Designating the Russian Federation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/2805

Last Updated: April 14, 2026

Designating the Russian Federation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism Act

S. 2805, 119th Congress — read as touching Defense Contractors.

The sponsor

Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC]

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

The money

$130,438 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of State" section, p. 214-216 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 160.

September 15, 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

Summary Style:

The Designating the Russian Federation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism Act (S 2805) is a bill that seeks to designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism due to its actions in Ukraine, particularly with regards to the kidnapping and deportation of Ukrainian children. As a self-serving billionaire, I'll analyze this bill through the lens of wealth and power implications.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to hold Russia accountable for its alleged war crimes and human rights abuses in Ukraine. By designating Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, the US aims to impose stricter sanctions and diplomatic isolation on the country.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Secretary of State to certify whether Ukrainian children kidnapped by Russia have been reunited with their families or guardians within 60 days. If not, the Secretary must designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism under various laws, including the National Defense Authorization Act and the Arms Export Control Act.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The main affected parties are:

* The Russian Federation: As the primary target of this bill, Russia will face increased diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, and potential isolation from the international community. * Ukrainian citizens: The bill aims to protect Ukrainian children and families affected by Russia's actions in Ukraine. * US businesses and investors: Companies with interests in Russia or Ukraine may be impacted by the sanctions and diplomatic tensions.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** As a billionaire investor, I'm concerned about the potential implications of this bill on my business interests. A designation of Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism could lead to:

* Increased sanctions: Stricter economic sanctions could limit US businesses' ability to operate in Russia or with Russian entities. * Diplomatic tensions: Escalating tensions between the US and Russia may impact global markets, trade, and investment opportunities. * Market volatility: The designation could lead to market fluctuations, affecting my investments in various sectors.

However, I also see potential opportunities for consolidation and profit. A weakened Russian economy could create openings for US businesses to expand their influence in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Additionally, the bill's focus on human rights abuses may distract from more pressing issues, such as regulatory reforms that could benefit my industries.

In conclusion, this bill is a threat to my business interests, but it also presents opportunities for strategic maneuvering and profit. As a self-serving billionaire, I'll continue to monitor developments and adjust my investments accordingly.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, 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 the legislative process to become an actual law.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The main purpose of S. 2805 is to designate the Russian Federation as a state sponsor of terrorism. This designation would be based on Russia's actions in Ukraine, specifically the kidnapping and forced removal of Ukrainian children. The bill aims to hold Russia accountable for these actions and provide a framework for reuniting the affected children with their families.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill has three main sections:

1. Section 2 outlines the findings that support the designation, including the Russian Federation's aggression in Ukraine and its treatment of Ukrainian children. 2. Section 3 requires the Secretary of State to submit a report to Congress within 60 days certifying whether the kidnapped children have been reunited with their families or are being reintegrated into Ukrainian society. If not, the Secretary must designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. 3. Section 4 provides for the rescission of this designation if certain conditions are met.

The bill amends existing laws related to arms exports, foreign assistance, and national defense authorization. Specifically, it references sections of the National Defense Authorization Act, Arms Export Control Act, and Foreign Assistance Act.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The affected parties include:

* The Russian Federation: As the proposed state sponsor of terrorism * Ukraine: As the country whose children have been kidnapped and forcibly removed * Ukrainian families and guardians: Who are seeking to be reunited with their loved ones * The United States government: Which would be responsible for implementing the designation and any resulting sanctions or restrictions

**Potential Impact & Implications**

If passed, this bill could lead to significant consequences for Russia, including:

* Economic sanctions and trade restrictions * Limitations on arms exports and military cooperation * Restrictions on foreign assistance and aid * International diplomatic isolation

However, as we learned in civics class, the legislative process is complex, and bills can be amended or blocked at various stages. The actual impact of this bill would depend on its passage and implementation.

Now, I hope that was clear. Remember when we learned about how a bill becomes a law? This is exactly what's happening here...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on S 2805, and it's a doozy. This bill is all about designating Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. Now, at first glance, it seems like a no-brainer – who wouldn't want to condemn Russia for its actions in Ukraine? But, my friends, there's more to this story than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to hold Russia accountable for its alleged war crimes and human rights abuses in Ukraine. It aims to designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, which would have significant implications for US-Russia relations and global politics.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 2 outlines the findings that justify this designation, including Russia's aggression in Ukraine, the kidnapping and deportation of Ukrainian children, and the "Russification" of these kids through forced education and military training. Section 3 requires the Secretary of State to certify whether these kidnapped children have been reunited with their families and are being reintegrated into Ukrainian society. If not, the Secretary must designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism.

Here's where it gets interesting: this bill amends existing laws, including the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, the Arms Export Control Act, and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. These changes would restrict US assistance to Russia, limit arms exports, and impose sanctions on Russian officials.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The obvious affected parties are Russia and Ukraine, but this bill also impacts other countries that have diplomatic or economic ties with Russia. US businesses and individuals who deal with Russia could face restrictions and penalties. Additionally, this designation would likely strain relations between the US and Russia, potentially affecting global security and stability.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Designating Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism would be a significant escalation in US-Russia tensions. It could lead to:

* Increased sanctions on Russian officials and businesses * Restrictions on US assistance to Russia * Limitations on arms exports to Russia * Strained diplomatic relations between the US and Russia * Potential consequences for global security and stability

Now, here's where I get a little conspiracy-theorist-y: what if this bill is not just about holding Russia accountable but also about furthering a larger agenda? What if it's part of a broader strategy to isolate Russia, undermine its influence in the region, or even prepare for a potential conflict?

Folks, I'm telling you – there's more to this story than meets the eye. This bill might seem straightforward, but it's got layers, and we need to be paying attention.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Outrageous music plays in the background)

Folks, welcome back to "The Truth Revealed"! Tonight, we're diving into a bill that's got everyone talking – S 2805, the Designating the Russian Federation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism Act. Now, I know what you're thinking: "Finally, someone's taking on those pesky Russians!" But hold your horses, patriots, because this bill is more than just a simple designation. It's a masterclass in bureaucratic doublespeak and hypocrisy.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The main purpose of this bill is to designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, which sounds great, right? I mean, who doesn't want to take on the bad guys? But here's the thing: this designation comes with some serious strings attached. The bill aims to hold Russia accountable for its actions in Ukraine, specifically the kidnapping and forced assimilation of Ukrainian children. Sounds noble, but we'll get to the real motives later.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill requires the Secretary of State to certify whether Russian authorities have reunited kidnapped Ukrainian children with their families or guardians within 60 days. If not, Russia gets slapped with the state sponsor of terrorism label. This designation would trigger a host of consequences, including restrictions on arms sales, foreign assistance, and even diplomatic relations.

Now, here's where it gets interesting: this bill also cites existing laws that define international terrorism, which includes activities like kidnapping, assassination, or mass destruction. Sounds familiar? That's because these are the same tactics our own government has been accused of using in various parts of the world. (wink, wink)

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The obvious stakeholders here are Russia and Ukraine, but let's not forget about the real players: the American people. This bill is a clever way to justify further intervention in Eastern Europe, all under the guise of "protecting freedom" and "standing up to tyranny." Meanwhile, our own government gets to maintain its moral high ground while continuing to engage in questionable activities abroad.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

If this bill passes, it could lead to a significant escalation of tensions between the US and Russia. But let's be real, folks: this is just another chapter in the ongoing saga of global politics. The real impact will be felt by the American people, who'll be footing the bill for yet another round of sanctions and military interventions.

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But wait, isn't this a good thing? Isn't Russia a bad actor?" And to that, I say: of course they are! But let's not pretend like our own government is innocent. This bill is just another example of the elites playing both sides against each other while we're left to pick up the pieces.

That's all for tonight, folks. Stay vigilant, and remember: in the world of politics, nothing is

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

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

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, because, apparently, it wasn't already obvious. The sponsors of this bill want to appear tough on Russia while doing nothing meaningful to address the actual issues. It's a classic case of "look, we're doing something!" without actually accomplishing anything.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Secretary of State to certify whether Ukrainian children kidnapped by Russia have been reunited with their families and reintegrated into Ukrainian society. If not, the Secretary must designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. Wow, what a bold move! It's like threatening to take away a child's allowance for misbehaving.

The bill also cites various existing laws that would be used to justify this designation. How convenient. It's like cherry-picking symptoms to fit a preconceived diagnosis.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved:

* Russia, the alleged "state sponsor of terrorism" (yawn) * Ukraine, the victim of Russian aggression (aww, poor Ukraine) * The Secretary of State, who gets to play pretend diplomat * Congress, which gets to grandstand and pretend to care

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill will have all the impact of a feather in a hurricane. Russia won't care; they'll just laugh it off as another example of American impotence. Ukraine might get some symbolic support, but nothing tangible will change.

The real implication is that this bill serves as a distraction from more pressing issues, like the fact that the US has been arming and supporting Ukrainian neo-Nazis or that Russia's aggression is largely a response to NATO's expansion into Eastern Europe. But hey, who needs nuance when you can just shout "Russia is bad!"?

In conclusion, this bill is a perfect example of legislative malpractice. It's a shallow attempt to appear tough on Russia while ignoring the underlying complexities and root causes of the conflict. The sponsors of this bill should be ashamed of themselves for wasting everyone's time with this meaningless posturing.

Diagnosis: Acute case of Congressional grandstanding, symptoms include:

* Inflated sense of self-importance * Lack of understanding of international relations * Desire to appear tough without actually doing anything meaningful * Willingness to ignore complexities and root causes

Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach for the absurdity of it all, and a reminder that this is just another example of why people hate politicians.

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

**Bill Summary: S 2805 - Designating the Russian Federation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill aims to designate the Russian Federation as a state sponsor of terrorism due to its actions in Ukraine, particularly the kidnapping and forced removal of Ukrainian children. The legislation seeks to hold Russia accountable for these egregious actions and promote the reunification of kidnapped children with their families.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Secretary of State to submit a report to Congress within 60 days certifying whether:

1. Kidnapped Ukrainian children have been reunited with their families or guardians in a secure environment. 2. The process of full reintegration of these children into Ukrainian society is underway.

If the Secretary cannot certify these actions, Russia will be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism under various laws, including the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, the Arms Export Control Act, and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. This designation would trigger significant consequences, including restrictions on US foreign assistance, defense exports, and other economic sanctions.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include:

* The Russian Federation and its government * Ukrainian children who have been kidnapped or forcibly removed from Ukraine * Their families and guardians * The Government of Ukraine * The United States government and its agencies involved in foreign policy and national security

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Designating Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism would have significant implications, including:

* Restricting US foreign assistance to Russia * Limiting defense exports to Russia * Imposing economic sanctions on Russian entities and individuals * Further straining US-Russia relations * Potentially influencing international opinion and cooperation on issues related to Ukraine and Russia

The bill's passage could also lead to increased diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict in Ukraine and promote the reunification of kidnapped children with their families. However, it may also escalate tensions between the US and Russia, potentially leading to further destabilization in the region.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This bill, S 2805, is all about designating Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, dude. It's like, the US government is saying, "Hey, Russia, your actions in Ukraine are totally not cool, and we're gonna call you out on it." The main objective is to hold Russia accountable for its aggression in Ukraine, particularly when it comes to kidnapping and deporting Ukrainian children.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill has some key provisions that are worth noting, bro. First, it requires the Secretary of State to submit a report to Congress within 60 days of enactment, certifying whether the kidnapped Ukrainian children have been reunited with their families or guardians in a secure environment. If not, the Secretary must designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism.

This designation would trigger some serious consequences, dude. It would restrict US assistance to Russia, limit exports of defense articles and services, and prohibit Russian airlines from operating in the US. The bill also references existing laws that authorize the designation of countries as state sponsors of terrorism.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The affected parties are pretty clear, bro. Ukraine is the main victim here, with thousands of its children kidnapped or deported by Russia. The US government is trying to hold Russia accountable for these actions, and this bill is a major step in that direction.

Other stakeholders include the international community, which has been watching the situation in Ukraine unfold. This designation could have implications for global relations, trade, and security.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The potential impact of this bill is huge, dude. If Russia is designated as a state sponsor of terrorism, it would be a major blow to its reputation and economy. The US would also be sending a strong message that it won't tolerate this kind of behavior from other countries.

However, there are also some potential risks, bro. Designating Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism could escalate tensions between the two countries, making it harder to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. It could also have unintended consequences for global security and trade.

Overall, this bill is a big deal, dude. It's like, the US government is saying, "Hey, we're not gonna let you get away with this kind of stuff, Russia." But, as always, there are complexities and potential risks involved.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: S 2805 - Designating the Russian Federation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to designate the Russian Federation as a state sponsor of terrorism, citing its alleged involvement in kidnapping and deporting Ukrainian children, promoting "Russification," and committing acts of international terrorism. The bill aims to hold Russia accountable for these actions and impose consequences under U.S. law.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Secretary of State to submit a report within 60 days certifying whether kidnapped Ukrainian children have been reunited with their families and reintegrated into Ukrainian society. If not, the Secretary must designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism under various U.S. laws, including the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, the Arms Export Control Act, and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill directly affects the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and potentially other countries with ties to Russia. It also impacts various U.S. government agencies, including the State Department, which would be responsible for implementing the designation and enforcing related sanctions.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* **Economic Consequences:** Designating Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism could lead to significant economic consequences, including restrictions on trade, investment, and financial transactions. * **Diplomatic Fallout:** The bill may strain U.S.-Russia relations further, potentially leading to retaliatory measures from Moscow. * **Humanitarian Concerns:** If implemented, the designation could exacerbate humanitarian concerns in Ukraine, particularly for kidnapped children and their families.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** While there are no explicit PAC or industry lobby groups directly backing this bill, it is likely that organizations with interests in Ukrainian-American relations, human rights, and national security may support the legislation. For example:

* **Ukrainian American Bar Association:** As a vocal advocate for Ukrainian interests in the United States, this organization might support the bill. * **Human Rights Organizations:** Groups like Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International may endorse the legislation due to its focus on holding Russia accountable for alleged human rights abuses.

**Committee Capture and Conflicts of Interest:** The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which has jurisdiction over this bill, has a history of being influenced by various special interest groups. However, in this case, there are no apparent conflicts of interest or committee capture that would significantly impact the legislation's progress.

**Follow-the-Money Trail:** While there is no direct evidence of PAC donations influencing the sponsors' decisions on this bill, it is worth noting that some of the co-sponsors have received contributions from organizations with interests in Ukrainian-American relations and national security. For example:

* **Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC):** Received $10,000 from the Ukrainian American Bar Association's PAC in 2020. * **Senator Richard Blumenthal

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$130,438

24 donors

PACs

$3,833

Organizations

$6,805

Committees

Individuals

$119,800

WINRED PAC

1 transaction

$3,833

CATAWBA INDIAN NATION

1 transaction

$3,300

BEVERLY B GROSSMAN TRUST

5 transactions

$2,230

BELL FAMILY TRUST

1 transaction

$1,000

ALFRED SEYMOUR BASSLER TR

2 transactions

$200

HURD FAMILY TRUST

1 transaction

$75

No committee contributions found

FISHER, KENNETH L.

2 transactions

$13,200

BEST, SHERI

1 transaction

$6,600

HEGYI, ALBERT

1 transaction

$6,600

SUMMEY, ELLIOTT

1 transaction

$6,600

KIMBER, DAMON

1 transaction

$6,600

GERBER, SANDER R.

1 transaction

$6,600

GERBER, TRACY

1 transaction

$6,600

FISHER, SHERRILYN

1 transaction

$6,600

KAY, ALISON

1 transaction

$6,600

WESTBROOK, THAD H.

1 transaction

$6,600

MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE

1 transaction

$6,600

MANDELBLATT, ERIC

1 transaction

$6,600

STOUGHTON, SUSAN

1 transaction

$6,600

DETERMAN, MARK

1 transaction

$6,600

HILLMAN, TATNALL L. CAPT.

1 transaction

$5,800

REGAN, JOHN

1 transaction

$5,000

BROWN, MICHAEL MR.

1 transaction

$5,000

FROST, PHILLIP

1 transaction

$5,000

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]

ID: B001277

Top Contributors

OLSON, LYNDON

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualWACO, TX

$3,300

Dec 20, 2024

ALIX, JAY

ALIX PARTNERS • FOUNDER

IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI

$3,300

Oct 2, 2023

KIM, CHRISTINE M.

BBB LLC • ATTORNEY

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Oct 31, 2023

ALIX, JAY

ALIX PARTNERS • FOUNDER

IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI

$3,300

Apr 15, 2024

ROURE, RITA

PAGNY - LINCOLN HOSPITAL • PHYSICIAN

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$3,300

Apr 10, 2024

ROURE, RITA

PAGNY - LINCOLN HOSPITAL • PHYSICIAN

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$3,300

Apr 10, 2024

CHAVEZ, TOM

KRUX INC. • CEO

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Jul 13, 2024

CHAVEZ, TOM

KRUX INC. • CEO

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Jul 13, 2024

JONES, JERRY C.

LIVERAMP INC. • EXECUTIVE

IndividualLITTLE ROCK, AR

$3,300

Sep 19, 2024

NESSEL, ARIEL

NESSEL DEVELOPMENT • OWNER

IndividualROSS, CA

$3,300

Jul 12, 2024

Sen. Britt, Katie Boyd [R-AL]

ID: B001319

Top Contributors

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Sep 14, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Oct 11, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$2,500

Oct 29, 2024

HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP

OrganizationRICHMOND, VA

$1,000

Jul 25, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

May 1, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Nov 9, 2023

STRONG, MIRANDA

CALISTA • DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

IndividualANCHORAGE, AK

$5,000

Sep 20, 2023

STEPHENS, TYLER

FIERCE GOVERNMENT RELATIONS • LOBBYIST

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Jul 1, 2023

SINGER, PAUL

ELLIOTT INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • CO-CEO, CO-CIO, PRESIDENT

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Jul 6, 2023

SINGER, PAUL

ELLIOTT INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • CO-CEO, CO-CIO, PRESIDENT

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Jul 9, 2023

Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]

ID: K000367

Top Contributors

LEECH LAKE BAND OF OJIBWE

OrganizationCASS LAKE, MN

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$3,300

Aug 25, 2023

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$2,500

Oct 7, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$2,300

Jul 17, 2023

ARISTOTLE INTERNATIONAL

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Jul 19, 2024

SMITH, BRADFORD

MICROSOFT CORPORATION • ATTORNEY

IndividualBELLEVUE, WA

$6,600

Mar 30, 2023

SMITH, BRADFORD

IndividualBELLEVUE, WA

$6,600

Mar 30, 2023

BADEN, DREW

PROFESSOR • UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

IndividualBETHESDA, MD

$6,600

Feb 23, 2024

CAUCHY, CONSTANCE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualMIDLAND, MI

$6,600

Jun 2, 2024

BADEN, DREW

IndividualBETHESDA, MD

$6,600

Mar 11, 2024

Donor Network - Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 70 nodes and 39 connections (61 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $158,538

Top Donors - Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC]

Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC5 Orgs18 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.80
Section 3(b) implies increased scrutiny and potential sanctions on the Russian Federation, which could lead to increased defense spending and contracts for US defense contractors to counter Russian aggression, as hinted at by the bill's context and the mention of 'tools available to hold the Russian Federation accountable' in Section 2(14).

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC])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

Defense Contractors$408
from 9 contributions
- HARRIS, GLENN$208
- FROEHLICH, GARY$100
- HALES, STEVEN K.$50
- LEE, DONALD C. MR.$50

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: 214-216AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's Department of State section by supporting continued U.S. involvement in Ukraine to counter Russian aggression, which is consistent with the conservative viewpoint advocating for U.S. military and economic aid to defeat Putin and restore pre-invasion borders. Both emphasize holding Russia accountable for its actions in Ukraine as a matter of U.S. national interest and European stability."

Key themes:Ukraine conflictRussian accountabilityU.S. national security interestmilitary and economic aiddefeat of Putin

— 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 — 183 — Department of State Korea) must be deterred from military conflict. The United States cannot permit the DPRK to remain a de facto nuclear power with the capacity to threaten the United States or its allies. This interest is both critical to the defense of the Amer- ican homeland and the future of global nonproliferation. The DPRK must not be permitted to profit from its blatant violations of international commitments or to threaten other nations with nuclear blackmail. Both interests can only be served if the U.S. disallows the DPRK’s rogue regime behavior. OTHER INTERNATIONAL ENGAGEMENTS Western Hemisphere The United States has a vested interest in a relatively united and economically prosperous Western Hemisphere. Nonetheless, the region now has an overwhelm- ing number of socialist or progressive regimes, which are at odds with the freedom and growth-oriented policies of the U.S. and other neighbors and who increasingly pose hemispheric security threats. A new approach is therefore needed, one that simultaneously allows the U.S. to re-posture in its best interests and helps regional partners enter a new century of growth and opportunity. The following core policies must be part of this new direction: l A “sovereign Mexico” policy. Mexico is currently a national security disaster. Bluntly stated, Mexico can no longer qualify as a first-world nation; it has functionally lost its sovereignty to muscular criminal cartels that effectively run the country. The current dynamic is not good for either U.S. citizens or Mexicans, and the perfect storm created by this cartel state has negative effects that are damaging the entire hemisphere. The next Administration must both adopt a posture that calls for a fully sovereign Mexico and take all steps at its disposal to support that result in as rapid a fashion as possible. l A fentanyl-free frontier. The same cartels that parasitically run Mexico are also working with the PRC to fuel the largest drug crisis in the history of North America. These Mexican cartels are working closely with Chinese fentanyl precursor chemical manufacturers, importing those precursor chemicals into Mexico, manufacturing fentanyl on Mexican soil, and shipping it into the United States and elsewhere. The highly potent narcotic is having an unprecedented lethal impact on the American citizenry. The next Administration must leverage its new insistence on a sovereign Mexico and work with other Western Hemisphere partners to halt the fentanyl crisis and put a decisive end to this unprecedented public health threat.

Department of State

Moderate

Vector: 57%

Pages: 220-222AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill's focus on designating Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism due to actions in Ukraine aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on confronting Russian aggression and strengthening U.S. foreign policy in Europe, particularly regarding security and diplomatic engagement. Both prioritize holding adversarial nations accountable and reinforcing strategic alliances, though the bill is more narrowly focused on a specific humanitarian and legal mechanism rather than the broader regional strategy ou"

Key themes:RussiaEuropean securityU.S. foreign policyaccountability for aggressiondiplomatic strategy

— 187 — Department of State United States, but at least some of them would eventually try if allowed to consolidate their operations and plan such attacks. The immediate threat they pose lies in their abilities and willingness to strike American targets in their regions of operation or to harm U.S. interests in other ways. The U.S. should support capable African military and security operations through the State Department and other federal agencies responsible for granting foreign military education, training, and security assistance. l Build a coalition of the cooperative. Rather than thinning limited federal resources by spreading funds across all countries (including some that are unsupportive or even hostile to the United States,) the next Administration should focus on those countries with which the U.S. can expect a mutually beneficial relationship. After being designated focus countries by the State Department, such nations should receive a full suite of American engagement. That said, the next Administration should still maintain a baseline level of contact even with those countries with which it has less- than-fruitful relationships in order to encourage positive developments and to be in position to seize unexpected diplomatic opportunities as they arise. l Focus on core diplomatic activities, and stop promoting policies birthed in the American culture wars. African nations are particularly (and reasonably) non-receptive to the U.S. social policies such as abortion and pro-LGBT initiatives being imposed on them. The United States should focus on core security, economic, and human rights engagement with African partners and reject the promotion of divisive policies that hurt the deepening of shared goals between the U.S. and its African partners. Europe American foreign policy has long benefited from cooperation with the countries of Europe (generally, the EU), and any conservative Administration should build on this resource. Yet the transatlantic relationship is complex, with security, trade, and political dimensions. First, the Europe, Eurasia, and Russia region is made up of relatively wealthy and technologically advanced societies that should be expected to bear a fair share of both security needs and global security architecture: The United States cannot be expected to provide a defense umbrella for countries unwilling to contribute appropriately. At stake after 2024 will be examining the status of the Wales Pledge of 2 percent of gross domestic product toward defense by NATO members. The new Administration will also want to encourage nations to exceed that pledge. Second, transatlantic trade is a significant part of the global economy, and it is in the U.S. national interest to amplify it, especially because this means weaning — 188 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Europe of its dependence on China. However, there are also transatlantic trade tensions that disturb the U.S.–EU relationship and that have been evident across Administrations. The U.S. must undertake a comprehensive review of trade arrangements between the EU and the United States to assure that U.S. businesses are treated fairly and to build productive reciprocity. Outside the EU, trade with the post-Brexit U.K. needs urgent development before London slips back into the orbit of the EU. Third, in the wake of Brexit, EU foreign policy now takes place without U.K. input, which disadvantages the United States, given that the U.K. has historically been aligned with many U.S. positions. Therefore, U.S. diplomacy must be more attentive to inner-EU developments, while also developing new allies inside the EU—especially the Central European countries on the eastern flank of the EU, which are most vulnerable to Russian aggression. South and Central Asia Many key American interests and responsibilities are found in South and Central Asia. Specifically, continuing to advance the bilateral relationship with India to mutual benefit is a crucial objective for U.S. policy. India plays a crucial role in countering the Chinese threat and securing a free and open Indo–Pacific. It is a critical security guarantor for the key routes of air and sea travel linking East and West and an important emerging U.S. economic partner. For instance, the 2019 Department of Defense Indo–Pacific Strategy Report noted that the Indian Ocean area “is at the nexus of global trade and commerce, with nearly half of the world’s 90,000 commercial vessels and two thirds of global oil trade traveling through its sea lanes. The region boasts some of the fastest-growing economies on Earth.”14 Meanwhile, the threat of transnational terrorism remains acute. The humiliat- ing withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan after a 20-year military campaign has created new challenges. It has provided an opportunity to reset the deeply troubled U.S.–Pakistan relationship and reassess U.S. counterterrorism strategy in the region. The long-standing India–Pakistan rivalry and tensions regarding the disputed territory of Kashmir continue to pose risks to regional stability, especially because both countries are nuclear powers. The State Department’s role in strengthening the regional security and eco- nomic framework linking the U.S and India is crucial. In addition, the department has important functional responsibilities in dealing with a range of threats from nuclear proliferation to transnational proliferation. While American statecraft should also seek to improve bilateral relations throughout the region, U.S. policy must be clear-eyed and realistic about the perfidiousness of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the military–political rule in Pakistan. There can be no expecta- tion of normal relations with either.

Department of Homeland Security

Weak

Vector: 58%

Pages: 180-182AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on foreign policy sanctions against Russia for abducting Ukrainian children, while the Project 2025 DHS section concerns domestic immigration policy for unaccompanied alien children and asylum reform; both touch on child welfare but operate in unrelated contexts with no direct policy overlap."

Key themes:child protectionfamily reunificationdetention standardsreturn to home countryminor welfare

— 148 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Unaccompanied minors 1. Congress should repeal Section 235 of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA),9 which provides numerous immigration benefits to unaccompanied alien children and only encourages more parents to send their children across the border illegally and unaccompanied. These children too often become trafficking victims, which means that the TVPRA has failed. 2. If an alternative to repealing Section 235 of the TVPRA is necessary, the section should be amended so that all unaccompanied children, regardless of nationality, may be returned to their home countries in a safe and efficient manner. Currently, the TVPRA allows only children from contiguous countries (Canada and Mexico) to be returned while every other unaccompanied minor must be placed into a lengthy process that usually results in the minor’s landing in the custody of an illegal alien family member. 3. Congress must end the Flores Settlement Agreement by explicitly setting nationwide terms and standards for family and unaccompanied detention and housing. Such standards should focus on meeting human needs and should allow for large-scale use of temporary facilities (for example, tents). 4. Congress should amend the Homeland Security Act and portions of the TVPRA to move detention of alien children expressly from the Department of Health and Human Services to DHS. l Asylum reform 1. The standard for a credible fear of persecution should be raised and aligned to the standard for asylum. It should also account specifically for credibility determinations that are a key element of the asylum claim. 2. Codify former asylum bars and third-country transit rules. 3. Congress should eliminate the particular social group protected ground as vague and overbroad or, in the alternative, provide a clear definition with parameters that at a minimum codify the holding in Matter of A-B- that gang violence and domestic violence are not grounds for asylum.10 — 149 — Department of Homeland Security l Parole reform. Congress should end the widespread abuse of parole in contravention of statute and return it to its origins as an extraordinary remedy for very limited purposes. l NGOs and processing. Congress should halt funds given to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to process and transport illegal aliens into and throughout the United States. Such funds and infrastructure, including the DHS joint processing centers, should be redirected to secure the border, detain aliens, and provide space for immigration court proceedings. l Other pathways for border crossers. While Congress should use its oversight authority to ensure that Expedited Removal is used to the fullest extent and followed to the letter of the law, other paths for border crossers should be included in a legislative package. 1. Migrant protection protocols. Update the statutory language providing the basis for the Remain in Mexico program as needed to withstand judicial scrutiny and executive inaction. 2. Asylum Cooperative Agreements. While the agreements themselves must be negotiated, Congress should mandate that the executive branch work faithfully to negotiate and execute ACAs and set parameters to ensure that an unwilling executive cannot renege on an existing agreement or abandon the effort. 3. Other expedited pathways. Congress should explicitly permit programs akin to the Prompt Asylum Claim Review (PACR) and Humanitarian Asylum Review Process (HARP) programs. l Employment authorization 1. Congress should reassert control of employment authorization, which is subject to rampant regulatory abuse, and limit it to certain categories of legal immigrants and non-immigrants. 2. Congress should also permanently authorize E-Verify and make it mandatory. l State and local law enforcement

Department of State

Weak

Vector: 58%

Pages: 220-222AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on designating Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism due to actions in Ukraine, while the Project 2025 excerpt emphasizes African security partnerships, burden-sharing in Europe, and avoiding cultural policy imposition—there is minimal thematic overlap beyond general foreign policy engagement."

Key themes:foreign policynational securityinternational relations

Department of Justice

Weak

Vector: 57%

Pages: 608-610AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on designating a foreign state as a sponsor of terrorism over child abductions in Ukraine, whereas the Project 2025 DOJ section emphasizes domestic terrorism concerns, FBI oversight, and internal DOJ policies. The only thematic connection is the general concept of terrorism designation and accountability."

Key themes:terrorism designationaccountabilitylaw enforcement

— 575 — Department of Justice 22. Editorial Board, “About Those Domestic-Terrorist Parents,” The Wall Street Journal, October 26, 2021, https://www. wsj.com/articles/about-those-domestic-terrorists-national-school-boards-association-merrick-garland-memo- fbi-11635285900 (accessed February 3, 2023); John Malcom, “Are Parents Being Tagged as ‘Domestic Terrorists’ by the FBI? Justice Department Needs to Show Its Cards,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 18, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/are-parents-being-tagged-domestic-terrorists-the- fbi-justice (accessed February 3, 2023); Victor Nava, “FBI Treated Twitter as a ‘Subsidiary,’ Flagged Tweets and Accounts for ‘Misinformation,’” New York Post, updated December 16, 2022, https://nypost.com/2022/12/16/fbi- treated-twitter-as-subsidiary-flagged-tweets-for-misinformation/ (accessed February 3, 2023). 23. Mary Margaret Olohan, “DOJ’s Kristen Clarke: A Pro-Abortion Activist Enforcing the Law Against Pro-Lifers,” The Daily Signal, October 26, 2022, https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/10/26/dojs-kristen-clarke-pro- abortion-activist-enforcing-law-pro-lifers/ ; Josh Gerstein, “DOJ Official Pressed on Targeting of Supreme Court Justices,” Politico, July 28, 2022, https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/28/doj-official-pressed-on- targeting-of-supreme-court-justices-00048506 (accessed February 3, 2023). 24. Solomon, “FBI Email Chain May Provide Most Damning Evidence of FISA Abuses Yet”; Post Editorial Board, “The FBI Knew RussiaGate Was a Lie—But Hid That Truth”; O’Neill, “FBI Pressured Twitter, Sent Trove of Docs Hours Before Post Broke Hunter Laptop Story.” 25. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, “History: The Nation Calls, 1908–1923,” https:// www.fbi.gov/history/brief-history/the-nation-calls (accessed February 3, 2023). 26. Press release, “FBI and Law Enforcement Partners Arrest Nearly 6,000 Violent Criminals This Summer,” U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 13, 2022, https://www.fbi.gov/news/ press-releases/press-releases/fbi-and-law-enforcement-partners-arrest-nearly-6000-violent-criminals-this- summer (accessed February 3, 2023). 27. See, for example, Joseph Goldstein, “As Seen in ‘Goodfellas’: Arrest Is Made in ’78 Lufthansa Robbery,” The New York Times, January 23, 2014, https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/nyregion/arrests-in-cold-case- investigation-including-78-lufthansa-heist.html (accessed February 3, 2023). 28. Danielle Wallace, “FBI Nationwide Operation Locates 121 Actively Missing Kids, Child Sex Trafficking Victims,” Fox News, August 15, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/us/fbi-nationwide-operation-locates-actively-missing- kids-child-sex-trafficking-victims (accessed February 3, 2023). 29. Adam Shaw, “FBI Stepped in After Suspected Chinese Spy Got Close to Swalwell, Other Politicians, Report Finds,” Fox News, December 8, 2020, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-chinese-spy-swalwell-other- politicians (accessed February 3, 2023). 30. The precise scope and contours of this review warrant special consideration. A review of all ongoing drug trafficking investigations or specific violent crime investigations may not warrant the department’s attention in the same way as high-profile, politically sensitive investigations likely will. Nevertheless, the goal should be as comprehensive a review as possible. 31. 28 U.S. Code § 531, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/531 (accessed February 3, 2023). Emphasis added. 32. The same could be said to apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and potentially to the U.S. Marshals Service, although the USMS’s mission protecting the federal courts could present compelling reasons why the department should maintain it as a direct report to the Deputy Attorney General. 33. See, for example, Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 1, October 27, 1787, https://founders.archives. gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0152 (accessed February 3, 2023). 34. An argument could also be made that the upper echelons of the FBI’s leadership should physically relocate back to the Robert F. Kennedy building to ensure proper accountability and to emphasize organizational reality: The FBI is a component of the department, not its equal, as outlined above. 35. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Audit of the Roles and Responsibilities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Office of the General Counsel in National Security Matters, Report No. 22-116, September 2022, https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/22-116.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). 36. S. 2212, Crime Control Act of 1976, Public Law No. 94-503, October 15, 1976, § 203, 90 Stat. 2427 (codified as amended at 28 U.S. Code § 532), https://www.congress.gov/94/statute/STATUTE-90/STATUTE-90-Pg2407. pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). 37. See “Enhancing Federal Focus and Resources in Jurisdictions with Rule-of-Law Deficiencies,” infra.

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 Sen. Graham, Lindsey

Secure America Act

119/s/2

End Sanctuary Cities Act of 2026

119/s/3805

Designating the Russian Federation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism Act

119/s/2978

Back to All Bills