The American Values Act amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Peace Corps Act to permanently prohibit use of U.S. funds for abortions and involuntary sterilizations in foreign programs. It converts a set of appropriations-style prohibitions into statutory language, enumerating funding bans that reach service provision, inducements, certain research, lobbying for abortion, and organizations tied to coercive programs.
That change matters because it shifts what has often been annual appropriations language into permanent law. Implementing agencies, foreign partners, researchers, and private organizations that receive U.S. international assistance will face clearer, enduring restrictions on how funds can be used and on what activities may disqualify them from support.
The bill also adds an explicit Peace Corps prohibition—subject to a cross-reference—affecting volunteer program coverage and agency policies.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends 22 U.S.C. 2151b(f) (Foreign Assistance Act §104(f)) to list five categorical prohibitions on the use of funds for abortions, involuntary sterilizations, related biomedical research, lobbying for or against abortion, and funding organizations involved in coercive programs. It also amends 22 U.S.C. 2501a(b) (Peace Corps Act §301(b)) to bar use of Peace Corps funds to pay for abortions, with a statutory cross-reference.
Who It Affects
Primary actors affected include State/USAID foreign-assistance programs, Peace Corps administration and volunteers, U.S. and international NGOs that implement reproductive-health services, and biomedical researchers funded in part by foreign-assistance budgets. Contracting officers and compliance teams handling grant conditions will also be directly impacted.
Why It Matters
By placing these restrictions in permanent statute the bill reduces the executive branch’s discretion to waive or reinterpret annual riders and increases compliance risk for implementers. The language is broad in places (notably on research and organizations ‘supporting or participating’ in coercive programs), which raises legal and operational questions for program design and monitoring.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The core of the bill is a rewrite of Section 104(f) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 into a stand‑alone statutory prohibition. The amended provision lists five discrete bans: paying for abortions as family planning or coercing abortions; paying for involuntary sterilizations or providing financial incentives for sterilization; funding biomedical research that relates in whole or in part to abortion or sterilization as family planning; using funds to lobby for or against abortion; and providing funds to organizations that, as determined by the President, support or manage coercive abortion or sterilization programs.
That list is a mix of activity‑based and beneficiary‑based prohibitions. The bill reaches direct service payments (paying for abortions), inducements (financial incentives for sterilization), and upstream activity (research and lobbying).
The language covering biomedical research—“relates in whole or in part”—can capture basic, applied, or clinical studies that touch on abortion or sterilization methods, which means research grants will need new legal review and possibly exclusion from foreign‑assistance portfolios.Separately, the bill inserts a new paragraph into the Peace Corps Act’s section on prohibited uses of funds to add a ban on using Peace Corps funds to pay for abortions. That amendment is expressly made “subject to section 614” of a named 2014 appropriations law—meaning the new prohibition incorporates whatever limitations or exceptions that cross‑referenced provision creates, rather than creating an absolute new federal rule without qualification.Practically, the bill converts recurring appropriations restrictions into permanent law.
Agencies must build the prohibitions into grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, monitoring tools, and partner vetting. Organizations that provide or facilitate abortion-related services, perform relevant biomedical research, or engage in public advocacy on abortion will face funding exclusions or the need to restructure programs to comply.
The President retains a role via the bill’s presidential‑determination language for identifying organizations linked to coercive programs, which centralizes interpretation but does not eliminate compliance and evidentiary demands on recipients.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 22 U.S.C. 2151b(f) (Foreign Assistance Act §104(f)) to enumerate five specific prohibitions on foreign‑assistance spending related to abortions and involuntary sterilizations.
It prohibits funding biomedical research that “relates in whole or in part” to abortion or involuntary sterilization as a method of family planning, a phrase with potentially broad scope for research grants.
The bill forbids use of funds to lobby for or against abortion, bringing advocacy activity within the statutory funding ban.
The statute lets the President determine that an organization “supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization,” and with that determination the organization becomes ineligible for funds under the Act.
Section 301(b) of the Peace Corps Act (22 U.S.C. 2501a(b)) is amended to add a prohibition on using Peace Corps funds to pay for abortions, explicitly made subject to section 614 of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2014.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s short title: the “American Values Act.” This is a formal header with no substantive effect beyond naming the statute for citation.
Permanent list of prohibitions on use of foreign‑assistance funds
Replaces or recodifies Section 104(f) to set out five concrete funding prohibitions: (1) paying for abortions as family planning or motivating/coercing abortions; (2) paying for involuntary sterilization or offering financial incentives for sterilization; (3) funding biomedical research related in whole or in part to abortion or sterilization methods; (4) funding lobbying for or against abortion; and (5) providing funds to organizations that the President determines support or manage coercive programs. Mechanically, agencies that obligate funds under the Foreign Assistance Act must ensure grant terms, contracts, and program activities do not fall into these enumerated categories, and they must develop screening and compliance processes tied to the presidential‑determination clause.
Peace Corps funding prohibition (with statutory cross‑reference)
Adds a new paragraph to the Peace Corps Act forbidding use of Peace Corps funds to pay for abortions. The added sentence is prefaced by “subject to section 614” of a named 2014 appropriations act, so implementation requires reference to that prior statute’s text. Operationally, this affects Peace Corps administrative policies, volunteer healthcare coverage, and reimbursement rules; the cross‑reference means the prohibition is not a standalone absolute and must be read against the referenced appropriations provision.
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
- Anti‑abortion advocacy groups and policymakers seeking durable restrictions: the bill converts temporary appropriations riders into permanent statute, creating a long‑term funding barrier to abortion‑related activities funded by U.S. foreign assistance.
- U.S. appropriations and oversight offices that prefer clear statutory rules: codification reduces year‑to‑year ambiguity and gives congressional appropriators a fixed baseline for negotiations and oversight.
- Recipients and partners whose programming explicitly excludes abortion or involuntary sterilization: the law reduces competitive pressure from organizations that might otherwise offer those services, and it clarifies eligible activities for grant design.
Who Bears the Cost
- International and U.S. NGOs that provide comprehensive reproductive‑health services, including abortion‑adjacent care, because they will be ineligible for certain funds or must restructure programs to separate activities and funding streams.
- Biomedical researchers whose projects touch on abortion or sterilization, since the broad “relates in whole or in part” phrase may disqualify research grants or require costly legal review and project redesign.
- U.S. agencies (State, USAID, Peace Corps) and prime recipients that must expand vetting, monitoring, and contract controls to enforce the new statutory prohibitions, increasing administrative burden and compliance costs.
- Peace Corps volunteers and program administrators who may face narrower medical‑coverage options or additional restrictions on health referrals due to the explicit funding prohibition and the referenced statutory cross‑link.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between creating an enduring, enforceable prohibition on U.S. support for abortions and involuntary sterilizations abroad and preserving the flexibility needed to fund comprehensive reproductive‑health programs, research, and emergency care. The bill resolves congressional intent in favor of prohibition, but in doing so it transfers difficult line‑drawing to agencies, implementers, and courts—forcing a choice between clarity of rule and adaptability of foreign‑assistance policy.
The bill codifies prohibitions that have often appeared as appropriations riders, but it does so in terse, broad statutory language. Phrases like “relates in whole or in part” and the presidential‑determination standard for organizations tied to coercive programs are intentionally flexible—and therefore unpredictable.
Agencies and recipients will need guidance to translate those phrases into operational standards, but the statute provides no regulatory detail or implementing timeline.
Making these restrictions permanent trades legislative flexibility for legal certainty. That helps parties seeking a steady rule‑set, but it removes an annual leverage point that Congress has used to adapt policy to changing circumstances or crises.
The cross‑reference in the Peace Corps amendment to a prior appropriations provision introduces an additional legal layering—implementers must read two statutes together to understand exceptions or qualifications. The result is a legal patchwork that may generate litigation or repeated administrative reinterpretation when program realities—especially in humanitarian emergencies—collide with categorical funding bans.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.