Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Prohibits the General Services Administration from awarding contracts to insured depository institutions (or affiliates) that, based solely on "social policy considerations," avoid doing business with companies engaged in lawful commerce. The prohibition applies only to contracts awarded after enactment.
Left emphasizes harms to ESG, civil‑rights, and due diligence practices.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly articulates a discrete prohibition on GSA awarding contracts to certain insured depository institutions but provides minimal implementation detail.
Prohibits the General Services Administration from awarding contracts to insured depository institutions (or affiliates) that, based solely on "social policy considerations," avoid doing business with companies engaged in lawful commerce.
The prohibition applies only to contracts awarded after enactment.
Narrow but ideologically charged; straightforward to implement but vulnerable to opposition, procedural barriers, and litigation.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly articulates a discrete prohibition on GSA awarding contracts to certain insured depository institutions but provides minimal implementation detail. It lacks definitions of critical terms, procedural mechanisms for determination and enforcement, fiscal analysis, and guidance for integration with existing procurement authorities.
Left emphasizes harms to ESG, civil‑rights, and due diligence practices.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Left emphasizes harms to ESG, civil‑rights, and due diligence practices.
Likely opposes the bill as an overreach that restricts financial institutions' ability to refuse business on ethical, environmental, or civil‑rights grounds.
Concerned the vague language could block banks' legitimate due diligence and accountability practices.
Views the bill as addressing political litmus tests in federal contracting but finds its terms vague and potentially legally problematic.
Likely seeks clarifications and targeted exceptions before supporting.
Likely supports the bill as a tool to stop banks from politically motivated boycotts of lawful businesses and to prevent taxpayer funds going to such banks.
Views federal procurement as appropriate leverage.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow but ideologically charged; straightforward to implement but vulnerable to opposition, procedural barriers, and litigation.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Left emphasizes harms to ESG, civil‑rights, and due diligence practices.
Narrow but ideologically charged; straightforward to implement but vulnerable to opposition, procedural barriers, and litigation.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly articulates a discrete prohibition on GSA awarding contracts to certain insured depository institutions but provides minimal implementation detail. It lacks d…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.