Jefferson Shreve (R-IN)
American Assistance Visibility Act
A Republican bill with 2 Republican cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 44 - 1.
Introduced, nothing more yet
Formally proposed, and not yet handed to a committee.
Nearly every bill is sent to a committee within days. Introduction alone is not a sign of support, of momentum, or of any likelihood of passing — any member may introduce any bill.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
What this bill would do
The "American Assistance Visibility Act" requires the United States flag to be distinctively displayed on all foreign assistance. The flag must generally be the only visual-branding element used. There are exceptions for international agreements, identifying partners, or other reasons determined by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can waive these rules to protect the safety of personnel or beneficiaries in high-risk areas. This applies to tangible items like buildings, food aid, and digital outreach.
Yes
- Scored +1
Does this give the federal government more power?
Increases federal oversight over the branding of foreign assistance.
- Scored +1
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
Increases visibility and clear identification of US-funded foreign assistance.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this strengthen ties with allied countries?
Strict branding requirements may conflict with international partnership co-branding norms.
- Scored -1
Does this favour talking over confrontation abroad?
Mandatory flag placement could be perceived as overly nationalistic in some diplomatic contexts.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Safety Protections: The Secretary of State can waive flag requirements to ensure the safety or security of personnel or beneficiaries in high-risk locations (Section 2(c)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Safety Risks: Except for waivers, the requirement for the U.S. flag to be the sole or most prominent branding element on items like buildings, vehicles, and food aid could potentially impact those in high-risk locations (Section 2(a) and 2(e)).
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? — Strict branding requirements may conflict with international partnership co-branding norms. Does this favour talking over confrontation abroad? — Mandatory flag placement could be perceived as overly nationalistic in some diplomatic contexts.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Increases visibility and clear identification of US-funded foreign assistance. Does this give the federal government more power? — Increases federal oversight over the branding of foreign assistance.
- 3/26/2026
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 44 - 1.
- 3/3/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 2/20/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
- Introduced in House
James BairdRepublican · Indiana
Michael LawlerRepublican · New York