No New Burma Funds Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/4423

Last Updated: July 17, 2026

No New Burma Funds Act

HR. 4423, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Rep. Williams, Nikema [D-GA-5]

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

The money

$79,400 raised

22 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

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

December 1, 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

Summary Style:

The No New Burma Funds Act (HR 4423). A bill that, on the surface, appears to be a moralistic gesture aimed at penalizing the Burmese government for its alleged transgressions. But let's not be naive – this is merely a thinly veiled attempt to exert control over the global financial landscape.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to continue the pause on disbursements and new financing commitments to the Government of Burma, effectively strangling their access to international funding. This move is ostensibly designed to pressure the Burmese government into conforming to Western standards of democracy and human rights.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill instructs the Secretary of the Treasury to direct the US Executive Director at the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development to maintain the pause on disbursements and new financing commitments to Burma. This provision effectively gives the US government a veto power over international financial transactions involving Burma.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The most obvious affected parties are the Burmese government and its people, who will face increased economic hardship as a result of this bill. However, the real stakeholders here are the global financial institutions and corporations that operate in Burma. This bill sends a clear message to these entities: conform to our standards, or risk being cut off from international funding.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The implications of this bill are far-reaching. By exerting control over international financing, the US government is effectively consolidating its power and influence over global economic systems. This move will have a chilling effect on foreign investment in Burma, driving out competition and creating opportunities for US-based corporations to fill the void.

From my perspective, as a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, this bill represents a prime opportunity for strategic maneuvering. By positioning ourselves at the forefront of this new economic landscape, we can capitalize on the uncertainty and consolidate our market share.

In conclusion, HR 4423 is not about promoting democracy or human rights; it's about asserting control over the global financial system. And as a master strategist, I will be watching closely to see how this bill unfolds – and how I can leverage its implications to further my own interests.

Projected impact on my business empire: +$500 million in increased market share and revenue growth over the next 5 years.

Recommendation: Support HR 4423, but only if it serves our interests. If not, we will need to reassess our strategy and consider alternative means of achieving our objectives.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

Let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through several stages before it can be enacted. This one, HR 4423, is no exception.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to continue the pause on disbursements and new financing commitments to the Government of Burma (also known as Myanmar). Remember when we learned about the importance of checks and balances in our government? This bill is an example of Congress exercising its authority over foreign policy.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to instruct the US Executive Director at the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) to continue the pause on disbursements and new financing commitments to Burma. This pause was initiated after a military coup in 2021, which overthrew the democratically elected government. The bill essentially extends this pause unless the Secretary of the Treasury determines it's not in the national interest.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include the Government of Burma, the IBRD, and potentially other international organizations or countries that have dealings with Burma. As we discussed in class, bills can have far-reaching consequences for various stakeholders, including governments, businesses, and individuals.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If this bill becomes law, it could impact US foreign policy towards Burma and potentially influence the country's relations with other nations. The pause on disbursements and new financing commitments may also affect Burma's economic development and stability. As I emphasized in class, laws can have unintended consequences, so it's essential to consider the potential effects of this bill.

Now, let's review how this bill has progressed through Congress so far. It was introduced by Representative Williams of Georgia on July 15, 2025, and referred to the Committee on Financial Services. After some amendments, it was reported out of committee and committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. As we learned in civics class, this is a crucial step towards becoming a law.

I hope this summary helps you understand the basics of this bill. It's essential to stay informed about our government's actions, especially when it comes to foreign policy and international relations.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on HR 4423, and let me tell you, it's a doozy. On the surface, this bill appears to be about freezing funds to Burma (or Myanmar, if you will) due to their military coup in 2021. But, my friends, that's just the tip of the iceberg.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The official narrative claims this bill aims to continue the pause on World Bank disbursements and new financing commitments to the Burmese government. Sounds noble, right? But what if I told you it's actually a clever ruse to further entrench American interests in Southeast Asia?

Think about it: by withholding funds, we're essentially strong-arming Burma into submission. It's a classic case of economic coercion, folks! The real objective here is to maintain our grip on the region and prevent any potential rivals from emerging.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill gives the Secretary of the Treasury carte blanche to dictate US policy at the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. That's right; one person gets to decide whether or not Burma receives funding, based solely on their interpretation of what's in our "national interest." Talk about a power grab!

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The Burmese government is the obvious target here, but don't be fooled – this bill has far-reaching implications for other nations and international organizations. The World Bank, for instance, will have to toe the line or risk facing American wrath.

And let's not forget about the poor Burmese people themselves. By withholding funds, we're essentially crippling their economy and perpetuating a humanitarian crisis. It's a classic case of "we're helping them by hurting them."

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill sets a disturbing precedent for US foreign policy. If we can unilaterally dictate funding to one country, what's to stop us from doing the same to others? It's a slippery slope, folks!

Furthermore, this move will only serve to drive Burma further into the arms of China and other rival nations. Mark my words: this bill is a recipe for disaster, and we'll be reaping the consequences for years to come.

Now, I know what you're thinking – "But Uncle, this all sounds so...conspiratorial!" Ah, that's exactly what they want you to think! Wake up, sheeple! The truth is out there; you just have to connect the dots.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round. We've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. The No New Burma Funds Act - sounds like a real page-turner, doesn't it? (smirk)

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill is all about "continuing the pause" on disbursements and new financing commitments to the Government of Burma. Now, I know what you're thinking: "Burma"? Isn't that just a fancy name for Myanmar? (wink) Yes, it is! And our brave lawmakers are taking a stand against... well, not exactly sure who or what, but they're taking a stand!

The main objective here is to keep the World Bank from giving any more money to Burma's government. Why? Because of that pesky military coup in 2021, of course! (dramatic music plays) Our heroes in Congress are fighting for freedom and democracy... by withholding funds from a country that's already been sanctioned up the wazoo.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill instructs the Secretary of the Treasury to tell the US Executive Director at the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (try saying that three times fast) to keep blocking those pesky disbursements. Unless, of course, it's not in our national interest to do so. (air quotes) "National interest" - code for "we'll do what we want, when we want."

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** Well, this one's a no-brainer: the Government of Burma is the big loser here. But let's be real, folks; they're not exactly swimming in cash to begin with. The real stakeholders are our brave lawmakers, who get to grandstand about freedom and democracy while doing... well, not much of anything concrete.

**Potential Impact & Implications** Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But wait, isn't this just a symbolic gesture?" (smirk) Ah, yes! It's all about sending a message - a message that says, "We care about freedom and democracy... unless it's inconvenient or expensive." The real impact here is on our national reputation: we get to look like champions of liberty while doing the bare minimum.

In conclusion, folks, this bill is a masterclass in performative politics. Our lawmakers are fighting for freedom, one symbolic gesture at a time! (applause) Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some important freedom-fighting to attend to... or at least, some tweets to write about it.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce and expose the underlying disease.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The No New Burma Funds Act (HR 4423) is a thinly veiled attempt to appear tough on human rights while actually doing nothing meaningful. The bill's primary objective is to continue the pause on disbursements and new financing commitments to the Government of Burma, which was initiated after the military coup in 2021. Wow, what a bold move – continuing a pause that already exists. I'm sure the Burmese government is shaking in its boots.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to continue the pause on World Bank disbursements and commitments to Burma unless it's deemed not in the national interest. Oh, what a clever loophole! This provision essentially gives the administration carte blanche to do whatever it wants while pretending to care about human rights.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved: politicians looking for a PR boost, lobbyists pushing their agendas, and voters who will likely remain blissfully ignorant of the bill's true intentions. The Burmese government might be slightly inconvenienced, but let's not pretend this bill will actually impact their behavior.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The real impact of this bill is zero. It's a symbolic gesture designed to appease human rights activists and give politicians a talking point for their next campaign speech. The Burmese government will continue to do as it pleases, and the World Bank will likely find ways to circumvent the pause.

Now, let's diagnose the underlying disease:

* **Symptom:** A meaningless bill that accomplishes nothing. * **Disease:** Congressional cowardice and a desire for cheap PR points. * **Treatment:** None. This is a terminal case of legislative incompetence.

In conclusion, HR 4423 is a masterclass in doing nothing while appearing to do something. It's a perfect example of the cynical games politicians play to maintain their grip on power. And we, the voters, are complicit in this farce by electing these charlatans time and again. Bravo, America!

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

**No New Burma Funds Act (HR 4423)**

**Main Purpose and Objectives:** The No New Burma Funds Act aims to continue the pause on disbursements and new financing commitments to the Government of Burma by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, also known as the World Bank. The bill seeks to maintain pressure on the Burmese government following a military coup in 2021 that overthrew the democratically elected government.

**Key Provisions and Changes to Existing Law:** The bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to instruct the United States Executive Director at the World Bank to continue the pause on disbursements and new financing commitments to Burma, unless it is determined not to be in the national interest. This provision builds upon existing measures taken by the international community to respond to the Burmese military coup.

**Affected Parties and Stakeholders:**

* The Government of Burma * The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank) * The United States Executive Director at the World Bank * The Secretary of the Treasury * Human rights organizations and advocacy groups focused on Burma

**Potential Impact and Implications:** The bill's passage could have several implications:

1. **Continued pressure on the Burmese government**: By maintaining the pause on disbursements and new financing commitments, the international community can continue to apply pressure on the Burmese government to restore democracy and respect human rights. 2. **Limited access to international funding**: The bill may limit Burma's access to international funding, potentially hindering the country's economic development and exacerbating humanitarian challenges. 3. **Signal of US commitment to democracy and human rights**: The legislation demonstrates the United States' commitment to promoting democracy and human rights in Burma and around the world.

Overall, the No New Burma Funds Act is a targeted measure aimed at supporting democratic values and human rights in Burma by limiting international financial support to the country's government.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this bill like we're catchin' some gnarly waves, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The No New Burma Funds Act (HR 4423) is all about keepin' the financial taps closed for the Government of Burma, dude. The main goal is to continue the pause on disbursements and new financing commitments from the World Bank to Burma's government. This pause was initially triggered by a military coup in 2021 that overthrew the democratically elected government.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to tell the US Executive Director at the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) to keep votin' against any new funding or disbursements to Burma's government. This means no fresh cash from the World Bank, bro. The only way this pause gets lifted is if the Secretary of the Treasury decides it's in the national interest.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The main players here are:

* The Government of Burma: They're the ones gettin' cut off from new funding and disbursements. * The World Bank (IBRD): They're the ones makin' the decisions on who gets funded, and they'll be keepin' the pause in place. * The US Treasury Department: They're callin' the shots on whether to lift the pause or not.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill's got some serious implications, bro. By keepin' the financial taps closed, it:

* Puts pressure on Burma's government to shape up and respect democracy. * Helps prevent World Bank funds from supportin' authoritarian regimes. * Sends a message that the US is committed to human rights and democratic values.

However, there are also potential downsides, dude. This pause could hurt the Burmese people who rely on international aid for basic needs like food, healthcare, and education.

In conclusion, this bill's all about keepin' it real with Burma's government, bro. It's a chill way to say, "Hey, respect democracy or no new cash for you." But we gotta be aware of the potential impact on the people who need help the most.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 4423: No New Burma Funds Act - A Bill with Hidden Motivations**

The No New Burma Funds Act, introduced by Rep. Williams of Georgia and cosponsored by Reps. Kim, De La Cruz, and Kennedy of New York, aims to continue the pause on disbursements and new financing commitments to the Government of Burma. On the surface, this bill appears to be a straightforward response to the 2021 military coup in Burma. However, upon closer examination, it reveals a complex web of interests and motivations.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 4423 is to maintain pressure on the Burmese government by withholding international financial assistance. This move is ostensibly intended to promote democracy and human rights in the region.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to instruct the US Executive Director at the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) to continue the pause on disbursements and new financing commitments to Burma. This provision effectively extends a policy initiated after the 2021 coup, which was meant to be temporary.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill's provisions will primarily impact:

1. The Government of Burma, which will face continued financial pressure. 2. International organizations, such as the IBRD, which will need to adjust their lending policies accordingly. 3. Human rights groups and democracy advocates, who may view this move as a positive step towards promoting reform in Burma.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** While HR 4423 appears to be a principled response to human rights concerns, it also raises questions about the motivations behind its introduction. A closer look at the sponsors' donor records reveals that Rep. Williams has received significant funding from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a non-profit organization with ties to the US government and a history of promoting democracy initiatives worldwide.

Furthermore, the bill's cosponsors have also received donations from various special interest groups, including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Human Rights Campaign. While these connections do not necessarily imply direct influence, they suggest that the sponsors may be responding to pressure from powerful interest groups rather than solely driven by a desire to promote human rights in Burma.

In conclusion, HR 4423 is a bill with complex motivations and potential implications. While its surface-level objective appears noble, it is essential to consider the underlying interests and influences driving this legislation. As the bill moves forward, it will be crucial to monitor its progress and assess whether it truly serves the interests of promoting democracy and human rights in Burma or merely advances the agendas of powerful special interest groups.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Williams, Nikema [D-GA-5]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$79,400

17 donors

PACs

Organizations

$6,300

Committees

Individuals

$73,100

No PAC contributions found

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,000

No committee contributions found

ZALIK, HELEN

2 transactions

$9,900

ZALIK, DAVID

2 transactions

$9,900

GLUSTROM, ROBERT

2 transactions

$6,600

RADOW, LINDA

2 transactions

$6,600

RADOW, NORMAN

2 transactions

$6,600

ENGEL, ILENE

1 transaction

$3,800

BRYSON, JAN PRISBY

1 transaction

$3,300

ANDERSON, DARRELL

1 transaction

$3,300

REED, MOHAMMED K.

1 transaction

$3,300

GOLDMAN, ANGELA

1 transaction

$3,300

GOLDMAN, AARON

1 transaction

$3,300

MARKS, DANIEL

1 transaction

$3,300

LEVOW, ALAN D

1 transaction

$3,300

MATALON, DANIEL

1 transaction

$3,300

WALKER, KENT

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Kim, Young [R-CA-40]

ID: K000397

Top Contributors

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Dec 21, 2023

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Jul 28, 2023

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Jul 28, 2023

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF NORTH DAKOTA

OrganizationBELCOURT, ND

$3,300

Jul 28, 2023

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Sep 30, 2024

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Jul 25, 2024

AT&T INC & ITS AFFLIATES

OrganizationSACRAMENTO, CA

$3,000

Mar 5, 2024

ABBVIE PAC - FEDERAL PAC

OrganizationSACRAMENTO, CA

$2,500

Sep 30, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$2,300

Oct 25, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$2,000

Oct 28, 2024

Rep. De La Cruz, Monica [R-TX-15]

ID: D000594

Top Contributors

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$3,300

Aug 29, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$3,300

Aug 29, 2024

ALABAMA- COUSHATTA TRIBE

OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX

$1,000

Oct 16, 2024

ADKINS, JAMES

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualHUNTINGTON, WV

$6,600

Oct 24, 2024

MOUSSEAU, RAYMOND

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualCROSWELL, MI

$6,600

Jun 2, 2024

DILAMANI, EDWARD

AGC • BUSINESSMAN

IndividualGREAT NECK, NY

$6,600

Jul 8, 2024

EMIG, SUELLEN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualFREEDOM, PA

$6,600

Sep 29, 2024

STEWART, FORREST

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualDESOTO, IL

$6,534

Feb 13, 2024

SPECHT, VIVIAN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualLYMAN, NE

$5,940

Aug 7, 2024

CERDA, JULIO

S TEXAS INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP • PARTNER

IndividualMISSION, TX

$5,000

Oct 25, 2024

Rep. Kennedy, Timothy M. [D-NY-26]

ID: K000402

Top Contributors

SENECA NATION OF INDIANS

OrganizationSALAMANCA, NY

$3,300

Apr 16, 2024

SENECA NATION OF INDIANS

OrganizationSALAMANCA, NY

$3,300

Jan 25, 2024

O'BRIEN, CHRISTOPHER

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualBUFFALO, NY

$5,000

Oct 29, 2024

RECHLER, SCOTT H.

RXR REALTY, LLC • CHAIRMAN

IndividualUNIONDALE, NY

$5,000

Jun 17, 2024

FROMEN, JOHN J. JR

SELF EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY

IndividualBUFFALO, NY

$5,000

Aug 8, 2024

RECHLER, SCOTT H.

IndividualUNIONDALE, NY

$5,000

Jul 29, 2024

FROMEN, JOHN J. JR

IndividualBUFFALO, NY

$3,400

Sep 30, 2024

LOGOTHETIS, GEORGE

LIBRA GROUP • EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Oct 30, 2024

SIMON, BRIAN W.

HOLLIS PUBLIC AFFAIRS, INC. • GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Nov 25, 2024

LO, WILLIAM

CRYSTAL STEEL FABRICATORS, INC. • CEO

IndividualNEWTOWN SQUARE, PA

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Williams, Nikema [D-GA-5]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 60 nodes and 31 connections (58 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $108,500

Top Donors - Rep. Williams, Nikema [D-GA-5]

Showing top 17 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs15 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: 61%

Pages: 223-225AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's call to condition U.S. support for international organizations on their alignment with American interests and values, particularly by using U.S. influence at the World Bank to pressure Burma's military junta and uphold human rights and sovereignty principles."

Key themes:conditional international fundingU.S. influence in multilateral institutionshuman rights promotionsovereigntyopposition to authoritarian regimes

— 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

Moderate

Vector: 62%

Pages: 300-302AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's goal of reducing aid that sustains malign regimes by maintaining financial pressure on Burma's military junta, reflecting a shared concern about aid enabling harmful actors. However, the bill focuses narrowly on Burma and World Bank lending, whereas Project 2025 calls for broad USAID reform, local partner empowerment, and private-sector leveraging across multiple contexts."

Key themes:aid accountabilitypreventing aid diversion to malign actorsconditioning assistance on political changereducing reliance on inefficient international inspromoting sustainable alternatives to aid dependen

— 268 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise In effect, humanitarian aid is sustaining war economies, creating financial incentives for warring parties to continue fighting, discouraging governments from reforming, and propping up malign regimes. Nefarious actors reap billions of dollars in profits from diversions of our human- itarian assistance, but so do international organizations. The WFP charges 36 percent in overhead while Oxfam International’s overhead has reached 70 percent in Yemen, reflecting the high costs of foreign staff, security, and logistics. With pow- erful lobbies in Washington, D.C., and in leadership positions throughout USAID and the Department of State, the aid industry adroitly exploits Congress’s dispo- sition to increase funding year on year to assist those in dire need but provides no evidence to justify the mounting budget requests. In 2020, USAID’s leadership fused formerly bifurcated food and nonfood emergency relief operations into a single Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance to improve the management of the agency’s largest portfolio, but this reform was not sufficient to address the problem. The next Administration should resize and repurpose USAID’s humanitarian aid portfolio to restore its original purpose of providing emergency short-term relief, prepare vulnerable communities for tran- sition, and do no harm in the following ways: l Work with Congress to make deep cuts in the IDA budget by ending programs that do more harm than good in places controlled by malign actors, such as in Yemen, Syria, and Afghanistan, where our aid is consumed by fraud, diversion, and partner overhead costs. l Require USAID and the State Department to devise country-based exit strategies that term-limit the duration of humanitarian responses and transition funding from emergency to development projects. This will require robust diplomacy to press host governments to integrate displaced persons in lieu of keeping them in expensive and dehumanizing camps financed by the international community. l Transition from large awards to expensive, inefficient, and corrupt U.N. agencies, global NGOs, and contractors to local, especially faith-based, entities that are already operating on the ground. This approach provides a far less expensive and more effective alternative for aid delivery. Local partners more ably navigate corrupt environments and are more likely to steer vulnerable populations away from dependence on aid toward self-sufficiency. l Require that BHA avail itself of existing IDA authorities that it fails to use, including to dispense with the cost-reimbursement model that disqualifies — 269 — Agency for International Development undercapitalized local NGOs; accept other donor vetting of local partners; streamline the award-approval process; and expand the use of fixed-amount awards to rein in cost overruns. l Direct USAID’s Bureau for Management to hire more procurement officers for BHA to strengthen the Bureau’s award management capacity and reduce the incentives to issue large awards to aid industry giants. l Allow BHA to manage the process of hiring Personal Services Contractors. l Require BHA’s partners to adopt stricter vetting procedures to prevent aid from being diverted to terrorists. l Increase efforts to obtain greater contributions, not just pledges, for humanitarian operations from other donors and make this a condition for receiving additional U.S. aid. Leveraging Foreign Aid to Unleash the Power of America’s Private Sector. During the 1960s, when USAID was launched, 80 percent of financial flows from the United States to the developing world was in the form of U.S. government assistance. Today, that figure is under 10 percent, overtaken by private investment, remittances, and private charities, all demonstrating the power of America’s pri- vate sector to promote wealth-generating economic development in poor countries. Leaders in the developing world routinely press U.S. officials about their preference for “trade and investment, not aid.” Instead, the Biden Administration is leveraging private-sector financing to promote its climate and other progressive agendas worldwide. The next conser- vative Administration must return USAID to a foreign aid model that leverages its resources to promote private-sector solutions to the world’s true development problems and end the need for future foreign aid. Private capital investment in these markets is the greatest enabler of job creation and sustainable economic growth throughout the developing world. A key tool of American soft-power leadership is the U.S. Development Finance Corporation (DFC). Launched in December 2019, DFC sought to unleash the power of America’s private sector to advance our interests by providing emerging markets with blended financing opportunities to help end wretched poverty, create new markets for U.S.-made products, strengthen bilateral partnerships in strategic parts of the world, and offset China’s predatory loans and investments. The Trump Administration launched a USAID–DFC Working Group to maximize development outcomes and review individual investment projects through a counter-China lens and ensure a cohesive interagency development response.

Agency for International Development

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 294-296AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on suspending World Bank financing to Burma to pressure the military junta, while the Project 2025 excerpt concerns USAID pro-life policies and international religious freedom; both involve conditioning foreign aid on U.S. values, but their substantive topics differ significantly."

Key themes:foreign aid conditioninghuman rights/democracy promotionU.S. foreign policy leverage

Agency for International Development

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 294-296AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on maintaining a pause on World Bank financing to Burma to pressure the military regime, whereas the Project 2025 USAID section emphasizes pro-life policy, international religious freedom, and procurement reform; they share only a broad theme of using U.S. influence over foreign assistance."

Key themes:foreign assistanceUS executive influenceinternational financial institutions

— 261 — Agency for International Development illuminated another loophole in the policy’s effectiveness in safeguarding U.S. tax- payer dollars from being used to promote abortion. Pro-abortion groups also have received funds under other categories of foreign aid that fall outside the scope of global health assistance, including women-related and economic assistance programs. Members of Congress have advocated closing these loopholes by extending PLGHA to all foreign assistance through the Protect- ing Life in Foreign Assistance Act, sponsored by Senator Mike Lee (R–UT) and Representative Virginia Foxx (R–NC).11 Current law in the Foreign Assistance Act gives the President broad authority to set “such terms and conditions as he may determine” on foreign assistance, which legally empowers the next conservative President to expand this pro-life policy. To stop U.S. foreign aid from supporting the global abortion industry, the next conservative Administration should issue an executive order that, at a minimum, reinstates PLGHA and summarily blocks funding to UNFPA but also closes loop- holes by applying the policy to all foreign assistance, including humanitarian aid, and improving its enforcement. The executive order to reinstate PLGHA should be drafted broadly to apply to all foreign assistance. It should simultaneously rescind President Biden’s memorandum entitled “Protecting Women’s Health at Home and Abroad,” issued on January 28, 2021.12 The new pro-life executive order should apply to foreign NGOs, including subgrantees and subcontractors, and remove exemptions for U.S.-based NGOs, public international organizations, and bilateral government-to-government agreements. All entities funded by USAID, both directly and indirectly, should report their compliance with the PLGHA, and USAID should institute penalties, including debarment from future federal funding, for violations of it. The new executive order also should instruct the Administrator of USAID to publish reports on implementation of the PLGHA by both prime and sub-prime recipients. In addition, the Helms Amendment should continue to be applied, as it has been by both Republican and Democratic Administrations for more than 50 years, as a complete ban on the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions abroad. International Religious Freedom. Conservatives believe international religious freedom is central to USAID’s development efforts. President Trump’s Executive Order 13926 on “Advancing International Religious Freedom”13 instructed the Secretary of State, in consultation with the USAID Administrator, to budget at least $50 million a year for programs that advance international reli- gious freedom and “ensure that faith-based and religious entities, including eligible entities in foreign countries, are not discriminated against on the basis of religious identity or religious belief when competing for Federal funding.” Under the Trump Administration, the agency set up a senior-level Chief Adviser for International Religious Freedom who reported directly to the Administra- tor with the task of coordinating a “whole-of-USAID” approach to achieving this — 262 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise priority. It created a robust genocide-response capability. USAID affirmed the agency’s partnerships with faith-based organizations through its rule on “Partic- ipation by Religious Organizations in USAID Programs;”14 “Partnership Guidance and Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for Faith Based Organizations;” and “Legal Guidance and Answers to FAQs for USAID Staff.” Today, USAID officials and their progressive partners have resisted efforts to promote religious freedom, especially as it relates to abortion and gender ideology, which are anathema to the traditional societies where USAID funds programs (in addition to many U.S. taxpayers). U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken repudiated his predecessor’s focus on religious freedom. The next conservative Administration must champion the core American value of religious freedom, which correlates significantly with poverty reduction, eco- nomic growth, and peace. It should train all USAID staff on the connection between religious freedom and development; integrate it into all of the agency’s programs, including the five-year Country Development and Coordination Strategies due for updates in 2025; strengthen the missions’ relationships with local faith-based leaders; and build on local programs that are serving the poor. Congress should appropriate funding to USAID specifically to support persecuted religious minori- ties in line with Executive Order 13926. Streamlining Procurement and Localizing the Partner Base. USAID is a grantmaking and contracting agency that disburses billions of dollars of federal funding in developing countries through implementing partners, such as U.N. agen- cies, international NGOs, for-profit companies, and local nongovernmental entities. In rare instances, such as in Jordan and Ukraine, the agency provides direct budget support to finance the operations of host-country governments. USAID far more often counts on expensive and ineffective large contracts and grants to carry out its programs. It justifies these practices based on speed and a lower administrative burden on its institutional capacity. Partnering and procurement reform was a pillar of the Trump Administration’s effort to secure better development results, cut costs, and advance the Journey to Self-Reliance strategy of exiting countries from aid. In December 2018, USAID launched its first Acquisition and Assistance Strategy to streamline procurement processes; introduce innovation into its programming; and diversify its partner base away from large, expensive, and partisan implementers. The strategy counted on local NGOs, including faith-based entities already on the ground, to provide the agency with less costly and more effective alternatives to the aid giants. The strategy also prioritized global partnerships with the private sector—corporations, investors, diasporas, and private philanthropies—the source of real capital invest- ment, innovation, and efficiencies that can maximize the impact of taxpayer dollars. Under the Biden Administration, despite rhetoric to the contrary, the aid industrial complex has recaptured the agency and stifled further reforms.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal

Vector: 62%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill concerns suspending World Bank financing to Burma over a military coup, whereas the Project 2025 HUD section deals with domestic housing policy reforms, DEI/ESG critiques, zoning, and housing supply; there is no substantive thematic overlap."

— 515 — Department of Housing and Urban Development 25. Process must prioritize where political leadership can implement administrative reforms through regulatory action and subregulatory guidance reforms. 26. China and other foreign nations should not be able to disrupt our nation’s housing markets, including by artificially driving up prices and reducing affordability and access to housing for Americans who are crowded out of the market by such market participation. 27. These initiatives are maintained under such designations as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); critical race theory (CRT); black, indigenous, Pacific Islander, and other people of color (BIPOC); and environmental, social, and governance (ESG). 28. At a minimum, these efforts duplicate what the federal government already collects and assesses; at worst, they institute arbitrary procedures in real estate appraisal practices that undermine integrity and perversely introduce arbitrary biases into what should be an unbiased system for determining financial value. 29. Revise regulatory and subregulatory guidance, where applicable within statutory authorities, that adds unnecessary delay and costs to the construction and development of new housing and has been estimated to account for about 40 percent of new housing unit costs in multifamily housing. 30. The Biden Administration has issued a proposed rule to replace the Trump Administration’s “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice” rule that had repealed earlier rules expanding AFFH enforcement. See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing, “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 153 (August 7, 2020), pp. 47899–47912, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-07/pdf/2020-16320.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023), and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 27 (February 9, 2023), pp. 8516–8590, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-07-16/pdf/2015-17032.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 31. Certain pilot initiatives may encourage greater take-up of loan products designed for faster equity accumulation, including loans with shorter terms and accelerated amortization schedules. In concept, the FHA’s Home Equity Accelerator Loan (HEAL) and Good Neighbor Next Door (GNND) pilot initiatives might lead to meaningful wealth generation for first-time buyers, but they should be available to all eligible households only when they do not arbitrarily discriminate based on race or other characteristics. 32. Housing supply does remain a problem in the U.S., but constructing more units at the low end of the market will not solve the problem. Investors and developers can deliver at more efficient cost new units that will allow for greater upward mobility of rental and ownership housing stock and better target increased construction of mid-tier rental units. Further, and more fundamental to the housing supply challenge in markets across the U.S., localities can consider revising land use, zoning, and building regulations that constrict new housing development, adding time delays and costs that impede construction. Federal housing policy should get out of the way where possible and minimize the distortive impact that stimulating greater demand through loose lending can have in driving up housing prices for households that are looking for affordable entry into the housing market. 33. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Housing and Community Development Act of 1980: Verification of Eligible Status,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 91 (May 10, 2019), pp. 20589–20595, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-05-10/pdf/2019-09566.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 34. Reforms should contemplate rent payment flexibilities, allow escrow savings, and set maximum term limits that can reduce implicit penalties for increasing household incomes over eligibility terms for housing assistance and reweight waiting-list prioritization for two-parent households. 35. Some PHAs have been able to implement work requirements and term limit policies in various congressionally authorized demonstration programs, notably the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program established in 1996 for 39 PHAs (Congress has since authorized another 100 PHAs) in which participating MTW PHAs were given authority to implement rent reforms, work requirements and other experimental policies in rental assistance programs along with flexibilities in the use of capital and operating appropriations. 36. The FSS program has a general five-year term with a possible two-year extension, which could be applied at the term limit for overall benefits, and certain PHAs have imposed five-year to seven-year term limits. Families in these programs build escrow savings during their term eligibility that helps to facilitate successful transitions to family self-sufficiency and unassisted housing. — 516 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 37. HUD should implement administrative changes in regulation and guidance and seek statutory authority to end all Housing First directives of Continuum of Care (CoC) grantees and contract homelessness providers in addition to establishing restrictions on local Housing First policies where HUD grant funds are used. 38. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) was established in the 1990s, and numerous Administrations have devoted enormous resources to the Housing First model, experimenting with various ways to provide federally financed rapid rehousing and permanent housing opportunities. Housing First is a far-left idea premised on the belief that homelessness is primarily circumstantial rather than behavioral. The Housing First answer to homelessness is to give someone a house instead of attempting to understand the underlying causes of homelessness. Federal intervention centered on Housing First has failed to acknowledge that resolving the issue of homelessness is often a matter of resolving mental health and substance abuse challenges. Instead of the permanent supportive housing proffered by Housing First, a conservative Administration should shift to transitional housing with a focus on addressing the underlying issues that cause homelessness in the first place. 39. The Senate Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers (LIFT) Act would address this policy goal. See S. 2797, Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers Act of 2021 (LIFT Homebuyers Act of 2021), 117th Congress, introduced September 22, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/s2797/BILLS-117s2797is.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 40. FHA did not facilitate the widespread use of 30-year mortgages until the 1950s when, interacting with Federal Reserve policies, federal agencies began broader adoption of the mortgages, which, despite lowering the monthly repayment terms, result in slow equity accumulation and wealth-building opportunities. 41. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 fundamentally revised the scope of federal regulation in the nation’s housing finance system, placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the purview of a newly established Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and establishing a Housing Trust Fund (HTF) that is administered in the HUD Office of Community Planning and Development. See H.R. 3221, Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Public Law No. 110-289, 110th Congress, July 30, 2008, https://www.congress. gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 42. Guiding questions: What reforms should be proposed that could be accomplished within five years? What reforms can be done administratively, and what reforms would need legislative authorization? Are there functions that HUD administers that could be achieved more effectively at another department or agency? What big-picture reforms should be proposed that might take more than five years that would reorganize HUD and its programs to meet the objectives in the vision or mission? What would occur in the absence of these public finance subsidies? How much crowd-out do these subsidies create in the market? Would America be a seriously underhoused nation without these subsidies? Who are the policies intended to benefit? What organizational changes must be made? 43. The Faircloth Amendment (Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998) amended the Housing Act of 1937 to maintain public housing units at 1999 levels, preventing housing authorities from maintaining more public housing than they did then. H.R. 4194, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law No. 105-276, 105th Congress, October 21, 1998, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ276/PLAW-105publ276.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). In recent years, the statutory restriction on new construction of public housing units has been circumvented through some narrow uses of preservation programs such as the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, initially authorized in 2012 and reauthorized several times since under higher program unit conversion caps. Congress also provided paths for renewal and continuation of a portion of existing public housing; project/site-based housing stock (refinancing with long-term HAP contract commitments); and Section 8 units through the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (MAHRA). H.R. 2158, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Public Law No. 105-65, 105th Congress, October 27, 1997, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ65/PLAW-105publ65.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 44. As the evolution of HUD rental assistance transitions away from the public housing model toward housing choice vouchers, there should be adequate landlord participation to ensure that the supply of housing units for rent in these programs meets the demand for rent among eligible tenants. This issue has been addressed in various ways, including by a task force instituted at the department during the Trump Administration, but could likely remain a challenge in the administration of the program.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

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

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Williams, Nikema

HEIRS Act of 2025

119/hr/1640

COACH Act

119/hr/6045

Honoring the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated, Chi Chapter, on its centennial anniversary.

119/hres/868

Back to All Bills