MEGOBARI Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/868
Last Updated: May 19, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]

ID: S001181

Follow the money

The bill

MEGOBARI Act

S. 868, 119th Congress — read as touching Defense Contractors.

The sponsor

Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]

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

The money

$72,850 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of State" section, p. 223-225 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. 55.

April 27, 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

(sighing) Oh joy, another piece of legislative theater designed to make politicians feel good about themselves while accomplishing nothing meaningful. Let's dissect this farce.

The MEGOBARI Act is a classic case of "diplomatic diarrhea" – a lot of hot air and empty rhetoric with no real substance. The bill's primary purpose is to pretend to support democracy in Georgia, while actually serving as a vehicle for politicians to grandstand about their commitment to freedom and human rights.

New regulations? Ha! This bill doesn't create any meaningful new regulations; it just reiterates existing policies and statements of intent. It's like a doctor writing a prescription for a patient with a terminal illness – all show, no substance.

Affected industries and sectors? None, really. This bill is all about posturing on the international stage, so it won't have any significant impact on domestic industries or sectors.

Compliance requirements and timelines? Forget about it. The bill is full of vague language and empty promises, with no clear enforcement mechanisms or deadlines. It's like asking a patient to take their medication "whenever they feel like it."

Enforcement mechanisms and penalties? Don't make me laugh. This bill relies on the usual toothless threats – "we'll review our relationship with Georgia" or "we'll impose swift consequences." Yeah, right. Like that's going to scare anyone.

Economic and operational impacts? Zilch. This bill won't have any significant economic or operational effects, except maybe for a few politicians' egos getting inflated.

In short, the MEGOBARI Act is a prime example of legislative "placebo politics" – all show, no substance. It's designed to make politicians feel good about themselves while accomplishing nothing meaningful. (muttering to himself) And people wonder why I'm so cynical...

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

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$72,850
13 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$250
Committees
$0
Individuals
$72,600

No PAC contributions found

1
TILT LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE LLC
1 transaction
$250

No committee contributions found

1
HAWASH, NOUR
4 transactions
$19,800
2
HAWASH, SAFA
2 transactions
$6,600
3
KANDIL, MARIAM
2 transactions
$6,600
4
SHAH, JAWAD
2 transactions
$6,600
5
SIMMONS, IAN
2 transactions
$6,600
6
SOLTAN, BOSHRA
2 transactions
$6,600
7
JONDY, JENAN
1 transaction
$3,300
8
KANDIL, OSAMA
1 transaction
$3,300
9
WU, ALBERT
1 transaction
$3,300
10
MORIN, THOMAS
1 transaction
$3,300
11
CROWLEY, MATTHEW
1 transaction
$3,300
12
HUNT, SWANEE
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

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

ID: R000584

Top Contributors

10

1
CRW RESOURCES
OrganizationCOEUR D ALENE, ID
$1,000
Feb 29, 2024
2
SNELL, PETER
ARBELLA CAPITAL • REAL EATATE
IndividualARLINGTON, VA
$5,000
May 8, 2024
3
KAYALI, ZEID
SELF • PHYSICIAN
IndividualPASADENA, CA
$3,500
Feb 9, 2023
4
MOORE, JEFFREY
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualLAS VEGAS, NV
$3,435
Nov 19, 2024
5
KTELEH, TAREK
RHEUMATOLOGY • DOCTOR
IndividualFISHERS, IN
$3,300
Dec 23, 2024
6
ALAAMA, ABDUL M.D.
SELF • GASTROENTEROLOGY
IndividualWHITTIER, CA
$3,300
Feb 9, 2023
7
ASHOURI, DIANA
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA • PHYSICIAN
IndividualPASADENA, CA
$3,300
Feb 9, 2023
8
DIAB, MOHAMED KHEIR
MASIMO CORPORATION • DIRECTOR
IndividualLADERA RANCH, CA
$3,300
Feb 9, 2023
9
MOUJTAHED, SAED
OWL REXALL INFUSION • DIRECTOR
IndividualTRABUCO CANYON, CA
$3,300
Feb 9, 2023
10
MONSEN, MARION F
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSUN VALLEY, ID
$3,300
Sep 6, 2023

Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE]

ID: C001088

Top Contributors

10

1
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Dec 27, 2023
2
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$1,700
Dec 27, 2023
3
CHEN, YU
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualMIAMI, FL
$3,300
Dec 17, 2024
4
MIRZAIE, REZA
RUSS AUGUST & KABAT LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA
$3,300
Oct 7, 2024
5
CHEN, YU
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualMIAMI, FL
$3,300
Dec 17, 2024
6
WASSERMAN, CASEY
WASSERMAN • CEO
IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
7
ZHAO, PENG
CITADEL SECURITIES • CEO
IndividualMIAMI, FL
$3,300
Dec 17, 2024
8
WASSERMAN, CASEY
WASSERMAN • CEO
IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
9
ZHAO, PENG
CITADEL SECURITIES • CEO
IndividualMIAMI, FL
$3,300
Dec 17, 2024
10
MIRZAIE, REZA
RUSS AUGUST & KABAT LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA
$3,300
Oct 7, 2024

Sen. Ricketts, Pete [R-NE]

ID: R000618

Top Contributors

10

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

Donor Network - Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 39 nodes and 30 connections (45 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $95,150

Top Donors - Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]

Showing top 13 donors by contribution amount

1 Org12 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped, 2 harmed.

  • +Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.80

    Section 7(a)(2) mentions maintaining and expanding military cooperation with Georgia, including providing security and defense equipment, which would benefit the defense contractors industry.

  • Section 6 imposes sanctions on foreign persons, which could negatively impact private equity and hedge funds with investments in Georgia or dealings with sanctioned individuals.

  • −Commercial Banksconfidence 0.60

    Section 6(d)(1) blocks property and interests in property of foreign persons, which could affect commercial banks dealing with sanctioned entities or individuals.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH])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

  • from 30 contributions
    • STONEMAN, SHELLY$2,000
    • DAHLBERG, GREGORY$500
    • SCHWENK, JOHN$500
    • HEAD, ROBERT$500
    • SCHMID, BETSY$500

Industries this bill HARMS

  • from 6 contributions
    • VANSAUN, BRUCE$3,000
    • MCCREE, DONALD$2,000
    • KLANE, POLLY$1,000
    • BORAS, STEPHEN$500
    • FARWELL, DAVID$500

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

Moderate
Vector: 58%
Pages: 223-225AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The MEGOBARI Act shares Project 2025's theme of conditioning U.S. engagement on partner performance and promoting sovereignty/authentic human rights, but it focuses on bilateral democracy promotion rather than the broader reevaluation of international organizations emphasized in Project 2025."

Key themes:conditionality of assistancepromotion of democratic governance/human rightssovereignty focusreview/evaluation of partnershipsalignment with U.S. interests

— 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

Department of State

Weak
Vector: 58%
Pages: 220-222AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The MEGOBARI Act focuses on supporting democracy and EU/NATO aspirations in Georgia, while the Project 2025 State Department section emphasizes focusing on mutually beneficial relationships, core diplomatic activities, and avoiding culture war policies—primarily in African and European contexts. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address the selective engagement, burden-sharing, or culture war avoidance principles outlined in Project 2025."

Key themes:foreign assistance reviewdemocratic engagementstrategic partnerships

— 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

Agency for International Development

Weak
Vector: 58%
Pages: 309-311AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the MEGOBARI Act and the Project 2025 USAID section emphasize U.S. foreign assistance aimed at promoting good governance and anti-corruption, but they differ geographically (Georgia vs. Africa) and substantively (democratic support vs. economic self-reliance and countering China)."

Key themes:foreign assistancedemocratic governanceanti-corruptionU.S. strategic engagement

— 276 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise USAID efforts in Africa require a rethink. In 2025, USAID will update its five- year Country Development and Cooperation Strategies. This will give the next Administration an opportunity to pursue a new development course for Africa that promotes economic self-reliance, catalyzes private-sector solutions for job creation through increased trade and investment, terminates legacy and nonper- forming programs, and supports diversified energy approaches. Critically, it must hold China accountable for its extractive investments that violate international labor, environmental, and anticorruption norms and practices; undercut business opportunities for U.S. companies; and sabotage Africa’s development. l USAID, in collaboration with the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of the Treasury, and U.S. Department of Commerce’s Foreign Commercial Service, should use its convening power, diplomatic heft, and risk-reducing instruments to facilitate U.S.–African business relationships and expand Prosper Africa, launched by the Trump Administration to “bring[] together services from across the U.S. Government to help companies and investors do business in U.S. and African markets.”17 l The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA)18 provides Africa duty- free access to U.S. markets. The next Administration should extend AGOA beyond its 2025 term but within a strategic framework that rewards good governance and pro–free market economic policies. There is no point in wasting massive sums of aid to countries whose governments fail to keep their promises to reform. l USAID should build on, not compete with, private-sector initiatives launched by global churches, corporate philanthropists, and diaspora groups that have already invested billions of dollars in self-reliance– based projects. Japan has committed $30 billion in aid to Africa over three years to stem China’s economic and political grip on the continent. Gulf-based sovereign funds also are investing billions in African energy, infrastructure, mining, water, food production, information and communications technology, and other strategic industries. Other allied donors are promoting investment-based aid. There is no lack of funding to support Africa’s economic rise. What is lacking is strategic direction among U.S. government foreign aid agencies. PEPFAR has saved countless lives over the years and constitutes America’s most successful aid program. During the Trump Administration, PEPFAR increased the share of funding to local entities from about 20 percent to nearly 70 percent with

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