Crimea Annexation Non-Recognition Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/1600
Last Updated: January 12, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]

ID: C001078

Follow the money

The bill

Crimea Annexation Non-Recognition Act

HR. 1600, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]

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

The money

$69,150 raised

22 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. 214-216 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

ASSUMING FIRST SPONSORSHIP - Mr. Walkinshaw asked unanimous consent that he may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 1600, a bill originally introduced by Representative Connolly, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII. Agreed to without objection.

January 7, 2026

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 House

🏛️

Senate 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

(sigh) Oh joy, another meaningless bill from the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Crimea Annexation Non-Recognition Act (HR 1600) is a grandstanding exercise in futility, masquerading as a principled stance against Russia's annexation of Crimea. Its main purpose is to allow politicians to pretend they're doing something about the situation while accomplishing nothing.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill prohibits U.S. government recognition of Russia's sovereignty over Crimea and bars federal agencies from taking any actions that imply such recognition. Wow, what a bold move! It's not like this will change anything on the ground or affect Russia's behavior in any way.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The only parties affected by this bill are politicians seeking to score cheap points with their constituents and lobbyists looking for ways to justify their existence. The actual stakeholders – the people of Crimea, Ukraine, and Russia – won't be impacted in the slightest.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a perfect example of "legislative theater." It's a hollow gesture designed to appease voters who are too ignorant or apathetic to understand the nuances of international politics. The real implications are:

* More taxpayer dollars wasted on pointless posturing * Further erosion of trust in government, as people realize that Congress is more interested in grandstanding than actual problem-solving * A slight increase in the number of politicians' press releases and social media posts touting their "tough stance" on Russia

Diagnosis: This bill suffers from a severe case of "Symbolic Gesture Syndrome," a disease characterized by the tendency to prioritize appearances over substance. The underlying illness is a bad case of " Politician-itis," marked by an insatiable desire for self-aggrandizement and a complete disregard for the well-being of constituents.

Treatment: None required, as this bill will likely die in committee or be vetoed if it somehow manages to pass. But hey, at least our politicians can pat themselves on the back for trying.

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

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$69,150
18 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$2,900
Committees
$0
Individuals
$66,000

No PAC contributions found

1
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
1 transaction
$2,900

No committee contributions found

1
PUNARO, ARNOLD
2 transactions
$6,600
2
PUNARO, JULIA
2 transactions
$6,600
3
HALE, KAREN
2 transactions
$6,600
4
PHILLIPS, STERLING
2 transactions
$6,600
5
HERSHMAN, MICHAEL J.
1 transaction
$3,300
6
TRONE, DAVID
1 transaction
$3,300
7
MISENER, PAUL E
1 transaction
$3,300
8
RABAUT, TOM W
1 transaction
$3,300
9
WALKER, KENT
1 transaction
$3,300
10
CARLSON, TERESA
1 transaction
$3,300
11
GURU, RAM
1 transaction
$3,300
12
HALL SR, DON
1 transaction
$3,300
13
HALL, DAVID
1 transaction
$3,300
14
ABOD, CARAH
1 transaction
$3,300
15
ABOD, KIM
1 transaction
$3,300
16
BERBERIAN, ANNETTE
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Wilson, Joe [R-SC-2]

ID: W000795

Top Contributors

10

1
CATAWBA INDIAN NATION
OrganizationROCK HILL, SC
$2,000
May 6, 2024
2
LEVKOWITZ, HOWARD
SELF EMPLOYED • INVESTOR
IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA
$6,600
Nov 28, 2023
3
VICKAR, KERRY
LKV MANAGEMENT • CHAIRMAN
IndividualCHARLOTTE, NC
$5,000
Nov 21, 2023
4
LOWELL, RANDY R.
BURR FORMAN • ATTORNEY
IndividualISLE OF PALMS, SC
$3,700
May 8, 2024
5
VALLARINO, MANUEL R.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSURFSIDE BEACH, SC
$3,300
Oct 29, 2024
6
VALLARINO, MARY EMILY J.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSURFSIDE BEACH, SC
$3,300
Oct 29, 2024
7
CASSELS, W. TOBIN III
SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT LINES • PRESIDENT
IndividualCOLUMBIA, SC
$3,300
Dec 1, 2023
8
CASSELS, W. TOBIN JR.
SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT LINES • CHAIRMAN & CEO
IndividualCOLUMBIA, SC
$3,300
Dec 1, 2023
9
HOEFER, JOHN M. S. ESQ.
WILLOUGHBY & HOEFER P.A. • ATTORNEY
IndividualCOLUMBIA, SC
$3,300
Nov 8, 2023
10
LIEBERMAN, JEREMY A.
KLEE TUCHIN BOGDANOFF & STERN LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualFLUSHING, NY
$3,300
Oct 31, 2023

Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10]

ID: G000599

Top Contributors

10

1
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA
$1,500
May 19, 2023
2
GOLDSTEIN, DARIN
SDG CAPITAL MANAGEMENT • MANAGER
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
May 31, 2023
3
GOLDSTEIN, DARIN
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Jun 19, 2023
4
SCHWARTZ, DAVID
SLATE PROPERTY GROUP • EXECUTIVE
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,000
Oct 17, 2023
5
SCHWARTZ, DAVID
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,000
Oct 26, 2023
6
ADAMS, RICHARD
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Oct 26, 2024
7
ANDREESSEN, MARC
SELF • ATTORNEY
IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA
$3,300
Oct 23, 2024
8
BARTH, RICHARD
MARYLAND • PROFESSOR
IndividualBALTIMORE, MD
$3,300
Oct 27, 2024
9
BLUMENTHAL, VIOLETTE
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualDURHAM, NC
$3,300
Oct 26, 2024
10
BRUNO, JACQUELINE
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualWHITESTONE, NY
$3,300
Oct 26, 2024

Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1]

ID: F000466

Top Contributors

10

1
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$1,500
Dec 31, 2024
2
STATA FAMILY OFFICE
Organization
$500
Apr 26, 2024
3
ASHER, ROBERT B.
IndividualGWYNEDD VALLEY, PA
$10,000
Oct 9, 2024
4
ASHER, ROBERT B.
ASHER CHOCOLATES • CHAIRMAN
IndividualGWYNEDD VALLEY, PA
$10,000
Sep 30, 2024
5
LEVY, EDWARD JR
EDW C LEVY CO • CHAIRMAN
IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI
$6,600
Feb 26, 2024
6
CROTTY, THOMAS
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$6,600
Feb 27, 2024
7
EVANS, ROGER
GREYLOCK PARTNERS • PARTNER EMERITUS
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$6,600
Feb 27, 2024
8
LEACH, RONALD
NPX ONE • CHAIRMAN & CEO
IndividualGENEVA, IL
$6,600
Feb 28, 2024
9
MCCLAIN, MARK
SAILPOINT • CEO
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$6,600
Mar 2, 2024
10
CROTTY, THOMAS
IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$6,600
Mar 8, 2024

Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1]

ID: T000468

Top Contributors

10

1
LAS VEGAS PAIUTE TRIBE
OrganizationLAS VEGAS, NV
$3,300
Dec 31, 2023
2
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Feb 1, 2024
3
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$2,500
Jun 30, 2024
4
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA
$1,500
Jun 30, 2023
5
RENO-SPARKS INDIAN COLONY
OrganizationRENO, NV
$1,000
Jun 11, 2024
6
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$1,000
Sep 8, 2023
7
NET2LINK, LLC
OrganizationPEMBROKE PINES, FL
$250
Oct 23, 2024
8
CHANG, RONIE
GOLDEN REAL ESTATE & INVESTMENTS • REALTOR
IndividualLAS VEGAS, NV
$3,300
Nov 2, 2024
9
PRITZKER, JAY
STATE OF ILLINOIS • GOVERNOR
IndividualCHICAGO, IL
$3,300
Oct 18, 2024
10
SCHMIDT, ERIC
HILLSPIRE LLC • MANAGER
IndividualPALO ALTO, CA
$3,300
Oct 23, 2024

Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]

ID: N000147

Top Contributors

0

No contribution data available

Rep. Sánchez, Linda T. [D-CA-38]

ID: S001156

Top Contributors

0

No contribution data available

Rep. Dean, Madeleine [D-PA-4]

ID: D000631

Top Contributors

10

1
LEVIN, CARYL
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualELKINS PARK, PA
$5,000
Nov 3, 2024
2
LINDY, ALAN
LINDY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT • PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
IndividualAMBLER, PA
$3,500
Oct 28, 2024
3
BECKER, DEBBIE M
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualWYNNEWOOD, PA
$3,300
Nov 4, 2024
4
BECKER, WILLIAM P.
BECKER & FRONDORF • RETIRED
IndividualWYNNEWOOD, PA
$3,300
Nov 4, 2024
5
KRAUSZ, STEVEN
US VENTURE PARTNERS • VENTURE CAPITAL
IndividualPORTOLA VALLEY, CA
$3,300
Oct 23, 2024
6
ERICKSEN, EUGENE P
SELF • STATISTICIAN
IndividualPHILADELPHIA, PA
$3,300
Jul 1, 2023
7
FINK, WILLIAM
SELF • CPA
IndividualDOWNINGTOWN, PA
$3,300
Aug 4, 2023
8
LINDY, FRANK
LINDY COMMUNITIES • REAL ESTATE
IndividualELKINS PARK, PA
$3,300
Jul 25, 2023
9
MILLER, LESLIE ANNE ESQ.
SELF EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY
IndividualBRYN MAWR, PA
$3,300
Aug 24, 2023
10
SCATTONE, FRANCESCO
RENAISSANCE TECHNOLOGIES • FINANCE
IndividualWYNDMOOR, PA
$3,300
Jul 27, 2023

Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5]

ID: G000583

Top Contributors

10

1
AMERICAN EXPRESS
OrganizationNEWARK, NJ
$22,941
Apr 12, 2024
2
AMERICAN EXPRESS
OrganizationNEWARK, NJ
$10,621
May 10, 2024
3
PAYROLL DATA PROCESSING
OrganizationTAMPA, FL
$6,337
May 15, 2024
4
PAYROLL DATA PROCESSING
OrganizationTAMPA, FL
$6,337
Apr 15, 2024
5
PAYROLL DATA PROCESSING
OrganizationTAMPA, FL
$6,337
Apr 30, 2024
6
PAYROLL DATA PROCESSING
OrganizationTAMPA, FL
$5,751
Apr 1, 2024
7
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
8
SEKAS LAW GROUP LLC
OrganizationENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, NJ
$1,500
Apr 12, 2024
9
SANDOR F. GENET & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
OrganizationNORTH MIAMI BEACH, FL
$250
Apr 12, 2024
10
FIRESTONE MILKEN, SARAH
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA
$13,200
Jul 2, 2024

Rep. Bacon, Don [R-NE-2]

ID: B001298

Top Contributors

10

1
ONEIDA NATION
OrganizationONEIDA, WI
$3,300
Mar 28, 2023
2
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$3,300
Mar 28, 2023
3
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$3,300
Mar 28, 2023
4
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Jun 27, 2023
5
ONEIDA NATION
OrganizationONEIDA, WI
$3,300
Jun 30, 2024
6
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$2,000
Jun 27, 2023
7
REPUBLICAN MAIN STREET PARTNERSHIP
OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC
$1,000
Jul 11, 2024
8
CARSON, RUSSELL S.
THE CARSON FAMILY CHARITABLE TRUST • PHILANTHROPY
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Apr 24, 2024
9
FRANK, JIM
2FILLC • EXEC
IndividualWINNETKA, IL
$6,600
Apr 23, 2024
10
DANIELS, BRANDON
EXIGER • CEO
IndividualRICHMOND, VA
$6,600
Apr 21, 2024

Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-12]

ID: N000002

Top Contributors

10

1
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
2
KRAMER DILLOF LIVINGSTON & MOORE
OrganizationNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Aug 3, 2023
3
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON DAKOTA POLITICAL COMMITTEE
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Jun 6, 2023
4
TONIO BURGOS & ASSOCIATES
OrganizationTRINITY, NY
$1,000
Aug 1, 2023
5
VILLAGE INDEPENDENT DEMOCRATS
OrganizationNEW YORK, NY
$300
Sep 21, 2023
6
JOSEPHSON, JOHN H
SESAC MUSIC GROUP • CEO
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Oct 23, 2024
7
LAWRENCE, DOUGLAS
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024
8
RECHLER, DEBBY
HOMEMAKER
IndividualGLEN HEAD, NY
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024
9
RUBIN, JUDY
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Oct 17, 2024
10
ALIX, JAY
JAY ALIX & ASSOCIATES • EXECUTIVE
IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI
$3,300
Sep 4, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 52 nodes and 34 connections (41 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $118,550

Top Donors - Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

1 Org1 Committee16 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: 62%
Pages: 214-216AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1600 aligns with Project 2025's Department of State section by reinforcing U.S. opposition to Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and supporting Ukraine's territorial integrity, which is consistent with the conservative view that Putin's invasion is unjust and that U.S. policy should uphold sovereignty and deter aggression, even amid debates over the extent of involvement."

Key themes:Ukraine sovereigntyRussia aggressionCrimea non-recognitionU.S. foreign policy resolveNATO and European security

— 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 — 183 — Department of State Korea) must be deterred from military conflict. The United States cannot permit the DPRK to remain a de facto nuclear power with the capacity to threaten the United States or its allies. This interest is both critical to the defense of the Amer- ican homeland and the future of global nonproliferation. The DPRK must not be permitted to profit from its blatant violations of international commitments or to threaten other nations with nuclear blackmail. Both interests can only be served if the U.S. disallows the DPRK’s rogue regime behavior. OTHER INTERNATIONAL ENGAGEMENTS Western Hemisphere The United States has a vested interest in a relatively united and economically prosperous Western Hemisphere. Nonetheless, the region now has an overwhelm- ing number of socialist or progressive regimes, which are at odds with the freedom and growth-oriented policies of the U.S. and other neighbors and who increasingly pose hemispheric security threats. A new approach is therefore needed, one that simultaneously allows the U.S. to re-posture in its best interests and helps regional partners enter a new century of growth and opportunity. The following core policies must be part of this new direction: l A “sovereign Mexico” policy. Mexico is currently a national security disaster. Bluntly stated, Mexico can no longer qualify as a first-world nation; it has functionally lost its sovereignty to muscular criminal cartels that effectively run the country. The current dynamic is not good for either U.S. citizens or Mexicans, and the perfect storm created by this cartel state has negative effects that are damaging the entire hemisphere. The next Administration must both adopt a posture that calls for a fully sovereign Mexico and take all steps at its disposal to support that result in as rapid a fashion as possible. l A fentanyl-free frontier. The same cartels that parasitically run Mexico are also working with the PRC to fuel the largest drug crisis in the history of North America. These Mexican cartels are working closely with Chinese fentanyl precursor chemical manufacturers, importing those precursor chemicals into Mexico, manufacturing fentanyl on Mexican soil, and shipping it into the United States and elsewhere. The highly potent narcotic is having an unprecedented lethal impact on the American citizenry. The next Administration must leverage its new insistence on a sovereign Mexico and work with other Western Hemisphere partners to halt the fentanyl crisis and put a decisive end to this unprecedented public health threat.

Department of State

Moderate
Vector: 57%
Pages: 223-225AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both HR 1600 and the Project 2025 State Department section emphasize upholding sovereignty and opposing Russian territorial assertiveness, using U.S. foreign policy to defend a rules‑based international order, though they focus on different regions (Crimea vs. Arctic)."

Key themes:sovereigntyopposition to Russian expansionismU.S. foreign policy stanceinternational orderstrategic competition with Russia

— 190 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the region and ensures that Russian use of Arctic waters and resources does not exceed a reasonable footprint. The U.S. should unapologetically pursue American interests in the Arctic by promoting economic freedom in the region. Economic freedom spurs prosperity, innovation, respect for the rule of law, jobs, and sustainability. Most important, economic freedom can help to keep the Arctic stable and secure. The U.S. should work to ensure that shipping lanes in the Arctic remain avail- able to all global commercial traffic and free of onerous fees and burdensome administrative, regulatory, and military requirements. While this should be the next Administration’s policy with respect to all countries that might seek to block free-flowing commercial traffic, the next Administration will clearly have to exert substantial attention toward Russia. Both the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Navy are vital tools to ensure an unmo- nopolized Arctic. It is imperative that the Navy and Coast Guard continue to expand their fleets, including planned icebreaker acquisitions, to assure Arctic access for the United States and other friendly actors. The remote and harsh con- ditions of the Arctic also make unmanned system investment and use particularly appealing for providing additional situational awareness, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. The Coast Guard should also consider upgrading facilities, such as its Barrow station, to reinforce its Arctic capabilities and demonstrate a greater commitment to the region. The People’s Republic of China has declared itself a “near-Arctic state,” which is an imaginary term non-existent in international discourse. The United States should work with like-minded Arctic nations, including Russia, to raise legitimate concerns about the PRC’s so-called Polar Silk-Road ambitions. Concerning Greenland, the opening of a U.S. consulate in Nuuk is welcome. A formal year-round diplomatic presence is an effective way for the U.S. to better understand local political and economic dynamics. Furthermore, given Green- land’s geographic proximity and its rising potential as a commercial and tourist location, the next Administration should pursue policies that enhance economic ties between the U.S. and Greenland. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS Defending and protecting the American people and advancing their interests requires the United States to engage in a broad spectrum of bilateral and multilateral relationships, including participating in international organizations. Working with other governments through international organizations like the United Nations (U.N.) can be tremendously useful—but membership in these organizations must always be understood as a means to attain defined goals rather than an end in itself. Engagement with international organizations is one relatively easy way for the U.S. to defend its interests and to seek to address problems in concert with other — 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

Department of Defense

Moderate
Vector: 57%
Pages: 140-142AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1600 aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on restoring accountability and improving intelligence integrity in defense assessments, particularly regarding Russia-Ukraine issues, by reinforcing a consistent U.S. stance on Crimea that counters flawed assumptions and supports strategic clarity."

Key themes:Russia-Ukraine assessmentsintelligence integritydefense policy consistencyaccountability in national securitycountering foreign disruptions

— 107 — Department of Defense 5. Establish true alignment between DOD and DHS both to improve the defense of critical U.S. infrastructure and national border integrity and to develop vital information that enables defense against foreign targeted disruptions.23 l Restore accountability and public trust. In recent years, public trust in Defense Intelligence has been eroded by, for example, flawed assumptions leading up to our Afghanistan withdrawal, flawed Russia–Ukraine assessments, divergences in relations with key Gulf allies, and voids being filled by Russia and China around the world. For trust to be restored and sustained, officials must be held accountable. 1. Restore DIE critical thinking. Establish mechanisms to restore analytic integrity and return to true intelligence-driven operations. The next Administration should eliminate the conflict of interest in the current customer-based model (in which the customer is always right) by enforcing time-tested procedures that guarantee independent analysis, even if it means challenging policymakers’ assumptions. The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security’s leadership role should be expanded to include providing analytic top-line views and improve DIE transparency by highlighting diverging views. 2. Elevate the DIE’s voice in national policy discussions, commensurate with the DIE’s 75 percent share of the IC budget. Present defense intelligence to senior policymakers, either independently to avoid all-source bias or in consensus products like the National Intelligence Estimates. l Eliminate peripheral intelligence obligations that do not advance military readiness. In 2019, following the catastrophic 2015 data breach at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) accepted transfer of the responsibility to conduct security clearance and suitability investigations for 95 percent of the U.S. government’s civilian workforce. This decision, which grew out of an intention to deconstruct OPM, was wrongheaded on many levels and made the federal bureaucracy dependent on a new overlay of DOD bureaucracy, in a sense instilling DOD control of civilian managers. This function should be returned to OPM except for military security clearance investigations. — 108 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise U.S. ARMY The U.S. Army’s mission is “[t]o deploy, fight and win our nation’s wars by pro- viding ready, prompt and sustained land dominance by Army forces across the full spectrum of conflict as part of the joint force.”24 Today, however, the Army cannot execute its land dominance mission.25 The U.S. Army is at an inflection point that is marked by more than a decade of steadily eroding budgets and diluted buying power, an appreciable degradation in readiness and training capacity, a near crisis in the recruiting and retention of critical personnel, and a bevy of aging weapons systems that no longer provide a qualitative edge over peer and near-peer com- petitors but will not be replaced in the near term. All of these challenges are set against the backdrop of a complex and dynamic global geopolitical environment that is exemplified and exacerbated by the triumph of our adversaries in Afghanistan after a 20-year struggle there as well as recent Russian outrages in the Ukraine and China’s bellicosity both on its borders and in surrounding disputed regions. In spite of these ever-increasing operational pulls, our Army is consistently being asked to do more with fewer resources. The status quo is further marked by a pervasive politically driven top-down focus on progressive social policies that emphasize matters like so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion and climate change, often to the detriment of the Army’s core warfighting mission. Needed Reforms l Rebuild the Army. The total Army budget has decreased by roughly 11 percent since 2018, perilously affecting the service’s readiness and ability to train and to procure new personnel and equipment. Declining budgets and decreased buying power have forced the Army to lower training standards and opportunities to train, propose reductions in end strength, slash military construction programs to historically low levels, and scale back essential modernization programs. 1. Increase the Army budget to remain the world’s preeminent land power. 2. Accelerate the development and procurement of the six current Army modernization priorities (long-range precision fires, the Next- Generation Combat Vehicle, Future Vertical Lift, the Army network, air and missile defense, and soldier lethality) to replace worn out and outdated combat systems and ensure ground combat dominance. 3. Increase funding to improve Army training and operational readiness. 4. Increase the Army force structure by 50,000 to handle two major regional contingencies simultaneously.

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.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills