Defending Against Foreign Propaganda Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/5956
Last Updated: November 13, 2025

Sponsored by

Rep. Kean, Thomas H. [R-NJ-7]

ID: K000398

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

âś…

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

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 from the esteemed members of Congress, who have once again managed to create a bill that's as useful as a placebo for a terminal illness.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The "Defending Against Foreign Propaganda Act" (HR 5956) claims to aim at protecting American consumers from the scourge of foreign propaganda by requiring disclosures on advertisements paid for by foreign governments or individuals. How noble. In reality, this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to stifle free speech and appease the special interests that line the pockets of our esteemed lawmakers.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires advertisers to disclose when an ad is paid for by a foreign government or individual, because apparently, Americans are too stupid to figure it out themselves. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will be tasked with enforcing this new regulation, because they don't have better things to do... like protecting consumers from actual harm.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: foreign governments, advertisers, and the poor, defenseless American consumer who needs to be shielded from the evil clutches of foreign propaganda. Oh, and let's not forget the real stakeholders – the politicians who will benefit from the campaign contributions and lobbying dollars that come with this bill.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "solution in search of a problem." It won't stop foreign propaganda; it'll just drive it underground. Meanwhile, American companies will be forced to comply with yet another layer of bureaucratic red tape, stifling innovation and free speech. And the FTC? They'll get to add more bureaucrats to their payroll, because that's what we really need – more government jobs.

Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a severe case of " Politician-itis" – a disease characterized by an excessive desire for power, money, and ego-stroking, with symptoms including grandstanding, pandering, and a complete disregard for the Constitution. Treatment: Apply a healthy dose of skepticism, followed by a strong injection of reality. Prognosis: Poor. This bill will likely pass, because our politicians are more interested in scoring cheap points than actually doing what's best for the country.

In conclusion, HR 5956 is a joke – a pathetic attempt to address a non-existent problem while lining the pockets of special interests and further eroding our civil liberties. But hey, at least it'll make for some great campaign ads...

Related Topics

Civil Rights & Liberties State & Local Government Affairs Transportation & Infrastructure Small Business & Entrepreneurship Government Operations & Accountability National Security & Intelligence Criminal Justice & Law Enforcement Federal Budget & Appropriations Congressional Rules & Procedures
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

đź’° Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Kean, Thomas H. [R-NJ-7]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$85,200
19 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$6,600
Committees
$0
Individuals
$78,600

No PAC contributions found

1
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
2 transactions
$6,600

No committee contributions found

1
LOEB, JOHN
2 transactions
$13,200
2
VOCCOLA, FREDERICK
2 transactions
$10,100
3
PRYMA, THOMAS
2 transactions
$6,600
4
PISANO, JOHN
1 transaction
$3,700
5
NIEMIEC, DAVID
1 transaction
$3,300
6
TAYLOR, ALEXANDER
1 transaction
$3,300
7
BRUECKNER, RICHARD F.
1 transaction
$3,300
8
BURNS, EMILY
1 transaction
$3,300
9
BURNS, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$3,300
10
CUMMINGS, KEVIN MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
11
TAYLOR, KARAN TAIKINA
1 transaction
$3,300
12
BANKE, BARBARA R.
1 transaction
$3,300
13
DEVOS, RICHARD JR.
1 transaction
$3,300
14
OVERDEVEST, EDWARD
1 transaction
$3,300
15
LEGOW, DAVID
1 transaction
$3,300
16
DEMUTH, CHARLES JR.
1 transaction
$3,300
17
PATE, LUTHER S IV
1 transaction
$3,300
18
STEPHENS, WARREN
1 transaction
$2,100

Donor Network - Rep. Kean, Thomas H. [R-NJ-7]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 20 nodes and 23 connections

Total contributions: $85,200

Top Donors - Rep. Kean, Thomas H. [R-NJ-7]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

1 Org18 Individuals

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

Low 53.1%
Pages: 699-701

— 667 — Department of Commerce Day One to ensure the bureau is fully implementing Administration policy. An incoming Administration should ensure that Assistant Secretary and Deputy Assis- tant Secretary positions are staffed by appointees as quickly as possible. Enforcement and Compliance. Strong enforcement of trade agreements is an indispensable function of the ITA carried out by Enforcement & Compliance (E&C). Free and fair trade is impossible without energetic enforcement of exist- ing agreements and without strong defense against dumping and illegal subsidies. Many free trade advocates consider antidumping and countervailing duty laws (AD/CVD) to be protectionist and thus antithetical to the conservative free market position. In their view, AD/CVD laws are overused, abused by certain industries, and harmful to American economic competitiveness by increasing costs to down- stream industries. Other conservatives maintain that AD/CVD tariffs are not conventional tariffs, but rather corrective actions meant to address anti-free market activities by other governments—a scalpel, not a hammer. In the short term, this may mean higher costs for U.S. businesses and consumers on a limited number of products from cer- tain offending countries, but those higher prices correct existing price distortions in the marketplace and ultimately ensure the healthy operation of market forces in the long term and a level playing field for U.S. manufacturers. Whatever the case, improvements to the current system must be made to both protect U.S. consumers and companies from improperly applied duties and defend against trade-distorting actions by other governments. Procedures governing the day-to-day administration of proceedings, as well as policies driving critical deci- sions in proceedings, require a fresh look. Ultimately, E&C’s mandate is to conduct a rigorous but also fair, objective, and balanced review of the record in each pro- ceeding and to make decisions without bias. It is exceedingly unlikely that Congress would abolish or limit the activity of E&C. Therefore, the proposals below are made under the assumption that an incoming Administration will operate E&C within its current legal, institutional, and political confines and set a path forward to wield E&C’s considerable power to achieve the goals of a conservative Administration. These proposals can be broken into three categories: process, policy, and addressing China. Process l Re-establish and expand suspended in-person pandemic-related verifications, particularly regarding the People’s Republic of China. Ensure that verifications are rigorous. l Implement advanced analytics and artificial intelligence to identify opportunities for self-initiation, detect circumvention, and prevent bad actors from gaming the system. — 668 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Accelerate front-end work on reviews as opposed to constantly pushing against statutory deadlines. l Work with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and other relevant agencies to address circumvention and duty evasion, and promote policies that encourage full duty collection to ensure the integrity of AD/CVD and circumvention orders. l Work with CBP, the Department of Justice, the Department of Treasury, and other relevant agencies to aggressively pursue importers of record and other beneficiaries for unpaid duties, and consider policy changes to reduce uncollected duties in the future. l Work, pursuant to the above, with interagency partners in AD/CVD cases to either require foreign importers of record (IORs) to make cash deposits far in excess of established duty rates at the time of entry of AD/CVD merchandise, require IORs to register sufficient U.S. assets to ensure timely payment of duties, or otherwise prohibit IORs from importing AD/CVD merchandise. l Conduct a regulatory capture audit and put guardrails in place to address improper exercise of bureaucratic prerogative. Policy l Ensure senior policy and decision-making positions are always held by political appointees. l Reverse the practice of giving the benefit of the doubt to foreign companies versus U.S. companies in AD/CVD proceedings. l Establish a policy for addressing companies that invest heavily in the U.S. and thus have large import volumes, exposing them to AD/CVD petitions. l Establish an effective, fair, and objective process for self-initiation of AD/ CVD proceedings when industry lacks the resources or ability to act. Addressing China l Revive the China-specific non-market economy unit. l Provide transparency in the surrogate country list development process.

Introduction

Low 51.8%
Pages: 338-340

— 306 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise programs,104 and they focus on research and promotion of commodities such as beef and eggs. Marketing orders cover research and promotion, but also cover issues such as quality regulations and volume controls. The latter issue, volume controls, is a means to restrict supply, which drives up prices for consumers. Fortunately, there are few active volume controls.105 Marketing orders and checkoff programs are some of the most egregious pro- grams run by the USDA. They are, in effect, a tax—a means to compel speech—and government-blessed cartels. Instead of getting private cooperation, they are tools for industry actors to work with government to force cooperation. The next Administration should: l Reduce the number and scope of marketing orders and checkoff programs. The USDA should reject any new requests for marketing orders and checkoff programs to the extent authorized by law and eliminate existing programs when possible. While the programs work differently, there are often petition processes and other ways that make it difficult for affected parties to get rid of the marketing orders and checkoff programs,106 and the USDA itself may not even be required to honor requests to terminate a program.107 The USDA should make the process easier. Further, the USDA should reject any effort to bring back volume controls to limit supplies of commodities. l Work with Congress to eliminate marketing orders and checkoff programs. These programs should be eliminated, and if industry actors want to collaborate, they should do so through private means, not using the government to compel cooperation. l Promote legislation that would require regular votes. There should be regular voting for parties subject to checkoff programs and marketing orders. For example, the voting should occur at least every five years, to determine whether a marketing order or checkoff program should continue. The USDA should be required to honor the results of such a vote. Through regular voting, parties can demonstrate their support for a marketing order or checkoff program and ensure that those administering them will be held accountable. Focus on Trade Policy, Not Trade Promotion. The USDA’s Foreign Agri- cultural Service (FAS) covers numerous issues, including “trade policy,” which is a reference to removing trade barriers, among other things, to ensure an envi- ronment conducive to trade.108 It also covers trade promotion.109 This includes programs like the Market Access Program110 that subsidizes trade associations, — 307 — Department of Agriculture businesses, and other private entities to market and promote their products overseas. FAS should play a proactive and leading role to help open upmarkets for American farmers and ranchers. There are numerous barriers, such as sani- tary and phytosanitary measures, blocking American agricultural products from gaining access to foreign markets.111 However, FAS should not help businesses and industries promote their exports, something these businesses and industries can and should do on their own. The next Administration should: l Push legislation to repeal export promotion programs. The USDA should work with Congress to repeal market development programs like the Market Access Program and similar programs. Remove Obstacles for Agricultural Biotechnology. Innovation is critical to agricultural production and the ability to meet future food needs. The next Admin- istration should embrace innovation and technology, not hinder its use—especially because of scare tactics that ignore sound science. One of the key innovations in agriculture is genetic engineering. According to the USDA, “[C]urrently, over 90 percent of U.S. corn, upland cotton, and soybeans are produced using GE [genet- ically engineered] varieties.”112 Despite the importance of agricultural biotechnology, in 2016, Congress passed a federal mandate to label genetically engineered food.113 This legislation was argu- ably just a means to try to provide a negative connotation to GE food. There are other challenges as well for agricultural biotechnology. For example, Mexico plans to ban the importation of U.S. genetically modified yellow corn.114 The next Administration should: l Counter scare tactics and remove obstacles. The USDA should strongly counter scare tactics regarding agricultural biotechnology and adopt policies to remove unnecessary barriers to approvals and the adoption of biotechnology. l Repeal the federal labeling mandate. The USDA should work with Congress to repeal the federal labeling law, while maintaining federal preemption, and stress that voluntary labeling is allowed. l Use all tools available to remove improper trade barriers against agricultural biotechnology. The USDA should work closely with the Office of the United States Trade Representative to remove improper barriers imposed by other countries to block U.S. agricultural goods.

Introduction

Low 51.7%
Pages: 891-894

— 859 — Federal Communications Commission 21. Hal J. Singer and Ted Tatos, Subsidizing Universal Broadband Through a Digital Advertising Services Fee: An Alignment of Incentives, Econ One, September 2021, p. 1 (“[T]he current USF mechanism is unsustainable and will fail to meet the needs of its target consumer base within the next five years.”), https://www.econone.com/ wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Digital-Divide-HSinger-TTatos-2.pdf (accessed January 23, 2023). 22. FBI Director Christopher Wray, testimony in video of hearing, Worldwide Threats to the Homeland, Committee on Homeland Security, U.S. House of Representatives, November 15, 2022, at 02:27, https://democrats- homeland.house.gov/activities/hearings/11/04/2022/worldwide-threats-to-the-homeland (accessed January 23, 2023); John D. McKinnon, Arunav Viswanatha, and Stu Woo, “TikTok National-Security Deal Faces More Delays as Worry Grows Over Risks,” The Wall Street Journal, updated December 6, 2022, https://www.wsj. com/articles/tiktok-national-security-deal-faces-more-delays-as-worry-grows-over-risks-11670342800 (accessed January 23, 2023). 23. U.S. Federal Communications Commission, “List of Equipment and Services Covered by Section 2 of the Secure Networks Act,” updated September 20, 2022, https://www.fcc.gov/supplychain/coveredlist (accessed January 23, 2023). 24. H.R. 820, Foreign Adversary Communications Transparency Act, 118th Congress, introduced February 2, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr820/BILLS-118hr820ih.pdf (accessed March 6, 2023). 25. U.S. Department of State, “The Clean Network,” https://2017-2021.state.gov/the-clean-network/index.html (accessed January 23, 2023). 26. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Broadband: National Strategy Needed to Guide Federal Efforts to Reduce Digital Divide, GAO-22-104611, May 2022, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104611.pdf (accessed January 23, 2023). 27. Document No. 144, “Federal Communications Commission: Message from the President of the United States Recommending that Congress Create a New Agency to be Known as the Federal Communications Commission,” U.S. Senate, 73rd Cong., 2nd Sess., February 26, 1934, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/ DOC-298207A1.pdf (accessed January 23, 2023). 28. 47 U.S.C, Chapter 5, §§ 151 et seq., (accessed March 6, 2023). — 861 — 29 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Hans A. von Spakovsky MISSION/OVERVIEW The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent federal agency that began operations in 1975 to enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) passed by Congress in 1971 and amended in 1974.1 FECA governs the raising and spending of funds in all federal campaigns for Congress and the presidency. The FEC has no authority over the administration of federal elections, which is per- formed by state governments. While the FEC has exclusive civil enforcement authority over FECA,2 the U.S. Justice Department has criminal enforcement authority, which is defined as a knowing and willful violation of the law.3 Because the FEC is an independent agency and not a division or office directly within the executive branch, the author- ity of the President over the actions of the FEC is extremely limited. As former FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith has said, the FEC’s “[r]egulation of campaign finance deeply implicates First Amendment principles of free speech and association.”4 The FEC regulates in one of the most sensitive areas of the Bill of Rights: political speech and political activity by citizens, candidates, political par- ties, and the voluntary membership organizations that represent Americans who share common views on a huge range of important and vital public policy issues. NEEDED REFORMS Nomination Authority. The President’s most significant power is the appoint- ment of the six commissioners who govern the FEC, subject to confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Commissioners may only serve a single term of six years but

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.