The bill
Falun Gong Protection Act
HR. 1540, 119th Congress — read as touching Pharmaceuticals.
Sponsored by
Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10]
ID: P000605
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 1540, 119th Congress — read as touching Pharmaceuticals.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
20 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Department of State" section, p. 223-225 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
May 5, 2025
📍 Current Status
Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another exercise in legislative theater, courtesy of the United States Congress. The Falun Gong Protection Act (HR 1540) is a masterclass in grandstanding, virtue signaling, and cynical politics.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to impose sanctions on individuals involved in forced organ harvesting within China, specifically targeting those who have persecuted the Falun Gong spiritual movement. Or so it claims. In reality, this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to score cheap points with human rights activists and the Chinese-American community while doing nothing to actually address the issue.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill authorizes the President to impose sanctions on foreign individuals who have engaged in or facilitated forced organ harvesting. These sanctions include blocking property, prohibiting transactions, and revoking visas. The bill also establishes a list of sanctioned individuals, which will be updated annually. Because, you know, lists are always effective in solving complex human rights issues.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are affected: the Chinese government, Falun Gong practitioners, and American companies with interests in China. But let's not forget the real stakeholders – the politicians who sponsored this bill, eager to burnish their human rights credentials without actually doing anything meaningful.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill will have all the impact of a feather on a hurricane. China will continue to harvest organs from prisoners, and the Falun Gong will remain persecuted. Meanwhile, American companies will find ways to circumvent the sanctions, and politicians will pat themselves on the back for "doing something" about human rights.
The real disease here is not forced organ harvesting but rather the cowardice and cynicism of politicians who use human suffering as a prop to advance their careers. This bill is a symptom of a deeper illness – the willingness to prioritize optics over substance, and to sacrifice meaningful action on the altar of political expediency.
In short, this bill is a farce, a Potemkin village of moral posturing designed to distract from the fact that our politicians are more interested in winning elections than actually solving problems. So, let's all take a moment to applaud the brave men and women who sponsored this bill – for their unwavering commitment to doing nothing meaningful about human rights.
Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No organization contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: R000579
Top Contributors
10
ID: F000246
Top Contributors
10
ID: T000165
Top Contributors
10
ID: B001257
Top Contributors
10
ID: F000466
Top Contributors
10
ID: O000175
Top Contributors
10
ID: G000589
Top Contributors
10
ID: O000086
Top Contributors
10
ID: W000814
Top Contributors
10
ID: W000795
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 48 nodes and 35 connections (27 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $180,692
Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 harmed.
Section 3(c)(1) imposes sanctions on foreign persons involved in forced organ harvesting, which may impact pharmaceutical companies operating in or with the People's Republic of China.
Section 3(c)(1) and Section 4(b)(2)(D) imply sanctions and reporting requirements that may affect hospitals and health systems with ties to the People's Republic of China or involved in organ transplantation research.
Section 3(c)(1) imposes sanctions that could affect health insurance companies with international operations or investments in the People's Republic of China.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
AI Analysis:
"The bill aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on holding international actors accountable for human rights abuses, particularly through sanctions and promoting authentic human rights in multilateral engagement, while opposing complicity with entities like the PRC that undermine U.S. interests and values."
— 191 — Department of State nations, but it is not the only option—and American diplomats should be clear- eyed about international organizations’ strengths and weaknesses. When such institutions act against U.S. interests, the United States must be prepared to take appropriate steps in response, up to and including withdrawal. The manifest failure and corruption of the World Health Organization (WHO) during the COVID-19 pandemic is an example of the danger that international organizations pose to U.S. citizens and interests. The next Administration must end blind support for international organi- zations. If an international organization is effective and advances American interests, the United States should support it. If an international organization is ineffective or does not support American interests, the United States should not support it. Those that are effective will still require constant pressure from U.S. officials to ensure that they remain effective. Serious consideration should also be given to withdrawal from organizations that no longer have value, quietly undermine U.S. interests or goals, or disproportionately rely on U.S. financial con- tributions to survive. The Trump Administration’s “tough love” approach to international organiza- tions served American interests. For example, the Trump Administration withdrew from, or terminated funding for, the United Nations Human Rights Council, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, and the WHO. The results were redeployment of taxpayer dollars to better uses—and other organizations “getting the message” that the United States will not allow itself and its money to be used to undermine its own interests. The Biden Administration reversed many of these decisions. Currently, U.S. funding for international organizations is more than $16 billion in fiscal year 2021—a sharp increase from $10.8 billion in fiscal year 2015.19 Millions of American taxpayer dollars go to support policies and initiatives that hurt the United States and American citizens. The next Administration should direct the Secretary of State to initiate a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of U.S. participation in all international organizations. This review should take into account long-standing provisions in federal law that prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars to promote abortion, popu- lation control, and terrorist activities, as well as other applicable restrictions on funding for international organizations and agencies with a view to withholding U.S. funds in cases of abuses. International organizations should not be used to promote radical social pol- icies as if they were human rights priorities. Doing so undermines actual human rights and weakens U.S. credibility abroad. The next Administration should use its voice, influence, votes, and funding in international organizations to pro- mote authentic human rights and respect for sovereignty based on the binding — 192 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise international obligations contained in treaties that have been constitutionally ratified by the U.S. government. It must promote a strict text-based interpreta- tion of treaty obligations that does not consider human rights treaties as “living instruments” both within the State Department and within international organi- zations that receive U.S. funding, including by making respect for sovereignty and authentic human rights a litmus test of personnel decisions and elections processes within international organizations. The U.S. Commission on Unalienable Human Rights focused on the primacy of civil and political rights in its inaugural report, which remains an important guidepost for bilateral and multilateral engagements on human rights. The com- mission’s report is a roadmap for revamping and reenergizing U.S. human rights policy and should be the basis for both structural and policy changes throughout the State Department.20 All U.S. multilateral engagements must be reevaluated in light of the work of the commission, and initiatives that promote controversial policies must be halted and rolled back. It is paramount to create a healthy culture of respect for life, the family, sover- eignty, and authentic human rights in international organizations and agencies. To support this goal, the U.S. led an effort during the Trump Administration to forge a consensus among like-minded countries in support of human life, women’s health, support of the family as the basic unit of human society, and defense of national sovereignty. The result was the Geneva Consensus Declaration on Women’s Health and Protection of the Family.21 All U.S. foreign policy engagements that were pro- duced and expanded under the Obama and Biden Administrations must be aligned with the Geneva Consensus Declaration and the work of the U.S. Commission on Unalienable Human Rights. The U.S. government should not and cannot promote or fund abortion in inter- national programs or multilateral organizations. Technically, the United States can prevent its international funding from going toward abortions, but the U.S. will have a greater impact by including like-minded nations and building on the coali- tion launched through the Geneva Consensus Declaration, with a view to shaping the work of international agencies by functioning as a united front. The COVID-19 pandemic made it painfully clear that both international organi- zations—and some countries—are only too willing to trample human rights in the name of public health. For example, the WHO was, and remains, willing to support the suppression of basic human rights, partially because of its close relationship with human rights abusers like the PRC. The next Administration should unequivocally embrace the premise that humanity and the international community can simultaneously tackle pandem- ics and other emergent health threats without impeding the rights of people. It must also become a vocal surrogate for people in countries where rights are being suppressed in the name of health. This will likely require greater restrictions on
AI Analysis:
"The bill focuses on human rights sanctions related to forced organ harvesting, while Project 2025’s Trade section emphasizes countering China’s economic aggression through tools like tariffs and decoupling. Both share the broader goal of confronting CCP malign behavior, establishing a moderate thematic overlap."
— 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
AI Analysis:
"The bill focuses on human rights sanctions related to forced organ harvesting in China, which aligns with Project 2025's broader goal of holding the CCP accountable and reducing U.S. dependence on China, though it does not directly implement trade-specific measures like tariffs or investment bans."
— 789 — Trade The following policy options were on the drawing board or in discussion as preparations for a potential Trump second term were being made. These options span the spectrum from purely trade-related like increasing tariffs to cutting off Communist China’s access to American financial markets, research institutions, and consumers. The next American President should strongly consider adopting all of them as a package: l Strategically expand tariffs to all Chinese products and increase tariff rates to levels that will block out “Made in China” products, and execute this strategy in a manner and at a pace that will not expose the U.S. to lack of access to essential products like key pharmaceuticals. l Provide significant financial and tax incentives to American companies that are seeking to onshore production from Communist China to U.S. soil. l Stop Communist China’s abuse of the so-called de minimis exemption, which allows it to evade the tariffs for products valued at less than $800. l Prohibit Communist Chinese state-owned enterprises from bidding on U.S. government procurement contracts (for example, contracts for subway and other transportation systems). l Prohibit the use of Communist Chinese–made drones in American airspace. l Ban all Chinese social media apps such as TikTok and WeChat, which pose significant national security risks and expose American consumers to data and identity theft. l Prohibit all Communist Chinese investment in high-technology industries. l Prohibit U.S. pension funds from investing in Communist Chinese stocks. l Delist any Communist Chinese stocks that do not meet Public Company Accounting Oversight Board standards or, alternatively, close off the Chinese “A shares” stock market to U.S. investment and deregister U.S.- sanctioned Communist Chinese companies. l Prohibit the use of Hong Kong clearinghouses as transit points for American capital investing in the Chinese mainland. l Prohibit the inclusion of Chinese sovereign bonds in U.S. investors’ portfolios. — 790 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Systematically reduce and eventually eliminate any U.S. dependence on Communist Chinese supply chains that may be used to threaten national security such as medicines, silicon chips, rare earth minerals, computer motherboards, flatscreen displays, and military components. l Sanction any companies, including American companies like Apple, that facilitate Communist China’s use of its Great Firewall surveillance and censorship capabilities. l Order the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice to contract with U.S.-owned and U.S.-operated artificial intelligence companies that are capable of detecting, identifying, and disrupting both the domestic groups’ and CCP influencers’ social media operations and funding streams using public information as a rapidly available offensive measure. l Reinvigorate and expand the DHS crackdown on the CCP’s use of e-sellers (including third-party sellers) and the shippers and operators of major warehouses such as Amazon, eBay, and Alibaba to flood U.S. markets with counterfeit and pirated goods. l Compel the closure of all Confucius Institutes in the U.S., which serve as propaganda arms of the CCP. l Significantly reduce or eliminate the issuance of visas to Chinese students or researchers to prevent espionage and information harvesting. l Hold the CCP accountable for the COVID-19 virus, which almost certainly originated as a genetically engineered virus from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and do so through the establishment of a presidential commission or select congressional committee that would investigate the origins of the virus; its various costs, both economically and in human life; and the possible means of collecting damages from the CCP, which are likely to rise to the trillions of dollars. If the new U.S. President wishes to defend this country against the serious exis- tential threat posed by Communist China, that President will adopt all of these proposals through the requisite presidential executive orders or memoranda. Effective Trade Policy in the Real World. To conclude this analysis, it is useful to offer brief reflections on a number of key obstacles to implementing the policy initiatives recommended in this chapter. These obstacles include:
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.