Latest action: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Limits how much money the United States can give to the United Nations.
The problem
Some lawmakers believe the U.S. contributes too much money to the United Nations without enough control over how it is spent or what it does.
The proposal
The bill would cap or reduce the amount of financial contributions the United States provides to the United Nations and its related organizations.
The impact
U.S. foreign policy, international relations, UN operations, and American taxpayers would be affected by reduced funding and changed diplomatic influence.
Limiting UN contributions could save American taxpayer money. This reduces federal spending on international organizations. The savings could be redirected to domestic programs.
Controlling funding gives the U.S. more power to influence UN decisions and policies. The country could demand changes in exchange for financial support.
Some believe UN funds are not always used efficiently. Limiting contributions could pressure the organization to improve accountability and reduce waste.
Supporters argue the U.S. should prioritize domestic needs over international contributions. This keeps resources available for American citizens and programs.
Reducing UN funding could undermine international efforts on peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, and disease control. Allies may reduce their support if the U.S. does.
Other nations may view reduced UN funding as abandoning shared global responsibilities. This could harm U.S. relationships with allies and international standing.
Lower funding means less leverage in UN decisions and policy-making. Other countries with more resources could gain greater influence over global issues.
UN agencies provide emergency aid, refugee assistance, and development programs worldwide. Funding cuts could harm vulnerable populations globally.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.