Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Appropriations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consi…
The bill abolishes the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) by prohibiting federal funds for any USAID functions beginning on enactment. It rescinds unobligated balances held by USAID the day before enactment and transfers any remaining assets and liabilities to the Secretary of State.
Progressives emphasize humanitarian and global-health harms.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states the substantive action (abolish USAID and prohibit funding for its functions) and includes a few concrete mechanics (rescission of unobligated balances; transfer of assets/liabilities to the Secretary of State).
The bill abolishes the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) by prohibiting federal funds for any USAID functions beginning on enactment.
It rescinds unobligated balances held by USAID the day before enactment and transfers any remaining assets and liabilities to the Secretary of State.
Abolishing a major foreign‑assistance agency is a high‑stakes, high‑controversy change with immediate fiscal and policy risks and little built‑in compromise.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states the substantive action (abolish USAID and prohibit funding for its functions) and includes a few concrete mechanics (rescission of unobligated balances; transfer of assets/liabilities to the Secretary of State). However, it provides limited implementation detail, minimal interaction with existing statutory architecture, little fiscal exposition beyond rescission, and no reporting or transition safeguards.
Progressives emphasize humanitarian and global-health harms.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize humanitarian and global-health harms.
Likely strongly opposed.
The bill ends a dedicated U.S. civilian foreign assistance agency and cancels unobligated funds, risking humanitarian, development, and human-rights programs.
Cautious skepticism.
Supports efficiency and accountability but worries abrupt abolition, rescission of funds, and credibility harms without a clear transition plan.
Generally supportive.
Abolishing USAID aligns with reducing foreign aid bureaucracy and federal spending; may be seen as restoring fiscal discipline and executive consolidation.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Abolishing a major foreign‑assistance agency is a high‑stakes, high‑controversy change with immediate fiscal and policy risks and little built‑in compromise.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize humanitarian and global-health harms.
Abolishing a major foreign‑assistance agency is a high‑stakes, high‑controversy change with immediate fiscal and policy risks and little bu…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states the substantive action (abolish USAID and prohibit funding for its functions) and includes a few concrete mechanics (rescission of unobligated balances…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.