US-Japan-ROK Trilateral Cooperation Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/3429
Last Updated: July 17, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Bera, Ami [D-CA-6]

ID: B001287

Follow the money

The bill

US-Japan-ROK Trilateral Cooperation Act

HR. 3429, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Rep. Bera, Ami [D-CA-6]

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

The money

$81,700 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of State" section, p. 220-222 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

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the intellectually bankrupt inhabitants of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The US-Japan-ROK Trilateral Cooperation Act (HR 3429) claims to establish an inter-parliamentary dialogue to facilitate closer cooperation between the United States, Japan, and South Korea on shared interests and values. How quaint. In reality, this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to create a new bureaucracy, perpetuating the careers of self-serving politicians and their cronies.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill proposes the establishment of a US-Japan-ROK Inter-Parliamentary Dialogue, which will allegedly promote cooperation on regional security, prosperity, and democratic values. Oh, please. This is just a euphemism for "let's create more opportunities for photo ops, junkets, and pork-barrel projects." The bill also outlines the formation of a United States Group, comprising 8 Members of Congress, who will represent the US in this dialogue. Because, you know, we didn't have enough useless committees and working groups already.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists, and special interest groups. The Japanese and South Korean governments will also be affected, as they'll be expected to participate in this charade. And, of course, the poor taxpayers who'll foot the bill for this nonsense.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill will have all the impact of a placebo on a patient with a terminal illness. It's a symbolic gesture, meant to appease the naive and the ignorant. In reality, it will:

1. Waste taxpayer money on unnecessary bureaucracy and travel expenses. 2. Provide a platform for politicians to grandstand and pretend they're doing something meaningful. 3. Further entrench the interests of special interest groups and lobbyists. 4. Possibly lead to more meaningless agreements, joint statements, and photo ops, which will be touted as "major breakthroughs" by the complicit media.

In conclusion, HR 3429 is a classic example of legislative malpractice. It's a bill that promises much but delivers nothing, except more hot air, self-aggrandizement, and waste. The diagnosis? Acute stupidity, chronic cowardice, and a severe case of bureaucratic metastasis. Prognosis? More of the same, until the patient (the US political system) finally succumbs to its own ineptitude.

Related Topics

Federal Budget & AppropriationsForeign Aid & DiplomacyInternational Treaties & Agreements
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Bera, Ami [D-CA-6]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$81,700
12 donors
PACs
$500
Organizations
$2,000
Committees
$0
Individuals
$79,200
1
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
2 transactions
$500
1
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$2,000

No committee contributions found

1
DOERR, JOHN L. III
6 transactions
$33,000
2
DOERR, ANN HOWLAND
2 transactions
$6,600
3
SCHLEIN, LINDA
2 transactions
$6,600
4
PARKER, ALEXANDRA
2 transactions
$6,600
5
PARKER, SEAN
2 transactions
$6,600
6
DAWSON, JOHN
2 transactions
$6,600
7
FISHER, ROBERT
1 transaction
$3,300
8
SINGH, GURPREET
1 transaction
$3,300
9
SANDBERG, SHERYL
1 transaction
$3,300
10
BEEUWKES, REINIER III
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

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

ID: W000795

Top Contributors

10

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

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

ID: C001078

Top Contributors

10

1
FOR SENATE, MARSDEN
MARSDEN FOR SENATE COMMITTEE • SENATOR
COMBURKE, VA
$250
Mar 19, 2024
2
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
OrganizationRICHMOND, VA
$2,900
Jun 22, 2023
3
HERSHMAN, MICHAEL J.
THE FAIRFAX GROUP • PRESIDENT
IndividualDELRAY BEACH, FL
$3,300
Dec 24, 2024
4
TRONE, DAVID
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES • REPRESENTATIVE
IndividualPOTOMAC, MD
$3,300
Dec 9, 2024
5
MISENER, PAUL E
SELF-EMPLOYED • LAWYER
IndividualGREAT FALLS, VA
$3,300
Sep 21, 2023
6
PUNARO, ARNOLD
PUNARO GROUP • CONSULTANT
IndividualMCLEAN, VA
$3,300
Jul 25, 2023
7
PUNARO, ARNOLD
PUNARO GROUP • CONSULTANT
IndividualMCLEAN, VA
$3,300
Jul 25, 2023
8
PUNARO, JULIA
RETIRED • NONE
IndividualMCLEAN, VA
$3,300
Jul 25, 2023
9
PUNARO, JULIA
RETIRED • NONE
IndividualMCLEAN, VA
$3,300
Jul 25, 2023
10
RABAUT, TOM W
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualGREAT FALLS, VA
$3,300
Sep 27, 2023

Rep. Kelly, Mike [R-PA-16]

ID: K000376

Top Contributors

10

1
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$3,300
Dec 31, 2024
2
MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT TRIBE
OrganizationLEDYARD, CT
$3,300
Oct 23, 2023
3
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$3,300
Mar 24, 2023
4
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$3,300
Sep 30, 2024
5
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$3,000
Sep 30, 2024
6
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$3,000
Nov 4, 2024
7
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$2,300
Jun 28, 2024
8
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$2,000
Jun 26, 2023
9
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$2,000
Oct 10, 2024
10
SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$1,000
Mar 29, 2023

Rep. Castro, Joaquin [D-TX-20]

ID: C001091

Top Contributors

10

1
CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$1,000
Dec 13, 2023
2
ALABAMA COUSHATTA TRIBE
OrganizationWOODVILLE, TX
$1,000
Sep 26, 2024
3
QUINONES, KARLA
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualSAN ANTONIO, TX
$5,000
Sep 30, 2024
4
SNEIDER, ARTURO
PRIMESTOR DEVELOPMENT INC. • REAL ESTATE
IndividualCULVER CITY, CA
$3,300
Oct 23, 2024
5
RAMIREZ, DANIEL N.
MONTY & RAMIREZ • ATTORNEY
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$3,300
Jan 11, 2024
6
PARKER, ALEXANDRA
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPALO ALTO, CA
$3,300
Mar 22, 2024
7
PARKER, ALEXANDRA
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPALO ALTO, CA
$3,300
Mar 22, 2024
8
PARKER, SEAN
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPALO ALTO, CA
$3,300
Mar 22, 2024
9
PARKER, SEAN
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPALO ALTO, CA
$3,300
Mar 22, 2024
10
SILBEY, ALEX
ATS COMMUNICATIONS • CONSULTANT
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Mar 29, 2024

Rep. Smith, Adrian [R-NE-3]

ID: S001172

Top Contributors

10

1
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Jul 25, 2024
2
PARKER, SEAN
SEAN N PARKER FOUNDATION • CHAIRMAN
IndividualPALO ALTO, CA
$13,200
Feb 28, 2024
3
ANDERSON, S MICKEY MR.
BAXTER AUTOMOTIVE GROUP • PRESIDENT
IndividualOMAHA, NE
$13,200
Apr 6, 2023
4
STINSON, KENNETH E. MR.
PETER KIEWIT SONS INC. • CHAIRMAN EMERITUS
IndividualOMAHA, NE
$13,200
Apr 6, 2023
5
CASSLING, MICHAEL MR.
CASSLING DIAGNOSTIC • PRESIDENT AND CEO
IndividualOMAHA, NE
$13,200
Aug 3, 2023
6
HAWKINS, FRED H. MR. JR.
HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY • CEO
IndividualOMAHA, NE
$6,600
Nov 5, 2023
7
KORALESKI, JACK MR.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualOMAHA, NE
$6,600
May 1, 2023
8
SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN
BLACKSTONE • CEO/ CHAIRMAN
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Jun 20, 2023
9
SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Jun 21, 2023
10
DUGAN, VINCENT J. MR.
TREGO DUGAN AVIATION OF GRAND ISLAND • PRESIDENT
IndividualNORTH PLATTE, NE
$6,600
Sep 28, 2023

Rep. Meeks, Gregory W. [D-NY-5]

ID: M001137

Top Contributors

10

1
AGUA CALIENTE BAN OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Jul 19, 2023
2
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Mar 30, 2023
3
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$2,500
Sep 30, 2024
4
CROWN, LESTER
N/A • RETIRED
IndividualCHICAGO, IL
$6,600
Jul 18, 2024
5
LIPPMAN, MARIE C.
IndividualMIAMI BEACH, FL
$5,000
Mar 7, 2023
6
CUKIERMAN, JORAM
CITADEL • FINANCE
IndividualSCARSDALE, NY
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024
7
SILVERMAN, DOUG
SENATOR INVESTMENT GROUP LP • MANAGING PARTNER
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
8
SHAMAH, ALAN
FIT FOR LIFE LLC • BUSINESS EXECUTIVE
IndividualBROOKLYN, NY
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
9
SHAMAH, JOSEPH
FIT FOR LIFE LLC • CO-FOUNDER & CEO
IndividualBROOKLYN, NY
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
10
ARMSTRONG, BRIAN
COINBASE • CEO
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Aug 29, 2023

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

ID: G000599

Top Contributors

10

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

Rep. Case, Ed [D-HI-1]

ID: C001055

Top Contributors

10

1
CHUGACH ALASKA CORPORATION PAC (CAC PAC)
PACANCHORAGE, AK
$5,000
Feb 8, 2024
2
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Jan 16, 2024
3
TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LOUISIANA
OrganizationMANSURA, LA
$2,500
Mar 29, 2024
4
CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$1,000
Nov 6, 2023
5
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$1,000
Jun 17, 2024
6
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$1,000
Jun 30, 2024
7
CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$1,000
Sep 28, 2023
8
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$1,000
Sep 30, 2023
9
SAMISH TYEE
OrganizationANACORTES, WA
$1,000
Aug 22, 2023
10
LOUI, STEVEN
PACIFIC MARINE AND SUPPLY COMP • CHAIRMAN
IndividualHONOLULU, HI
$5,000
Mar 22, 2024

Del. King-Hinds, Kimberlyn [R-MP-At Large]

ID: K000404

Top Contributors

0

No contribution data available

Del. Moylan, James C. [R-GU-At Large]

ID: M001219

Top Contributors

10

1
EYE OF THE TIGER PAC
PACARLINGTON, VA
$5,000
Sep 20, 2024
2
JOHNSON FOR LOUISIANA
CCMMETARIE, LA
$2,000
Oct 18, 2024
3
ROBERT J. TORRES TRUST
OrganizationTAMUNING, GU
$250
Feb 19, 2024
4
MOYLAN, JUDITH A.
MOYLAN'S INSURANCE • PRESIDENT
IndividualBARRIGADA HEIGHTS, GU
$3,300
Oct 21, 2024
5
ANDERSON, KIM FELL
SECURITY TITLE • VICE PRESIDENT
IndividualTAMUNING, GU
$3,300
Sep 20, 2024
6
HABECK, TERRY W
AVIATION CONCEPTS INC. • CEO
IndividualBARRIGADA, GU
$3,300
Aug 20, 2024
7
YSRAEL, MICHAEL
YTANO TA PARTNERS • CEO
IndividualTUMON, GU
$3,300
Aug 20, 2024
8
YSRAEL, THERESA
Y TANO TA PARTNERS • VICE PRESIDENT
IndividualTAMUNING, GU
$3,300
Aug 20, 2024
9
FLORES, PHILIP J.
BANK PACIFIC • PRESIDENT
IndividualHAGATNA, GU
$3,000
Jun 13, 2024
10
SGRO, ANTHONY P
PARADISE FITNESS • PRESIDENT
IndividualHAGATNA, GU
$3,000
Jun 20, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Bera, Ami [D-CA-6]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 57 nodes and 38 connections (53 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $148,350

Top Donors - Rep. Bera, Ami [D-CA-6]

Showing top 12 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC1 Org10 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of State

Strong
Vector: 58%
Pages: 220-222AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill creates a structured trilateral dialogue to strengthen security, economic, and diplomatic cooperation among the U.S., Japan, and South Korea, which aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on building coalitions with like-minded partners, focusing on core diplomatic and security engagement, and countering foreign influence."

Key themes:coalition buildingsecurity cooperationeconomic engagementdiplomatic dialoguecountering foreign influence

— 187 — Department of State United States, but at least some of them would eventually try if allowed to consolidate their operations and plan such attacks. The immediate threat they pose lies in their abilities and willingness to strike American targets in their regions of operation or to harm U.S. interests in other ways. The U.S. should support capable African military and security operations through the State Department and other federal agencies responsible for granting foreign military education, training, and security assistance. l Build a coalition of the cooperative. Rather than thinning limited federal resources by spreading funds across all countries (including some that are unsupportive or even hostile to the United States,) the next Administration should focus on those countries with which the U.S. can expect a mutually beneficial relationship. After being designated focus countries by the State Department, such nations should receive a full suite of American engagement. That said, the next Administration should still maintain a baseline level of contact even with those countries with which it has less- than-fruitful relationships in order to encourage positive developments and to be in position to seize unexpected diplomatic opportunities as they arise. l Focus on core diplomatic activities, and stop promoting policies birthed in the American culture wars. African nations are particularly (and reasonably) non-receptive to the U.S. social policies such as abortion and pro-LGBT initiatives being imposed on them. The United States should focus on core security, economic, and human rights engagement with African partners and reject the promotion of divisive policies that hurt the deepening of shared goals between the U.S. and its African partners. Europe American foreign policy has long benefited from cooperation with the countries of Europe (generally, the EU), and any conservative Administration should build on this resource. Yet the transatlantic relationship is complex, with security, trade, and political dimensions. First, the Europe, Eurasia, and Russia region is made up of relatively wealthy and technologically advanced societies that should be expected to bear a fair share of both security needs and global security architecture: The United States cannot be expected to provide a defense umbrella for countries unwilling to contribute appropriately. At stake after 2024 will be examining the status of the Wales Pledge of 2 percent of gross domestic product toward defense by NATO members. The new Administration will also want to encourage nations to exceed that pledge. Second, transatlantic trade is a significant part of the global economy, and it is in the U.S. national interest to amplify it, especially because this means weaning — 188 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Europe of its dependence on China. However, there are also transatlantic trade tensions that disturb the U.S.–EU relationship and that have been evident across Administrations. The U.S. must undertake a comprehensive review of trade arrangements between the EU and the United States to assure that U.S. businesses are treated fairly and to build productive reciprocity. Outside the EU, trade with the post-Brexit U.K. needs urgent development before London slips back into the orbit of the EU. Third, in the wake of Brexit, EU foreign policy now takes place without U.K. input, which disadvantages the United States, given that the U.K. has historically been aligned with many U.S. positions. Therefore, U.S. diplomacy must be more attentive to inner-EU developments, while also developing new allies inside the EU—especially the Central European countries on the eastern flank of the EU, which are most vulnerable to Russian aggression. South and Central Asia Many key American interests and responsibilities are found in South and Central Asia. Specifically, continuing to advance the bilateral relationship with India to mutual benefit is a crucial objective for U.S. policy. India plays a crucial role in countering the Chinese threat and securing a free and open Indo–Pacific. It is a critical security guarantor for the key routes of air and sea travel linking East and West and an important emerging U.S. economic partner. For instance, the 2019 Department of Defense Indo–Pacific Strategy Report noted that the Indian Ocean area “is at the nexus of global trade and commerce, with nearly half of the world’s 90,000 commercial vessels and two thirds of global oil trade traveling through its sea lanes. The region boasts some of the fastest-growing economies on Earth.”14 Meanwhile, the threat of transnational terrorism remains acute. The humiliat- ing withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan after a 20-year military campaign has created new challenges. It has provided an opportunity to reset the deeply troubled U.S.–Pakistan relationship and reassess U.S. counterterrorism strategy in the region. The long-standing India–Pakistan rivalry and tensions regarding the disputed territory of Kashmir continue to pose risks to regional stability, especially because both countries are nuclear powers. The State Department’s role in strengthening the regional security and eco- nomic framework linking the U.S and India is crucial. In addition, the department has important functional responsibilities in dealing with a range of threats from nuclear proliferation to transnational proliferation. While American statecraft should also seek to improve bilateral relations throughout the region, U.S. policy must be clear-eyed and realistic about the perfidiousness of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the military–political rule in Pakistan. There can be no expecta- tion of normal relations with either.

Department of State

Moderate
Vector: 57%
Pages: 220-222AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill promotes trilateral cooperation among the U.S., Japan, and South Korea to enhance regional security and counter challenges in the Indo-Pacific, which aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on strengthening U.S. alliances and strategic partnerships in the Indo-Pacific, particularly through frameworks like the Quad. However, the bill does not explicitly mention India, Australia, or the Quad-Plus concept, nor does it focus on countering China as the primary strategic driver, resulting in mode"

Key themes:Indo-Pacific securitytrilateral cooperationregional stabilitycountering foreign influencealliance strengthening

— 188 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Europe of its dependence on China. However, there are also transatlantic trade tensions that disturb the U.S.–EU relationship and that have been evident across Administrations. The U.S. must undertake a comprehensive review of trade arrangements between the EU and the United States to assure that U.S. businesses are treated fairly and to build productive reciprocity. Outside the EU, trade with the post-Brexit U.K. needs urgent development before London slips back into the orbit of the EU. Third, in the wake of Brexit, EU foreign policy now takes place without U.K. input, which disadvantages the United States, given that the U.K. has historically been aligned with many U.S. positions. Therefore, U.S. diplomacy must be more attentive to inner-EU developments, while also developing new allies inside the EU—especially the Central European countries on the eastern flank of the EU, which are most vulnerable to Russian aggression. South and Central Asia Many key American interests and responsibilities are found in South and Central Asia. Specifically, continuing to advance the bilateral relationship with India to mutual benefit is a crucial objective for U.S. policy. India plays a crucial role in countering the Chinese threat and securing a free and open Indo–Pacific. It is a critical security guarantor for the key routes of air and sea travel linking East and West and an important emerging U.S. economic partner. For instance, the 2019 Department of Defense Indo–Pacific Strategy Report noted that the Indian Ocean area “is at the nexus of global trade and commerce, with nearly half of the world’s 90,000 commercial vessels and two thirds of global oil trade traveling through its sea lanes. The region boasts some of the fastest-growing economies on Earth.”14 Meanwhile, the threat of transnational terrorism remains acute. The humiliat- ing withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan after a 20-year military campaign has created new challenges. It has provided an opportunity to reset the deeply troubled U.S.–Pakistan relationship and reassess U.S. counterterrorism strategy in the region. The long-standing India–Pakistan rivalry and tensions regarding the disputed territory of Kashmir continue to pose risks to regional stability, especially because both countries are nuclear powers. The State Department’s role in strengthening the regional security and eco- nomic framework linking the U.S and India is crucial. In addition, the department has important functional responsibilities in dealing with a range of threats from nuclear proliferation to transnational proliferation. While American statecraft should also seek to improve bilateral relations throughout the region, U.S. policy must be clear-eyed and realistic about the perfidiousness of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the military–political rule in Pakistan. There can be no expecta- tion of normal relations with either. — 189 — Department of State The priority for statecraft is advancing the U.S.–Indian role as a cornerstone of the Quad, a cooperative framework including the U.S., India, Japan, and Aus- tralia. The Quad is comprised of the key nations in coordinating efforts for a free and open Indo–Pacific. It is an overarching group that nests the key U.S. bilateral and trilateral cooperative efforts that facilitate U.S. collaborative efforts across the Indo–Pacific. The State Department should also encourage the “Quad-Plus” concept that allows other regional powers to participate in Quad coordination on issues of mutual interest. Further, the State Department must support an inte- grated federal effort to deliver a revamped regional strategy for South Asia, as well as leading the execution of key tasks to implement the strategy.15 The Arctic Because of Alaska, the U.S. is an Arctic nation. The Arctic is a vast expanse of land and sea rich in resources including fish, minerals, and energy. For example, the region is estimated to contain 90 million barrels of oil and one-quarter of the world’s undiscovered natural gas reserves.16 The Arctic is lightly populated: Only 4 million people in the world live above the Arctic Circle, with more than half of those living in Russia. Only around 68,000 people in Alaska live above the Arctic Circle.17 However, the sheer immensity of the Alaskan Arctic means its population density is less than one person per square mile.18 The United States has several strong interests in the Arctic region. The rate of melting ice during summer months has led to increased interest not only from shipping and tourism sectors, but also from America’s global competitors, who are interested in exploiting the region’s strategic importance and accessing its bounty of natural resources. In the not-too-distant future, there will be a growing interest in the Arctic from both state and non-state actors alike. China has been open about its interest in the region, primarily as a highway for trade but also for its rich natural resources. While the PRC’s increasing intervention in Arctic affairs is a bit strained because it does not have an Arctic coastline, Russia does—and Russia has made no secret of its view that the Arctic is vital for economic and military reasons. Russia has invested heavily in new and refurbished Arctic bases and cold-weather equipment and capabilities. The north star of U.S. Arctic policy should remain national sov- ereignty, safeguarded through robust capabilities as well as through diplomatic, economic, and legal attentiveness. The next Administration should embrace the view that NATO must acknowl- edge that it is, in part, an Arctic alliance. With the likely accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO, every Arctic nation except for Russia will be a NATO member state. NATO has been slow to appreciate that the Arctic is a theater that it must defend, especially considering Russia’s brazen aggression against Ukraine. NATO must develop and implement an Arctic strategy that recognizes the importance of

Trade

Moderate
Vector: 56%
Pages: 834-836AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on establishing a trilateral parliamentary dialogue to enhance security and prosperity in the Indo‑Pacific, which shares Project 2025’s goal of strengthening alliances and countering China’s influence, but it does not directly address the trade‑specific reforms (e.g., Jones Act repeal, TPA restoration, tariff relief) outlined in the policy."

Key themes:Indo‑Pacific cooperationCountering China influenceStrengthening alliancesMaritime securityRegional economic prosperity

— 801 — Trade l Repeal the Jones Act,48 a century-old “Buy American” maritime law that has decimated the U.S. shipbuilding industry. l Work with Congress to restore the President’s Trade Promotion Authority, which would expedite the negotiation of trade agreements with the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Taiwan, the European Union, and other allies, and keep trade-unrelated provisions out of trade agreements. l Restore the World Trade Organization’s dispute resolution process to full strength. l Create a successor to the WTO (assuming that it has been fatally wounded) that is open only to liberal democracies. This would prevent authoritarian countries like China from abusing the organization for their own ends. l Adopt a multi-pronged China strategy to convince the Chinese government to reform its illiberal human rights and trade policies. l Rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), whose 11 members are developing institutional trade norms in an important geopolitical region without U.S. input or involvement. l Reorient the proposed Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity to focus only on trade issues, which it currently ignores in favor of progressive wish-list policies. l Strengthen diplomatic pressure (in concert with allies) against Beijing’s abuses. Encourage cultural and intellectual engagement with the Chinese people, remembering that blue jeans and rock ’n’ roll helped to win the Cold War. Tariff Relief. When people try something repeatedly and it still doesn’t work, they should stop doing it—especially when the consequences turn out to be just what conservative economists have long predicted they would be.49 With tariffs, the proper reform is not only to get rid of the individual tariffs that have backfired, but also to build institutional safeguards against future abuse. We are five years into the biggest experiment with tariffs since the Great Depres- sion, and the results are in: The new tariffs raise consumer prices for ordinary Americans by about $1,200 per household every year50 and benefit only a small number of special interests. Steel and aluminum tariffs, enacted on national security grounds, angered allies. Beijing made not a single substantive reform in — 802 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise response to four rounds of tariffs plus an attempted Phase One agreement. The Biden Administration has left the tariffs in place and is expanding them to pursue progressive policy goals. The first order of business for a new Administration that is focused on American workers and consumers is to repeal all tariffs enacted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 196251 and Sections 201 and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.52 The President can do this unilaterally, and Congress can do it through legislation. The second order of business requires Congress to pass legislation repealing Sections 232, 201, and 301. The U.S. Constitution places all taxing authority with Congress53 and none with the President. Congress used those provisions of law to delegate some of its taxing authority to the President because it was having trouble passing “clean” tariff legislation in the 1960s and 1970s. Unless and until this constitutional question about delegation is addressed, important reforms are available to the next Congress and the next President. Congress faced a problem of collective action in the 1960s and 1970s. As a whole, Members generally wanted to lower tariffs, but few individual Members were will- ing to remove tariffs that benefited special interests in their districts. Trade bills were invariably watered down through amendments and logrolling. The thinking was that the President, whose constituency is the entire nation, would be less prone to special-interest pleading than Members of Congress would be, so Congress del- egated some of its tariff-making authority to the President in 1962 and 1974 trade legislation. Delegating tariff-making might have worked in the short run, but in the long run, it was both constitutionally dubious and ripe for abuse. That came to pass in 2018. The Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, invoked in 2018 against Canada, Europe, and other allies on national security grounds, raised car prices by an aver- age of $250 per vehicle and gave America the world’s highest steel prices. They also harmed the construction, canned food and beverage, and other metal-us- ing industries. While this may have benefited the steel industry itself, each steel job saved cost an average of $650,000 per year that had been taken from elsewhere in the econo- my.54 That is no way to strengthen American manufacturing. The New York Federal Reserve estimated in 2019 that the Section 301 China tariffs cost the average house- hold $831 per year,55 a figure that has likely increased with inflation. The new tariffs have a clear record of failure—as conservative economists almost unanimously warned would be the case. Job number one for the next Administration is to return to sensible trade policies and eliminate the destruc- tive Trump–Biden tariffs. Strengthening American Manufacturing. The decline of American manu- facturing is a common political trope in both parties, typically invoked before a call for more government intervention. This narrative has several problems. One is that

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills