LegisTrack
Back to all bills
HRES 199119th CongressIn Committee

Condemning woke foreign aid programs.

Introduced: Mar 6, 2025
Standard Summary
Comprehensive overview in 1-2 paragraphs

H. Res. 199 is a non-binding House resolution introduced by Representative Burchett that condemns what it calls “woke” or ideologically driven foreign aid programs. The resolution cites numerous examples of U.S. government grants abroad—ranging from gender- and LGBTQ+-focused projects to cultural and educational exchanges—and frames them as wasteful or misaligned with U.S. national interests. It calls for stronger oversight, transparency, and potential reallocation of funds away from these programs toward domestic priorities. While it urges several oversight and funding-control steps, the resolution itself does not change law or authorize new spending; any actual policy or funding changes would require separate legislation and appropriations. In short, the bill expresses a political stance against certain foreign aid activities and lays out a set of oversight and funding-control measures that could influence how foreign aid is funded and evaluated if adopted into law later.

Key Points

  • 1Non-binding condemnation of certain foreign aid programs described as “woke” or ideologically driven, backed by a long list of specific grant examples (e.g., transgender health in Guatemala, cultural/DEI initiatives abroad, education and cultural exchanges in multiple countries).
  • 2Comprehensive oversight and auditing:
  • 3- Calls for a comprehensive Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit of all grants awarded by the State Department and USAID since 2021.
  • 4Suspension and review:
  • 5- Urges immediate suspension of similar discretionary grants pending a review of alignment with core national interests and fiscal responsibility.
  • 6Transparency and public disclosure:
  • 7- Demands public disclosure of all grant applications, justifications, and outcomes in a searchable online database within 90 days after a grant is awarded.
  • 8Reallocation and domestic priorities:
  • 9- Recommends redirecting funds from these programs to domestic priorities such as infrastructure repair, veteran health care, or disaster relief.
  • 10Accountability and oversight enhancements:
  • 11- Encourages inspectors general at relevant agencies to perform annual grant efficacy reviews, with findings shared with Congress and made public.
  • 12Spending cap:
  • 13- Proposes a cap on annual spending for cultural exchange and advocacy grants abroad at no more than 0.1 percent of the federal discretionary budget.
  • 14Congressional approvals for grants:
  • 15- Requires explicit congressional approval for all future grants over $10,000 via a streamlined review process.
  • 16Intent for future legislation:
  • 17- Indicates an intent to draft legislation prohibiting federal funding for overseas programs promoting niche social agendas unless there is a clear national security or economic benefit.

Impact Areas

Primary group/area affected- U.S. government foreign aid agencies (State Department, USAID), and U.S. taxpayers who fund these programs. The resolution targets how foreign aid is judged, overseen, and possibly spent in the future.Secondary group/area affected- Grant recipients and partner organizations abroad (in education, culture, DEI, health, and advocacy programs). Potentially tighter scrutiny, reporting requirements, and a higher threshold for approval.Additional impacts- U.S. foreign policy and diplomacy: Could influence the tone and scope of cultural, educational, and development programs abroad, potentially affecting soft power and international perceptions.- Domestic policy and budgeting: If enacted into law, the cap and approval requirements could constrain or re-prioritize foreign aid spending toward domestic needs.- Oversight and transparency culture: May lead to more aggressive reporting, auditing, and public disclosure around foreign aid programs.- Potential political or legal debate: The framing uses a contentious label (“woke”) and could spark disagreements about the appropriateness, goals, and effectiveness of international cultural and social programs.
Generated by gpt-5-nano on Nov 18, 2025