No Tax Dollars for the United Nation’s Immigration Invasion Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 1792
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- International Affairs
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-03-03: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
- Last Updated
- 2026-05-22T08:08:40Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
This bill aims to halt U.S. financial support to three United Nations agencies focused on migration, refugees, and humanitarian aid in the Middle East, while requiring an investigation into past U.S. funding to these groups. It reflects concerns over the use of U.S. taxpayer money for international migration and refugee efforts.
Key Provisions
- Funding Prohibition: The U.S. Federal Government is barred from providing any contributions (such as grants or loans) to the United Nations International Organization for Migration (IOM, which helps manage global migration), the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR, which protects and assists refugees worldwide), or the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA, which provides aid to Palestinian refugees).
- Government Accountability Office (GAO) Study and Audit:
- A study to identify all U.S. federal programs that have funded these agencies from fiscal years 2021 to 2025, including total amounts provided, any restrictions on that funding, lists of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that received related funds, and an assessment of how much these agencies should repay the U.S.
- An audit of the State Department's Refugee Travel Loan Program, which provides loans to refugees for travel costs.
- The GAO must submit a report to Congress with the results within 180 days of the bill's enactment.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- The prohibition applies "notwithstanding any other provision of law," meaning it overrides current U.S. laws or agreements that authorize funding to these UN agencies. This could end ongoing contributions without needing to amend multiple existing statutes.
- Introduces new requirements for transparency and repayment assessments, which were not previously mandated for these specific agencies.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The U.S. Department of State and other agencies involved in foreign aid would lose flexibility in budgeting for international humanitarian efforts, potentially requiring reallocations of funds to other programs. The GAO would face additional workload for the study and audit.
- On Citizens: U.S. taxpayers would no longer fund these UN programs, which could reduce federal spending on global migration and refugee aid but might indirectly affect domestic immigration policies if international migration patterns change.
- On International Relations: This could strain U.S. ties with the United Nations and allied countries that rely on these agencies for refugee and migration support. It might reduce global humanitarian aid capacity, particularly for Palestinian refugees, potentially leading to increased instability in affected regions.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- U.S. Government Entities: Congress, Department of State, and GAO, as they handle funding, implementation, and oversight.
- UN Agencies: IOM, UNHCR, and UNRWA, which would lose a major funding source (the U.S. is often the largest donor to these groups).
- Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs): Groups that receive pass-through funding from these UN agencies for on-the-ground aid.
- Refugees and Migrants: Particularly Palestinian refugees served by UNRWA and global refugees/migrants assisted by IOM and UNHCR, who could face reduced services like shelter, food, and travel support.
- U.S. Policymakers and Taxpayers: Directly influenced by the funding cuts and the bill's focus on limiting international aid tied to migration.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: The "notwithstanding" clause strengthens the bill's enforceability by preempting conflicting laws, but it could face challenges if seen as violating international treaties or U.S. commitments to the UN. The repayment assessment might lead to future legal actions for fund recovery.
- Constitutional: Relies on Congress's constitutional power to control federal spending (the "power of the purse"), allowing it to restrict executive branch foreign aid without broader treaty renegotiation.
- Political: Highlights partisan debates on immigration and foreign aid, with the bill's title ("No Tax Dollars for the United Nation's Immigration Invasion Act") signaling a strong anti-immigration perspective that could polarize opinions on U.S. global role. If passed, it might set a precedent for defunding other UN programs.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (18)
Rep. Norman, Ralph [R-SC-5], Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5], Rep. Haridopolos, Mike [R-FL-8], Rep. Nehls, Troy E. [R-TX-22], Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15], Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1], Rep. Tiffany, Thomas P. [R-WI-7], Rep. Ogles, Andrew [R-TN-5], Rep. Biggs, Sheri [R-SC-3], Rep. Crane, Elijah [R-AZ-2], Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH-8], Rep. Cline, Ben [R-VA-6], Rep. Rose, John W. [R-TN-6], Rep. Donalds, Byron [R-FL-19], Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-9], Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17], Rep. Van Epps, Matt [R-TN-7], Rep. Moore, Barry [R-AL-1]
Recent Actions
- 2025-03-03: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
- 2025-03-03: Introduced in House
- 2025-03-03: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- No Tax Dollars for the United Nation’s Immigration Invasion Act — issued 2025-03-03 — PDF (3 pages)