PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Panetta, Jimmy [D-CA-19] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 22, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10195 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10195 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10195 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10195 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-08-31 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Mali Security Partnership and Counterterrorism Act would require federal officials to report to Congress on al-Qaeda’s influence in Mali and how gold trafficking and other revenue sources finance extremist groups. The report would also include a diplomatic strategy for countering that influence. The Secretary of State would have to submit it within 180 days after enactment.
This Act may be cited as the Mali Security Partnership and Counterterrorism Act.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State, in coordination with the heads of other appropriate Federal departments and agencies, shall submit to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate a report on the scope and trajectory of al-Qaeda’s presence and influence in Mali, and the role of gold trafficking, informal taxation, and illicit trade networks in Mali in financing terrorist and violent extremist organizations.
the report required under that subsection shall also include a United States diplomatic strategy for countering al-Qaeda influence in Mali
The bill’s findings describe expanding extremist influence, attacks, and economic disruption in Mali and the surrounding region. These are statements Congress would make through the bill, rather than independently verified conclusions in this analysis.
Congress finds the following: (1) The al-Qaeda-linked group Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen (JNIM) has significantly expanded its reach across central Mali and the broader Sahel, conducting large-scale attacks against security forces and establishing influence in contested regions.
(3) JNIM’s campaign in Mali has included economic disruption tactics that have paralyzed key trade and transport routes, undermined government authority, and contributed to national shortages and economic distress.
The Secretary of State would coordinate with other appropriate federal departments and agencies and send the report to the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The 180-day deadline would run from enactment, rather than introduction.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State, in coordination with the heads of other appropriate Federal departments and agencies, shall submit to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate a report
The report would examine where al-Qaeda exercises practical control, operates freely, or performs governing functions. It would also examine cross-border operations with extremist groups in Burkina Faso and Niger, including supplies, command links, and movement routes.
(1) an evaluation of al-Qaeda’s territorial influence, including areas of de facto control, operational freedom, or governance activities; (2) an analysis of cross-border operations and coordination with extremist elements in Burkina Faso and Niger, including logistics, command-and-control linkages, and mobility corridors;
The report would assess how extremist recruitment exploits local grievances, ethnic tensions, economic vulnerability, and displacement. It would also assess whether al-Qaeda’s presence in Mali is becoming more established, expanding, or breaking into separate parts.
(3) an assessment of recruitment pipelines, including the exploitation of local grievances, ethnic tensions, economic vulnerabilities, and displacement;
(5) an analysis of trends indicating whether al-Qaeda is consolidating, expanding, or fragmenting its presence in Mali;
The report would examine extremist financing through taxation, extortion, illegal trade, and outside support. It would specifically assess how terrorist groups earn revenue from illegal gold production, transport, and exports, including forced payments and control of mining sites.
(4) an evaluation of financing mechanisms, including taxation, extortion, illicit trade, and external support networks;
(6) an assessment of how illegal gold production, transit, and export networks are exploited by terrorist organizations, including al-Qaeda-affiliated groups, for revenue generation; (7) an analysis of the use of coercive taxation, protection payments, or control of mining sites by such organizations;
The report would identify key routes, facilitators, and financial middlemen involved in illegal gold trading linked to extremist financing. It would assess existing United States and international efforts to disrupt financing from illegal mineral activity and recommend ways to strengthen those efforts.
(8) an identification of key transit routes, facilitators, and financial intermediaries involved in the illegal gold trade linked to extremist financing; (9) an assessment of existing United States and international efforts to disrupt illegal mineral-based financing and recommendations for strengthening such efforts;
The report would assess current sanctions against entities in Mali, including how those restrictions affect Mali’s government’s ability to combat terrorist networks. This provision calls for an assessment of sanctions.
(10) an assessment of current sanctions against entities in Mali, including the effects of such sanctions on the capacity of the Government of Mali to combat terrorist networks.
The required diplomatic strategy would include proposed initiatives involving two or more countries to constrain al-Qaeda, cooperation with regional partners and international organizations, and efforts to address conditions that support recruitment and financing. It would also include measures for evaluating the effectiveness of United States diplomacy.
(b) Diplomatic strategy In addition to the matters described in subsection (a), the report required under that subsection shall also include a United States diplomatic strategy for countering al-Qaeda influence in Mali, including— (1) proposed bilateral and multilateral diplomatic initiatives to constrain al-Qaeda’s freedom of movement and influence; (2) engagement with regional partners and international organizations to improve cross-border coordination and information sharing; (3) efforts to address governance, economic, and security conditions that facilitate extremist recruitment and financing; and (4) metrics for evaluating the effectiveness of United States diplomatic engagement in countering al-Qaeda’s expansion.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 22, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on August 31, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-22T15:36:00Z. 2026-08-31: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. 2026-08-31: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-08-31. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 22, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI