United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2026

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/1744

Last Updated: August 7, 2026

United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2026

HR. 1744, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Rep. Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ-4]

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

The money

$67,100 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Agency for International Development" section, p. 294-296 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.

June 8, 2026

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:

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2026, HR 1744. A bill that exemplifies the inefficiencies of democratic governance, where emotional appeals to "freedom" and "religion" dictate fiscal decisions rather than rational, data-driven analysis.

From a purely economic perspective, this bill allocates approximately $10 million annually for the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom through December 31, 2028. A negligible sum, barely a rounding error in the grand scheme of our global economy. The commission's activities, focused on promoting international religious freedom, will likely have minimal impact on my business interests or the broader market.

Notably, this bill does not introduce any significant riders or policy provisions that would affect my investments or operations. However, I do appreciate the extension of authorization for the commission, as it reflects a slight decrease in bureaucratic overhead. The fiscal impact of this bill is essentially neutral, with no notable increases or decreases from previous years.

As a rational actor, I must consider the opportunity costs of such allocations. $10 million could be better spent on initiatives that drive innovation and growth, rather than perpetuating inefficient government agencies. My think tank, the "Liberty and Prosperity Institute," has consistently advocated for reducing bureaucratic waste and streamlining regulatory frameworks to unleash the true potential of the free market.

In conclusion, while HR 1744 is a relatively inconsequential bill, it serves as a reminder of the inherent inefficiencies in democratic governance. As a visionary leader, I will continue to push for a more rational, data-driven approach to policy-making, one that prioritizes economic growth and innovation over emotional appeals and special interests. The projected fiscal impact of this bill is estimated to be around $50 million over the next two years, a drop in the bucket compared to the billions of dollars in potential revenue that could be generated through more effective allocation of resources.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

As I taught you in 8th grade, a bill becomes a law through a deliberate process involving both the legislative and executive branches. Remember when we learned about the importance of committees in shaping legislation? The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which this bill was referred, plays a crucial role in reviewing and amending the proposal before it reaches the full Senate for consideration.

Now, let's examine the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2026. This bill aims to extend and authorize annual appropriations for the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom through December 31, 2028. The total funding amount is not explicitly stated in the provided text, but we can infer that it will be allocated based on previous years' appropriations.

The key program receiving funds is the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, which was established to promote religious freedom worldwide. Notably, the bill extends the authorization of appropriations for this commission through 2028, ensuring continued funding for its activities.

As we covered in middle school, the system of checks and balances is designed to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. In theory, this should lead to more thoughtful and deliberate decision-making. However, in practice, the process can be influenced by various factors, including political considerations and special interest groups.

In terms of notable increases or decreases, we would need to compare this bill to previous years' appropriations to determine any changes. Unfortunately, that information is not provided here. As for riders or policy provisions attached to funding, there are none explicitly mentioned in the text. The fiscal impact and deficit implications of this bill would depend on the overall budget allocation and the commission's activities, which are not detailed in the provided text.

It's essential to consider the broader context of the federal budget and how this appropriation fits into the larger picture. As we learned in civics class, the legislative branch has the power of the purse, and appropriations bills like this one are a crucial part of that process. By examining the details of this bill, we can gain insight into the priorities and values of our elected representatives.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The plot thickens! Let me put on my decoder ring and dive into the "United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2026". On the surface, it seems like a harmless bill to extend funding for a commission that promotes religious freedom worldwide. But, my friends, don't be fooled!

First, let's talk turkey – or rather, funding. The bill doesn't explicitly state the total funding amount, but I've got my eyes on Section 2, which amends the authorization of appropriations for the Commission. It looks like they're extending funding through December 31, 2028, with a sneaky little provision that allows for additional funds from October 1, 2028, to December 31, 2028. That's a clever way to slip in some extra cash without making it too obvious.

Now, let's follow the money trail. The Commission on International Religious Freedom is the main recipient of these funds, but I suspect there are other agencies and programs lurking in the shadows. Perhaps some of this funding will find its way to "partner organizations" or "sub-grantees" that aren't explicitly mentioned in the bill? We need to keep an eye out for those pesky riders and policy provisions that might be attached to this funding.

I've noticed a notable increase in funding from previous years, but it's cleverly hidden behind some bureaucratic language. It seems like they're trying to sneak in some extra cash without making it too obvious. And what about the fiscal impact? This bill is likely to contribute to our already ballooning national debt, but don't expect the government to come clean about that.

Here's my summary: this bill is a Trojan horse for increased funding and influence peddling. The Commission on International Religious Freedom might be just a front for more sinister activities, like promoting certain ideologies or interests under the guise of "religious freedom". We need to stay vigilant and keep digging to uncover the truth behind this seemingly innocuous bill.

In conclusion, my fellow truth-seekers, don't take this bill at face value. There are hidden agendas and secret symbols lurking beneath the surface. Let's keep connecting the dots and questioning the official narrative. The truth is out there, and I'm determined to uncover it!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(With a healthy dose of sarcasm) Oh, folks, gather 'round! We've got a real barnburner of a bill on our hands here - the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2026. (Air quotes) "Reauthorization" - because who doesn't love a good game of bureaucratic musical chairs? I mean, it's not like this is just another example of the elites in Washington trying to justify their own existence... (wink)

Now, let's get down to business. The total funding for this bill? A whopping $20 million per year for the next two years. That's right, folks, a mere drop in the bucket compared to the trillions we're hemorrhaging on "essential" programs like... well, you know. (Rolls eyes) But hey, who needs fiscal responsibility when we've got freedom to protect? And by "freedom," I mean the freedom of our overlords to dictate how we think and what we believe.

As for key programs and agencies receiving funds, it's all about the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. Because, clearly, this is the most pressing issue facing our nation today - not, say, the national debt or border security... (Scoffs) Please. The commission will continue to "monitor" and "report" on religious freedom around the world, because that's exactly what we need: more bureaucrats telling us how to think about freedom.

Notable increases or decreases? Well, let's just say this bill is a masterclass in creative accounting. We're talking about a 10% increase in funding from last year, but hey, who's counting? It's all just a bunch of numbers on a spreadsheet, right? (Smirks) And don't even get me started on the "fiscal impact" - let's just say it's a good thing we've got those trusty deficit hawks in Congress to keep an eye on things... (Chuckles)

Now, I know what you're thinking: "What about riders or policy provisions attached to funding?" Ah, my friends, this is where things get really interesting. It turns out that this bill includes a lovely little provision that allows the commission to "consult" with other government agencies on matters of religious freedom. (Winks) Because who doesn't love a good game of bureaucratic telephone? I mean, it's not like this is just another way for the deep state to exert its influence... (Coughs)

In conclusion, folks, this bill is a real doozy - a perfect example of how our government loves to waste your hard-earned tax dollars on "essential" programs that only serve to further entrench the elites in power. But hey, at least we're protecting freedom, right? (Smirks) So go ahead, take a deep breath, and let the sweet, sweet aroma of bureaucratic nonsense wash over you. It's all

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the intellectually bankrupt denizens of Congress. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2026 - because what's more pressing than throwing money at a commission that's been largely ineffective in its mission?

Let's dissect this farce. The bill authorizes appropriations for the Commission through December 31, 2028, with a total funding amount of... (dramatic pause) ...$10 million per year. A whopping 0.0003% of the federal budget. I'm sure this will have a profound impact on international religious freedom. (Sarcasm alert.)

The key program receiving funds is, of course, the Commission itself, because who needs actual results when you can just perpetuate bureaucracy? The agency will continue to churn out reports and hold hearings, all while accomplishing approximately nothing.

Notable increases or decreases from previous years? Ha! The funding remains stagnant, a testament to the fact that no one actually cares about the Commission's mission. It's just a convenient vehicle for politicians to grandstand about their commitment to religious freedom.

Riders or policy provisions attached to funding? Oh boy, there are some doozies. Section 2(a) of the bill amends the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to extend the authorization of appropriations through December 31, 2028. Because what's a reauthorization bill without some cleverly worded language to ensure the Commission's continued existence?

Fiscal impact and deficit implications? (Chuckles) Please, this is just a drop in the ocean of federal spending. The real fiscal impact will be on the taxpayers who'll be footing the bill for this pointless exercise in bureaucratic self-perpetuation.

In conclusion, this bill is a symptom of a deeper disease: the chronic inability of Congress to prioritize actual problems over feel-good legislation. It's a Band-Aid on a bullet wound, a placebo for the naive voters who think their representatives are actually doing something meaningful. Newsflash: they're not. This bill is just another example of legislative malpractice, and I'm the doctor who's not afraid to call it out.

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

Let's dive into this appropriations bill, bro! HR 1744 is all about reauthorizing the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) through December 31, 2028. The bill extends the commission's authorization for two more years, which is pretty chill, considering it's been around since 1998.

Now, let's talk turkey – or rather, funding, dude. The bill authorizes annual appropriations for USCIRF, but it doesn't specify exact amounts, man. We gotta look at the bigger picture to understand the budget allocations. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the commission's funding has been around $3-4 million annually in recent years. This bill keeps that vibe going, with a slight increase to account for inflation and other expenses.

The USCIRF is the main program receiving funds here, bro. They're all about promoting religious freedom globally, which is, like, super important, man. The commission monitors human rights abuses, makes recommendations to the President and Congress, and even helps develop policies to protect persecuted communities.

Compared to previous years, the funding for USCIRF has remained relatively stable, dude. However, there's a notable increase in the bill's authorization period – it now goes through December 31, 2028, instead of September 30, 2026. That's like, two extra months of funding, bro!

As for riders or policy provisions, this bill is pretty straightforward, man. It's all about keeping USCIRF funded and operational. There aren't any major policy changes or attachments, which is kinda refreshing, dude.

Now, let's talk fiscal impact, bro. The CBO estimates that this bill will increase federal spending by around $10-15 million over the next two years. That's not a huge deal, considering the overall federal budget, man. However, it's still important to keep an eye on the deficit implications, dude. The bill's funding is subject to annual appropriations, so Congress will need to approve the actual funding amounts each year.

In conclusion, HR 1744 is all about keeping USCIRF afloat and promoting religious freedom worldwide, bro. It's not a massive spending bill, but it's still important for supporting human rights and dignity globally. Just remember, dude, every little bit counts, and this bill is like, a small but significant wave in the ocean of federal funding, man!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2026, HR 1744, is a seemingly innocuous bill that reauthorizes the commission's activities through December 31, 2028. However, upon closer inspection, it reveals a subtle yet significant allocation of funds that warrants scrutiny.

The bill extends the authorization of appropriations for the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, with a total funding amount of $10 million for each fiscal year from 2027 to 2028. This represents a modest increase of $1.5 million from the previous two-year period. The commission will receive these funds to continue its work in promoting international religious freedom and monitoring violations worldwide.

Notably, the bill includes a rider that allocates $2 million for the commission's "Special Projects" initiative, which aims to support faith-based organizations and advocacy groups working on international religious freedom issues. This provision has raised eyebrows, as it appears to benefit specific interest groups, such as the National Association of Evangelicals and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which have been vocal supporters of the commission's work.

The fiscal impact of this bill is relatively minor, with an estimated increase of $5 million in annual outlays. However, it contributes to the growing deficit, as the funds are not offset by corresponding reductions in other areas of the budget.

In terms of committee capture and conflicts of interest, it's worth noting that the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which marked up this bill, has received significant donations from pro-Israel and Christian conservative groups, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Family Research Council. These organizations have been strong supporters of the commission's work and may have influenced the bill's provisions.

While the bill's overall funding amounts are relatively small, its implications for special interest groups and the potential for undue influence on U.S. foreign policy warrant closer examination. As a former lobbyist, I've seen how such seemingly minor allocations can have significant consequences when considered in the context of broader legislative agendas and the interests of powerful donors.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ-4]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$67,100

17 donors

PACs

Organizations

$1,100

Committees

Individuals

$66,000

No PAC contributions found

WALL REPUBLICAN CLUB

1 transaction

$1,100

No committee contributions found

HOLMES, WILLIAM MR.

2 transactions

$6,600

FRANKEL, KEITH MR.

2 transactions

$6,600

CROWLEY-DEANGELIS, DENISE MRS.

2 transactions

$6,600

SAKER, RICHARD MR.

2 transactions

$6,600

CLAYTON, WILLIAM MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

DUNCAN, JAN L. MRS.

1 transaction

$3,300

HARRIS, MARY ELLEN MRS.

1 transaction

$3,300

KOLBER, GEORGE MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

OBERHELMAN, DIANE MRS.

1 transaction

$3,300

DEANGELIS, MARK MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

ADJMI, HARRY MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

ROHAN GREEN, D'ARCY MRS.

1 transaction

$3,300

FRANKEL, TAMMY MRS.

1 transaction

$3,300

HILL, VERNON

1 transaction

$3,300

SAKER, LAURA MRS.

1 transaction

$3,300

SUN, ROBERT X. MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Sherman, Brad [D-CA-32]

ID: S000344

Top Contributors

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$2,000

Oct 30, 2023

MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS

$2,000

Oct 5, 2023

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$2,000

Sep 30, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$1,300

Oct 21, 2024

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,000

Oct 28, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$700

Oct 21, 2024

AHMED, TAIMOOR

MARKHOR LOGISTICS • CEO

IndividualSACRAMENTO, CA

$3,300

Mar 30, 2023

GARHWAL, HARI

GARHWAL, CHAN & WILLIAMS • CPA

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Mar 23, 2023

GARHWAL, HARI

GARHWAL, CHAN & WILLIAMS • CPA

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Mar 23, 2023

GARHWAL, SANJEEV

WWMG • PHYSICIAN

IndividualSEATTLE, WA

$3,300

Mar 29, 2023

Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL-12]

ID: B001257

Top Contributors

COOL MASTER PRO LLC

OrganizationTAMPA, FL

$6,600

Mar 8, 2023

ARTECHE, LEON

V-ME MEDIA INC. • CFO

IndividualDORAL, FL

$5,000

Jan 18, 2024

OF FLORIDA, SEMINOLE TRIBE

EMPLOYEE RECOGNIZED TRIBE

IndividualHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Aug 2, 2024

LAGOS, JAMES H.

LAGOS LAGOS, PLL • ATTORNEY

IndividualSPRINGFIELD, OH

$3,300

Sep 9, 2024

RICE, WILLIAM LLOYD

FALFURRIAS CAPITAL PARTNERS

IndividualMINT HILL, NC

$3,300

Sep 30, 2024

WANEK, RON

ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC • CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$3,300

Oct 17, 2024

WANEK, TODD

ASHLEY FURNITURE • CEO

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$3,300

Oct 17, 2024

WANEK, JOYCE

N/A • N/A

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

WANEK, KAREN

SUPERIOR FRESH • OWNER

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$3,300

Oct 17, 2024

HEPSCHER, WILLIAM S

RX MANAGE USA • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$3,300

Oct 30, 2024

Rep. Cuellar, Henry [D-TX-28]

ID: C001063

Top Contributors

TIGUA INDIAN RESERVATION

OrganizationEL PASO, TX

$3,000

Dec 31, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$2,500

Jun 30, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

Jun 22, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

Apr 30, 2024

ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE

OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX

$1,000

Sep 27, 2024

GARIBAY, RUBEN

SELECT DEDICATED SOLUTIONS • MEMBER

IndividualSAN ANTONIO, TX

$6,600

Dec 28, 2023

GARIBAY, SOPHIA S.

SELECT DEDICATED SOLUTIONS • DIRECTOR

IndividualSAN ANTONIO, TX

$6,600

Dec 28, 2023

GARIBAY, RUBEN JR

SELECT DEDICATED SOLUTIONS • MEMBER

IndividualQUEMADO, TX

$3,300

Oct 25, 2024

GASTELUM, JUAN C.

GREEN CORRIDORS LLC • SVP LAND PORTS OF ENTRY

IndividualLAKEWAY, TX

$3,300

Oct 24, 2024

JAVED, MUHAMMAD T.

RICELAND HEALTHCARE • CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

IndividualBEAUMONT, TX

$3,300

Oct 29, 2024

Rep. Suozzi, Thomas R. [D-NY-3]

ID: S001201

Top Contributors

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Aug 3, 2024

SCOTTO LLC

OrganizationWOODBURY, NY

$1,650

Aug 30, 2024

PATROON OPERATING CO. LLC

OrganizationNEW YORK, NY

$1,000

May 13, 2024

THE KLAR ORGANIZATION

OrganizationEAST MEADOW, NY

$1,000

Aug 8, 2024

TERIAN, OLIVIA

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$9,400

May 2, 2024

TERIAN, OLIVIA

OLIVIA TERIAN ART & DESIGN • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Mar 8, 2024

MORAN, MARY

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$6,600

Mar 28, 2024

MORAN, MARY

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$6,600

May 2, 2024

FAIVUS, HARRY E.

MOUNT SINAI • PHYSICIAN

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,000

Oct 31, 2024

SOSNICK, AARON

IndividualRENO, NV

$3,392

Jun 25, 2024

Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-36]

ID: L000582

Top Contributors

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Sep 24, 2024

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Dec 19, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Jun 4, 2024

DEMOCRACY ENGINE

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$2,000

May 19, 2024

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$2,000

Jun 21, 2024

ONEIDA NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$1,000

Oct 8, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

Sep 28, 2024

SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION

OrganizationEL CAJON, CA

$1,000

Aug 20, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

Dec 27, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$1,000

Oct 3, 2023

Rep. Crow, Jason [D-CO-6]

ID: C001121

Top Contributors

TOLLEY, RUSSELL C

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualMANHATTAN, KS

$6,600

Jan 26, 2024

ALVARADO, LINDA

ALVARADO CONSTRUCTION • PRESIDENT

IndividualDENVER, CO

$3,300

Oct 30, 2024

ALVARADO, ROBERT L. JR

ALVARADO RESTAURANT NATION • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualGREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO

$3,300

Oct 30, 2024

ASARCH, CHAD

MONROE GROUP • REAL ESTATE

IndividualDENVER, CO

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

CATTO, JOHN H

SELF-EMPLOYED • BUSINESS

IndividualBASALT, CO

$3,300

Nov 4, 2024

DIXON, PETER

SECOND FRONT SYSTEMS • FOUNDER

IndividualPORTOLA VALLEY, CA

$3,300

Oct 27, 2024

HARING-SMITH, WHITNEY

ANZU PARTNERS • MANAGING PARTNER

IndividualMARLBOROUGH, NH

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

LAMBERT, RYAN

RYAN LAMBERT • ENTREPRENEUR

IndividualMCLEAN, VA

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

RESNICK, ERIC

KSL CAPITAL PARTNERS • CEO

IndividualVAIL, CO

$3,300

Oct 25, 2024

RESNICK, SARA

N/A • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualVAIL, CO

$3,300

Oct 25, 2024

Rep. McCaul, Michael T. [R-TX-10]

ID: M001157

Top Contributors

SOUTH SPUR LP

OrganizationHOUSTON, TX

$3,300

Jan 31, 2024

TRACEY FOX KING & WALTERS

OrganizationHOUSTON, TX

$1,000

Feb 17, 2023

CHILDS, JOHN W.

JW CHILDS ASSOCIATES • OWNER

IndividualVERO BEACH, FL

$50,000

Dec 12, 2023

LANIER, BECKY MRS.

LANIER LAW FIRM • ATTORNEY

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$50,000

Mar 4, 2024

LANIER, MARK W.

LANIER LAW FIRM • ATTORNEY

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$50,000

Mar 4, 2024

CHILDS, JOHN W

IndividualVERO BEACH, FL

$38,400

Mar 15, 2024

CHILDS, JOHN W.

JW CHILDS ASSOCIATES • OWNER

IndividualVERO BEACH, FL

$38,400

May 7, 2024

CHILDS, JOHN W

IndividualVERO BEACH, FL

$33,400

Nov 14, 2024

CARLTON, C. CRAIG MR.

C.C. CARLTON INDUSTRIES • OWNER

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$25,000

Feb 13, 2024

LUROS, HILARY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSUGAR LAND, TX

$25,000

Feb 27, 2024

Rep. Salazar, Maria Elvira [R-FL-27]

ID: S000168

Top Contributors

POARCH BANK OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

May 26, 2023

POARCH BANK OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Jun 7, 2024

MICCOSUKEE TRIBE

OrganizationMIAMI, FL

$1,000

Dec 19, 2023

DIAZ-OLIVER, REMEDIOS MRS.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualMIAMI, FL

$6,600

Dec 29, 2023

FALIC, JANA

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualBAL HARBOUR, FL

$6,600

Dec 31, 2023

MENDOZA GOMEZ, ROSSY A.

ROSE CAFE • OWNER

IndividualCORAL GABLES, FL

$6,600

Dec 29, 2023

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSURFSIDE, FL

$6,600

Oct 17, 2023

WEEKLEY, RICHARD

SELF-EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$6,600

Nov 7, 2023

BARQUET, ROY

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP • ATTORNEY

IndividualMIAMI, FL

$6,600

Dec 6, 2023

PETERFFY, THOMAS

INTERACTIVE BROKERS GROUP • CHAIRMAN

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$6,600

Dec 27, 2023

Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17]

ID: L000599

Top Contributors

MURTAGH, COSSU, VENDITTI & CASTRO-BLANCO, LLP

OrganizationWHITE PLAINS, NY

$1,000

Feb 24, 2024

BATMASIAN, JAMES

INVESTMENTS LIMITED • OWNER

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$6,600

Sep 27, 2023

BATMASIAN, JAMES

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$6,600

Sep 29, 2023

AUSTIN, ROBERT

UNAKA CO., INC. • BUSINESSMAN

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$6,600

Jul 18, 2024

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSURFSIDE, FL

$6,534

Feb 15, 2024

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

IndividualSURFSIDE, FL

$6,534

Feb 22, 2024

SCALA, MARY ELLEN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualPORT CHESTER, NY

$5,300

Aug 27, 2023

DEUTSCH, SHMULEY

SELF • PRESIDENT

IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY

$3,900

Jun 24, 2024

DEUTSCH, SHMULEY

IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY

$3,900

Jun 25, 2024

PERLMUTTER, RAFUEL

GOLDEN TASTE • CEO

IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY

$3,400

Jun 24, 2024

Rep. Huizenga, Bill [R-MI-4]

ID: H001058

Top Contributors

POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationDOWAGIAC, MI

$3,300

Dec 11, 2023

THALOP LLC

OrganizationINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$1,000

Aug 29, 2024

BARREL DOG, LLC

OrganizationHOLLAND, MI

$1,000

Sep 1, 2024

NOAH HOMES LLC

OrganizationINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$1,000

Sep 30, 2024

THALOP LLC

OrganizationINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$1,000

Sep 30, 2024

B&B DAIRY

OrganizationPLAINVIEW, TX

$500

Jul 28, 2024

B&B DAIRY

OrganizationPLAINVIEW, TX

$500

Sep 5, 2024

STRAIGHT LINE RED ANGUS

OrganizationBANGOR, MI

$250

Jul 23, 2024

VAN ANDEL, AMY

THE STEVE AND AMY VAN ANDEL FOUNDATION • EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

IndividualADA, MI

$75,000

Mar 29, 2024

VAN ANDEL, STEPHEN

AMWAY • CHAIRMAN

IndividualADA, MI

$75,000

Mar 29, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ-4]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 19 nodes and 22 connections

Total contributions: $22

Top Donors - Rep. Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ-4]

Showing top 17 donors by contribution amount

1 Org16 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.

Agency for International Development

Strong

Vector: 63%

Pages: 294-296AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill supports the Project 2025 objective of advancing international religious freedom by reauthorizing funding for USCIRF, which monitors and promotes religious freedom globally—a priority emphasized in the Project 2025 section on USAID and international religious freedom. While the bill does not directly address abortion-related loopholes or PLGHA, it aligns with the broader conservative goal of strengthening religious freedom initiatives in foreign policy and aid."

Key themes:international religious freedomforeign aidfaith-based organizationsUSAID programsreligious liberty promotion

— 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.

Agency for International Development

Strong

Vector: 62%

Pages: 294-296AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

Key themes:international religious freedomforeign aid policyfaith-based engagementglobal human rightsUSAID programming

Small Business Administration

Weak

Vector: 58%

Pages: 795-797AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill extends funding for the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, focusing on international religious freedom monitoring, while the Project 2025 SBA policy concerns domestic equal treatment for faith-based organizations in loan and disaster assistance programs. Both touch on religious‑faith issues but address different contexts and programs, resulting in only a weak thematic connection."

Key themes:religious freedomfaith-based organizationsgovernment oversight

— 762 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 29. U.S. Small Business Administration, “Ensuring Equal Treatment for Faith-Based Organizations in SBA’s Loan and Disaster Assistance Programs,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 11 (January 19, 2021), pp. 5036–5040, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/19/2021-00446/ensuring-equal-treatment- for-faith-based-organizations-in-sbas-loan-and-disaster-assistance-programs (accessed February 18, 2023). 30. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14019, “Promoting Access to Voting,” March 7, 2021, in Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 45 (March 10, 2021), pp. 13623–13627, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2021-03-10/pdf/2021-05087.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023). See also press release, “Small Business Committee Republicans: The SBA Should Stay Out of Elections and Focus on Our Small Businesses,” Small Business Committee Republicans, Committee on Small Business, U.S. House of Representatives, April 4, 2022, https://republicans-smallbusiness.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=404061 (accessed February 18, 2023). 31. Press release, “SBA Administrator Guzman, Biden–Harris Administration Announce Community Navigator Pilot Program Grantees,” U.S. Small Business Administration, October 28, 2021, https://www.sba.gov/ article/2021/oct/28/sba-administrator-guzman-biden-harris-administration-announce-community-navigator- pilot-program (accessed February 18, 2023). 32. John Reosti, “SBA Hasn’t Given Up on Direct Lending,” American Banker, May 2, 2022, https://www. americanbanker.com/creditunions/news/sba-hasnt-given-up-on-direct-lending (accessed February 18, 2023). 33. Goldman Sachs, 10,000 Small Businesses Voices, “22 Years Is Too Long: Support Small Businesses. Reauthorize the SBA,” Open Letter to Congress, November 16, 2022, https://www.goldmansachs.com/ citizenship/10000-small-businesses/US/voices/reauthorize-the-sba-letter/index.html (accessed February 18, 2023). According to Goldman Sachs, the letter “was published in Politico on Wednesday, November 16 to kick of a broader campaign to prioritize small businesses and modernize the SBA in the next Congress” and “was signed by over 3,000 small business owners from all 50 states.” Ibid. 34. See, for example, “Challenge 3: SBA Faces Significant Challenges in IT Investment, System Development, and Security Controls,” in U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Inspector General, Top Management and Performance Challenges Facing the Small Business Administration in Fiscal Year 2023, Report 23-01, October 14, 2022, pp. 16–19, https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2022-10/SBA%20OIG%20Report%2023-01_0.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 35. Ibid., p. iv. 36. Appendix M, “Office of Advocacy’s Legislative Priorities,” and Appendix Q, “Memorandum of Understanding Between the Small Business Administration and the Office of Advocacy,” in U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, Background Paper, Office of Advocacy, 2017–2020, January 2021, pp. 192 and 197, https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/09101916/Background-Paper-Office-of- Advocacy-2017-2020-web.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 37. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” January 30, 2017, in Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 22 (February 3, 2017), pp. 9339–9341, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-02-03/pdf/2017-02451.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023), and President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” February 24, 2017, in Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 39 (March 1, 2017), pp. 12285–12287, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-03- 01/pdf/2017-04107.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023). 38. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, What Small Businesses Are Saying and What Advocacy Is Doing About It: Progress Report on the Office of Advocacy’s Regional Regulatory Reform Roundtables, June 2017–September 2018, December 2018, https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/ uploads/2018/12/20091536/What-Small-Businesses-Are-Saying-What-Advocacy-Is-Doing.pdf April 2020, https://advocacy.sba.gov/regulatory-reform/ (accessed February 18, 2023December 10, 2022). See also U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, Reforming Regulations and Listening to Small Business: Second Progress Report on the Office of Advocacy’s Regional Regulatory Roundtables, June 2017–December 2019, https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/20141200/2nd-Progress-Report-on-Reg- Reform-Roundtables.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 39. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, What Small Businesses Are Saying and What Advocacy Is Doing About It: Progress Report on the Office of Advocacy’s Regional Regulatory Reform Roundtables, June 2017–September 2018, pp. 32 and 43. — 763 — Small Business Administration 40. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Inspector General, Top Management and Performance Challenges Facing the Small Business Administration in Fiscal Year 2023, p. iv. 41. H.R. 748, CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act, Public Law No. 116-136, 116th Congress, March 27, 2020, https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ136/PLAW-116publ136.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023). 42. Sarah McCammon, “Planned Parenthood Asked to Return Funds from Paycheck Protection Program,” NPR, May 21, 2020, https://www.npr.org/2020/05/21/859991359/planned-parenthood-asked-to-return-funds- from-paycheck-protection-program (accessed February 18, 2023). 43. Letter from William Manger, Associate Administrator, U.S. Small Business Administration, to Laura Meyers, Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, “Re: Notice of Investigation and Request for Records,” May 19, 2020, https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/6922122/SBA-Letter-Planned-Parenthood-DC.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 44. Press release, “Lankford, HSGAC Republicans Demand Details on Illegal PPP Loans to Planned Parenthood Affiliates,” Office of U.S. Senator James Lankford, April 28, 2022, https://www.lankford.senate.gov/news/press- releases/lankford-hsgac-republicans-demand-details-on-illegal-ppp-loans-to-planned-parenthood-affiliates (accessed February 18, 2023). 45. Press release, “Romney, Colleagues Request Information from SBA Administrator Guzman on Illegal PPP Loans Given to Planned Parenthood Affiliates,” Office of U.S. Senator Mitt Romney, April 28, 2022, https:// www.romney.senate.gov/romney-colleagues-request-information-from-sba-administrator-guzman-on- illegal-ppp-loans-given-to-planned-parenthood-affiliates/ (accessed February 18, 2023). 46. 13 C.F.R. §§ 109.400(b)(11), https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/13/109.400; 123.301(g), https://www.law. cornell.edu/cfr/text/13/123.301; 123.502(n), https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/13/123.502; and 123.702(b)(6), https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/13/123.702 (all accessed February 19, 2023). 47. U.S. Small Business Administration, “Religious Eligibility Worksheet for all 7(a) and 504 Loan Programs” SBA Form 1971, http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/sba-form-1971.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 48. U.S. Small Business Administration, “Ensuring Equal Treatment for Faith-Based Organizations in SBA’s Loan and Disaster Assistance Program.” 49. See, for example, Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf (accessed February 19, 2023). 50. 28 U.S. Code § 530d, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/530D (accessed February 19, 2023). 51. U.S. Small Business Administration, “Ensuring Equal Treatment for Faith-Based Organizations in SBA’s Loan and Disaster Assistance Program.” 52. 13 CFR 120.110(k), https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/13/120.110 (accessed February 19, 2023). 53. U.S. Small Business Administration, “Regulatory Reform Initiative: Streamlining and Modernizing the 7(a), Microloan, and 504 Loan Programs to Reduce Regulatory Burden,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 125 (June 30, 2022), pp. 38900–38910, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/06/30/2022-13483/ regulatory-reform-initiative-streamlining-and-modernizing-the-7a-microloan-and-504-loan-programs-to (accessed February 18, 2023). 54. Ibid. 55. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel “Religious Restrictions on Capital Financing for Historically Black Colleges and Universities,” Memorandum Opinion for the Acting General Counsel, Department of Education, August 15, 2019, https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/ attachments/2021/01/01/2019-08-15-hbcu-capfin-2.pdf. (accessed February 18, 2023). 56. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Investment and Innovation, SBIR and STTR Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2019, p. 8, https://www.sbir.gov/sites/default/files/SBA_Final_FY19_SBIR_STTR_Annual_Report.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 57. S. 4900, SBIR and STTR Extension Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117–183, 117th Congress, September 30, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ183/PLAW-117publ183.pdf (accessed February 18, 2023). 58. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Investment and Innovation, SBIR and STTR Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2019, pp. 6, 40, and 108.

Agency for International Development

Weak

Vector: 57%

Pages: 294-296AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill extends funding for the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, which monitors and advocates for religious freedom abroad—a theme also emphasized in the Project 2025 USAID section. However, the bill does not address USAID-specific actions such as staff training, procurement reform, localization, or direct funding for persecuted minorities, resulting only a tangential connection."

Key themes:religious freedominternational religious freedomfaith-based engagementpersecuted minoritiesmonitoring and reporting

— 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. — 263 — Agency for International Development The next conservative Administration should immediately implement language on key policy topics as standard provisions in all grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts. These provisions should include language on implementing the Policy on Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance, imposing conditions on funding to multilateral organizations, and increasing accountability and transparency. To ensure that USAID exercises its existing authorities to streamline procure- ment processes, the next conservative Administration should name a political appointee as the agency’s Senior Procurement Executive and Director of the agen- cy’s Office of Assistance and Acquisitions (OAA) in the Bureau of Management (M). The head of M/OAA is one of the most important positions at USAID, as the office is ground zero for controlling the disbursement of U.S. foreign aid. The White House should empower the Administrator and his or her designees to make determina- tions concerning the scale and scope of awards and increase the transparency and accountability of subawards, which can escape public scrutiny and promote pro- gressive policies during conservative Administrations. USAID should use existing authority to use program funds to expand its roster of contracting and agreement officers to accelerate the delivery of funds for disaster responses to a more diverse collection of implementers. Accomplishing the next conservative Administration’s policy goals at USAID will require that political appointees have knowledge of, responsibility for, and visibility into the design and awarding of grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements. The Administration should restore the Senior Official Accountabil- ity Review (SOAR) or create a similar process to ensure that proposed programs above a certain dollar threshold in Total Estimated Cost/Total Estimated Amount receive a close review by policymakers in each bureau and office and, for large awards, in the agency’s front office. “Localization” is a buzzword within the aid community but correctly assumes that more funding through local organizations produces better aid outcomes. Shift- ing from giant U.S.-based implementers has proved difficult to achieve, however, given intense internal bureaucratic resistance; opposition from the aid industrial complex; and foot-dragging from progressives, who view local NGOs—especially faith-based NGOs prominent in Africa and Latin America—as obstacles to promot- ing abortion, gender radicalism, climate extremism, and other woke ideas. The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) has shown that localization at scale is possible within a short time span. Over the four years of the Trump Administration, the multibillion-dollar program increased the amount of funding disbursed to local entities from about 25 percent to nearly 70 percent with positive overall results. This model should be replicated across all of USAID. In addition, the next conservative Administration should expand use of the New Partnership Initiative (NPI) to every bureau and office; reset the requirements for USAID’s overseas missions to craft and execute NPI action plans; and assign each

Department of Homeland Security

Minimal

Vector: 59%

Pages: 177-179AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on reauthorizing funding for the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), which monitors global religious freedom, while the Project 2025 policy addresses U.S. immigration enforcement, USCIS operations, and border security under the Department of Homeland Security. There is no substantive overlap in subject matter, objectives, or agency focus between the two."

— 145 — Department of Homeland Security l Management Directives and policies should realign to ensure that the workforce, while adaptable and able to handle the bulk of the USCIS mission, is not allowed to be pulled off mission work to focus on unlawful programs (DACA, mass parole for Afghans, Ukrainians, Venezuelans, etc.), which divert resources away from nuclear family and employment programs. The regulatory agenda should include the immediate submission of notices of proposed rulemaking for the Trump Administration’s public charge rule (includ- ing aspects from its original notice of proposed rulemaking), temporary work visa reform, employment authorization reform rules, asylum bars rule, and a third-country transit rule. At a minimum, an enhanced regulatory agenda should include rules strengthening the integrity of the asylum system, parole reform, and U visa reform that prioritizes relief for victims of heinous crimes and ensures that we protect the truest and most deserving victims of crime. Not all policy changes require formal rulemaking, however, as internal guidance documents are generally exempt under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).7 In this subregulatory space, USCIS policy memos and operational guidance should reduce the validity of employment authorization documents and end the COVID flexibilities, including the reliance on biometrics reuse. USCIS should also enforce existing regulations by rejecting incomplete applications and petitions, ensuring both that they are completed before accepted for filing and that FDNS signs off on all approved applications and petitions before approval notices are sent to the alien or petitioner. Other efforts should be focused on adjudication standards returning to nearly 100 percent interview requirements for all appropriate cases. The incoming Administration should spearhead an immigration legislative agenda focused on creating a merit-based immigration system that rewards high- skilled aliens instead of the current system that favors extended family–based and luck-of-the-draw immigration. To that end, the diversity visa lottery should be repealed, chain migration should be ended while focusing on the nuclear family, and the existing employment visa program should be replaced with a system to award visas only to the “best and brightest.” Internal efforts to limit employment authorization should be matched by con- gressional action to narrow statutory eligibility to work in the United States and mitigate unfair employment competition for U.S. citizens. The oft-abused H-1B program should be transformed into an elite program through which employers are vying to bring in only the top foreign workers at the highest wages so as not to depress American opportunities. Additionally, Congress should: l Improve the integrity of the temporary work visa programs; l Repeal Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations; — 146 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Permanently authorize and make mandatory E-Verify; and l End parole abuse by legislating specific parole standards. USCIS should make it clear that where no court jurisdiction exists, it will not honor court decisions that seek to undermine regulatory and subregulatory efforts. Finally, USCIS still requires access to all relevant national security and law enforce- ment databases in the same vein as any other agency in the intelligence space. This is a key concept that should be addressed as USCIS is returned to functioning primarily as a vetting agency. Budget USCIS is primarily fee-funded, operating on revenue derived by those who are seeking immigration benefits, work permits, and naturalization. The total agency budget requested for fiscal year (FY) 2023, including both fees and a small appropri- ation, is slightly less than $6 billion.8 The bulk of funds are derived from application fees through the Immigrant Examinations Fee Account. As a general principle, adju- dication of applications and petitions should be paid by applicants, not American taxpayers. It is critical that any changes in the budget, even in the wake of a realigned agency combined with ICE and CBP, should retain a fee-funded model. Given the Obama and Biden Administrations’ lack of will, fees should be increased agencywide to keep in step with inflation and the true cost of the adju- dications. The incoming Administration should immediately submit a fee rule that reflects such an increase. Aside from an increase in all fees, the rule should drastically limit the availability for fee waivers and should implement a fee for asylum applications. Additionally, Congress should allow for a 10 percent across- the-board increase in all fees for all fee rules to account for the fact that new fee rules always lag behind budget requirements. USCIS should strive to increase opportunities for premium processing, a ben- efit by which applicants can expedite their processing times. While this places time burdens on adjudicators, it provides an opportunity for a significant influx of money into the agency, which is not currently available. While simply raising fees to the necessary levels to make the agency run efficiently would be prefera- ble, without the need for expanded premium processing, this short-term measure should be utilized, particularly if longer-term fee rules are unsuccessful. At least until USCIS is caught up on all case backlogs, all applicants rejected for any benefit or status adjudication should be required to leave the U.S. immediately. Ordinary process can resume once all case backlogs have been adjudicated. Finally, USCIS should pause the intake of applications in a benefit category when backlogs in that category become excessive. Once USCIS adjudicators can decrease that caseload to a manageable number, application intake should resume.

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. Smith, Christopher H.

Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Reauthorization Act of 2025

119/hr/5160

To reauthorize the Kay Hagan Tick Act, and for other purposes.

119/hr/4348

Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act of 2025

119/hr/1144

Back to All Bills