MEGOBARI Act
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Wilson, Joe [R-SC-2]
ID: W000795
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 70.
May 6, 2025
Introduced
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed House
Senate Review
📍 Current Status
Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
📚 How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the esteemed members of Congress. The MEGOBARI Act, a bill so cleverly crafted that it's almost as if they want us to believe it's about something other than what it's really about.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of this bill is to counter the influence of China, Iran, and Russia in Georgia. How noble. In reality, it's a thinly veiled attempt to strong-arm Georgia into aligning itself with Western interests, while also providing a convenient excuse for the US to exert its own influence in the region.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill is a laundry list of "sense of Congress" resolutions, which are about as binding as a participation trophy. It calls for the suspension of the US-Georgia Strategic Partnership Commission until Georgia's government meets certain conditions, such as upholding its constitutional obligations and advancing towards EU and NATO membership. Oh, and it also demands that Georgia release all persons detained on "politically motivated grounds." How convenient.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved here: the Georgian government, the US State Department, NATO, and various other international organizations. But let's not forget the real stakeholders – the defense contractors, lobbyists, and special interest groups who will be lining their pockets with taxpayer dollars as a result of this bill.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a recipe for disaster. By inserting itself into Georgia's internal affairs, the US risks destabilizing the region and creating a power vacuum that Russia or other adversaries can exploit. It also sets a dangerous precedent for US interference in the domestic politics of sovereign nations. And let's not forget the potential blowback – if Georgia's government doesn't comply with the bill's demands, it could lead to a deterioration in relations between the two countries.
In short, this bill is a classic case of "do as I say, not as I do." The US is essentially telling Georgia to respect democracy and human rights while simultaneously undermining those very principles through its own actions. It's a cynical exercise in hypocrisy, designed to advance US interests at the expense of Georgian sovereignty. How quaint.
Diagnosis: Legislative Theater-itis, with symptoms including excessive posturing, blatant hypocrisy, and a healthy dose of cynicism. Treatment: a strong dose of reality, followed by a thorough examination of the bill's true motivations and consequences. Prognosis: poor, as this bill is likely to pass despite its glaring flaws.
Related Topics
💰 Campaign Finance Network
Rep. Wilson, Joe [R-SC-2]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance
This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9]
ID: C001068
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Hudson, Richard [R-NC-9]
ID: H001067
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Veasey, Marc A. [D-TX-33]
ID: V000131
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Haridopolos, Mike [R-FL-8]
ID: H001099
Top Contributors
10
Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]
ID: N000147
Top Contributors
0
No contribution data available
Rep. Turner, Michael R. [R-OH-10]
ID: T000463
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Doggett, Lloyd [D-TX-37]
ID: D000399
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17]
ID: L000599
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Cleaver, Emanuel [D-MO-5]
ID: C001061
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Aderholt, Robert B. [R-AL-4]
ID: A000055
Top Contributors
10
Donor Network - Rep. Wilson, Joe [R-SC-2]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 43 nodes and 42 connections
Total contributions: $125,382
Top Donors - Rep. Wilson, Joe [R-SC-2]
Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 89 — Section 2: The Common Defense The solution to this problem is strong political leadership. Skinner writes, “The next Administration must take swift and decisive steps to reforge the department into a lean and functional diplomatic machine that serves the President and, thereby, the American people.” Because the Senate has been extraordinarily lax in fulfilling its constitutional obligation to confirm presidential appointees, she recommends putting appointees into acting roles until such time as the Senate confirms them. Skinner writes that State should also stop skirting the Constitution’s trea- ty-making requirements and stop enforcing “agreements” as treaties. It should encourage more trade with allies, particularly with Great Britain, and less with adversaries. And it should implement a “sovereign Mexico” policy, as our neighbor “has functionally lost its sovereignty to muscular criminal cartels that effectively run the country.” In Africa, Skinner writes, the U.S. “should focus on core security, economic, and human rights” rather than impose radical abortion and pro-LGBT initiatives. Divisive symbols such as the rainbow flag or the Black Lives Matter flag have no place next to the Stars and Stripes at our embassies. When it comes to China, Skinner writes that “a policy of ‘compete where we must, but cooperate where we can’…has demonstrably failed.” The People’s Repub- lic of China’s (PRC) “aggressive behavior,” she writes, “can only be curbed through external pressure.” Efforts to protect or excuse China must stop. She observes, “[M]any were quick to dismiss even the possibility that COVID escaped from a Chinese research laboratory.” Meanwhile, Skinner writes, “[g]lobal leaders includ- ing President Joe Biden…have tried to normalize or even laud Chinese behavior.” She adds, “In some cases, these voices, like global corporate giants BlackRock and Disney”—or the National Basketball Association (NBA)—“directly benefit from doing business with Beijing.” Former vice president of the U.S. Agency for Global Media Mora Namdar writes in Chapter 8 that we need to have people working for USAGM who actually believe in America, rather than allowing the agencies to function as anti-American, tax- payer-funded entities that parrot our adversaries’ propaganda and talking points. Former acting deputy secretary of homeland security Ken Cuccinelli says in Chap- ter 5 that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), a creation of the George W. Bush era, should be closed, as it has added needless additional bureaucracy and expense without corresponding benefit. He recommends that it be replaced with a new “stand-alone border and immigration agency at the Cabinet level” and that the remaining parts of DHS be distributed among other departments. Former chief of staff for the director of National Intelligence Dustin Carmack writes in Chapter 7 that the U.S. Intelligence Community is too inclined to look in the rearview mirror, engage in “groupthink,” and employ an “overly cautious” approach aimed at personal approval rather than at offering the most accurate, unvarnished intelligence for the benefit of the country. And in Chapter 9, former acting deputy administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development Max — 90 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Primorac asserts that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) must be reformed, writing, “The Biden Administration has deformed the agency by treating it as a global platform to pursue overseas a divisive political and cultural agenda that promotes abortion, climate extremism, gender radicalism, and interventions against perceived systematic racism.” If the recommendations in the following chapters are adopted, what Skinner says about the State Department could be true for other parts of the federal gov- ernment’s national security and foreign policy apparatus: The next conservative President has the opportunity to restructure the making and execution of U.S. defense and foreign policy and reset the nation’s role in the world. The recom- mendations outlined in this section provide guidance on how the next President should use the federal government’s vast resources to do just that.
Introduction
— 89 — Section 2: The Common Defense The solution to this problem is strong political leadership. Skinner writes, “The next Administration must take swift and decisive steps to reforge the department into a lean and functional diplomatic machine that serves the President and, thereby, the American people.” Because the Senate has been extraordinarily lax in fulfilling its constitutional obligation to confirm presidential appointees, she recommends putting appointees into acting roles until such time as the Senate confirms them. Skinner writes that State should also stop skirting the Constitution’s trea- ty-making requirements and stop enforcing “agreements” as treaties. It should encourage more trade with allies, particularly with Great Britain, and less with adversaries. And it should implement a “sovereign Mexico” policy, as our neighbor “has functionally lost its sovereignty to muscular criminal cartels that effectively run the country.” In Africa, Skinner writes, the U.S. “should focus on core security, economic, and human rights” rather than impose radical abortion and pro-LGBT initiatives. Divisive symbols such as the rainbow flag or the Black Lives Matter flag have no place next to the Stars and Stripes at our embassies. When it comes to China, Skinner writes that “a policy of ‘compete where we must, but cooperate where we can’…has demonstrably failed.” The People’s Repub- lic of China’s (PRC) “aggressive behavior,” she writes, “can only be curbed through external pressure.” Efforts to protect or excuse China must stop. She observes, “[M]any were quick to dismiss even the possibility that COVID escaped from a Chinese research laboratory.” Meanwhile, Skinner writes, “[g]lobal leaders includ- ing President Joe Biden…have tried to normalize or even laud Chinese behavior.” She adds, “In some cases, these voices, like global corporate giants BlackRock and Disney”—or the National Basketball Association (NBA)—“directly benefit from doing business with Beijing.” Former vice president of the U.S. Agency for Global Media Mora Namdar writes in Chapter 8 that we need to have people working for USAGM who actually believe in America, rather than allowing the agencies to function as anti-American, tax- payer-funded entities that parrot our adversaries’ propaganda and talking points. Former acting deputy secretary of homeland security Ken Cuccinelli says in Chap- ter 5 that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), a creation of the George W. Bush era, should be closed, as it has added needless additional bureaucracy and expense without corresponding benefit. He recommends that it be replaced with a new “stand-alone border and immigration agency at the Cabinet level” and that the remaining parts of DHS be distributed among other departments. Former chief of staff for the director of National Intelligence Dustin Carmack writes in Chapter 7 that the U.S. Intelligence Community is too inclined to look in the rearview mirror, engage in “groupthink,” and employ an “overly cautious” approach aimed at personal approval rather than at offering the most accurate, unvarnished intelligence for the benefit of the country. And in Chapter 9, former acting deputy administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development Max
Introduction
— 42 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Constitution, art. II, § 1, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/ (accessed February 14, 2023). 2. U.S. Constitution, art. II, § 2. 3. U.S. Constitution, art. II, § 3. 4. U.S. Constitution, art. II, § 2. 5. See Chapter 2, “Executive Office of the President,” infra. 6. H.R. 4328, Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law No. 105- 277, 105th Congress, October 21, 1998, Division C, Title I, § 151, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ277/ PLAW-105publ277.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 7. S. 1871, An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, Public Law No. 76-252, 76th Congress, August 2, 1939, https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/53/STATUTE-53-Pg1147.pdf (accessed March 7, 2023). 8. S. 758, National Security Act of 1947, Public Law No. 80-253, 80th Congress, July 26, 1947, https://govtrackus. s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/61/STATUTE-61-Pg495.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). “The National Security Council was established by the National Security Act of 1947 (PL 235 – 61 Stat. 496; U.S.C. 402), amended by the National Security Act Amendments of 1949 (63 Stat. 579; 50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). Later in 1949, as part of the Reorganization Plan, the Council was placed in the Executive Office of the President.” The White House, “National Security Council,” https://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ (accessed February 15, 2023). 9. See Chapter 2, “Executive Office of the President,” infra. 10. President William J. Clinton, Executive Order 12835, “Establishment of the National Economic Council,” January 25, 1993, in Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 16 (January 27, 1993), pp. 6189–6190, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-1993-01-27/pdf/FR-1993-01-27.pdf (accessed March 7, 2023). — 43 — 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES Russ Vought In its opening words, Article II of the U.S. Constitution makes it abundantly clear that “[t]he executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”1 That enormous power is not vested in departments or agencies, in staff or administrative bodies, in nongovernmental organizations or other equities and interests close to the government. The President must set and enforce a plan for the executive branch. Sadly, however, a President today assumes office to find a sprawling federal bureaucracy that all too often is carrying out its own policy plans and preferences—or, worse yet, the policy plans and preferences of a radical, supposedly “woke” faction of the country. The modern conservative President’s task is to limit, control, and direct the executive branch on behalf of the American people. This challenge is created and exacerbated by factors like Congress’s decades-long tendency to delegate its lawmaking power to agency bureaucracies, the pervasive notion of expert “inde- pendence” that protects so-called expert authorities from scrutiny, the presumed inability to hold career civil servants accountable for their performance, and the increasing reality that many agencies are not only too big and powerful, but also increasingly weaponized against the public and a President who is elected by the people and empowered by the Constitution to govern. In Federalist No. 47, James Madison warned that “[t]he accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”2 Regrettably, that wise and cautionary note describes to a significant degree the modern executive branch, which—whether controlled
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
About These Correlations
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.