IRAN Act
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Swalwell, Eric [D-CA-14]
ID: S001193
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
ASSUMING FIRST SPONSORSHIP - Ms. Tenney asked unanimous consent that she may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 7380, a bill originally introduced by Representative Swalwell of California, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII. Agreed to without objection.
April 19, 2026
Introduced
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed House
Senate 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 of legislative theater, courtesy of the geniuses in Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The IRAN Act (because who doesn't love a good acronym?) claims to promote internet freedom and access to information in Iran. How noble. In reality, it's just another attempt to meddle in international affairs while pretending to care about human rights.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (because who remembers that one?) to:
* Require the Secretary of State to coordinate efforts to promote internet freedom in Iran (yawn) * Develop strategies for increasing access to virtual private networks (VPNs) and direct-to-cell satellite technologies (because the Iranian government won't just, you know, block them) * Ensure sanctions don't impede companies providing technology to Iranian civilians (wink-wink, nudge-nudge, say no more) * Review and update the strategy every 120 days (because bureaucratic busywork is the best kind of work)
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects:
* The Iranian government (who will likely just laugh at these attempts to circumvent their internet controls) * Iranian civilians (who might actually benefit from this, but let's be real, it's not like the US government cares about them) * Satellite and DTC operators (who will have to navigate the thrilling world of international telecommunications regulations) * The Secretary of State (who gets to add "internet freedom coordinator" to their already impressive resume)
**Potential Impact & Implications:** Oh boy, where do I even start?
* This bill will likely have zero impact on the Iranian government's internet control measures. They'll just find ways to block or circumvent these efforts. * It might provide a minor boost to satellite and DTC operators, but let's not pretend this is anything more than a token gesture. * The real winners here are the politicians who get to grandstand about human rights while doing nothing meaningful to address the actual issues. * And of course, the Iranian people will continue to suffer under their oppressive government, but hey, at least they'll have slightly better internet access. Silver linings, right?
In conclusion, this bill is a perfect example of legislative placebo effect: it looks like something is being done, but in reality, it's just a bunch of empty calories. The IRAN Act is a symptom of a deeper disease – the chronic inability of politicians to address real problems while pretending to care about human rights. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than watch this farce unfold.
Related Topics
💰 Campaign Finance Network
Rep. Swalwell, Eric [D-CA-14]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance
This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
Rep. Tenney, Claudia [R-NY-24]
ID: T000478
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Ansari, Yassamin [D-AZ-3]
ID: A000381
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Salazar, Maria Elvira [R-FL-27]
ID: S000168
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Min, Dave [D-CA-47]
ID: M001241
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Bice, Stephanie I. [R-OK-5]
ID: B000740
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Boyle, Brendan F. [D-PA-2]
ID: B001296
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Walkinshaw, James R. [D-VA-11]
ID: W000831
Top Contributors
0
No contribution data available
Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17]
ID: L000599
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Malliotakis, Nicole [R-NY-11]
ID: M000317
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Subramanyam, Suhas [D-VA-10]
ID: S001230
Top Contributors
10
Donor Network - Rep. Swalwell, Eric [D-CA-14]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 36 nodes and 38 connections
Total contributions: $173,965
Top Donors - Rep. Swalwell, Eric [D-CA-14]
Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount
Industry Impact
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.
- +Telecommunications confidence 0.90
Section 4(a) requires FCC licensees to refrain from intentionally disabling, degrading, or geo-blocking satellite or DTC coverage over Iran, which benefits telecommunications companies by mandating service continuity and potentially expanding market access for satellite and DTC services.
- +Cybersecurity confidence 0.85
Section 5 establishes programs to deliver cybersecurity training and furnish digital-safety tools (including VPN services and encrypted messaging) to civil society in Iran, directly benefiting cybersecurity firms that provide such tools and services.
- +Big Tech Platforms confidence 0.80
Sections 3 and 5 promote deployment of VPNs, eSIM technology, and secure communications tools, which could increase demand for platforms and services provided by big tech companies that offer such technologies (e.g., Google, Apple, Meta).
Who funds the sponsor on these industries
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Swalwell, Eric [D-CA-14]) 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 HELPS
- Big Tech Platforms$11,100from 5contributions
- SHEVCHUCK, MONICA$6,600
- MARKS, ALEXIS$3,500
- POWDERLY, TIMOTHY$1,000
- Telecommunications$4,030from 5contributions
- MAXFIELD, MELISSA$4,000
- LONDAGIN, KATE$30
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.
Introduction
AI Analysis:
"The IRAN Act's objective to promote internet freedom and access to information in Iran aligns with Project 2025's policy of supporting the Iranian people's human rights interests and easing the path toward a free Iran. The bill's focus on countering the Iranian government's oppressive measures overlaps significantly with the project's goals."
— 181 — Department of State Instead of pressuring the Iranian theocracy to move toward democracy, the Obama Administration threw the brutal regime an economic lifeline by giving hundreds of billions of dollars to the Iranian government and providing other sanc- tions relief. This economic relief did not moderate the regime, but emboldened its brutality, its efforts to expand its nuclear weapons programs, and its support for global terrorism. Former President Obama has admitted his lack of support for the Green Movement during his Administration was an error and blamed it on poor advisors—yet those same advisors are involved with the Biden Administration’s insistence on reducing pressure on the theocracy and resurrecting a nuclear deal. The next Administration should neither preserve nor repeat the mistakes of the Obama and Biden Administrations. The correct future policy for Iran is one that acknowledges that it is in U.S. national security interests, the Iranian people’s human rights interests, and a broader global interest in peace and stability for the Iranian people to have the democratic government they demand. This decision to be free of the country’s abusive leaders must of course be made by the Iranian people, but the United States can utilize its own and others’ economic and diplo- matic tools to ease the path toward a free Iran and a renewed relationship with the Iranian people. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Once a model of democracy and a true U.S. ally, the Bolivarian Republic of Ven- ezuela (Venezuela) has all but collapsed under the Communist regimes of the late Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro. In the 24 years since Hugo Chavez was first elected Venezuelan president in 1999, the country has violently cracked down on pro-democracy citizens and organizations, shattered its once oil-rich economy, empowered domestic criminal cartels, and helped fuel a hemispheric refugee crisis. Venezuela has swung from being one of the most prosperous, if not the most prosperous, country in South America to being one of the poorest. Its Communist leadership has also drawn closer to some of the United States’ greatest interna- tional foes, including the PRC and Iran, which have long sought a foothold in the Americas. Indeed, Venezuela serves as a reminder of just how fragile democratic institutions that are not maintained can be. To contain Venezuela’s Communism and aid international partners, the next Administration must take important steps to put Venezuela’s Communist abusers on notice while making strides to help the Venezuelan people. The next Administration must work to unite the hemisphere against this significant but underestimated threat in the Southern Hemisphere. Russia One issue today that starkly divides conservatives is the Russia–Ukraine con- flict. The common ground seems to be recognition that presidential leadership in 2025 must chart the course.
Introduction
AI Analysis:
"The bill's focus on promoting internet freedom and access to information in Iran aligns moderately with Project 2025's policy objective of supporting democratic movements and human rights, but the bill's approach is more symbolic than substantive. The policy emphasizes utilizing economic and diplomatic tools to support a free Iran, which is not directly addressed by the bill."
— 181 — Department of State Instead of pressuring the Iranian theocracy to move toward democracy, the Obama Administration threw the brutal regime an economic lifeline by giving hundreds of billions of dollars to the Iranian government and providing other sanc- tions relief. This economic relief did not moderate the regime, but emboldened its brutality, its efforts to expand its nuclear weapons programs, and its support for global terrorism. Former President Obama has admitted his lack of support for the Green Movement during his Administration was an error and blamed it on poor advisors—yet those same advisors are involved with the Biden Administration’s insistence on reducing pressure on the theocracy and resurrecting a nuclear deal. The next Administration should neither preserve nor repeat the mistakes of the Obama and Biden Administrations. The correct future policy for Iran is one that acknowledges that it is in U.S. national security interests, the Iranian people’s human rights interests, and a broader global interest in peace and stability for the Iranian people to have the democratic government they demand. This decision to be free of the country’s abusive leaders must of course be made by the Iranian people, but the United States can utilize its own and others’ economic and diplo- matic tools to ease the path toward a free Iran and a renewed relationship with the Iranian people. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Once a model of democracy and a true U.S. ally, the Bolivarian Republic of Ven- ezuela (Venezuela) has all but collapsed under the Communist regimes of the late Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro. In the 24 years since Hugo Chavez was first elected Venezuelan president in 1999, the country has violently cracked down on pro-democracy citizens and organizations, shattered its once oil-rich economy, empowered domestic criminal cartels, and helped fuel a hemispheric refugee crisis. Venezuela has swung from being one of the most prosperous, if not the most prosperous, country in South America to being one of the poorest. Its Communist leadership has also drawn closer to some of the United States’ greatest interna- tional foes, including the PRC and Iran, which have long sought a foothold in the Americas. Indeed, Venezuela serves as a reminder of just how fragile democratic institutions that are not maintained can be. To contain Venezuela’s Communism and aid international partners, the next Administration must take important steps to put Venezuela’s Communist abusers on notice while making strides to help the Venezuelan people. The next Administration must work to unite the hemisphere against this significant but underestimated threat in the Southern Hemisphere. Russia One issue today that starkly divides conservatives is the Russia–Ukraine con- flict. The common ground seems to be recognition that presidential leadership in 2025 must chart the course. — 182 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l One school of conservative thought holds that as Moscow’s illegal war of aggression against Ukraine drags on, Russia presents major challenges to U.S. interests, as well as to peace, stability, and the post-Cold War security order in Europe. This viewpoint argues for continued U.S. involvement including military aid, economic aid, and the presence of NATO and U.S. troops if necessary. The end goal of the conflict must be the defeat of Russian President Vladimir Putin and a return to pre-invasion border lines. l Another school of conservative thought denies that U.S. Ukrainian support is in the national security interest of America at all. Ukraine is not a member of the NATO alliance and is one of the most corrupt nations in the region. European nations directly affected by the conflict should aid in the defense of Ukraine, but the U.S. should not continue its involvement. This viewpoint desires a swift end to the conflict through a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia. l The tension between these competing positions has given rise to a third approach. This conservative viewpoint eschews both isolationism and interventionism. Rather, each foreign policy decision must first ask the question: What is in the interest of the American people? U.S. military engagement must clearly fall within U.S. interests; be fiscally responsible; and protect American freedom, liberty, and sovereignty, all while recognizing Communist China as the greatest threat to U.S. interests. Thus, with respect to Ukraine, continued U.S. involvement must be fully paid for; limited to military aid (while European allies address Ukraine’s economic needs); and have a clearly defined national security strategy that does not risk American lives. Regardless of viewpoints, all sides agree that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is unjust and that the Ukrainian people have a right to defend their homeland. Furthermore, the conflict has severely weakened Putin’s military strength and provided a boost to NATO unity and its importance to European nations. The next conservative President has a generational opportunity to bring res- olution to the foreign policy tensions within the movement and chart a new path forward that recognizes Communist China as the defining threat to U.S. interests in the 21st century. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Peace and stability in Northeast Asia are vital interests of the United States. The Republic of Korea (South Korea) and Japan are critical allies for ensuring a free and open Indo–Pacific. They are indispensable military, economic, diplomatic, and technology partners. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, or North
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.