A Democratic bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The "DISRUPT Act" requires the executive branch to create a government-wide strategy to stop increasing cooperation between China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. These four nations are identified as the primary adversaries of the United States. The bill mandates the creation of specialized task forces within the State, Defense, Treasury, and Commerce departments. It also requires several classified reports to analyze the risks of these partnerships and the trajectory of their cooperation. The ultimate goal is to disrupt these alliances and prepare the U.S. for potential simultaneous conflicts in multiple regions.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +8
Does this strengthen ties with allied countries?
The bill emphasizes sharing information and securing the support of allies to combat adversary alignment.
- Scored +6
Does this send more money or help to other countries?
The bill promotes providing foreign assistance to allies to help them address capability gaps.
- Scored +5
Does this favour talking over confrontation abroad?
It explicitly lists diplomatic engagement as a tool to disrupt dangerous elements of adversary cooperation.
The opposite
- Scored -4
Does this reduce what is spent on the military?
The bill calls for increasing munitions stockpiles and updating war-planning tools, likely increasing spending.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- National Security Protection: The bill aims to mitigate risks to the United States by disrupting the sharing of weapons, munitions, and critical military technologies among adversaries (Section 2, Paragraph 4).
- Economic Tool Integrity: The act seeks to protect the effectiveness of U.S. economic statecraft and the dominance of the U.S. dollar by countering adversary efforts to create alternative payment systems (Section 3, Paragraph 1 and Section 4(b)(2)(ii)).
- Strengthened Alliances: The bill promotes sharing information and providing foreign assistance to allies to help them address capability gaps and counter threats (Section 3, Paragraph 1 and Section 4(c)(2)(B)).
- Improved Military Preparedness: It calls for increasing munitions stockpiles for partners like Israel, Taiwan, and Ukraine, and updating war-planning tools to better protect U.S. interests (Section 4(c)(2)(D) and Section 4(c)(2)(E)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Increased Risk of Conflict: The policy focuses on "bolstering deterrence" and preparing for the "likelihood" of simultaneous challenges or conflicts with multiple adversaries in multiple theaters (Section 3, Paragraph 3).
- Administrative Burden: The bill requires the establishment of four separate task forces and the production of multiple detailed reports within strict 60 and 180-day deadlines, which may strain government resources (Section 4(a) and Section 4(b)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this strengthen ties with allied countries? — The bill emphasizes sharing information and securing the support of allies to combat adversary alignment. Does this send more money or help to other countries? — The bill promotes providing foreign assistance to allies to help them address capability gaps. Does this favour talking over confrontation abroad? — It explicitly lists diplomatic engagement as a tool to disrupt dangerous elements of adversary cooperation. Does this better protect the country from computer attacks? — The bill identifies coordination on cyber operations by adversaries as a risk to be mitigated. Does this reduce what is spent on the military? — The bill calls for increasing munitions stockpiles and updating war-planning tools, likely increasing spending.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill mandates new whole-of-government strategies and specialized task forces across multiple executive departments.
- 11/4/2025
- Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
James MoylanRepublican · Guam