIN GROUP

OrganizationMURFREESBORO, TN

$2,500

Mar 9, 2023

DOSS BROTHERS FARM

OrganizationLAWRENCEBURG, TN

$1,000

Apr 17, 2024

DOSS BROTHERS FARM

OrganizationLAWRENCEBURG, TN

$1,000

Mar 18, 2024

BL PARTNERS GROUP LLC

OrganizationARLINGTON, VA

$500

Mar 17, 2023

KING, RODNEY W.

SELF-EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY

IndividualGERMANTOWN, TN

$13,200

Apr 4, 2024

BEAN, BILL G.

HANNING & BEAN ENTERPRISES INC. • REAL ESTATE INVESTOR

IndividualCOLUMBIA CITY, IN

$10,000

May 1, 2024

SMITH, THOMAS

PRESCOTT INVESTORS INC. • INVESTOR

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$10,000

May 13, 2024

GAMBLE, KATHRYN

UNAKA CO • BUSINESS EXECUTIVE

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$9,900

Jul 15, 2024

Donor Network - Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 56 nodes and 36 connections (41 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $151,835

Top Donors - Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID]

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

1 Org17 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 4 harmed.

−Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.80
Section (6) expresses extreme concern about the Government of the People's Republic of China' state-directed theft of Apple Daily, implying a negative impact on tech companies operating in Hong Kong
−Private Equity & Hedge Fundsconfidence 0.70
Section (6) states that Hong Kong no longer has credibility as an international business center due to the erosion of the regulatory, legal, and judicial environments, which could affect investment decisions by private equity and hedge funds
−Commercial Banksconfidence 0.70
Section (6) mentions the erosion of the regulatory, legal, and judicial environments in Hong Kong, which could impact the stability and attractiveness of the region for commercial banking operations
−Insurance (P&C and Life)confidence 0.60
The overall deterioration of Hong Kong's business environment, as described in the resolution, may increase risk and uncertainty for insurance companies operating in the region

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID])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.

Industries this bill HARMS

Private Equity & Hedge Funds$6,600
from 2 contributions
- MANDELBLATT, ERIC$6,600

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: 62%

Pages: 211-213AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill directly condemns the PRC's undermining of Hong Kong's democracy and rule of law, aligning with Project 2025's emphasis on viewing China as a serious threat requiring an honest assessment and a cost‑imposing strategic response. Both share the goal of confronting PRC malign behavior and upholding U.S. interests and values."

Key themes:China threatHong Kong democracyPRC condemnationstrategic competitionaccountability

— 179 — Department of State priority. That said, the next President must significantly reorient the U.S. govern- ment’s posture toward friends and adversaries alike—which will include much more honest assessments about who are friends and who are not. This reorien- tation could represent the most significant shift in core foreign policy principles and corresponding action since the end of the Cold War. Although not every country or issue area can be discussed in this chapter, below are examples of several areas in which a shift in U. S. foreign policy is not only import- ant, but arguably existential. The point is not to assert that everyone in the evolving conservative movement, or, in some cases, the growing bipartisan consensus, will agree with the details of this assessment. Rather, what is presented below demon- strates the urgency of these issues and provides a general roadmap for analysis. In a world on fire, a handful of nations require heightened attention. Some rep- resent existential threats to the safety and security of the American people; others threaten to hurt the U.S. economy; and others are wild cards, whose full threat scope is unknown but nevertheless unsettling. The five countries on which the next Administration should focus its attention and energy are China, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and North Korea. The People’s Republic of China The designs of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Chinese Com- munist Party, which runs the PRC, are serious and dangerous.9 This tyrannical country with a population of more than 1 billion people has the vision, resources, and patience to achieve its objectives. Protecting the United States from the PRC’s designs requires an unambiguous offensive-defensive mix, including protecting American citizens and their interests, as well as U.S. allies, from PRC attacks and abuse that undermine U.S. competitiveness, security, and prosperity. The United States must have a cost-imposing strategic response to make Bei- jing’s aggression unaffordable, even as the American economy and U.S. power grow. This stance will require real, sustained, near-unprecedented U.S. growth; stronger partnerships; synchronized economic and security policies; and American energy independence—but above all, it will require a very honest perspective about the nature and designs of the PRC as more of a threat than a competitor.10 The next President should use the State Department and its array of resources to reassess and lead this effort, just as it did during the Cold War. The U.S. government needs an Article X for China,11 and it should be a presidential mandate. Along with the National Security Council, the State Department should draft an Article X, which should be a deeply philosophical look at the China challenge. Many foreign policy professionals and national leaders, both in government and the private sector, are reluctant to take decisive action regarding China. Many are vested in an unshakable faith in the international system and global norms. They are so enamored with them they cannot brook any criticisms or reforms, let alone — 180 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise acknowledge their potential for being abused by the PRC. Others refuse to acknowl- edge Beijing’s malign activities and often pass off criticism as conspiracy theories. For instance, many were quick to dismiss even the possibility that COVID-19 escaped from a Chinese research laboratory. The reality, however, is that the PRC’s actions often do sound like conspiracy theories—because they are conspiracies. In addition, some knowingly or not parrot the Communist line: Global leaders includ- ing President Joe Biden, have tried to normalize or even laud Chinese behavior. In some cases, these voices, like the global corporate giants BlackRock and Disney, directly benefit from doing business with Beijing. On the other hand, others acknowledge the dangers posed by the PRC, but believe in a moderating approach to accommodate its rise, a policy of “compete where we must, but cooperate where we can,” including on issues like climate change. This strategy has demonstrably failed. As with all global struggles with Communist and other tyrannical regimes, the issue should never be with the Chinese people but with the Communist dictator- ship that oppresses them and threatens the well-being of nations across the globe.12 That said, the nature of Chinese power today is the product of history, ideology, and the institutions that have governed China during the course of five millennia, inherited by the present Chinese leaders from the preceding generations of the CCP.13 In short, the PRC challenge is rooted in China’s strategic culture and not just the Marxism–Leninism of the CCP, meaning that internal culture and civil society will never deliver a more normative nation. The PRC’s aggressive behavior can only be curbed through external pressure. The Islamic Republic of Iran The ongoing protests in the Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran), which are widely viewed as a new revolution, have shown that the Islamic regime, which has been in power since 1979 when Ayatollah Khomeini became the leader, is at its weakest state in its history and is at odds not only with its own people but also its regional neighbors. Iran is home to a proud and ancient culture, yet its people have strug- gled to achieve democracy and have had to endure a hostile theocratic regime that vehemently opposes freedom. The time may be right to press harder on the Iranian theocracy, support the Iranian people, and take other steps to draw Iran into the community of free and modern nations. Unfortunately, the Obama and Biden Administrations have propped up the brutal Islamist theocracy that has hurt the Iranian people and threatened nuclear war. For example, the Obama Administration’s 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly referred to as the Iran nuclear deal, gave the Islamic regime a crucial monetary lifeline after the Green Movement protests in 2009, which, while ultimately unsuccessful, did succeed in weakening the regime and showing the world that younger Iranians want freedom.

Department of Commerce

Strong

Vector: 59%

Pages: 702-704AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill’s condemnation of PRC actions in Hong Kong and its focus on Hong Kong’s role in export‑controlled goods transshipment, sanctions evasion, and support for Russia’s defense industrial base directly support Project 2025’s objectives of strategic decoupling from China, strengthening the defense industrial base, and protecting critical supply chains and emerging technologies."

Key themes:strategic decoupling from Chinadefense industrial base strengthexport controls/sanctions evasioncritical supply chains

— 670 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Strategic decoupling from China; l Defense industrial base strength; l Critical supply chains (e.g., pharmaceuticals, medical devices, food); and l Emerging technologies (e.g., rare earth minerals, semiconductors, batteries, artificial intelligence, quantum computing). Global Markets and the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service. For more than a decade, strategic planning at Global Markets (GM) and the U.S. and For- eign Commercial Service (CS) has been consistently undermined by increased costs associated with overseas staff and flat or reduced budgets. The Trump Administration introduced crucial, long-overdue business practices such as the implementation of software to manage and track workflow, but a further strategic overhaul of resource allocation is needed to set GM and the CS on a firm footing. Currently, CS manages staff spread over 106 domestic offices in 77 countries around the world. Abroad, several “partner posts” utilize interagency staff and regionally located CS officials to offer services without a permanent physical in-country CS presence. Given the rapidly rising costs imposed by the State Depart- ment on CS posts overseas, a drastic expansion of this model is likely needed. CS resources should be distributed according to the following set of priorities: l Value in countering the malign influence of adversaries, particularly China; l Value in fostering U.S. innovation; l Value in maintaining access to critical supply chains and technology; l Difficulty for U.S. companies in gaining market access without CS involvement; and l Potential untapped export market size and likelihood of expansion. Ultimately, difficult decisions must be made about the value of CS posts and whether individual posts can be justified given current resources and the above criteria. If the State Department deems the diplomatic value of a permanent in-country CS post to be vital to the national interest, then State should bear more of the cost of maintaining that post. Global Markets should also consolidate and elevate the Advocacy Center and SelectUSA as relatively low-cost tools to drive large-scale export transactions — 671 — Department of Commerce and foreign direct investment (FDI). SelectUSA is a low-cost and effective tool in attracting FDI to the U.S. and to re-shore manufacturing and research and devel- opment. In a world in which corruption is rampant, these are among the most effective tools in leveling the playing field for U.S. communities and companies seeking to engage with governments and potential overseas investors. Given the value placed on senior-level engagement by many governments and companies, this consolidated Office of Trade and Investment Advocacy should be headed by a Deputy Assistant Secretary. The new office should also seek congres- sional authorization to utilize its FDI-promotion tools to encourage reshoring by U.S. businesses. BUREAU OF INDUSTRY AND SECURITY During the past two decades, technology transfer from America and its allies has helped accelerate adversaries’ technological and weapons capabilities. This tech- nology transfer on a massive scale has occurred because of adversaries’ exploitation of the U.S.’s open economy and education system through both commercial trans- actions and university and government research programs. Examples include the People’s Republic of China’s dramatic leaps forward in semiconductor design and fabrication, battery energy storage, nuclear weapons capabilities, artificial intel- ligence, space and aerospace engineering, and hypersonic weapons deployment. At the same time, the U.S. has systematically failed to protect critical assets. Rather than promulgate policies to better prevent technology transfer, the U.S. government has either ignored the problem or, worse, from 2008 through 2016 instituted a government-wide “Export Control Reform” process to loosen the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) governing exports of dual-use items to facilitate technology transfer to adversaries, either directly or indirectly through third-country transfers. Those reforms still present in the Department of Commerce’s EAR must be reversed. The United States needs stronger rules to protect technology transfer to adversaries while promoting technology integration and interoperability with allies. Further, U.S. export control regulations should be utilized to prevent theft of personally identifiable information and to encourage U.S. companies to shift production out of China and further diversify their supply chains to better advance U.S. national security interests. For all the below recommendations, BIS needs to move unilaterally while it works with allies to implement complementary export control policies. Waiting to act until allies are ready to move in lockstep is not an option while America’s national security is at risk. Emerging and Foundational Technologies. The Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) gave BIS permanent statutory authority to regulate exports of dual-use items (goods, software, and technology). ECRA also mandated that BIS

Trade

Moderate

Vector: 61%

Pages: 816-818AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill condemns China's actions in Hong Kong and highlights concerns about export-controlled goods, sanctions evasion, and support for Russia's defense industrial base, which touch on themes of economic aggression and defense-industrial-base expansion emphasized in the Project 2025 trade section. However, it does not propose trade policy measures or directly address tariffs, industrial policy, or technology transfer, resulting in only moderate thematic overlap."

Key themes:China economic aggressiondefense industrial basesanctions evasionrule of lawexport controls

— 783 — Trade tariffs.17 A conservative Administration might do well to look at such a tax as part of its trade agenda. CHALLENGE #2: COMMUNIST CHINA’S ECONOMIC AGGRESSION AND QUEST FOR WORLD DOMINATION18 Among all of its bilateral trade relationships, America’s relationship with Com- munist China is the most fraught with difficulty. The problem is not just that the relentlessly mercantilist and protectionist trade policies that China has pursued ever since its accession to the WTO in 2001 have led to chronic, massive, and ever-expanding trade deficits. Communist China’s economic aggression in the traditional trade policy space is further facilitated by equally aggressive industrial policies and technology transfer–forcing policies that are designed to shift the world’s manufacturing and supply chains to Communist Chinese soil. The Chinese Communist Party’s policy goal is to propel the Chinese economy, but its broader goal is to strengthen Communist China’s defense industrial base and associated warfighting capabilities. That China unabashedly seeks to supplant America as the world’s dominant economic and military power is not in dispute. Rather, it is a prominent feature of Communist Chinese dictator Xi Jinping’s rhet- oric. Xi has promised that the deed will be done by 2049, the 100-year anniversary of the Communist takeover of the Mainland.19 In light of Communist China’s broader geopolitical and military agenda, the American President who takes office in January 2025 must view the U.S.–China trade relationship and associated policy reforms within the context of the broader existential threat posed by Communist China. The question is whether that next President should seek to decouple economically and financially from Communist China as America’s first best response to China’s unrelenting aggression or con- tinue efforts to negotiate with an authoritarian country and brutal dictatorship with a well-established reputation for failing to abide by any agreements it enters. Institutionalized Aggression. Table 5 depicts more than 50 types of policy aggression institutionalized by the CCP across six different categories of such aggression. Viewed as whole, the extent of Communist China’s aggression is breathtaking. At the trade policy level, Communist China relies heavily on a wide range of mercantilist and protectionist tools to protect its own markets and unfairly exploit foreign markets. These instruments of Communist Chinese trade aggression include high tariffs and nontariff barriers, currency manipulation, a heavy reli- ance on sweatshop labor and pollution havens, the dumping of unfairly subsidized exports, and widespread counterfeiting and piracy: Communist China is the world’s largest source of counterfeit and pirated products. In addition, Communist Chinese enterprises benefit from preferential policies that have burdened world markets with subsidized overcapacity. The resultant glut

Department of State

Moderate

Vector: 60%

Pages: 211-213AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 excerpt identify the People's Republic of China as a significant threat and call for a firm U.S. response, but the bill focuses specifically on Hong Kong's democracy and rule of law while the Project 2025 section emphasizes immigration policy, visa programs, and a broader strategic pivot toward China. The overlap is thematic rather than operational."

Key themes:China threatforeign policy responsehuman rights/democracystrategic competitionCongressional/executive alignment

— 178 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise interior immigration enforcement. This Administration’s humanitarian crisis—which is arguably the greatest humanitarian crisis in the modern era, one which has harmed Americans and foreign nationals alike—will take many years and billions of dollars to fully address. One casualty of the Biden Administration’s behavior will be the current form of the U.S. Refugee Admission Program (USRAP). The federal government’s obligation to shift national security–essential screening and vetting resources to the forged border crisis will necessitate an indefinite curtailment of the number of USRAP refugee admissions. The State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, which administers USRAP, must shift its resources to challenges stemming from the current immigration situation until the crisis can be contained and refugee-focused screening and vetting capacity can reasonably be restored. l Strengthening bilateral and multilateral immigration-focused agreements. Restoration of both domestic security and the integrity of the U.S. immigration system should start with rapid reactivation of several key initiatives in effect at the conclusion of the Trump Administration. Reimplementation of the Remain in Mexico policy, safe third-country agreements, and other measures to address the influx of non-Mexican asylum applicants at the United States–Mexico border must be Day One priorities. Although the State Department must rein in the C-175 authorities of other agencies, the Department of Homeland Security should retain (or regain) C-175 authorities for negotiating bilateral and multilateral security agreements. l Evaluation of national security–vulnerable visa programs. To protect the American people, the State Department, in coordination with the White House and other security-focused agencies, should evaluate several key security-sensitive visa programs that it manages. Key programs include, but should not be limited to, the Diversity Visa program, the F (student) visa program, and J (exchange visitor) visa program. The State Department’s evaluation must ensure that these programs are not only consistent with White House immigration policy, but also align with its national security obligations and resource limitations. PIVOTING ABROAD Personnel and management adjustments are crucial preludes to refocus the State Department’s mission, which is implementing the President’s foreign policy agenda and, in so doing, ensuring that the interests of American citizens are given — 179 — Department of State priority. That said, the next President must significantly reorient the U.S. govern- ment’s posture toward friends and adversaries alike—which will include much more honest assessments about who are friends and who are not. This reorien- tation could represent the most significant shift in core foreign policy principles and corresponding action since the end of the Cold War. Although not every country or issue area can be discussed in this chapter, below are examples of several areas in which a shift in U. S. foreign policy is not only import- ant, but arguably existential. The point is not to assert that everyone in the evolving conservative movement, or, in some cases, the growing bipartisan consensus, will agree with the details of this assessment. Rather, what is presented below demon- strates the urgency of these issues and provides a general roadmap for analysis. In a world on fire, a handful of nations require heightened attention. Some rep- resent existential threats to the safety and security of the American people; others threaten to hurt the U.S. economy; and others are wild cards, whose full threat scope is unknown but nevertheless unsettling. The five countries on which the next Administration should focus its attention and energy are China, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and North Korea. The People’s Republic of China The designs of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Chinese Com- munist Party, which runs the PRC, are serious and dangerous.9 This tyrannical country with a population of more than 1 billion people has the vision, resources, and patience to achieve its objectives. Protecting the United States from the PRC’s designs requires an unambiguous offensive-defensive mix, including protecting American citizens and their interests, as well as U.S. allies, from PRC attacks and abuse that undermine U.S. competitiveness, security, and prosperity. The United States must have a cost-imposing strategic response to make Bei- jing’s aggression unaffordable, even as the American economy and U.S. power grow. This stance will require real, sustained, near-unprecedented U.S. growth; stronger partnerships; synchronized economic and security policies; and American energy independence—but above all, it will require a very honest perspective about the nature and designs of the PRC as more of a threat than a competitor.10 The next President should use the State Department and its array of resources to reassess and lead this effort, just as it did during the Cold War. The U.S. government needs an Article X for China,11 and it should be a presidential mandate. Along with the National Security Council, the State Department should draft an Article X, which should be a deeply philosophical look at the China challenge. Many foreign policy professionals and national leaders, both in government and the private sector, are reluctant to take decisive action regarding China. Many are vested in an unshakable faith in the international system and global norms. They are so enamored with them they cannot brook any criticisms or reforms, let alone

Trade

Moderate

Vector: 59%

Pages: 855-858AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill’s focus on PRC actions in Hong Kong that affect export controls, sanctions evasion, and financial sector operations aligns with Project 2025’s trade section, which emphasizes scrutiny of China’s economic practices and calls for stronger trade vigilance."

Key themes:Chinatrade sanctionsexport controlsfinancial sector scrutinyHong Kong autonomy

— 823 — Trade 77. Luis Martinez, “How Much Should We Trust the Dictator’s GDP Growth Estimates?” Becker–Friedman Institute for Economics at the University of Chicago, Working Paper No. 2021-78, July 2021, https://bfi.uchicago.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2021/07/BFI_WP_2021-78.pdf (accessed February 21, 2023). 78. Nicholas R. Lardy, The State Strikes Back: The End of Economic Reform in China? (Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics, 2019); Elizabeth C. Economy, The Third Revolution: Xi Jinping and the New Chinese State (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2018). — 825 — Section Five INDEPENDENT REGULATORY AGENCIES In addition to the executive departments and agencies discussed previously, a number of independent commissions exist that are loosely affiliated with the executive branch. In general, the President can appoint people to these commissions but cannot remove them, which makes them constitutionally prob- lematic in light of the Constitution’s having vested federal executive power in the President. Nevertheless, they exist, their constitutional legitimacy has generally been upheld by the courts, and there will be an opportunity for the next Adminis- tration to use them as forces for good, particularly by making wise appointments. Few appointments to these commissions will be as important as the President’s selection of the next chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). In Chapter 28, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr writes that the FCC chairman “is empowered with significant authority that is not shared” with other FCC members. Under a new chairman, he writes, “[t]he FCC needs to change course and bring new urgency to achieving four main goals: [r]eining in Big Tech; [p]romoting national security; [u]nleashing economic prosperity; and [e]nsuring FCC accountability and good governance.” “The FCC,” writes Carr, “has an important role to play in addressing the threats to individual liberty posed by corporations that are abusing dominant positions in the market.” Nowhere is that clearer “than when it comes to Big Tech and its attempts to drive diverse political viewpoints from the digital town square.” Carr writes that the FCC should require more transparency from Big Tech, which today “offers a black box.” And it should issue “an order that interprets Section 230”— which provides protection from legal liability to online computer services that

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. Risch, James E.

A bill to amend the Public Lands Corps Act of 1993 to modify the cost-sharing requirement for conservation projects carried out by a qualified youth or conservation corps, and for other purposes.

119/s/1228

A bill to amend the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to authorize the use of funds for certain additional Carey Act projects, and for other purposes.

119/s/1257

Urban Canal Modernization Act

119/s/2753

Back to All Bills