Sustainable International Financial Institutions Act of 2025
Download PDFSponsored by
Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]
ID: M001176
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Invalid Date
Introduced
đź“Ť 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
đź“š 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 brilliant example of legislative theater, courtesy of Senators Merkley and Sanders. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Sustainable International Financial Institutions Act of 2025 is a masterclass in virtue signaling. Its primary objective is to make the United States appear committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning to a clean energy economy. In reality, it's a toothless attempt to appease the environmental lobby while maintaining business as usual.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the International Financial Institutions Act to require U.S. Executive Directors at international financial institutions (IFIs) to use their voice and vote to:
1. Advance clean energy and climate justice. 2. Oppose policies supporting fossil fuel activity. 3. Phase out funding for internal combustion engines by 2027.
These provisions are nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to restrict U.S. contributions to IFIs that support fossil fuel projects. The bill also establishes an escrow account to hold funds withheld from IFIs, which will be released when the institution meets certain conditions. How quaint.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved:
1. Environmental groups: They'll pretend this bill is a victory, while secretly knowing it's a watered-down compromise. 2. Fossil fuel industry: They'll feign outrage, but ultimately, they'll find ways to adapt and exploit loopholes. 3. International financial institutions: They'll pay lip service to the bill's objectives while continuing to fund projects that benefit their real constituents – corporate interests. 4. U.S. taxpayers: As always, they'll foot the bill for this legislative charade.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill will have a negligible impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions or transitioning to a clean energy economy. It's a symbolic gesture designed to appease environmentalists and provide cover for politicians who want to appear proactive without actually doing anything meaningful.
In reality, the bill will:
1. Create new bureaucratic hurdles for IFIs, which will lead to increased administrative costs and inefficiencies. 2. Provide a false sense of security for voters who think their elected officials are taking action on climate change. 3. Allow politicians to claim they're "doing something" about climate change while continuing to serve the interests of their corporate donors.
In conclusion, this bill is a perfect example of legislative malpractice – a cynical attempt to manipulate public opinion while maintaining the status quo. It's a disease masquerading as a cure, and I'm not buying it.
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
No campaign finance data available for Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 709 — Department of the Treasury principal goals. The next Administration should eliminate the Climate Hub Office and withdraw from climate change agreements that are inimical to the prosperity of the United States. The Climate Hub office “coordinates Treasury’s work to inform, guide, incen- tivize, and mobilize financial flows for climate mitigation and climate adaptation and supports the broader alignment of the financial system with a path to net- zero emissions by mid-century.“71 According to the Biden Administration’s Fiscal Year 2022–2026 Strategic Plan for Treasury, the fourth of five Treasury strategic goals reads: Combat Climate Change The United States and the world face a climate crisis and a narrowing window of action to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. At the same time, the transition to a low carbon economy represents a historic economic opportunity for the U.S. and global economy. The U.S. federal government must work alongside our domestic and international partners to respond ambitiously to tackle the challenges of climate change, adapt to an already changing climate, mitigate the risks, and position the global economy for clean and sustainable growth.72 Yet history shows that economic growth and technological/scientific advance through human ingenuity are by far the best ways to prevent and mitigate extreme weather events. Moreover, virtually all of the initiatives that the Biden Administra- tion has adopted would, even if successful, have a de minimis impact on changing global weather patterns, in part because most nations—notably China—are not cooperating with climate summits and international agreements. Virtually all nations, for example, that signed the Paris Agreement73 have not met their treaty obligations. Such routinely violated treaties weaken the U.S. economy with no off- setting societal benefits. To that end, the next conservative Administration should withdraw the U.S. from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change74 and the Paris Agreement. The next Administration should use Treasury’s tools and authority to promote investment in domestic energy, including oil and gas. It should reverse support for international public- (and private-) based efforts promoting Environmental, Social, and Governance75 and Principles for Responsible Investment,76 both of which have badly damaged U.S. energy security. OTHER REFORMS U.S. Coast Guard and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Congress should examine whether to return the Treasury’s former
Introduction
— 709 — Department of the Treasury principal goals. The next Administration should eliminate the Climate Hub Office and withdraw from climate change agreements that are inimical to the prosperity of the United States. The Climate Hub office “coordinates Treasury’s work to inform, guide, incen- tivize, and mobilize financial flows for climate mitigation and climate adaptation and supports the broader alignment of the financial system with a path to net- zero emissions by mid-century.“71 According to the Biden Administration’s Fiscal Year 2022–2026 Strategic Plan for Treasury, the fourth of five Treasury strategic goals reads: Combat Climate Change The United States and the world face a climate crisis and a narrowing window of action to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. At the same time, the transition to a low carbon economy represents a historic economic opportunity for the U.S. and global economy. The U.S. federal government must work alongside our domestic and international partners to respond ambitiously to tackle the challenges of climate change, adapt to an already changing climate, mitigate the risks, and position the global economy for clean and sustainable growth.72 Yet history shows that economic growth and technological/scientific advance through human ingenuity are by far the best ways to prevent and mitigate extreme weather events. Moreover, virtually all of the initiatives that the Biden Administra- tion has adopted would, even if successful, have a de minimis impact on changing global weather patterns, in part because most nations—notably China—are not cooperating with climate summits and international agreements. Virtually all nations, for example, that signed the Paris Agreement73 have not met their treaty obligations. Such routinely violated treaties weaken the U.S. economy with no off- setting societal benefits. To that end, the next conservative Administration should withdraw the U.S. from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change74 and the Paris Agreement. The next Administration should use Treasury’s tools and authority to promote investment in domestic energy, including oil and gas. It should reverse support for international public- (and private-) based efforts promoting Environmental, Social, and Governance75 and Principles for Responsible Investment,76 both of which have badly damaged U.S. energy security. OTHER REFORMS U.S. Coast Guard and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Congress should examine whether to return the Treasury’s former — 710 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise in-house law enforcement capabilities via the return of the United States Coast Guard and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Bringing these agencies back from the Department of Homeland Security and the Depart- ment of Justice, respectively, would allow Treasury, in the case of U.S. Coast Guard, to increase border security via a vigilance with respect to economic crimes (for example, drug smuggling and tax evasion). U.S. Trade and Development Agency. Congress should eliminate the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA). The USTDA is intended to help com- panies create U.S. jobs through the export of U.S. goods and services for priority development projects in emerging economies. The USTDA links U.S. businesses to export opportunities by funding project planning activities, pilot projects, and reverse-trade missions while creating sustainable infrastructure and economic growth in partner countries. These activities more properly belong to the private sector. The best way to promote trade and development is to reduce tariff and non-tariff trade barriers. Another way is to reduce the federal budget deficit, and thereby federal borrowing from abroad, freeing more foreign dollars to be spent on U.S. exports instead of federal treasury bonds. Other Issues. Many Treasury Department issues cut across multiple parts of Treasury or other governmental agencies. Several are discussed in this chapter, but not all can be covered here in depth. Other issues of concern include China, cybersecurity, digital assets, digital services taxes, international debt defaults, Iran, Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds and private sector pensions, sanctions policy, and treasury auction and debt issuance. AUTHORS’ NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume, but Monica Crowley, Tom Dans, John Berlau, Austin Bramwell, Preston Brashers, Alexandra Harrison Gaiser, Nathan Hitchen, Adam Korzeniewski, and Jonathan Moy deserve special mention. The authors alone assume responsibility for the content of this chapter, and no views expressed herein should be attributed to any other individual.
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.