H.R. 1503 (119th)Bill Overview

Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act of 2025

International Affairs|Congressional oversightHuman trafficking
Cosponsors
Support
Bipartisan
Introduced
Feb 21, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief

The Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act of 2025 requires U.S. policy and reporting to address forced organ harvesting and trafficking for organ removal, adds those issues to existing country and human-rights reports, authorizes passport denial or revocation for certain convicted offenders, and directs the President to produce a list of persons who fund, sponsor, or facilitate forced organ harvesting.

Persons on the list would face IEEPA-based asset blocks and U.S. visa and admission bans, subject to humanitarian, treaty, and presidential-waiver exceptions.

The Act defines terms, extends reporting in the Foreign Assistance Act, and permits implementation and penalties under IEEPA provisions.

Passage50/100

Subject has bipartisan human-rights appeal and uses standard sanctions tools, but explicit targeting of a foreign political party and implementation details create diplomatic and procedural friction.

CredibilityPartial

How solid the drafting looks.

Contention50/100

Whether explicitly naming the Chinese Communist Party is diplomatically prudent

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Who this appears to help vs burden50% / 50%
Targeted stakeholdersStates
Likely helped
  • Targeted stakeholdersIncreases diplomatic leverage and economic pressure on persons implicated in forced organ harvesting.
  • Targeted stakeholdersRequires country-level reporting that could improve detection and monitoring of organ harvesting abuses.
  • Targeted stakeholdersAsset blocking and visa bans restrict perpetrators' access to U.S. financial systems and travel.
Likely burdened
  • Targeted stakeholdersCould provoke diplomatic friction or retaliation from countries or entities singled out by the U.S.
  • StatesImposes additional administrative and resource burdens on State, Treasury, and implementing agencies.
  • Targeted stakeholdersListing and visa revocations could raise due process and legal challenge concerns for affected persons.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Whether explicitly naming the Chinese Communist Party is diplomatically prudent
Progressive85%

Likely supportive overall because the bill targets a severe human-rights abuse and strengthens accountability and reporting.

Supporters will welcome sanctions tools and reporting requirements but may worry about due process, evidence standards, and potential diplomatic consequences, especially singling out the Chinese Communist Party.

They will also expect protections for refugees and humanitarian flows.

Leans supportive
Centrist70%

Generally favorable because the bill addresses a clear human-rights crime and uses established sanction authorities and reporting mechanisms.

Centrists will seek clear standards, transparency, and minimal unintended consequences for diplomacy, trade, and humanitarian operations.

They will emphasize congressional oversight, clear criteria for the list, and careful use of IEEPA authorities to avoid executive overreach.

Leans supportive
Conservative90%

Likely strongly supportive because the bill takes a tough stance on transnational human-rights abuses and explicitly calls out members of the Chinese Communist Party.

Conservatives will welcome wide sanction authorities, visa bans, and passport revocations for offenders crossing borders, viewing the bill as a strong tool against state and non-state perpetrators.

Some will still want assurances that sanctions do not unintentionally restrict U.S. economic interests or humanitarian flows.

Leans supportive
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood50/100

Subject has bipartisan human-rights appeal and uses standard sanctions tools, but explicit targeting of a foreign political party and implementation details create diplomatic and procedural friction.

Scope and complexity
52%
Scopemoderate
52%
Complexitymedium
Why this could stall
  • Standards and evidence for listing persons are not specified
  • Potential executive-branch resistance or preference for alternative approaches
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Whether explicitly naming the Chinese Communist Party is diplomatically prudent

Subject has bipartisan human-rights appeal and uses standard sanctions tools, but explicit targeting of a foreign political party and imple…

Unlocked analysis

Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act of 2025.

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis