The Capitol LedgerEvery move in Congress, on the record
HomeBillsRecordsLedger AI

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

AboutFAQFeedbackTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

The projectAboutFAQFeedback
LegalTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

All bills
H.R. 10757·119th Congress·Introduced Oct 6, 2026

To provide for a limitation on contributions to the United Nations.

IntroducedInternational AffairsMajor
View bill text
Sponsor
Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5]
Committees
Foreign Affairs Committee (primary)
Last action
Oct 6, 2026

Bottom line

The bill seeks to leverage U.S. financial contributions to the United Nations to compel the UN Security Council to formally label Hamas and Lebanese Hezbollah as terrorist organizations.

What it actually does

This bill prohibits U.S. contributions to the United Nations until the President certifies to Congress that the UN Security Council has officially designated Hamas and Lebanese Hezbollah as terrorist organizations. This effectively conditions all U.S. financial support for the UN on a specific action by its Security Council regarding these two groups.

Proponents argue

Proponents argue that this bill is a necessary step to ensure the United Nations aligns with U.S. foreign policy objectives and values, particularly in combating terrorism. They contend that groups like Hamas and Lebanese Hezbollah pose significant threats to global security and that the UN's failure to designate them as terrorist organizations undermines international efforts to counter terrorism. Conditioning funding, they believe, provides crucial leverage to push for accountability and strengthen the international framework against terror.

Opponents contend

Opponents might argue that conditioning U.S. contributions to the UN on a specific Security Council action could undermine U.S. diplomatic influence, weaken the UN's overall effectiveness, and potentially harm critical humanitarian or peacekeeping operations. They may contend that such a unilateral approach could alienate allies and adversaries alike, making it harder to achieve consensus on other vital international issues, and that the U.S. should pursue diplomatic solutions rather than financial leverage.

The bill text is extremely short and straightforward, allowing for quick comprehension of its core intent.

Section 1.

Conditioning U.S. Contributions to the United Nations

prominently featuredstraightforward

This section mandates that no U.S. federal funds, whether authorized or appropriated, can be used for contributions to the United Nations. This prohibition remains in effect until the President formally certifies to Congress that the United Nations Security Council has officially designated both Hamas and Lebanese Hezbollah as terrorist organizations. This means all U.S. financial support to the UN would cease until this specific condition is met.

GroupImpactMechanismScale
GroupUnited Nations (UN) and its agenciesImpactPotential loss of U.S. funding, which is a significant portion of its budget.MechanismWithholding of financial contributions.ScaleSignificant, as the U.S. is a major contributor to the UN's regular budget, peacekeeping operations, and voluntary funds.
GroupU.S. foreign policy and diplomatic effortsImpactIncreased leverage over the UN Security Council or potential strain on diplomatic relations with other member states.MechanismConditional funding as a tool of foreign policy.ScaleBroad, affecting U.S. standing in multilateral institutions.
GroupHamas and Lebanese HezbollahImpactIncreased international pressure for formal designation as terrorist organizations by the UN Security Council.MechanismU.S. diplomatic pressure via UN funding.ScaleIndirect, but potentially significant in terms of international legitimacy and counter-terrorism efforts.

Supporters argue

Supporters argue that this provision directly addresses the perceived failure of the UN Security Council to take a strong stance against designated terrorist organizations, thereby aligning U.S. financial support with its national security interests and moral principles. They believe it is a necessary step to ensure accountability.

Critics contend

Critics might argue that this provision risks disrupting essential UN operations, including humanitarian aid and peacekeeping missions, and could be seen as a unilateral imposition on an international body, potentially isolating the U.S. diplomatically and undermining its ability to lead on other global issues.

Tradeoffs

The provision balances the desire to exert U.S. influence over international bodies to combat terrorism against the potential for undermining the UN's operational capacity, broader multilateral cooperation, and U.S. diplomatic standing.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.

On this page

  • Executive summary
  • Key provisions
  • Follow the money
  • Critical analysis
  • Questions to ask
  • Implementation
  • Political analysis
Ask Ledger AI about this