Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
The bill amends the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 to define "subaward" and require reporting of any subaward to entities located in or defined as a "foreign country of concern" or "foreign entity of concern" under section 9901 of the FY2021 NDAA. Prime award recipients must disclose covered subaward data in the same manner existing subawards are disclosed.
Liberals worry about NGO/beneficiary exposure; conservatives emphasize national security gains
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment that creates a new reporting obligation (a substantive change) by extending FFATA disclosure requirements to subawards to entities or countries defined as matters of concern.
The bill amends the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 to define "subaward" and require reporting of any subaward to entities located in or defined as a "foreign country of concern" or "foreign entity of concern" under section 9901 of the FY2021 NDAA.
Prime award recipients must disclose covered subaward data in the same manner existing subawards are disclosed.
The Director must issue guidance within 90 days of enactment to standardize compliance and data standards.
Technocratic, low‑cost transparency tweak tied to national security that could attract bipartisan support, though procedural hurdles and definitional debates remain.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment that creates a new reporting obligation (a substantive change) by extending FFATA disclosure requirements to subawards to entities or countries defined as matters of concern. It defines key terms and delegates standards-setting to a Director with a 90-day guidance deadline, integrating the requirement into existing reporting structures.
Liberals worry about NGO/beneficiary exposure; conservatives emphasize national security gains
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals worry about NGO/beneficiary exposure; conservatives emphasize national security gains
Generally supportive of increased transparency about taxpayer funds reaching adversarial countries, with caution about civil society impacts.
Concerned the requirement could unintentionally expose NGOs, researchers, or humanitarian partners to risk and chill cooperation.
Would seek privacy protections, narrow public disclosures, and funding for compliance.
Supports greater transparency for national security and fiscal accountability but emphasizes implementation practicality.
Wants clear definitions, a realistic compliance timeline, and funding to avoid undue burden.
Sees this as a technocratic expansion of FFATA rather than a partisan change.
Generally favorable, viewing the bill as a needed step to prevent U.S. funds reaching adversarial countries and entities.
Likely to argue it strengthens national security oversight and accountability.
May press for even tougher restrictions or enforcement measures beyond reporting.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technocratic, low‑cost transparency tweak tied to national security that could attract bipartisan support, though procedural hurdles and definitional debates remain.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals worry about NGO/beneficiary exposure; conservatives emphasize national security gains
Technocratic, low‑cost transparency tweak tied to national security that could attract bipartisan support, though procedural hurdles and de…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment that creates a new reporting obligation (a substantive change) by extending FFATA disclosure requirements to subawards to entities or…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.