Rescissions Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/4
Last Updated: July 12, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Scalise, Steve [R-LA-1]

ID: S001176

Follow the money

The bill

Rescissions Act of 2025

HR. 4, 119th Congress — read as touching Print & Broadcast Media.

The sponsor

Rep. Scalise, Steve [R-LA-1]

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

The money

$4,428,500 raised

30 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. 223-225 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Became Public Law No: 119-28.

July 23, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

Passed Congress

Presidential Action

Became Law

📍 Current Status

This bill has become 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, folks! The Rescissions Act of 2025 is a beautifully crafted exercise in bureaucratic doublespeak, designed to make you think the government is actually doing something responsible with your money.

Let's get down to business. This bill rescinds a whopping $7.3 billion in unobligated balances from various programs and agencies. Sounds impressive, right? But don't be fooled – this is just a drop in the ocean of our national debt.

Breaking it down, we see that the biggest losers are:

* International Organizations: $1.2 billion in rescissions * Bilateral Economic Assistance: $4.3 billion in rescissions * Multilateral Assistance: $436 million in rescissions

Notable programs taking a hit include:

* Global Health Programs: $500 million in rescissions (but don't worry, HIV/AIDS and Tuberculosis funding is safe... for now) * Migration and Refugee Assistance: $800 million in rescissions (because who needs to help refugees, anyway?) * Complex Crises Fund: $43 million in rescissions (I guess we're not that interested in preventing global catastrophes after all)

Now, let's talk about the real story here. This bill is not about responsible budgeting or fiscal discipline; it's about politics and pork-barrel spending. The fact that they're rescinding unobligated balances from previous years just means they're trying to cover up their own incompetence.

And what about those "notable exceptions" in section 5? Ah, yes – the ones where they make sure to exempt certain programs from the rescissions? That's just a clever way of saying, "We're not actually serious about cutting spending; we just want to look like it."

As for fiscal impact and deficit implications, let's be real: this bill is a rounding error in the grand scheme of our national debt. It's a Band-Aid on a bullet wound.

In conclusion, the Rescissions Act of 2025 is a masterclass in legislative obfuscation. It's a cynical attempt to make voters think their elected officials are doing something responsible with taxpayer dollars. But don't be fooled – this bill is just another symptom of the disease that plagues our government: a complete and utter disregard for fiscal responsibility.

Diagnosis: Terminal case of bureaucratic doublespeak, with symptoms of incompetence, cowardice, and a healthy dose of hypocrisy. Prognosis: Poor. Treatment: A strong dose of transparency, accountability, and actual leadership (but don't hold your breath).

Related Topics

Human Rights & Global DevelopmentForeign Aid & Diplomacy
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Scalise, Steve [R-LA-1]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$4,428,500
25 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$77,750
Committees
$0
Individuals
$4,350,750

No PAC contributions found

1
AI ALTEP INVESTMENTS LLC
1 transaction
$50,000
2
TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA
2 transactions
$6,000
3
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
2 transactions
$4,950
4
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
5
CHICKASAW NATION
1 transaction
$3,300
6
COUSHATTA TRIVE OF LOUISIANA
1 transaction
$3,300
7
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
8
SAN MANUEL BANK OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$2,300
9
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000
10
AIRBOAT ADVENTURES LLC
1 transaction
$300

No committee contributions found

1
UIHLEIN, ELIZABETH A. MRS.
2 transactions
$594,800
2
UIHLEIN, RICHARD
2 transactions
$594,150
3
CHOUEST, GARY MR.
1 transaction
$300,700
4
COTTON, SEAN P.
1 transaction
$300,700
5
STEPHENS, WARREN A.
1 transaction
$300,700
6
HALE, ROBERT
1 transaction
$300,700
7
FAVRE, ART
1 transaction
$300,000
8
FLORY, DAVID
2 transactions
$300,000
9
HENDRICKS, DIANE MRS.
1 transaction
$260,500
10
DAVIS, JAMES S.
1 transaction
$250,000
11
SMITH, BOYD C.
1 transaction
$200,000
12
LOW, ROBERT E. MR.
1 transaction
$200,000
13
JOHNSON, H. FISK MR.
1 transaction
$173,500
14
CULVERHOUSE, HUGH F. MR. JR.
1 transaction
$150,000
15
CHILDS, JOHN
1 transaction
$125,000

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 5 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK-4]

ID: C001053

Top Contributors

10

1
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$52,900
Dec 8, 2023
2
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$46,300
Oct 21, 2024
3
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$25,000
Oct 21, 2024
4
SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationMT PLEASANT, MI
$5,000
Dec 26, 2024
5
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$5,000
May 13, 2024
6
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
May 13, 2024
7
ISBELL FARMS
OrganizationMUSCLE SHOALS, AL
$1,500
Sep 30, 2024
8
KANADY, MICHAEL C
ECHO • FOUNDER
IndividualNICHOLS HILLS, OK
$100,000
May 6, 2024
9
SPITZER, TERRY
GLOBAL TECHNICAL SYSTEMS • CEO
IndividualVIRGINIA BEACH, VA
$30,000
Jun 6, 2024
10
PEROT, ROSS MR. JR
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$13,200
Jun 3, 2024

Rep. Bean, Aaron [R-FL-4]

ID: B001314

Top Contributors

10

1
MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION
OrganizationOKMULGEE, OK
$1,000
Jul 29, 2024
2
DEMETREE, JAY
DEMETREE BROTHERS INC. • PRESIDENT
IndividualJACKSONVILLE, FL
$3,300
Oct 17, 2024
3
FALCONETTI, JOHN
DRUMMOND PRESS, INC. • GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS CO. CEO
IndividualJACKSONVILLE, FL
$3,300
Oct 27, 2024
4
MILLER, ALAN
COASTAL SPINE AND PAIN CENTER • PHYSICIAN
IndividualFERNANDINA BEACH, FL
$3,300
Oct 29, 2024
5
DAVIS, DOROTHY
JAGUAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. • TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO. CEO
IndividualSAINT AUGUSTINE, FL
$3,300
Nov 30, 2023
6
ELLER, J. SCOTT
THE MAYERNICK GROUP • GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
IndividualSARASOTA, FL
$3,300
Dec 22, 2023
7
FAISON, JAY W.
CLEARPATH FOUNDATION • OWNER
IndividualCHARLOTTE, NC
$3,300
Oct 31, 2023
8
GARDNER, WILLIAM D. JR.
W. GARDNER, LLC • CEO
IndividualFLEMING ISLAND, FL
$3,300
Nov 30, 2023
9
MAYERNICK, FRANK
THE MAYERNICK GROUP • GOVERNMENTAL CONSULTANT
IndividualTALLAHASSEE, FL
$3,300
Dec 22, 2023
10
SAPP, JUD JR.
N/A • RETIRED
IndividualORANGE PARK, FL
$3,300
Dec 11, 2023

Rep. Sessions, Pete [R-TX-17]

ID: S000250

Top Contributors

10

1
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$5,000
May 16, 2024
2
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$5,000
Sep 12, 2023
3
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Jun 17, 2024
4
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
May 24, 2023
5
ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE
OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX
$1,000
Sep 30, 2024
6
HOWARD, RONALD VANCE
BANKERS LIFE • MANAGEMENT
IndividualHUNTSVILLE, TX
$5,000
Mar 13, 2023
7
HOWARD, KAREN
ELEMENTS MASSAGE • MANAGEMENT
IndividualHUNTSVILLE, TX
$5,000
Mar 13, 2023
8
SINGH, PRITPAL
BETA SOFT SYSTEMS • MANAGEMENT
IndividualFREMONT, CA
$5,000
Jun 23, 2023
9
KAUR, MANJIT
SINGH SEMICONDUCTORS & SYSTEMS • MANAGEMENT
IndividualFREMONT, CA
$5,000
Jun 23, 2023
10
BEHRINGER, TODD
THE BEHRINGER GROUP, LLC • CONSTRUCTION
IndividualWOODWAY, TX
$3,400
Sep 1, 2023

Rep. Greene, Marjorie Taylor [R-GA-14]

ID: G000596

Top Contributors

10

1
PREWETT SERVICES LLC
OrganizationSOUTHAVEN, MS
$5,000
Jun 14, 2023
2
PREWETT SERVICES LLC
OrganizationSOUTHAVEN, MS
$1,700
Jun 14, 2023
3
THE WETZEL FAMILY TRUST
OrganizationLAS VEGAS, NV
$250
Jun 28, 2024
4
LUKE, DON MR
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualPHOENIX, AZ
$11,600
Mar 13, 2023
5
RADGOWSKI, STEVEN
IndividualNORTHPORT, NY
$7,300
Dec 31, 2023
6
HAHN, SAMUEL
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualFAIRVIEW HEIGHTS, IL
$6,600
Aug 30, 2024
7
ELLIOTT, BEVERLY B MS
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualMOUNT JULIET, TN
$6,600
Mar 16, 2023
8
MCMANUS, DEBORAH
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualLIVERMORE, CA
$6,600
Mar 18, 2023
9
FORSYTHE, GERALD R
INDECK ENERGY SERVICES • CEO
IndividualNAPLES, FL
$6,600
May 31, 2023
10
KNIGHT, JZ
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualYELM, WA
$6,600
May 24, 2023

Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1]

ID: M001213

Top Contributors

10

1
JLS HOLDINGS LLC
OrganizationSALT LAKE CITY, UT
$9,900
Jul 13, 2023
2
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,300
May 16, 2024
3
HEMMCO LLC
OrganizationOREM, UT
$2,500
Sep 15, 2023
4
R & O CONSTRUCTION
OrganizationOGDEN, UT
$2,500
Sep 13, 2023
5
PARKER, ALEXANDRA
APERCEN PARTNERS, LLC
IndividualPALO ALTO, CA
$6,600
Sep 20, 2024
6
PARKER, SEAN
APERCEN PARTNERS, LLC
IndividualPALO ALTO, CA
$6,600
Sep 20, 2024
7
KAUFMAN, TRENT
MGT • EXECUTIVE
IndividualHOLLADAY, UT
$6,600
Sep 9, 2024
8
MOORE, BRENT
SOLTIS ADVISORS • PARTNER
IndividualSALT LAKE CITY, UT
$6,000
Sep 26, 2024
9
MOORE, BRENT
SOLTIS ADVISORS • PARTNER
IndividualSALT LAKE CITY, UT
$6,000
Sep 26, 2024
10
CHANG, JASON
IndividualMENLO PARK, CA
$3,300
Oct 30, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Scalise, Steve [R-LA-1]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 77 nodes and 45 connections (74 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $4,596,250

Top Donors - Rep. Scalise, Steve [R-LA-1]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

10 Orgs15 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 harmed.

  • Section 2(b)(20)(A)-(B) rescinds amounts made available for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for fiscal years 2026 and 2027, which harms public broadcasters and related media entities.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Scalise, Steve [R-LA-1])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.

Industries this bill HARMS

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: 64%
Pages: 223-225AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill directly reduces funding to international organizations and includes policy riders that restrict family planning and reproductive health spending, aligning with Project 2025's goal to end blind support for ineffective multilateral institutions and to prohibit U.S. funds from promoting abortion or population control."

Key themes:funding cuts to international organizationsrestrictions on family planning/reproductive healtemphasis on sovereign interestsopposition to ineffective multilateral programsfiscal savings via rescissions

— 191 — Department of State nations, but it is not the only option—and American diplomats should be clear- eyed about international organizations’ strengths and weaknesses. When such institutions act against U.S. interests, the United States must be prepared to take appropriate steps in response, up to and including withdrawal. The manifest failure and corruption of the World Health Organization (WHO) during the COVID-19 pandemic is an example of the danger that international organizations pose to U.S. citizens and interests. The next Administration must end blind support for international organi- zations. If an international organization is effective and advances American interests, the United States should support it. If an international organization is ineffective or does not support American interests, the United States should not support it. Those that are effective will still require constant pressure from U.S. officials to ensure that they remain effective. Serious consideration should also be given to withdrawal from organizations that no longer have value, quietly undermine U.S. interests or goals, or disproportionately rely on U.S. financial con- tributions to survive. The Trump Administration’s “tough love” approach to international organiza- tions served American interests. For example, the Trump Administration withdrew from, or terminated funding for, the United Nations Human Rights Council, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, and the WHO. The results were redeployment of taxpayer dollars to better uses—and other organizations “getting the message” that the United States will not allow itself and its money to be used to undermine its own interests. The Biden Administration reversed many of these decisions. Currently, U.S. funding for international organizations is more than $16 billion in fiscal year 2021—a sharp increase from $10.8 billion in fiscal year 2015.19 Millions of American taxpayer dollars go to support policies and initiatives that hurt the United States and American citizens. The next Administration should direct the Secretary of State to initiate a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of U.S. participation in all international organizations. This review should take into account long-standing provisions in federal law that prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars to promote abortion, popu- lation control, and terrorist activities, as well as other applicable restrictions on funding for international organizations and agencies with a view to withholding U.S. funds in cases of abuses. International organizations should not be used to promote radical social pol- icies as if they were human rights priorities. Doing so undermines actual human rights and weakens U.S. credibility abroad. The next Administration should use its voice, influence, votes, and funding in international organizations to pro- mote authentic human rights and respect for sovereignty based on the binding — 192 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise international obligations contained in treaties that have been constitutionally ratified by the U.S. government. It must promote a strict text-based interpreta- tion of treaty obligations that does not consider human rights treaties as “living instruments” both within the State Department and within international organi- zations that receive U.S. funding, including by making respect for sovereignty and authentic human rights a litmus test of personnel decisions and elections processes within international organizations. The U.S. Commission on Unalienable Human Rights focused on the primacy of civil and political rights in its inaugural report, which remains an important guidepost for bilateral and multilateral engagements on human rights. The com- mission’s report is a roadmap for revamping and reenergizing U.S. human rights policy and should be the basis for both structural and policy changes throughout the State Department.20 All U.S. multilateral engagements must be reevaluated in light of the work of the commission, and initiatives that promote controversial policies must be halted and rolled back. It is paramount to create a healthy culture of respect for life, the family, sover- eignty, and authentic human rights in international organizations and agencies. To support this goal, the U.S. led an effort during the Trump Administration to forge a consensus among like-minded countries in support of human life, women’s health, support of the family as the basic unit of human society, and defense of national sovereignty. The result was the Geneva Consensus Declaration on Women’s Health and Protection of the Family.21 All U.S. foreign policy engagements that were pro- duced and expanded under the Obama and Biden Administrations must be aligned with the Geneva Consensus Declaration and the work of the U.S. Commission on Unalienable Human Rights. The U.S. government should not and cannot promote or fund abortion in inter- national programs or multilateral organizations. Technically, the United States can prevent its international funding from going toward abortions, but the U.S. will have a greater impact by including like-minded nations and building on the coali- tion launched through the Geneva Consensus Declaration, with a view to shaping the work of international agencies by functioning as a united front. The COVID-19 pandemic made it painfully clear that both international organi- zations—and some countries—are only too willing to trample human rights in the name of public health. For example, the WHO was, and remains, willing to support the suppression of basic human rights, partially because of its close relationship with human rights abusers like the PRC. The next Administration should unequivocally embrace the premise that humanity and the international community can simultaneously tackle pandem- ics and other emergent health threats without impeding the rights of people. It must also become a vocal surrogate for people in countries where rights are being suppressed in the name of health. This will likely require greater restrictions on

Agency for International Development

Strong
Vector: 63%
Pages: 294-296AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's goal of restricting U.S. foreign aid from supporting abortion-related activities by including policy provisions that restrict the use of rescinded funds for family planning and reproductive health programs, while exempting certain global health initiatives. This reflects an effort to close loopholes in pro-life foreign aid policy, consistent with the Project 2025 objective of expanding protections like PLGHA across all foreign assistance."

Key themes:abortion funding restrictionsforeign aid policypro-life executive actionUSAID oversightloophole closure

— 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

Agency for International Development

Strong
Vector: 63%
Pages: 312-314AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's goal of realigning U.S. foreign assistance with national interests by rescinding funds from international programs and imposing restrictions on family planning and reproductive health, reflecting ideological priorities such as 'Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance.' It also supports oversight and accountability mechanisms consistent with appointing a Senior Accountable Official to monitor adherence to administration policy priorities."

Key themes:Protecting Life in Foreign Assistancefunding rescissionsideological oversightforeign aid realignmentaccountability mechanisms

— 279 — Agency for International Development clearances, and other components of the hiring process that are necessary for immediate onboarding while coordinating with the White House to bring in new appointees and make internal career employee changes. On Day One, USAID should halt all agencywide training and replace it with training modules to advance the President’s agenda. The Administration should appoint a Senior Accountable Official (SAO) to report on the agency’s adherence to Administration policy priorities, including on Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance, critical race theory, climate change, gender, and diversity and inclusion. It should also create a program to staff hard-to-fill positions overseas. Finally, the Administration should create a recruiting program for veterans and other groups to participate in career job opportunities at USAID. Former mis- sionaries, veterans, members of diasporas, and faith community stakeholders with overseas experience should be recruited to work at USAID on Schedule A appoint- ments, as Institutional Services Contractors, as Personal Services Contractors, and as Foreign Service Officers. CONCLUSION The next conservative Administration will have a unique opportunity to realign U.S. foreign assistance with American national interests and the principles of good governance and more accurately reflect the U.S. taxpayer’s unmatched charita- ble desire to help those in need. It can build on a strong baseline of conservative reforms undertaken by the Trump Administration to counter Communist China’s strategy of world domination. However, this will require that bold steps are taken on Day One to undo the gross misuse of foreign aid by the current Administration to promote a radical ideology that is politically divisive at home and harms our global standing. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume, but Dr. William Steiger, Bethany Kozma, and Dr. Alma Golden deserve special mention. The author assumes full responsibility for the content of this chapter, and no views expressed therein should be attributed to any other individual. — 280 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. S. 1983, Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, Public Law No. 87-195, 87th Congress, September 4, 1961, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-75/pdf/STATUTE-75-Pg424-2.pdf (accessed January 19, 2023). 2. U.S. Agency or International Development, “Journey to Self-Reliance Fact Sheet,” June 3, 2020, https://2017-2020.usaid.gov/documents/1870/journey-self-reliance-fact-sheet#:~:text=WHAT%20 IS%20THE%20JOURNEY%20TO%20SELF-RELIANCE%3F%20USAID%20is,greater%20 developmentoutcomesandworktowardatimewhenforeignassistanceisnolongernecessary.%20 It%E2%80%99s%20called%20the%20Journey%20to%20Self-Reliance (accessed March 17, 2023). 3. News release, “U.S. Agency for International Development Administrator Mark Green’s Interview with C-Span’s ‘Newsmakers’ Host Susan Swain and Washington Post’s Carl Morello and Wall Street Journal’s Ben Kesling,” U.S. Agency for International Development, November 26, 2018, https://2017-2020.usaid.gov/news- information/press-releases/nov-26-2018-administrator-mark-green-interview-cspan-newsmakers (accessed March 17, 2023). 4. U.S. Agency for International Development, Digital Strategy 2020–2024, https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/ files/2022-05/USAID_Digital_Strategy.pdf.pdf://www.usaid.gov/digital-development/usaid-digital-strategy (accessed March 17, 2023). 5. “U.S. Strategic Framework for the Indo-Pacific,” declassified in part by Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Robert C. O’Brien, January 5, 2021, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp- content/uploads/2021/01/IPS-Final-Declass.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023), and Robert C. O’Brien, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, “A Free and Open Indo-Pacific,” January 5, 2021, https:// trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/OBrien-Expanded-Statement.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 6. News Release, “Fact Sheet: Prioritizing Climate in Foreign Policy and National Security,” The White House, October 21, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/10/21/fact-sheet- prioritizing-climate-in-foreign-policy-and-national-security/ (accessed January 28, 2023). 7. U.S. Agency for International Development, Climate Strategy 2020–2030, April 2022, https://www.usaid.gov/ sites/default/files/2022-11/USAID-Climate-Strategy-2022-2030.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 8. Adva Saldinger, “USAID Steps Up ‘Languishing’ Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Effort,” Devex.com, December 15, 2021, http://www.devex.com/news/usaid-steps-up-languishing-diversity-equity-and-inclusion- effort-102316 (accessed January 28, 2021). 9. U.S. Agency for International Development, “Gender Equity and Women Empowerment,” https://www.usaid. gov/gender-equality-and-womens-empowerment (accessed January 30, 2023). 10. U.S. Agency for International Development, “Integrating Gender Equality and Female Empowerment in USAID’s Program Cycle,” ADS Chapter 25, partial revision date January 22, 2021, https://www.usaid.gov/sites/ default/files/2022-12/205.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 11. S. 137, Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance Act, 117th Congress, introduced January 28, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/137#:~:text=Protecting%20Life%20in%20Foreign%20 Assistance%20Act.%20This%20bill,support%20for%20an%20entity%20that%20conducts%20 such%20activities (accessed January 20, 2023), and H.R. 534, Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance Act, 117th Congress, introduced January 28, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house- bill/534?s=1&r=450 (accessed January 20, 2023). 12. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., “Memorandum on Protecting Women’s Health at Home and Abroad,” Memorandum for the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, The White House, January 28, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/28/memorandum- on-protecting-womens-health-at-home-and-abroad/ (accessed March 18, 2023). 13. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13926, “Advancing International Religious Freedom,” June 2, 2020, in Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 109 (June 5, 2020), pp. 34951–34953, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2020-06-05/pdf/2020-12430.pdf (accessed January 20, 2023). 14. 22 Code of Federal Regulations § 205.1, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-22/chapter-II/part-205 (accessed March 18, 2023). 15. Contributor’s notes from internal USAID meetings.

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