The "Stop Funding Global Terrorists Act of 2025" restricts U.S. funding to the United Nations for Afghanistan assistance unless the Secretary of State certifies that no funds are used for cash shipments that benefit terrorist organizations. The Secretary can revoke this certification if found inaccurate, with required notification to Congress.
Shelley Capito
Senator
WV
The Stop Funding Global Terrorists Act of 2025 restricts U.S. funding to the United Nations for Afghanistan assistance unless the Secretary of State certifies that no U.S. funds are used for cash shipments by the United Nations into Afghanistan, and that no specially designated global terrorist organizations or foreign terrorist organizations receive funds from these shipments. The Secretary can revoke this certification if found inaccurate, with notification to relevant congressional committees. The bill defines key terms like "foreign terrorist organization" and "specially designated global terrorist organization" to ensure clarity in its application.
New Bill Blocks U.S. Funds for UN Aid to Afghanistan, Citing Terrorist Concerns: Certification Required
The "Stop Funding Global Terrorists Act of 2025" directly restricts U.S. financial assistance to the United Nations for programs in Afghanistan, unless very specific conditions are met. The core of the bill is a certification requirement: the Secretary of State must confirm to congressional committees that U.S. funds are not being used for cash shipments into Afghanistan, and that neither specially designated global terrorist organizations nor foreign terrorist organizations are benefiting from these funds.
Cash and Terrorists
This bill focuses on preventing U.S. taxpayer dollars from ending up in the hands of terrorist groups via UN cash shipments to Afghanistan. Section 2 lays out the core requirements. It isn't just a suggestion; the Secretary of State must certify that no U.S. funds are going towards cash shipments that could benefit designated terrorist groups. And if that certification turns out to be false? The Secretary of State can revoke it, but they also have to immediately explain why to the relevant congressional committees (Foreign Relations and Appropriations in both the House and Senate).
For example, imagine a scenario where a U.S.-funded UN project aims to provide food aid in Afghanistan. This bill, if enacted, would require assurance that none of the funds allocated for this project are being diverted, through cash payments, to groups like those designated under Executive Order 13224 (specially designated global terrorists) or Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (foreign terrorist organizations). If a seemingly legitimate aid organization is later found to be funneling cash to a designated terrorist group, the certification could be pulled, and U.S. funding would be cut off.
Defining the Terms
The bill is careful to define its terms. "Appropriate congressional committees" are spelled out clearly: the Foreign Relations and Appropriations Committees in both the Senate and the House. "Foreign terrorist organization" is tied directly to the groups designated by the Secretary of State under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. And "specially designated global terrorist organization" refers to those listed under Executive Order 13224. These definitions aim for clarity and legal grounding, connecting the bill to existing frameworks for identifying and combating terrorism.
Real-World Roadblocks?
While the goal is straightforward – stop terrorist funding – the practical implications are worth considering. The bill's effectiveness hinges on the accuracy and thoroughness of the certification process. Could a group slip through the cracks despite the definitions? Could a certification be issued without absolute certainty? And if a certification is revoked, how quickly can funds actually be stopped? These are the kinds of questions that will determine how this bill works in practice, not just on paper.