Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Amends the Special Drawing Rights Act to bar the United States from voting to allocate IMF Special Drawing Rights to any member whose government committed genocide within the prior ten years or is designated a state sponsor of terrorism, unless Congress authorizes such a vote.
The prohibition references Secretary of State determinations under specified statutory authorities.
It applies to votes under Articles XVIII, sections 2 and 3, of the IMF Articles of Agreement.
Narrow, low-cost measure with bipartisan appeal on human-rights grounds, but substantive executive-branch objections and Senate consensus needs reduce likelihood.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly defines a specific legal prohibition and embeds it as an amendment to the Special Drawing Rights Act, but it provides limited operational detail for implementation and for handling common edge cases.
Progressives emphasize humanitarian risk and wants carve-outs.
Progressives emphasize humanitarian risk and wants carve-outs.
Likely broadly supportive because the bill prevents financial resources flowing to genocidal regimes and state sponsors of terrorism.
Concern would focus on potential unintended harm to civilians and on constraining multilateral crisis response without clear humanitarian exceptions.
Cautious support for the principle of withholding resources from egregious regimes, balanced against concerns about operational impacts on IMF functioning.
Wants narrow, practical safeguards to avoid hampering global financial stability and U.S. influence in multilateral institutions.
Strongly favorable: blocks transfers to dictators and state sponsors of terrorism and restores congressional control over international financial commitments.
Sees the bill as a check on executive discretion and an appropriate moral and security safeguard.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, low-cost measure with bipartisan appeal on human-rights grounds, but substantive executive-branch objections and Senate consensus needs reduce likelihood.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize humanitarian risk and wants carve-outs.
Narrow, low-cost measure with bipartisan appeal on human-rights grounds, but substantive executive-branch objections and Senate consensus n…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly defines a specific legal prohibition and embeds it as an amendment to the Special Drawing Rights Act, but it provides limited operational detail for implement…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.