The bill
Ukraine Support Act
HR. 2913, 119th Congress — read as touching Defense Contractors.
Sponsored by
Rep. Meeks, Gregory W. [D-NY-5]
ID: M001137
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 2913, 119th Congress — read as touching Defense Contractors.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
23 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 214-216 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 462.
July 19, 2026
📍 Current Status
Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the geniuses in Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Ukraine Support Act (HR 2913) is a grandiose attempt to appear tough on Russia while lining the pockets of defense contractors and perpetuating the myth of American exceptionalism. Its primary objective is to provide a veneer of legitimacy for continued military interventionism, sanctions, and saber-rattling.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This bill is a laundry list of platitudes, empty condemnations, and token gestures. It "condemns" Russian aggression (how brave), "reaffirms" support for Ukraine (yawn), and "urges" the withdrawal of Russian forces (good luck with that). The actual provisions are a mix of:
* Lend-lease authority: because what's a war without some good old-fashioned arms dealing? * Sanctions on Russian financial institutions, oil, and mining industries: because crippling their economy will totally make them surrender * Support for Baltic countries: because someone has to keep the NATO gravy train rolling * Establishment of a Ukraine Reconstruction Trust Fund: because who doesn't love a good slush fund?
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects:
* Ukrainian people: used as pawns in a geopolitical game, their suffering and resilience exploited for propaganda purposes * Russian Federation: the designated villain, because someone has to play the role of "evil empire" * Defense contractors: the real beneficiaries of this bill, as they'll be lining up to provide "support" and "aid" to Ukraine (read: sell them overpriced weapons) * NATO and EU: getting a boost to their relevance and funding, courtesy of American taxpayers
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill will:
* Further escalate tensions with Russia, because what's a cold war without some good old-fashioned brinksmanship? * Line the pockets of defense contractors and politicians with ties to the military-industrial complex * Provide a fig leaf for continued American interventionism in Ukraine, under the guise of "supporting democracy" and "defending sovereignty" * Achieve precisely nothing in terms of actually resolving the conflict or improving the lives of Ukrainian people
In conclusion, HR 2913 is a masterclass in legislative cynicism, a perfect example of how to create a bill that sounds good on paper but accomplishes nothing meaningful. It's a testament to the boundless stupidity and corruption of our political class, who will stop at nothing to perpetuate their own power and interests, even if it means sacrificing the well-being of entire nations. Bravo, Congress. Bravo.
Rep. Meeks, Gregory W. [D-NY-5]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: H000874
Top Contributors
10
ID: C001078
Top Contributors
10
ID: D000399
Top Contributors
10
ID: K000375
Top Contributors
10
ID: D000631
Top Contributors
10
ID: L000601
Top Contributors
10
ID: C001125
Top Contributors
10
ID: S001193
Top Contributors
10
ID: J000310
Top Contributors
10
ID: K000402
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 73 nodes and 38 connections (58 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $147,350
Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 16 helped, 6 harmed.
Title II authorizes direct loans and foreign military financing up to $8 billion (Sec 202), extends Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative with $300M FY2026-2027 (Sec 204), authorizes lend-lease authority (Sec 201), and supports Baltic countries with $30M FMF grants each (Sec 203), all benefiting defense contractors.
Section 303 imposes sanctions on Russian oil and gas extraction, refinement, or production; Section 315 bans importation of energy products produced at refineries using Russian crude oil; Section 314 increases duties on Russian goods to 500% ad valorem, affecting oil and gas imports.
Section 303 imposes sanctions on Russian coal extraction mining, refinement, or production.
Section 306 imposes sanctions on foreign persons endangering the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant; Section 307 imposes sanctions on Rosatom and related nuclear transactions; Section 305 imposes sanctions on Crimea tunnel construction linked to Russian energy infrastructure.
Section 308 imposes sanctions on vessels transporting Russian oil in contravention of price cap policy; Section 309 imposes sanctions on SWIFT and financial messaging services used by Russian energy entities; Section 310 prohibits transactions involving Russian sovereign debt, affecting energy project financing.
Section 108 authorizes $250,000,000 for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty for FY 2026 and supports its bureau expansion; Section 109 requires strategy to counter Russian disinformation and support independent media outlets including Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
+ 16 more industries not shown.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Meeks, Gregory W. [D-NY-5])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
— 182 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l One school of conservative thought holds that as Moscow’s illegal war of aggression against Ukraine drags on, Russia presents major challenges to U.S. interests, as well as to peace, stability, and the post-Cold War security order in Europe. This viewpoint argues for continued U.S. involvement including military aid, economic aid, and the presence of NATO and U.S. troops if necessary. The end goal of the conflict must be the defeat of Russian President Vladimir Putin and a return to pre-invasion border lines. l Another school of conservative thought denies that U.S. Ukrainian support is in the national security interest of America at all. Ukraine is not a member of the NATO alliance and is one of the most corrupt nations in the region. European nations directly affected by the conflict should aid in the defense of Ukraine, but the U.S. should not continue its involvement. This viewpoint desires a swift end to the conflict through a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia. l The tension between these competing positions has given rise to a third approach. This conservative viewpoint eschews both isolationism and interventionism. Rather, each foreign policy decision must first ask the question: What is in the interest of the American people? U.S. military engagement must clearly fall within U.S. interests; be fiscally responsible; and protect American freedom, liberty, and sovereignty, all while recognizing Communist China as the greatest threat to U.S. interests. Thus, with respect to Ukraine, continued U.S. involvement must be fully paid for; limited to military aid (while European allies address Ukraine’s economic needs); and have a clearly defined national security strategy that does not risk American lives. Regardless of viewpoints, all sides agree that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is unjust and that the Ukrainian people have a right to defend their homeland. Furthermore, the conflict has severely weakened Putin’s military strength and provided a boost to NATO unity and its importance to European nations. The next conservative President has a generational opportunity to bring res- olution to the foreign policy tensions within the movement and chart a new path forward that recognizes Communist China as the defining threat to U.S. interests in the 21st century. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Peace and stability in Northeast Asia are vital interests of the United States. The Republic of Korea (South Korea) and Japan are critical allies for ensuring a free and open Indo–Pacific. They are indispensable military, economic, diplomatic, and technology partners. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, or North — 183 — Department of State Korea) must be deterred from military conflict. The United States cannot permit the DPRK to remain a de facto nuclear power with the capacity to threaten the United States or its allies. This interest is both critical to the defense of the Amer- ican homeland and the future of global nonproliferation. The DPRK must not be permitted to profit from its blatant violations of international commitments or to threaten other nations with nuclear blackmail. Both interests can only be served if the U.S. disallows the DPRK’s rogue regime behavior. OTHER INTERNATIONAL ENGAGEMENTS Western Hemisphere The United States has a vested interest in a relatively united and economically prosperous Western Hemisphere. Nonetheless, the region now has an overwhelm- ing number of socialist or progressive regimes, which are at odds with the freedom and growth-oriented policies of the U.S. and other neighbors and who increasingly pose hemispheric security threats. A new approach is therefore needed, one that simultaneously allows the U.S. to re-posture in its best interests and helps regional partners enter a new century of growth and opportunity. The following core policies must be part of this new direction: l A “sovereign Mexico” policy. Mexico is currently a national security disaster. Bluntly stated, Mexico can no longer qualify as a first-world nation; it has functionally lost its sovereignty to muscular criminal cartels that effectively run the country. The current dynamic is not good for either U.S. citizens or Mexicans, and the perfect storm created by this cartel state has negative effects that are damaging the entire hemisphere. The next Administration must both adopt a posture that calls for a fully sovereign Mexico and take all steps at its disposal to support that result in as rapid a fashion as possible. l A fentanyl-free frontier. The same cartels that parasitically run Mexico are also working with the PRC to fuel the largest drug crisis in the history of North America. These Mexican cartels are working closely with Chinese fentanyl precursor chemical manufacturers, importing those precursor chemicals into Mexico, manufacturing fentanyl on Mexican soil, and shipping it into the United States and elsewhere. The highly potent narcotic is having an unprecedented lethal impact on the American citizenry. The next Administration must leverage its new insistence on a sovereign Mexico and work with other Western Hemisphere partners to halt the fentanyl crisis and put a decisive end to this unprecedented public health threat.
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.