A resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should prioritize bilateral security partnerships over multilateral security partnerships and institutions.
- Bill Number
- S.Res. 672
- Origin Chamber
- Senate
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 2
- Policy Area
- International Affairs
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2026-04-15: Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. (text: CR S1787-1788)
- Last Updated
- 2026-04-21T01:36:43Z
AI-Generated Summary
Summary of S. Res. 672 (119th Congress)
Purpose
This Senate resolution expresses the "sense of Congress"—a non-binding opinion—that the United States should prioritize bilateral security partnerships (direct agreements between the US and one other country) over multilateral security partnerships and institutions (agreements involving multiple countries, like the UN or NATO). It argues that bilateral deals better serve US interests, security, and taxpayer money.
Key Provisions
The resolution includes extensive "Whereas" clauses outlining reasons for the shift, followed by three main points in the "Resolved" section:
- Encourage partnerships: The US must use its power, influence, and resources to persuade smaller and medium-sized countries to choose the US as their primary great power ally.
- Prioritize bilateral agreements: The US should favor bilateral security deals over multilateral ones, as they provide more leverage, are easier to negotiate and amend, and align better with US culture and needs.
- Withdraw support from harmful multilaterals: The US should stop backing multilateral agreements or institutions that undermine US interests.
Supporting arguments criticize organizations like:
- The United Nations (UN) for equal voting despite heavy US funding, promoting ideologies opposing US values (e.g., Marxism, antisemitism), and protecting human rights abusers.
- The World Health Organization (WHO) for bias toward China during COVID-19 and excluding Taiwan.
- NATO for outdated objectives post-Soviet Union, unequal burden-sharing (US spends over twice as much as all others combined), and lack of support against threats like Iran.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- None. This is a simple resolution expressing opinion only. It does not create new laws, amend statutes, or require action. It carries no legal force.
Potential Impacts
- Government agencies: Could influence the State Department and Defense Department to shift focus toward bilateral deals, potentially reducing funding or participation in multilaterals like UN or NATO.
- Citizens: May aim to save taxpayer money (e.g., US funds ~1/3 of UN budget, ~1/4 of former WHO budget) but could affect global health, security, or humanitarian efforts.
- International relations: Signals preference for one-on-one alliances, potentially straining ties with NATO allies, UN members, or partners expecting multilateral support; might encourage smaller nations to align more closely with the US bilaterally.
- No direct enforcement, so impacts depend on future executive or legislative actions.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- US government: Congress, President, State Department, Defense Department (policy direction).
- US taxpayers: Highlighted as bearing costs of multilaterals with poor "returns."
- Allies and partners: Smaller/medium countries (encouraged to partner bilaterally); NATO members (criticized for burden-sharing).
- Adversaries: China, Iran (called out for influencing multilaterals).
- Multilateral organizations: UN, WHO, NATO (face potential US withdrawal of support).
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal/Constitutional: Fully constitutional as a "sense of the Senate" resolution (Article I allows Congress to express views). Non-binding, so no court challenges or enforcement issues.
- Political: Introduced by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) on April 15, 2026; referred to Foreign Relations Committee. Serves as a partisan signal favoring "America First" isolationism, critiquing global institutions; could shape debates on foreign aid, defense spending, or withdrawals (e.g., from WHO). May influence 2026-2028 policy if similar views gain traction.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Recent Actions
- 2026-04-15: Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. (text: CR S1787-1788)
- 2026-04-15: Submitted in Senate
Bill Versions
- Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should prioritize bilateral security partnerships over multilateral security partnerships and institutions. — issued 2026-04-15 — PDF (4 pages)