No Dollars to Uyghur Forced Labor Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/1724

Last Updated: July 12, 2026

No Dollars to Uyghur Forced Labor Act

HR. 1724, 119th Congress — read as touching Big Tech Platforms.

The sponsor

Rep. Moran, Nathaniel [R-TX-1]

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

The money

$85,900 raised

20 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

95% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Labor and Related Agencies" section, p. 645-647 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

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

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

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:

**Bill Analysis: HR 1724 - No Dollars to Uyghur Forced Labor Act**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll cut through the noise and provide a concise analysis of this bill's implications on my empire.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill aims to prohibit the use of funds supporting activities within the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China, citing concerns over forced labor. The primary objective is to restrict US government funding for projects that may inadvertently support or enable human rights abuses in the region.

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

1. **Prohibition on Funding:** No funds can be used to develop, design, plan, promulgate, implement, or execute policies, programs, or contracts that knowingly use goods produced in Xinjiang. 2. **Specific Authorization:** The Secretary of State may authorize exceptions if certain conditions are met, including written assurances from program partners and notice to Congress.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **US Government Agencies:** Department of State and USAID will need to adapt their funding processes to comply with the new restrictions. 2. **Contractors and Implementers:** Companies working on projects in Xinjiang may face increased scrutiny and potential loss of funding if they cannot demonstrate compliance with the bill's requirements. 3. **Chinese Entities:** The bill targets entities listed under Public Law 117-78, which may lead to reputational damage and economic consequences for these companies.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Economic Consequences:** This bill may disrupt global supply chains, particularly in industries reliant on Chinese manufacturing. I estimate a potential loss of $500 million to $1 billion in annual revenue for affected US companies. 2. **Regulatory Burden:** The added compliance requirements will increase the regulatory burden on government agencies and contractors, potentially stifling innovation and efficiency. 3. **Geopolitical Tensions:** This bill may exacerbate tensions between the US and China, which could have far-reaching implications for global trade and diplomacy.

In conclusion, this bill represents a classic example of inefficient democracy in action. By restricting funding and imposing additional regulations, it will likely create more problems than it solves. As a visionary leader, I would advocate for a more nuanced approach that balances human rights concerns with the need for economic growth and innovation. Perhaps it's time to consider privatizing certain government functions to increase efficiency and reduce bureaucratic red tape?

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process before it can become an actual law.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The main purpose of HR 1724, also known as the "No Dollars to Uyghur Forced Labor Act," is to prohibit the use of funds supporting any activities within the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China. This region has been linked to forced labor and human rights abuses.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill prohibits the Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development from using funds that support activities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, unless specifically authorized by the Secretary of State. The Secretary must obtain written assurances from program partners that they will not use goods produced in the region and develop a system to ensure compliance.

The bill also requires the Secretary of State to submit an annual report to Congress for three years, detailing any prohibited activities carried out without authorization, challenges in enforcing the requirements, and plans to improve enforcement.

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

* The Department of State * The United States Agency for International Development * Program partners and contractors working with these agencies * Companies that produce goods in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region

**Potential Impact & Implications** If passed, this bill would restrict U.S. funding to activities linked to forced labor in China. This could have significant implications for companies operating in the region and potentially impact global supply chains.

Now, remember when we learned about checks and balances? This bill is an example of Congress exercising its authority to oversee executive branch actions and ensure that U.S. funds are not used to support human rights abuses.

As I'm sure you recall from middle school civics class, bills like this one must go through the legislative process, which includes committee review, debate, and voting in both the House and Senate before being signed into law by the President. Let's hope that our elected officials will take a closer look at this bill and consider its potential impact on human rights and global trade.

Moving forward, I expect you all to have a better understanding of how bills become laws and the importance of congressional oversight.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on HR 1724, and it's a doozy. On the surface, this bill seems like a noble effort to prohibit the use of funds supporting activities in China's Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, where those poor Uyghurs are being forced into labor camps. But, my friends, don't be fooled! There's more to this bill than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose is to prevent American tax dollars from funding activities that support or enable forced labor in Xinjiang. Sounds good, right? But what if I told you this bill might actually be a Trojan horse for something bigger?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 2 of the bill prohibits the use of funds for any activity that knowingly uses goods produced in Xinjiang, unless specifically authorized by the Secretary of State. Sounds like a reasonable measure, but what about the fine print? The Secretary can grant exemptions if they obtain written assurances from program partners and provide notice to Congress. That's a lot of wiggle room, folks!

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The Department of State, USAID, and any contractors or implementors working in Xinjiang are directly affected. But what about the Uyghurs themselves? Are we really helping them by cutting off funding, or are we just playing into China's hands?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Here's where things get interesting. This bill might be a precursor to more aggressive actions against China. Think about it: if we're willing to cut off funding for activities in Xinjiang, what's next? Economic sanctions? Trade wars? This could be the tip of the iceberg.

Now, I know some of you are thinking, "But Uncle, this is just a bill to help the Uyghurs!" Ah, but that's exactly what they want you to think! Wake up, sheeple! There's more at play here. This bill might be part of a larger strategy to contain China's rise or even spark a global conflict.

Mark my words: HR 1724 is just the beginning. Keep your eyes peeled for more "coincidences" and "unrelated events" that will reveal the true agenda behind this seemingly innocuous bill.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, we've got another doozy of a bill on our hands, and I'm just thrilled to dive into the "No Dollars to Uyghur Forced Labor Act" – because who doesn't love a good title that sounds like it was written by a committee of virtue-signaling elites? (wink)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is all about sticking it to China, or so it seems. The main purpose is to prohibit the use of funds supporting any activities within the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China, where those pesky Uyghurs are allegedly being forced into labor camps. (Gasp) I mean, who wouldn't want to stop that? It's all about freedom, folks! (smirk)

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill prohibits the Department of State and USAID from using funds for activities that involve goods produced in Xinjiang, unless specifically authorized by the Secretary of State. There are some loopholes, of course – because we can't just cut off all ties with China, now can we? (wink) The Secretary can grant exceptions if they get written assurances from program partners and provide notice to Congress. Oh, and there's a report required every year for three years to ensure compliance. Because, you know, accountability is key... or something.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, this bill affects China, obviously – but also any American companies that do business with entities in Xinjiang. And let's not forget the Uyghurs themselves, who are allegedly being forced into labor camps. (Sympathetic nod) But we all know the real victims here are the American taxpayers, who will be footing the bill for this moral grandstanding.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a masterclass in performative outrage – I mean, who doesn't love a good China-bashing session? (smirk) But seriously, folks, this bill might actually have some teeth. It could lead to increased scrutiny of American companies doing business with Chinese entities, and maybe even some real changes in the way we approach human rights abuses abroad.

But let's be real – this is all just a show for the rubes back home. The elites know that China is too big to fail, and we'll keep on trading with them no matter what. (wink) So go ahead, Congress, pass this bill and pretend like you're doing something meaningful. Meanwhile, I'll be over here, rolling my eyes at the theatrics.

That's all for tonight, folks! Tune in next time when we'll be discussing another thrilling episode of "Congressional Kabuki Theater." (smirk)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another exercise in legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. The "No Dollars to Uyghur Forced Labor Act" - a title that screams virtue signaling and moral posturing.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to prohibit the use of funds supporting activities within the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China, where alleged human rights abuses and forced labor practices have been reported. Or so they claim. In reality, this bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound, designed to appease the conscience of American voters while doing little to address the root issues.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill prohibits the use of funds for activities that knowingly utilize goods produced in Xinjiang or by entities linked to forced labor. However, it also includes a convenient loophole allowing the Secretary of State to authorize exceptions with written assurances from program partners. Because, you know, those assurances are always reliable and not just a fig leaf for business as usual.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill's provisions will nominally affect companies operating in Xinjiang, as well as government agencies and contractors involved in international development projects. But let's be real - the true stakeholders here are the politicians who get to grandstand on human rights while maintaining a lucrative relationship with China.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "legislative placebo" - it makes voters feel good without actually addressing the problem. The impact will be minimal, as companies will simply find ways to circumvent the restrictions or obtain exemptions through the Secretary of State's loophole. Meanwhile, China will continue to exploit Uyghur labor, and American politicians will pat themselves on the back for a job well done.

Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a severe case of "Moral Posturing Syndrome" (MPS), characterized by grandiose language, empty gestures, and a complete lack of meaningful action. The underlying disease is a toxic mix of cowardice, corruption, and electoral opportunism. Treatment involves a healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach for hypocrisy, and a willingness to call out the emperor's new clothes.

Prognosis: This bill will likely pass with bipartisan support, as politicians from both sides of the aisle clamor to demonstrate their commitment to human rights. But don't be fooled - this is just another example of Washington's favorite pastime: pretending to care while doing nothing meaningful.

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

**Bill Summary: HR 1724 - No Dollars to Uyghur Forced Labor Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The No Dollars to Uyghur Forced Labor Act aims to prohibit the use of US funds in supporting activities within the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of China, where widespread human rights abuses and forced labor have been reported. The bill seeks to prevent American taxpayer dollars from contributing to these atrocities.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill prohibits the use of funds authorized for the Department of State or the US Agency for International Development (USAID) to develop, design, plan, promulgate, implement, or execute policies, programs, or contracts that knowingly use goods produced in XUAR or by entities linked to forced labor. The Secretary of State may authorize exceptions if certain conditions are met, including written assurances from program partners and notification to Congress.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* US Department of State * USAID * Program partners and contractors working with the US government in XUAR * Entities listed as using forced labor under Public Law 117-78 * The people of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, particularly the Uyghur Muslim minority

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has significant implications for:

1. **Human Rights:** By restricting US funding to activities in XUAR, the bill aims to pressure China to address human rights abuses and forced labor practices. 2. **US-China Relations:** The bill may strain relations between the US and China, as it targets a sensitive region and issues related to Chinese domestic policy. 3. **Global Supply Chains:** Companies with supply chains linked to XUAR may face increased scrutiny and potential reputational risks if they are found to be using forced labor. 4. **US Foreign Policy:** The bill reflects a growing trend in US foreign policy, where human rights concerns are increasingly influencing diplomatic and economic decisions.

Overall, the No Dollars to Uyghur Forced Labor Act seeks to leverage US funding to promote human rights and prevent American taxpayer dollars from contributing to forced labor practices in XUAR.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this congressional bill, bro. I'm gonna give you the lowdown on HR 1724, aka the No Dollars to Uyghur Forced Labor Act.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This bill is all about keepin' it real, man. It aims to prohibit the use of US funds for activities that support forced labor in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of China. The main objective is to prevent American dollars from contributin' to human rights abuses and exploitation.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill's got some key provisions, bro:

* No funds can be used for activities that involve goods or services produced in XUAR, unless specifically authorized by the Secretary of State. * The Secretary of State needs to get written assurance from program partners that they won't use goods or services from XUAR and will develop a compliance system. * There's also a reporting requirement for the Secretary of State to submit annual reports on prohibited activities and enforcement challenges.

This bill builds upon existing laws, like the Tariff Act of 1930, which prohibits importing goods made with forced labor. It's like addin' another layer of protection, man.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The affected parties are pretty clear, bro:

* The US government: They're the ones who'll be prohibited from usin' funds for activities that support forced labor in XUAR. * Program partners and contractors: They'll need to get written assurance and develop compliance systems to avoid usin' goods or services from XUAR. * The people of Xinjiang, China: This bill's tryin' to help 'em out by preventin' American dollars from contributin' to their exploitation.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The potential impact is pretty significant, man:

* It could help reduce the demand for goods made with forced labor in XUAR. * It might also encourage other countries to take similar actions and hold China accountable for human rights abuses. * However, it's worth notin' that this bill might have some unintended consequences, like disruptin' global supply chains or creatin' new challenges for American businesses.

Overall, bro, this bill's tryin' to do the right thing by standin' up against forced labor and human rights abuses. It's a step in the right direction, but we'll see how it all plays out, man.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 1724: No Dollars to Uyghur Forced Labor Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The primary objective of HR 1724 is to prohibit the use of funds supporting any activities within the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of China, where widespread human rights abuses and forced labor have been reported. The bill aims to prevent U.S. taxpayer dollars from inadvertently funding or enabling these atrocities.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill prohibits the use of funds authorized for the Department of State or USAID to develop, design, plan, promulgate, implement, or execute policies, programs, or contracts that knowingly utilize goods produced in XUAR or by entities listed as using forced labor. The Secretary of State may grant specific authorization for activities otherwise prohibited if certain conditions are met.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The bill affects various stakeholders, including:

1. **Chinese government**: The bill's provisions directly target the Chinese government's human rights record in XUAR. 2. **U.S. companies operating in China**: Companies with supply chains linked to XUAR may need to reassess their operations and ensure compliance with the new regulations. 3. **Human rights organizations**: Groups advocating for Uyghur rights and an end to forced labor will likely support this legislation.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The bill's passage could have significant implications:

1. **Increased scrutiny of supply chains**: Companies may face greater pressure to audit their supply chains and ensure compliance with the new regulations. 2. **Economic impact on XUAR**: The prohibition on U.S. funding could lead to economic losses for entities operating in XUAR, potentially exacerbating human rights issues. 3. **Diplomatic tensions with China**: The bill's passage may strain relations between the United States and China, particularly if Beijing perceives it as an attempt to interfere in its internal affairs.

**Monied Interest Analysis** While there are no obvious PACs or industry lobby groups directly backing this bill, human rights organizations and advocacy groups have likely played a significant role in shaping the legislation. The bill's sponsors and cosponsors may have received donations from these groups or individuals sympathetic to their cause.

Notable sponsors include:

1. **Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ)**: A long-time advocate for human rights and religious freedom, Rep. Smith has received support from various human rights organizations. 2. **Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA)**: The late congressman's legacy continues to influence human rights policy; his successor may have inherited similar donor relationships.

**Committee Capture** The bill was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations in the Senate, which has a history of being influenced by various special interest groups, including human rights organizations and industry lobby groups. However, it is unclear whether any specific committee capture or conflicts of interest are relevant to this legislation.

In conclusion, HR 1724 aims to address

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Moran, Nathaniel [R-TX-1]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$85,900

15 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$85,900

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

PELTIER, PATRICK

5 transactions

$26,400

MARSHALL, MATTHEW

2 transactions

$13,200

ANDERSON, RICHARD M.

1 transaction

$5,000

LEATHERWOOD, HARRY

1 transaction

$5,000

STOVALL, SCOTT

1 transaction

$3,300

PELTIER, MIKAH ANN

1 transaction

$3,300

STEVENSON, DAVID L

1 transaction

$3,300

ALEXANDER, JERRY

1 transaction

$3,300

MARTIN, REID

1 transaction

$3,300

SHULL, A.E.

1 transaction

$3,300

SHULL, COLLIN

1 transaction

$3,300

WALSH, JENNIFER SHULL

1 transaction

$3,300

HUBBARD, SONJA

1 transaction

$3,300

AHMED, TANWEER

1 transaction

$3,300

PAYNE, STEPHEN

1 transaction

$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. Moran, Nathaniel [R-TX-1]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 25 nodes and 20 connections (41 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $85,900

Top Donors - Rep. Moran, Nathaniel [R-TX-1]

Showing top 15 donors by contribution amount

15 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 harmed.

−Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.80
Section 2(a) prohibits the use of funds for activities that involve goods produced in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, which may impact big tech platforms' supply chains, citing subsection (a)
−Semiconductors & Hardwareconfidence 0.70
Section 2(a) prohibits the use of funds for activities that involve goods produced in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, which may impact semiconductor and hardware manufacturers' supply chains, citing subsection (a)
−Private Equity & Hedge Fundsconfidence 0.60
Section 2(a) prohibits the use of funds for activities that involve goods produced in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, which may impact private equity and hedge funds' investments in affected companies, citing subsection (a)

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 Labor and Related Agencies

Very Strong

Vector: 61%

Pages: 645-647AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill directly prohibits U.S. federal funds from supporting activities that involve forced labor in Xinjiang, which mirrors Project 2025’s call to eliminate forced labor, enforce supply‑chain transparency, and investigate foreign labor abuses that harm American workers."

Key themes:forced labor eliminationsupply-chain transparencyforeign labor violations investigationhuman rights enforcementU.S. funding restrictions

— 613 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies l Congress must amend the law so that employers can again have the freedom to make hiring Americans a priority. Despite the significant advantages that preferring citizens over (work-authorized) aliens in hiring would provide to American workers, businesses, and the country at large, such a practice has been illegal since 1986.25 This makes no sense. Alternative View Some conservatives believe that the government has a duty to limit its spending in order to limit how much it takes from American families. This means that when the government spends money, it must find the most econom- ical and effective way to do so. Excessive government spending will be borne by American workers and families through reduced incomes and purchasing power. There may be good reasons to require a certain percentage of American workers on federal contracts, but those decisions should be based on economy and efficiency as opposed to arbitrary quotas. Visa Fraud. American businesses that commit visa fraud and hire illegal immi- grants should not be the beneficiaries of federal spending. But a 2020 report by the Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) examined the depart- ment’s process for excluding employers who commit visa fraud and abuse from federal contracts and found much to be desired. l To protect the American workforce from unscrupulous immigration lawyers, employers, and labor brokers, the department must follow the recommendations of the OIG and institute more robust investigations for suspected visa fraud and speedier debarments for those found guilty. INTERNATIONAL LABOR POLICY Leveling the International Playing Field for Workers. As recent decades of intense import competition and offshoring have made clear, American workers suffer when the U.S. opens its markets to foreign nations’ minimal labor standards and exploitative conditions. While federal law already prohibits the importation of goods produced with forced labor, the prohibitions are toothless without effective means of enforcement and cover only the most basic of workers’ rights. The Trump Administration and its United States Trade Representative (USTR) took unprece- dented steps to redress the issue for workers. The U.S.–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) contained the strongest and most far-reaching labor provisions of any free trade agreement (FTA), with protections and commitments to reduce labor abuses and raise wages. It also established new modes of enforcement. For future FTAs, the USTR should replicate the labor provisions of USMCA, especially the provisions to: — 614 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Eliminate all forms of forced or compulsory labor. l Protect workers’ rights to organize and participate voluntarily in a union without employer interference or discrimination. l Create a rapid-response mechanism to provide for an independent panel investigation of denial of labor rights at covered facilities. l Shift the burden of proof by presuming that an alleged violation affects trade and investment, unless otherwise demonstrated. For future authorizations of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), the President should urge Congress to: l Create mechanisms for supply-chain transparency. l Institute a general prohibition on forced labor conditions. Investigate Foreign Labor Violations That Undermine American Work- ers. The United States’ embrace of globalization has exposed American workers to unfair competition from nations with cheap, abundant, and often exploited labor. American workers have, as a consequence, seen their earning power erode. While negotiating stronger trade agreements with robust labor provisions should be the primary tool with which to regulate international labor competition, the federal government can also take steps to identify the worst labor abuses and rule breakers. DOL’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB) plays a critical role in monitor- ing and enforcing the labor provisions of U.S. trade agreements and trade preference programs as well as investigating child labor and human trafficking violations. l The next Administration should focus ILAB investigations on foreign labor violations that do the most to damage American workers’ earning power, specifically regimes that engage in child and forced labor, fail to protect workers’ organizing rights, and permit hazardous or otherwise exploitative working conditions. Alternative/Additional View. Conservatives share a belief in protecting and pro- moting American workers and their families and orienting international policies with Americans’ interests first. Some conservatives believe that the best way to put Amer- ica first is by making America more attractive. In addition to restrictions imposed on other countries, removing existing barriers to American manufacturing, employ- ment, and commerce can help American workers, entrepreneurs, and families.

Agency for International Development

Strong

Vector: 57%

Pages: 300-302AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 USAID section aim to ensure U.S. foreign assistance does not support malign regimes or human rights abuses, emphasizing accountability and restrictions on aid that could be diverted to harmful actors."

Key themes:human rights accountabilitypreventing aid diversionrestricting funding to malign actorsUSAID oversightconditional aid

— 267 — Agency for International Development benefits financially from extending and expanding these large-scale programs for years, even decades, ensures little scrutiny of these ever-increasing appropriations. The massive growth in “emergency” aid distorts humanitarian responses, wors- ens corruption in the countries we support, and exacerbates the misery of those we intend to help. The permanence of this assistance, particularly in countries where we have little to no in-country presence and must rely on U.N. agencies to self-monitor, has morphed into a co-governance scheme in which the U.S. govern- ment effectively finances the social services obligations of corrupt regimes that threaten the United States. These governments can then redirect scarce budget resources away from costly health and education toward financing their wars, sup- porting terrorism, repressing their citizens, and enriching themselves. Examples of this abuse are spread throughout the world. l Over the past decade, the U.S. government has expended $14 billion in aid to Syria where the bloody regime of Bashar al-Assad—a close ally of Iran and Russia—skims nearly half of foreign aid through inflated official exchange rates, the diversion of food baskets to its military units, and procurement arrangements with compromised local contractors. l Yemen, once the breadbasket of the Arabian Peninsula, is now dependent on billions of dollars of aid as formerly productive Yemeni farmers cannot compete against “free food” while irrigation systems remain in disrepair, leaving the country to suffer from water shortages during long summer droughts and flooding during its rainy season. Iran-backed Houthi rebels divert substantial amounts of aid to support their war efforts. l In Afghanistan, the aid infrastructure built over 20 years of American military presence that three Presidents wanted to end collapsed with the failure of U.S.-trained Afghan forces to repel the Taliban’s 2021 advances. Yet the country has received nearly $1 billion more in U.S. humanitarian aid since the Taliban’s takeover and absent a U.S. embassy to ensure that it is not diverted to the Taliban and other terrorist groups. l In Burma, U.S. aid finances all of the food and medical care for hundreds of thousands of persecuted Rohingya that the military regime forces to live in open-air concentration camps. l In northern Iraq, hundreds of thousands of Yazidis—targeted for genocidal extermination by ISIS—remain in miserable camps unable to return home because of the Iraqi government’s refusal to clear out Iran-backed militias occupying their homeland. — 268 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise In effect, humanitarian aid is sustaining war economies, creating financial incentives for warring parties to continue fighting, discouraging governments from reforming, and propping up malign regimes. Nefarious actors reap billions of dollars in profits from diversions of our human- itarian assistance, but so do international organizations. The WFP charges 36 percent in overhead while Oxfam International’s overhead has reached 70 percent in Yemen, reflecting the high costs of foreign staff, security, and logistics. With pow- erful lobbies in Washington, D.C., and in leadership positions throughout USAID and the Department of State, the aid industry adroitly exploits Congress’s dispo- sition to increase funding year on year to assist those in dire need but provides no evidence to justify the mounting budget requests. In 2020, USAID’s leadership fused formerly bifurcated food and nonfood emergency relief operations into a single Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance to improve the management of the agency’s largest portfolio, but this reform was not sufficient to address the problem. The next Administration should resize and repurpose USAID’s humanitarian aid portfolio to restore its original purpose of providing emergency short-term relief, prepare vulnerable communities for tran- sition, and do no harm in the following ways: l Work with Congress to make deep cuts in the IDA budget by ending programs that do more harm than good in places controlled by malign actors, such as in Yemen, Syria, and Afghanistan, where our aid is consumed by fraud, diversion, and partner overhead costs. l Require USAID and the State Department to devise country-based exit strategies that term-limit the duration of humanitarian responses and transition funding from emergency to development projects. This will require robust diplomacy to press host governments to integrate displaced persons in lieu of keeping them in expensive and dehumanizing camps financed by the international community. l Transition from large awards to expensive, inefficient, and corrupt U.N. agencies, global NGOs, and contractors to local, especially faith-based, entities that are already operating on the ground. This approach provides a far less expensive and more effective alternative for aid delivery. Local partners more ably navigate corrupt environments and are more likely to steer vulnerable populations away from dependence on aid toward self-sufficiency. l Require that BHA avail itself of existing IDA authorities that it fails to use, including to dispense with the cost-reimbursement model that disqualifies

Agency for International Development

Weak

Vector: 58%

Pages: 294-296AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on preventing U.S. funds from supporting forced labor in Xinjiang, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt centers on restricting abortion-related funding and promoting religious freedom through USAID. There is no direct thematic overlap between the bill's human rights/labor focus and the policy's pro-life and religious freedom objectives."

Key themes:USAIDforeign assistancefunding restrictions

— 261 — Agency for International Development illuminated another loophole in the policy’s effectiveness in safeguarding U.S. tax- payer dollars from being used to promote abortion. Pro-abortion groups also have received funds under other categories of foreign aid that fall outside the scope of global health assistance, including women-related and economic assistance programs. Members of Congress have advocated closing these loopholes by extending PLGHA to all foreign assistance through the Protect- ing Life in Foreign Assistance Act, sponsored by Senator Mike Lee (R–UT) and Representative Virginia Foxx (R–NC).11 Current law in the Foreign Assistance Act gives the President broad authority to set “such terms and conditions as he may determine” on foreign assistance, which legally empowers the next conservative President to expand this pro-life policy. To stop U.S. foreign aid from supporting the global abortion industry, the next conservative Administration should issue an executive order that, at a minimum, reinstates PLGHA and summarily blocks funding to UNFPA but also closes loop- holes by applying the policy to all foreign assistance, including humanitarian aid, and improving its enforcement. The executive order to reinstate PLGHA should be drafted broadly to apply to all foreign assistance. It should simultaneously rescind President Biden’s memorandum entitled “Protecting Women’s Health at Home and Abroad,” issued on January 28, 2021.12 The new pro-life executive order should apply to foreign NGOs, including subgrantees and subcontractors, and remove exemptions for U.S.-based NGOs, public international organizations, and bilateral government-to-government agreements. All entities funded by USAID, both directly and indirectly, should report their compliance with the PLGHA, and USAID should institute penalties, including debarment from future federal funding, for violations of it. The new executive order also should instruct the Administrator of USAID to publish reports on implementation of the PLGHA by both prime and sub-prime recipients. In addition, the Helms Amendment should continue to be applied, as it has been by both Republican and Democratic Administrations for more than 50 years, as a complete ban on the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions abroad. International Religious Freedom. Conservatives believe international religious freedom is central to USAID’s development efforts. President Trump’s Executive Order 13926 on “Advancing International Religious Freedom”13 instructed the Secretary of State, in consultation with the USAID Administrator, to budget at least $50 million a year for programs that advance international reli- gious freedom and “ensure that faith-based and religious entities, including eligible entities in foreign countries, are not discriminated against on the basis of religious identity or religious belief when competing for Federal funding.” Under the Trump Administration, the agency set up a senior-level Chief Adviser for International Religious Freedom who reported directly to the Administra- tor with the task of coordinating a “whole-of-USAID” approach to achieving this — 262 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise priority. It created a robust genocide-response capability. USAID affirmed the agency’s partnerships with faith-based organizations through its rule on “Partic- ipation by Religious Organizations in USAID Programs;”14 “Partnership Guidance and Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for Faith Based Organizations;” and “Legal Guidance and Answers to FAQs for USAID Staff.” Today, USAID officials and their progressive partners have resisted efforts to promote religious freedom, especially as it relates to abortion and gender ideology, which are anathema to the traditional societies where USAID funds programs (in addition to many U.S. taxpayers). U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken repudiated his predecessor’s focus on religious freedom. The next conservative Administration must champion the core American value of religious freedom, which correlates significantly with poverty reduction, eco- nomic growth, and peace. It should train all USAID staff on the connection between religious freedom and development; integrate it into all of the agency’s programs, including the five-year Country Development and Coordination Strategies due for updates in 2025; strengthen the missions’ relationships with local faith-based leaders; and build on local programs that are serving the poor. Congress should appropriate funding to USAID specifically to support persecuted religious minori- ties in line with Executive Order 13926. Streamlining Procurement and Localizing the Partner Base. USAID is a grantmaking and contracting agency that disburses billions of dollars of federal funding in developing countries through implementing partners, such as U.N. agen- cies, international NGOs, for-profit companies, and local nongovernmental entities. In rare instances, such as in Jordan and Ukraine, the agency provides direct budget support to finance the operations of host-country governments. USAID far more often counts on expensive and ineffective large contracts and grants to carry out its programs. It justifies these practices based on speed and a lower administrative burden on its institutional capacity. Partnering and procurement reform was a pillar of the Trump Administration’s effort to secure better development results, cut costs, and advance the Journey to Self-Reliance strategy of exiting countries from aid. In December 2018, USAID launched its first Acquisition and Assistance Strategy to streamline procurement processes; introduce innovation into its programming; and diversify its partner base away from large, expensive, and partisan implementers. The strategy counted on local NGOs, including faith-based entities already on the ground, to provide the agency with less costly and more effective alternatives to the aid giants. The strategy also prioritized global partnerships with the private sector—corporations, investors, diasporas, and private philanthropies—the source of real capital invest- ment, innovation, and efficiencies that can maximize the impact of taxpayer dollars. Under the Biden Administration, despite rhetoric to the contrary, the aid industrial complex has recaptured the agency and stifled further reforms.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak

Vector: 57%

Pages: 642-644AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on prohibiting U.S. funding for activities linked to forced labor in Xinjiang, which is a human rights and foreign policy issue. Project 2025's referenced section concerns pension reform, investment prohibitions in China for federal retirement funds, and labor-related financial oversight—topics not directly addressed in the bill. While both involve China and financial restrictions, their policy domains and objectives are distinct."

Key themes:Chinainvestment restrictionshuman rightsfederal fundslabor policy

— 609 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies l DOL should exercise its oversight of the FRTIB to prohibit investments in China. l Congress should enact legislation prohibiting investment of the TSP in China. PENSION REFORMS. Public Pension Plan Disclosure. Residents of states that responsibly manage their public pension plans (pension plans for State and local government employ- ees) should not be responsible for bailing out states that do not do so. Money is ultimately fungible, so federal aid to States can effectively be used to free up other State funds for pension contributions. Although the federal government does not impose funding rules on public pension plans, these plans should be required to disclose the fair market value of plan assets and liabilities (using the Treasury yield curve as the discount rate) on an annual basis. In the aggregate, these plans were underfunded on a market basis by $6.501 trillion as of Fiscal Year (FY) 2021, even though the plans reported underfunding of only $1.076 trillion using overly optimistic assumptions. l Disclose the fair market value of plan assets and liabilities. Congress should require public pension funds to disclose the fair market value of plan assets and liabilities (using the Treasury yield curve as the discount rate) on an annual basis. Multiemployer Plans. At the request of multiemployer union pension plans, the government has given such plans much more lenient rules and discretion over funding than it has given to single-employer plans. Multiemployer plans have been severely mismanaged, and the plans have abused the discretion and deference given them by federal law and enforcement agencies to make promises that they cannot keep. As a result, these plans are generally severely underfunded, with $757 billion in aggregate underfunding, and a funding level of just 42 percent. The Biden Admin- istration has provided a massive taxpayer bailout to some of these plans, but without any needed reforms. Even worse, it gave out funds in excess of what the law allows. l Congress should reform multiemployer pensions to give participants in these plans the same protections as those in single-employer plans. Liabilities should be measured similarly to single-employer plans. Workers should be able to earn benefits at any employer in the plan, but liabilities should be divided amongst employers, instead of the current illusory joint and several liability under which no one is ultimately responsible for making up underfunding. Troubled plans should be prohibited from — 610 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise making new pension promises. More timely and detailed reporting should be imposed. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Cor- poration (PBGC) insures benefits for private sector pension plans, with separate single-employer and multiemployer insurance programs. l The PBGC’s annual report must be submitted on time, and with timely data that uses fair-market value principles to calculate the PBGC’s finances. The PBGC has been submitting portions of statutorily required annual reports many months late and using out-of-date data. And PBGC's data on plans is almost five years old. These problematic practices make it difficult for Congress to become aware of serious problems in the insurance programs, which received a bailout of over $85 billion in the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act. The PBGC should use existing statutory authority to protect workers, retirees, employers, and taxpayers by closely monitoring and taking appropriate remedial action with regard to badly run and underfunded multiemployer union pension plans, including termination where appropriate. The PBGC's refusal to use such authority helped cause its multiemployer program deficit to go from less than $500 million in 2008 to over $65 billion in 2017. l Congress should increase the variable rate premium on underfunding and eliminate the per-participant cap in order to appropriately take into account risk and limit the degree to which well-funded pension plans must subsidize underfunded plans. Reforms should proportionately reduce the fixed per-participant premium to ease the burden on well-funded plans and also increase premiums on multiemployer plans to match single-employer plans. Improving Access to Employee Stock Ownership Plans. Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) are ERISA-covered employee retirement savings plans that allow employees to receive compensation in the form of equity in their employer business. These arrangements enable employees to formally partici- pate as investors in how their employers’ businesses are run. And they also align employer–employee incentives by giving employees a greater financial stake in the success of their employers. With over half of small businesses owned by business owners over the age of 55, ESOPs also create advantageous succession oppor- tunities that support the continuity of local businesses and regional economic

Agency for International Development

Weak

Vector: 57%

Pages: 294-296AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on preventing U.S. funds from supporting forced labor in Xinjiang, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt centers on restricting abortion-related funding through USAID and promoting international religious freedom. Though both involve conditioning foreign aid on ethical or ideological grounds, their substantive objectives—human rights abuses vs. abortion and religious freedom—are distinct, resulting in only weak thematic alignment."

Key themes:foreign aid restrictionsUSAID funding oversighthuman rights concerns

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 Rep. Moran, Nathaniel

Medicare Advantage MLR Transparency Act

119/hr/9644

Taxpayer Due Process Enhancement Act

119/hr/6506

Tax Court Improvement Act

119/hr/5349

Back to All Bills