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. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1] · R–SC
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: May 9, 2025. 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.1619 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.1619 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.1619 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.1619 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 · 2025-02-26 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 No Funds for Fascists Act would block U.S. assistance to foreign governments when the Secretary of State finds both restrictions on speech that would be constitutionally protected in the United States and efforts to get media or online platforms to censor such speech. The President could allow otherwise prohibited assistance for national security reasons, subject to advance consultation with Congress and reporting requirements.
This Act may be cited as the “No Funds for Fascists Act”.
None of the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for assistance, including assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, for any fiscal year that begins on or after the date of the enactment of this Act may be obligated or expended to provide assistance to the government of any foreign country if the Secretary of State determines that— (1) such government, or any employee acting under official authority or influence— (A) abridges the right to free speech that would be speech protected by the Constitution of the United States; or (B) censors speech that would be speech protected by the Constitution of the United States; and (2) such government, or any employee acting under official authority or influence, uses any form of communication (without regard to whether the communication is visible to members of the public) to direct, coerce, compel, or encourage a provider of a covered platform to take, suggest or imply that a provider of a covered platform should take, or request that a provider of a covered platform take, any action to censor speech that would be speech protected by the Constitution of the United States.
Assistance prohibited by subsection (a) may be provided to a country described in that subsection if— (1) the President determines that national security interests justify a waiver of subsection (a) with respect to the country; and (2) at least 15 days before the waiver takes effect, the President— (A) consults with the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate regarding the proposed waiver; and (B) submits to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate a report
The proposed restriction would prohibit committing or spending assistance funds for a covered foreign government. It would include assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and apply to funds for fiscal years beginning on or after enactment.
None of the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for assistance, including assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, for any fiscal year that begins on or after the date of the enactment of this Act may be obligated or expended to provide assistance to the government of any foreign country if the Secretary of State determines that—
The Secretary of State would have to find both types of conduct: restricting or censoring speech that would receive U.S. constitutional protection, and communicating with a covered platform to seek censorship of such speech. The second condition includes private communications, requests, encouragement and suggestions, as well as coercion.
if the Secretary of State determines that— (1) such government, or any employee acting under official authority or influence— (A) abridges the right to free speech that would be speech protected by the Constitution of the United States; or (B) censors speech that would be speech protected by the Constitution of the United States; and (2) such government, or any employee acting under official authority or influence, uses any form of communication (without regard to whether the communication is visible to members of the public) to direct, coerce, compel, or encourage a provider of a covered platform to take, suggest or imply that a provider of a covered platform should take, or request that a provider of a covered platform take, any action to censor speech that would be speech protected by the Constitution of the United States.
The proposal defines covered platforms to include interactive computer services, using a definition in existing communications law, and platforms through which media organizations distribute information by broadcast, print, online or any other channel.
the term covered platform means— (A) an interactive computer service, as that term is defined in section 230(f) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)); and (B) any platform through which a media organization disseminates information, without regard to whether the organization disseminates that information— (i) through broadcast or print; (ii) online; or (iii) through any other channel;
For the proposed restriction, the definition of an employee acting under official authority or influence includes any foreign-government employee, a head of state or government, and an individual working under contract with that government.
the term employee acting under official authority or influence, with respect to a foreign government, means— (A) any employee of such government; and (B) includes— (i) a head of state or head of such government; and (ii) an individual working under contract with such government.
The Secretary of State would have to publish each determination triggering the restriction in the Federal Register, the federal government's official publication for notices and other actions.
The Secretary of State shall publish in the Federal Register each determination made under subsection (a).
The President could waive the restriction for a country upon determining that national security interests justify it. At least 15 days before the waiver takes effect, the President would have to consult the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations committees and submit a report to the House Speaker and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair.
Assistance prohibited by subsection (a) may be provided to a country described in that subsection if— (1) the President determines that national security interests justify a waiver of subsection (a) with respect to the country; and (2) at least 15 days before the waiver takes effect, the President— (A) consults with the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate regarding the proposed waiver; and (B) submits to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate a report
The waiver report would have to identify the recipient country, explain the national security interests requiring the waiver, describe the assistance's type, amount and justification, and state how long the waiver would remain effective.
a report containing— (i) the name of the recipient country; (ii) a description of the national security interests which require the waiver; (iii) the type and amount of and the justification for the assistance to be provided pursuant to the waiver; and (iv) the period of time during which such waiver will be effective.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated May 9, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on February 26, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-05-09T16:58:14Z. 2025-02-26: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. 2025-02-26: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-26. 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 does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials or resolve formal earmark status beyond this source set.
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 warranting a finding was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: May 9, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI