The No Funds for Forced Labor Act requires the Secretary of the Treasury to instruct United States Executive Directors at international financial institutions (IFIs) to use U.S. influence to oppose loans for projects that pose a significant risk of using forced labor or that are carried out by certain state-owned or state-influenced entities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. The instruction also demands that IFIs produce project-specific explanations of how they vetted forced-labor risks and what steps they will take to mitigate, track, and reverse those risks.
The bill ties U.S. IFI policy more explicitly to human-rights and supply-chain concerns, creates a new annual public reporting duty for Treasury, and delegates the operational work of identifying forced-labor risk to IFIs while reserving a U.S. vote to block financing. For compliance officers, multilateral lenders, and project developers, the measure raises transparency demands and could change how projects—especially those linked to state-owned entities in Xinjiang—are evaluated and approved at the IFIs.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends the International Financial Institutions Act to require Treasury to instruct U.S. Executive Directors at IFIs to oppose loans for projects that either pose a significant risk of forced labor or are carried out by state-owned or heavily state-influenced entities in Xinjiang. It also requires IFIs to provide project-specific documentation of forced-labor vetting and mitigation efforts.
Who It Affects
U.S. Executive Directors at multilateral development banks (as defined in 22 U.S.C. 1701(c)(2)), international financial institutions and their project clients, borrowers and contractors linked to projects in the Xinjiang region, and Treasury offices responsible for IFI engagement and reporting.
Why It Matters
The measure inserts human-rights criteria directly into U.S. voting guidance at IFIs, raising the bar for transparency and due diligence on forced-labor risk. That change could alter lending decisions, increase project scrutiny, and shift diplomatic negotiations around multilateral financing for projects in high-risk jurisdictions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill adds a new Section 706 to Title VII of the International Financial Institutions Act. That new section directs the Secretary of the Treasury to issue explicit instructions to U.S. Executive Directors at each international financial institution to use the United States' voice, vote, and influence — ‘to the maximum extent practicable’ — to oppose loans that either pose a significant risk of involving forced labor or are to be carried out by state-owned or heavily state-influenced entities operating in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.
The statutory language therefore couples a risk-based standard with a geographic and ownership-focused trigger tied to Xinjiang.
Beyond voting guidance, the bill requires IFIs, with respect to each supported project, to provide an explanation specific to that project describing how the institution vetted the project for forced-labor risks and what actions the institution took to mitigate, track, and reverse any identified risk. The bill does not rewrite IFI internal policies; instead it channels U.S. leverage through its Executive Directors and demands project-level transparency from the institutions.The statute incorporates an operational definition of ‘forced labor’ by reference to section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and explicitly includes convict and indentured labor under penal sanctions.
On the oversight side, Treasury must report to four congressional committees: the House Financial Services and Foreign Affairs Committees and the Senate Foreign Relations and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committees. The report must be submitted within one year of enactment and then annually for five years, and it must include details on any IFI-approved project in which forced labor could possibly be used and on U.S. Executive Directors' efforts to persuade other member countries to oppose such projects.
Treasury must make the report, or an unclassified version, publicly available.Practically, the bill increases documentation and diplomatic work for Treasury and IFIs. It sets no civil or criminal penalties and relies on diplomatic pressure and voting to shape outcomes.
The bill’s operational effect will therefore depend on how Treasury interprets ‘significant risk,’ how IFIs respond to documentation requests, and whether other IFI member states align with the U.S. position in votes and negotiations.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill inserts a new Section 706 into Title VII of the International Financial Institutions Act (the statutory vehicle for U.S. engagement at IFIs).
It directs U.S. Executive Directors to use the United States’ ‘voice, vote, and influence, to the maximum extent practicable’ to oppose loans that pose a significant risk of using forced labor or are carried out by state-owned or heavily state-influenced entities in Xinjiang.
For every IFI-supported project the institution must provide a project-specific explanation of (A) how it vetted forced-labor risks and (B) the actions taken to mitigate, track, and reverse those risks.
The bill defines ‘forced labor’ by reference to section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and explicitly includes convict labor and indentured labor under penal sanctions.
Treasury must deliver a public (or unclassified) report to specified House and Senate committees within one year of enactment and then annually for five years documenting any IFI-approved projects where forced labor could possibly be used and U.S. efforts to convince other countries to oppose such projects.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Declares the Act’s short title: the ‘No Funds for Forced Labor Act.’ This is purely formal but signals legislative intent and the law’s human-rights focus.
Findings
Sets out Congress’s factual basis by citing the International Labour Organization, the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, and an Atlantic Council report to frame concern about forced labor, particularly in Xinjiang. These findings do not create legal standards but function as legislative context supporting the policy choices in the operative sections.
Sense of Congress on IFI funding and multilateral coordination
Expresses Congress’s view that IFIs should not fund entities credibly accused of using forced labor and that the U.S. should coordinate internationally to avoid financing such projects. As a sense provision, it has no binding force but establishes the political objective guiding Treasury instructions and diplomatic engagement.
Treasury instruction to U.S. Executive Directors and project vetting requirement
Amends Title VII by adding Section 706, which requires the Treasury Secretary to instruct U.S. Executive Directors to oppose loans where projects pose a significant risk of forced labor or are carried out by state-owned/heavily state-influenced entities in Xinjiang. It also compels IFIs to provide project-specific explanations on how they assessed forced-labor risk and what mitigation, tracking, and reversal actions they will take. The mechanics rely on existing U.S. representation at IFIs (voice, vote, influence) rather than creating enforcement tools within the banks themselves.
Annual public reporting to congressional committees
Requires Treasury to report within one year and then annually for five years to four specified congressional committees, listing IFI-approved projects where forced labor could possibly be used and describing U.S. Executive Directors’ efforts to persuade other members to oppose such projects. The statute requires public availability of the report or an unclassified version, creating a transparency mechanism intended to inform Congress, civil society, and markets.
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
- Workers and at-risk populations in forced-labor environments — the bill aims to reduce multilateral financing for projects that could rely on forced labor, which may lower the risk those populations are exploited in IFI-funded projects.
- Human-rights and labor NGOs — the transparency requirements and public reporting give these organizations more data to monitor IFI lending and hold institutions and borrowers accountable.
- Reputationally sensitive IFIs and member states — clearer vetting and required explanations can reduce reputational risk by forcing earlier identification and mitigation of forced-labor exposure in projects.
Who Bears the Cost
- International financial institutions — IFIs will face added documentation burdens and political pressure; some projects may be delayed or rejected, and institutions may need to expand due-diligence processes and monitoring systems.
- Borrower governments and project sponsors in or linked to Xinjiang — state-owned or heavily state-influenced entities identified in the bill face a higher risk of U.S. opposition, potentially narrowing financing options at IFIs.
- U.S. Treasury and Executive Directors — Treasury must produce annual public reports and engage in diplomatic persuasion; U.S. Executive Directors carry the operational burden of implementing a policy that may require frequent, contested votes and negotiations at IFI boards.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between preventing IFI-financed projects from becoming entangled in forced labor (and thereby protecting workers and U.S. reputation) and preserving IFIs’ capacity to engage, influence, and fund development projects. A strict opposition posture reduces the risk of complicity but also narrows the United States’ leverage within IFIs and may limit financing for projects that have development value yet present difficult risk-remediation questions.
The bill relies on diplomatic leverage and U.S. voting at IFIs rather than imposing new legal prohibitions on IFIs or borrowers. That design creates two implementation challenges: first, the operational meaning of a ‘significant risk’ of forced labor is unspecified, leaving room for inconsistent application across Treasury, IFIs, and member states; second, success depends on persuading other IFI member countries to align with U.S. votes — if other major shareholders do not concur, the U.S. can oppose but cannot unilaterally block financing in many cases.
The requirement that IFIs provide project-specific explanations of vetting and mitigation is transparency-forward but practically demanding. IFIs may resist releasing granular procurement or site-level information for confidentiality or security reasons, and public reports could force Treasury to declassify sensitive diplomatic assessments or reveal negotiation positions.
Finally, the bill focuses on IFI lending channels and on Xinjiang-linked state entities; it does not address commercial export credit agencies, private lenders, or supply-chain financing outside the IFI context, leaving gaps where forced-labor risks may persist.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.