The Maximum Support Act directs the Secretary of State, Treasury, and the CEO of USAGM to form an interagency task force and produce multiple unclassified strategies—within 180 days—focused on countering Iranian censorship and expanding secure internet access. The bill specifies technical approaches (a dedicated VPN, satellite-to-cell/eSIM distribution, secure comms, and cybersecurity training), vetting rules for partners, and reporting and implementation timelines.
Beyond digital access, the bill authorizes the President to confiscate Iranian government funds and deposit them into the U.S. Treasury for targeted programs: a strikers fund, humanitarian deliveries, documentation of human-rights abuses, and financing the internet-freedom effort. It also requires annual audits, sets deadlines for a decision on designating Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) as an FTO, and mandates strategies to encourage defections and ensure sanctions do not block civilians’ access to freedom tools.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires creation of an interagency task force and multiple strategies to deliver censorship-resistant internet access to Iranians (VPN, satellite-to-cell, eSIM distribution, secure apps), establishes a process to confiscate Iranian assets to fund vetted democracy-support activities, and orders reviews on sanctions waivers and MOIS designation.
Who It Affects
U.S. agencies (State, Treasury, USAGM, Intelligence Community), technology and satellite providers potentially supplying services or hardware, NGOs and dissident networks inside Iran, and entities holding Iranian assets within U.S. jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
This law would codify an integrated U.S. approach that links technical counter-censorship measures with financial tools and intelligence support, changing how sanctions, communications tech, and covert/over-the-board assistance intersect in support of a domestic political movement.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates an interagency task force led by the Secretary of State, working with Treasury and USAGM, to design and implement a coordinated internet-freedom program for Iran. The task force must deliver an unclassified strategy within 180 days describing concrete technical measures—such as a purpose-built VPN, satellite-to-cell services, and eSIM/device distribution—plus operational safeguards like partner vetting and public awareness campaigns.
Each strategy must be followed within 60 days by an implementation plan to move from policy to operations.
On funding, the statute directs the President to confiscate Iranian government funds and vested foreign instrumentalities that are under U.S. jurisdiction and deposit them in the Treasury to finance narrowly defined programs: a strikers fund, humanitarian deliveries via vetted partners, documentation of human-rights abuses, and financing the internet-freedom effort. The bill imposes annual audits by the Comptroller and relevant Inspectors General; any audit finding that the regime materially benefited requires immediate termination of the implicated expenditures and corrective steps.To avoid sanctions from blocking access to tools, the bill requires a separate Treasury-State strategy that reviews existing sanctions, issues targeted licenses and waivers for internet-freedom services, and establishes vetting and monitoring to reduce diversion risks.
It also asks for a plan to encourage defections from Iranian officials—secure communication channels, incentives and protection, an interagency defection working group, and coordination with partners—and creates a specific cybersecurity support program for high-risk Iranian journalists and activists providing encryption, training, and rapid incident response.The statute further directs a 90-day determination by State, Treasury, and DOJ on whether MOIS meets the statutory standard for designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization; if so, the Secretary of State must designate MOIS and submit justification to Congress. Throughout, the bill emphasizes public reporting in unclassified form while allowing classified annexes when necessary, and it mandates regular reporting to Congress on program performance, sanctions waivers, and cybersecurity incidents.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The task force must deliver an unclassified strategy within 180 days and an implementation plan within 60 days of that strategy.
The President is authorized to confiscate Iranian government funds subject to U.S. jurisdiction and deposit them into the U.S. Treasury to finance vetted democracy-support programs.
Audits by the Comptroller and Inspectors General are mandatory and must terminate funding immediately if they find the Iranian regime materially benefited from expenditures.
The Secretary of State, Treasury, and Attorney General must decide within 90 days whether to designate MOIS as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and, if affirmative, notify Congress with detailed justification.
The bill requires a sanctions-review strategy that creates specific licensing and waiver processes so private companies can lawfully provide VPNs, satellite comms, and other tools to Iranian civilians without violating U.S. sanctions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Interagency task force and internet-freedom strategy
Section 3 creates a task force led by State with Treasury and the USAGM CEO and orders an unclassified strategy within 180 days. The required strategy is granular: it must describe a dedicated VPN service, satellite-to-cell and eSIM distribution plans, partner vetting, how to identify regime-controlled VPNs used for surveillance, and measures to prevent jamming or hardware diversion. Practically, this means the task force is expected to move beyond advocacy to design operational tools and distribution channels, while also building in public-awareness and counter-disinformation elements.
Confiscation and use of Iranian assets
Section 4 directs the President to seize Iranian government funds located within U.S. jurisdiction and vest title in the U.S., then deposit proceeds into the Treasury for specified programs: a strikers fund, humanitarian assistance via vetted partners, human-rights documentation, and internet-freedom efforts. The provision ties release of those funds to transparency requirements, detailed annual reporting on expenditures and outcomes, and subjects all spending to annual audits by the Comptroller and relevant Inspectors General with an explicit trigger to stop funds that benefit the regime.
Sanctions review and licensing to protect civilian access
Section 5 requires State and Treasury to analyze how sanctions currently affect civilians’ access to circumvention tools and to draft a strategy that includes clear licensing/waiver protocols and guidance for private sector actors. The section mandates ongoing monitoring, reporting to Congress, and mechanisms to revoke or review waivers when misuse is detected—an attempt to reconcile sanctions pressure on the regime with practical pathways for legitimate humanitarian and communications services to operate.
Comprehensive strategy for political transition and a Special Representative
Section 6 orders a broad White House-level strategy to support a transition to democratic governance and directs the Secretary of State to establish a Special Representative for Maximum Support and an Office to coordinate efforts. It bundles diplomatic signaling, Treasury-driven economic pressure, intelligence assistance, and USAGM media expansion into a single plan, and allows an unclassified strategy with a classified annex. The organizational requirement formalizes coordination but also centralizes political risk in one office.
MOIS: findings and FTO determination requirement
Section 7 contains congressional findings characterizing MOIS’s activities and requires a statutory determination within 90 days by the Secretary of State (in consultation with Treasury and the Attorney General) on whether MOIS meets the Immigration and Nationality Act’s FTO criteria. If the Secretary finds the criteria are met, the bill requires prompt designation and a detailed justification to Congress, which would carry legal and diplomatic consequences for MOIS and any entities interacting with it.
Defection strategy and interagency handling
Both sections lay out the same requirement: an interagency strategy to encourage defections by Iranian officials and security personnel. The plan must cover secure communications, safety assurances, incentives (financial and resettlement support), a dedicated working group to manage defection cases, verification processes to mitigate intelligence risks, and coordination with international partners. Operationalizing this will require detailed case-handling protocols and close coordination with immigration and law-enforcement authorities.
Cybersecurity assistance program for dissidents
Section 9 directs State and DNI to set up a cybersecurity support program giving dissidents, journalists, and civil-society actors secure tools, tailored training, rapid technical response, and congressional reporting on threats and mitigations. This provision shifts resources to defensive digital security for individuals and organizations targeted by state-sponsored hacking, and it implies procurement, distribution, and support arrangements that balance usability with operational security.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Foreign Affairs across all five countries.
Explore Foreign Affairs in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Iranian activists, dissidents, and independent journalists — the bill funds secure communication tools, training, and rapid technical support aimed at reducing surveillance risk and maintaining connectivity during outages.
- Vetted civil-society organizations and human-rights investigators — funding for documentation of abuses and grants (with strict reporting) would expand capacity to collect and publicize credible evidence for accountability.
- Individuals participating in nonviolent strikes — the statute authorizes a strikers fund to provide financial assistance to vetted participants, contingent on transparency and safeguards to avoid regime capture.
- International partners and allied tech contractors — companies and partners that pass the bill’s vetting can legally provide censorship-circumvention services under authorized licenses and waivers.
- U.S. policymakers and intelligence analysts — centralized strategies, mandated reporting, and the Special Representative office create clearer lines of responsibility and more data for policy decisions.
Who Bears the Cost
- U.S. agencies (State, Treasury, USAGM, DNI, and Inspectors General) — they must stand up new offices, run interagency operations, perform vetting, manage implementation plans, and deliver multiple reports within tight deadlines.
- Technology and satellite providers — the bill imposes vetting, licensing, and monitoring expectations that will increase compliance costs and may deter some vendors from participating.
- Private-sector actors and NGOs seeking to assist Iranians — they may face enhanced export-control scrutiny, new waiver application processes, and legal uncertainty until Treasury guidance is issued.
- Humanitarian delivery partners — the bill requires rigorous monitoring to ensure assistance does not benefit the regime, which raises operational burdens and could slow relief distributions.
- Third-party intermediaries and secondary-market actors — restrictions on device transfers and active efforts to prevent black markets could redirect demand into clandestine channels, raising enforcement costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is practical and ethical: the U.S. must expand Iranians’ access to uncensored communication and directly support democratic actors without providing material pathways that the Iranian regime can hijack or that create legal and diplomatic blowback—balancing transparency and accountability against the operational secrecy and control required to prevent diversion and protect sources.
The bill assembles a technically ambitious package but leaves key operational choices open—and those gaps create implementation risk. Confiscating assets and routing them through the Treasury raises legal and diplomatic challenges (claims by third parties, intergovernmental disputes over sovereign property, and litigated ownership questions).
The statute ties funding to transparency and annual audits, but audits can detect diversion only after the fact; stopping diversion may require sustained on-the-ground controls that are hard to maintain in an authoritarian environment.
On the technical side, distributing eSIMs and satellite-to-cell hardware while preventing IRGC capture is difficult: devices and activation credentials are portable and prone to interception or resale. Licensing and waivers under sanctions law try to thread the needle between enabling civilian access and preventing benefit to the regime, but vetting standards and enforcement protocols are not spelled out in the bill.
That ambiguity puts the burden on Treasury and private actors to operationalize risk controls rapidly and defensibly. Finally, publicizing defections and aggressive media campaigns can deter officials from defecting if they fear reprisals; conversely, secrecy undermines the bill’s transparency goals and congressional oversight.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.