PARTNER with ASEAN, CERN, and PIF Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/1579
Last Updated: August 4, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID]

ID: R000584

Follow the money

The bill

PARTNER with ASEAN, CERN, and PIF Act

S. 1579, 119th Congress — read as touching Nuclear Power.

The sponsor

Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID]

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

The money

$69,035 raised

21 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of State" section, p. 232-235 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 95.

June 17, 2025

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

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The PARTNER with ASEAN, CERN, and PIF Act (because who doesn't love a good acronym?) claims to provide "appropriate recognition and treatment" to these international organizations by extending the provisions of the International Organizations Immunities Act. In reality, this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to curry favor with influential nations and organizations while padding the resumes of its sponsors.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the International Organizations Immunities Act to include ASEAN, CERN, and PIF as international organizations, granting them immunity from lawsuits and other forms of accountability. This is a classic case of "diplomatic immunity," where the powerful get a free pass while the rest of us are left to deal with the consequences.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved: politicians seeking to boost their international credentials, lobbyists representing the interests of these organizations, and voters who will be told that this bill is somehow beneficial to national security or economic growth. Meanwhile, the actual stakeholders – taxpayers, citizens, and anyone affected by the actions of these organizations – will be left in the dark.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a symptom of a larger disease: the erosion of accountability and transparency in international relations. By granting immunity to these organizations, Congress is essentially saying that they are above the law. This will embolden them to act with impunity, knowing that they won't be held accountable for their actions.

In medical terms, this bill is like prescribing a placebo to a patient with a terminal illness. It may make the symptoms appear more manageable, but it does nothing to address the underlying disease. In this case, the disease is the corrupting influence of power and the willingness of politicians to sacrifice accountability on the altar of international relations.

In conclusion, the PARTNER with ASEAN, CERN, and PIF Act is a masterclass in legislative obfuscation, designed to confuse and mislead while serving the interests of the powerful. It's a bill that should be diagnosed as " Terminal Stupidity" – a condition where politicians prioritize their own self-interest over the well-being of their constituents.

Related Topics

International Treaties & Agreements
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$69,035
18 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$1,000
Committees
$0
Individuals
$68,035

No PAC contributions found

1
CRW RESOURCES
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
GRANIERI, ROBERT
2 transactions
$6,600
2
HEGYI, ALBERT
2 transactions
$6,600
3
PFAUTCH, ROY
2 transactions
$6,600
4
SNELL, PETER
1 transaction
$5,000
5
KAYALI, ZEID
1 transaction
$3,500
6
MOORE, JEFFREY
1 transaction
$3,435
7
KTELEH, TAREK
1 transaction
$3,300
8
ALAAMA, ABDUL M.D.
1 transaction
$3,300
9
ASHOURI, DIANA
1 transaction
$3,300
10
DIAB, MOHAMED KHEIR
1 transaction
$3,300
11
MOUJTAHED, SAED
1 transaction
$3,300
12
MONSEN, MARION F
1 transaction
$3,300
13
ABDRABBO, FAWAZ
1 transaction
$3,300
14
HOLDING, CHRISTINE S.
1 transaction
$3,300
15
HOLDING, KATHLEEN
1 transaction
$3,300
16
HOLDING, STEPHEN E.
1 transaction
$3,300
17
MONSEN, PEDER
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Sen. Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL]

ID: D000622

Top Contributors

26

1
AMERICAN EXPRESS
OrganizationNEWARK, NJ
$6,132
Feb 7, 2023
2
AMERICAN EXPRESS
OrganizationNEWARK, NJ
$605
Mar 3, 2023
3
CITIBUSINESS CARD
OrganizationCOLUMBUS, OH
$347
Jan 10, 2023
4
CITIBUSINESS CARD
OrganizationCOLUMBUS, OH
$254
Feb 7, 2023
5
AMERICAN EXPRESS
OrganizationNEWARK, NJ
$98
Jan 10, 2023
6
CITIBUSINESS CARD
OrganizationCOLUMBUS, OH
$74
Mar 3, 2023
7
KELLY, MICHAEL
WALKUP LAW FIRM • ATTORNEY
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Oct 7, 2024
8
LISTER, AMANDA
N/A • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Oct 17, 2024
9
SUMEY, ROGER
IndividualELLICOTT CITY, MD
$3,300
Oct 11, 2023
10
CHEN, QIANHUI
RENAISSANCE TECHNOLOGIES LLC • ANALYST
IndividualSETAUKET, NY
$3,300
Mar 2, 2024

Sen. Ricketts, Pete [R-NE]

ID: R000618

Top Contributors

26

1
SPIKE OCOTILLO LLC
OrganizationCHANDLER, AZ
$2,500
Mar 4, 2024
2
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
OrganizationRICHMOND, VA
$1,000
Mar 28, 2024
3
KING & SPALDING LLP
OrganizationATLANTA, GA
$1,000
Mar 29, 2024
4
GREENBERG TRAURIG
OrganizationALBANY, NY
$1,000
Apr 23, 2024
5
H.A. TRUE, III
OrganizationCASPER, WY
$1,000
Aug 22, 2024
6
DELTA AIRLINES
OrganizationATLANTA, GA
$234
Apr 17, 2023
7
VANDERSLOOT, BELINDA
SELF • HOMEMAKER
IndividualIDAHO FALLS, ID
$6,600
Mar 4, 2024
8
VANDERSLOOT, FRANK
MELALEUCA • OWNER
IndividualIDAHO FALLS, ID
$6,600
Mar 4, 2024
9
MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE
RETIRED
IndividualASPEN, CO
$6,600
Jun 7, 2024
10
MANDELBLATT, ERIC
SOROBAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LP • MANAGING PARTNER
IndividualASPEN, CO
$6,600
Jun 7, 2024

Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV]

ID: C001113

Top Contributors

28

1
LAS VEGAS PAIUTE TRIBE
OrganizationLAS VEGAS, NV
$3,300
Nov 28, 2023
2
MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS
$2,500
Dec 20, 2023
3
ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE
OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX
$1,500
Oct 2, 2024
4
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Apr 26, 2024
5
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jul 11, 2023
6
MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION
OrganizationOKMULGEE, OK
$1,000
Sep 18, 2024
7
MOHEGAN TRIBE OF INDIANS OF CONNECTICUT
OrganizationUNCASVILLE, CT
$1,000
Aug 12, 2024
8
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationDURANT, OK
$550
Oct 2, 2023
9
LONGTIN, LUANN
IndividualPOTOMAC, MD
$17,325
Jun 30, 2024
10
SLIFKA, ROSALYN
IndividualWALTHAM, MA
$5,800
Jun 30, 2024

Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]

ID: E000295

Top Contributors

23

1
SAC & FOX TRIBE OF MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA
OrganizationTAMA, IA
$5,000
Aug 29, 2023
2
SAC & FOX TRIBE OF MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA
OrganizationTAMA, IA
$1,700
Sep 28, 2023
3
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
May 21, 2024
4
ABEL, ANDREA MS.
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualDES MOINES, IA
$50,000
Feb 7, 2023
5
MCINERNEY, THOMAS E. MR.
BLUFF POINT ASSOC. CORPORATION • VENTURE INVESTOR
IndividualWESTPORT, CT
$50,000
Feb 22, 2023
6
NICOLLS, BOB MR.
MONARCH • REAL ESTATE
IndividualFRANKTOWN, CO
$25,000
Mar 17, 2023
7
GRAY, C. BOYDEN
SELF-EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$25,000
Mar 29, 2023
8
CATSIMATIDIS, JOHN A. MR.
UNITED REFINING COMPANY • CHARIMAN & CEO
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$25,000
May 16, 2023
9
KOTICK, ROBERT MR.
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD • CEO
IndividualSANTA MONICA, CA
$16,600
Dec 20, 2024
10
VINCZE, CHRISTOPHER
TRC COMPANIES INC. • CHAIRMAN AND CEO
IndividualTEQUESTA, FL
$15,800
Nov 6, 2023

Sen. McCormick, David [R-PA]

ID: M001243

Top Contributors

32

1
SIG SAUER PAC
PACPORTSMOUTH, NH
$2,500
Oct 4, 2024
2
SEGURO MEDICO LLC
OrganizationREADING, PA
$10,000
Aug 21, 2024
3
CLEMENTS MIDWAY PARTNERS LLC
OrganizationSALT LAKE CITY, UT
$10,000
Sep 16, 2024
4
BLOOMSBURG INDUSTRIAL VENTURES LLC
OrganizationBLOOMSBURG, PA
$4,000
Apr 23, 2024
5
SUN CENTER LP
OrganizationASTON, PA
$2,500
Dec 12, 2023
6
UTILITY ADVISORY GROUP LLC
OrganizationHAVERTOWN, PA
$1,500
May 7, 2024
7
MODEVITY LLC
OrganizationMALVERN, PA
$1,500
May 24, 2024
8
O'DONNELL PARTNERS LLC
OrganizationMALVERN, PA
$1,500
May 24, 2024
9
KRAUSE & ASSOCIATES LP
OrganizationAUSTIN, TX
$1,000
Dec 20, 2023
10
BLOOMSBURG INDUSTRIAL VENTURES LLC
OrganizationBLOOMSBURG, PA
$700
Apr 23, 2024

Donor Network - Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 38 nodes and 41 connections

Total contributions: $41

Top Donors - Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID]

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

1 Org17 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped.

  • +Nuclear Powerconfidence 0.80

    Section 2(b) extends provisions of the International Organizations Immunities Act to the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), which could benefit the nuclear power industry by promoting international cooperation and research.

  • Section 2(b) mentions CERN, which is involved in advanced scientific research that may utilize AI and cloud computing, potentially benefiting the AI and cloud infrastructure industry.

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

Weak
Vector: 60%
Pages: 232-235AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on extending legal immunities to international organizations (ASEAN, CERN, PIF) to enhance cooperation, while the Project 2025 State Department section emphasizes cyber diplomacy, national security strategy, and organizational charts—with no direct mention of IOIA extensions or these specific organizations. The alignment is weak and tangential, relating only broadly to international engagement."

Key themes:international cooperationdiplomatic engagementforeign policy

— 199 — Department of State 21. “Geneva Consensus Declaration on Promoting Women’s Health and Strengthening the Family,” October 22, 2021, https://www.theiwh.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/GCD-Declaration-2021-2.pdf (accessed March 13, 2023). 22. U.S. Commission on National Security, Road Map for National Security. 23. U.S. Department of State, “Organization Chart,” November 2004, https://2009-2017.state.gov/s/d/rm/rls/ perfrpt/2004/html/39764.htm (accessed March 9, 2023); U.S. Department of State, “Organization Chart,” November 2016, https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/263637.pdf (accessed March 9, 2023); U.S. Department of State, “Organization Chart,” February 2020, https://2017-2021.state.gov/wp-content/ uploads/2021/01/Dept-Org-Chart-Feb-2020-508.pdf (accessed March 9, 2023); U.S. Department of State, “DOS Org Chart August 2021,” August 2021, https://www.state.gov/department-of-state-organization-chart/ dos-org-chart-august-2021/ (accessed March 9, 2023); and U.S. Department of State, “Organization Chart,” May 2022, https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/DOS-Org-Chart-5052022-Non-Accessible. pdf (accessed March 9, 2023). 24. Emily O. Goldman, “Cyber Diplomacy for Strategic Competition: Fresh Thinking and New Approaches Are Needed on Diplomacy’s Newest Frontier,” Foreign Service Journal, June 2021, http://afsa.org/cyber- diplomacy-strategic-competition (accessed March 9, 2023). 25. Emily Goldman, “From Reaction to Action: Adopting a Competitive Posture in Cyber Diplomacy,” Texas National Security Review, Vol. 3, No. 4 (Fall 2020), https://tnsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/TNSR-Vol3- Iss4-Goldman.pdf (accessed March 9, 2023). 26. United Nations General Assembly, “Group of Government Experts on Advancing Responsible State Behaviour in Cyberspace in the Context of International Security,” A/76/135, July 14, 2021, https://front.un-arm.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/08/A_76_135-2104030E-1.pdf (accessed March 10, 2023). 27. Goldman, “Cyber Diplomacy.” — 201 — 7 INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY Dustin J. Carmack MISSION STATEMENT To arm a future incoming conservative President with the knowledge and tools necessary to fortify the United States Intelligence Community; to defend against all foreign enemies and ensure the security and prosperity of our sovereign nation, devoid of all political motivations; and to maintain constitutional civil liberties. OVERVIEW The United States Intelligence Community (IC) is a vast, intricate bureaucracy spread throughout 18 independent and Cabinet subagencies.1 According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the IC’s mission is “to col- lect, analyze, and deliver foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information to America’s leaders so they can make sound decisions to protect our country.”2 An incoming conservative President needs to use these intelligence authorities aggressively to anticipate and thwart our adversaries, including Russia, Iran, North Korea, and especially China, while maintaining counterterrorism tools that have demonstrated their effectiveness. This means empowering the right personnel to manage, build, and effectively execute actions dispersed throughout the IC to deliver intelligence in an ever-challenging world. It also means removing redun- dancies, mission creep, and IC infighting that could prevent these collection tools from providing objective, apolitical, and empirically backed intelligence to the IC’s premier customer: the President of the United States. Today, as Abraham Lincoln famously said, “The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion…. [W]e must think anew, and act

Department of Commerce

Weak
Vector: 60%
Pages: 705-707AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on granting immunities to international organizations (ASEAN, CERN, PIF) and does not address export control reforms, entity list expansions, or data transfer restrictions central to the Project 2025 Commerce policy; any alignment is only tangential through broader national security cooperation."

Key themes:international cooperationnational securityexport control

— 673 — Department of Commerce Export Enforcement officers through improved and frequent training so they are able to detect export-control violations. EAR Revisions. The U.S. Government needs a new export control moderniza- tion effort to tighten the EAR policies governing licenses to countries of concern, including China and Russia (specifically, revise and/or reverse the 2008 through 2016 policies). When authoritarian governments explain what they plan to do, believe them unless hard evidence demonstrates otherwise. Case in point: China’s and Russia’s stated civil–military fusion policies demand central government command-and-control style systems in which every private entity serves the interests of the state and is forced to provide technology, services, capacity, and data to the central govern- ment and the military. Through this structure, commercial activities are routinely weaponized by authoritarian regimes that repeatedly identify the U.S. as an enemy. Accordingly, U.S. export control policies must be updated to reflect these realities and the associated threats to national security. Key priorities for EAR modernization for countries of concern should be: l Eliminating the “specially designed” licensing loophole; l Redesignating China and Russia to more highly prohibitive export licensing groups (country groups D or E); l Eliminating license exceptions; l Broadening foreign direct product rules; l Reducing the de minimis threshold from 25 percent to 10 percent—or 0 percent for critical technologies; l Tightening the deemed export rules to prevent technology transfer to foreign nationals from countries of concern; l Tightening the definition of “fundamental research” to address exploitation of the open U.S. university system by authoritarian governments through funding, students and researchers, and recruitment; l Eliminating license exceptions for sharing technology with controlled entities/countries through standards-setting “activities” and bodies; and l Improving regulations regarding published information for technology transfers. — 674 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise The next few years will prove or disprove the assertion that the U.S. stands on the precipice of a Cold War with China. Many believe that a Cold War has already begun; if so, then strategic decoupling from China is necessary and, fundamentally, any exports of goods, software, and technology to countries of concern, whether directly or indirectly, should be prohibited or controlled in the absence of good cause (e.g., humanitarian and medical aid, food aid). Entity List and Sanctions. There are currently just over 500 Chinese and over 500 Russian companies on the Department of Commerce’s Entity List, which reg- ulates exports of controlled and uncontrolled items to designated entities. Given China’s Civil–Military Fusion Strategy and Russia’s massive war efforts facili- tated by a broad range of the Russian economy, BIS must add more entities to the Entity List and apply a license review “policy of denial” that prohibits exports to these entities. Entity List parties that violate export controls should be placed on the BIS Denied Persons List (and thereby lose export privileges) and, if the violations are significant enough, they should also be sanctioned by the Department of Treasury. Data Transfer and Apps Used for Surveillance. Department of Commerce leadership should work across government agencies to address privacy and data concerns arising out of “big tech” from national security and export control per- spectives. In particular, they should draft and implement an executive order (EO) based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which expands export control authority beyond ECRA’s scope (goods, software, technology) to regulate and restrict exports of U.S. persons’ data to countries of concern. The EO should establish a framework for the types of personal data subject to export controls and licensing policy by country, and the BIS should implement the EO through regulations. BIS should additionally designate app providers (such as WeChat and Byte Dance/TikTok) known for undermining U.S. national security through data collection, surveillance, and influence operations, to the Entity List. This listing would prevent app users from program updates, which would quickly make these apps non-operational in the United States. NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION Break Up NOAA. The single biggest Department of Commerce agency outside of decennial census years is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which houses the National Weather Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and other components. NOAA garners $6.5 billion of the department’s $12 billion annual operational budget and accounts for more than half of the department’s personnel in non-decadal Census years (2021 figures). NOAA consists of six main offices: l The National Weather Service (NWS);

Department of State

Weak
Vector: 60%
Pages: 223-225AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill extends immunities to international organizations, which contrasts with Project 2025's emphasis on scrutinizing and potentially withdrawing support from organizations that do not advance U.S. interests. While both address U.S. engagement with international bodies, the bill's approach of granting privileges lacks the conditional, interest-based evaluation advocated in Project 2025."

Key themes:international organizationsU.S. foreign policydiplomatic engagement

— 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

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

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

Full Policy Text

Related Bills