Bipartisan bill demands Trump administration come up with strategy to help Haiti
U.S. Rep. Gregory Meeks, a New York Democrat and the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, introduced late Wednesday the bipartisan 'Strategy to Address Key Priorities Affecting Security and Empowerment in Haiti Act of 2025.'' The bill is also dubbed the 'SAK Pase in Haiti Act of 2025,' which plays off the popular Haitian Creole saying meaning, 'What's happening?'
'The level of human suffering in Haiti is completely unacceptable, and we need a comprehensive strategy to address it,' said Meeks, who is co-sponsoring the legislation with U.S Rep. Greg Murphy, a North Carolina Republican. 'Today's legislation represents a bipartisan commitment in the House of Representatives to adopt a comprehensive strategy that will support the Haitian people during the ongoing dire humanitarian and security crisis.'
Murphy, a physician, worked as a medical missionary in Haiti, where today most of the hospitals in the capital are shuttered due to gangs and a faltering health system. Schools and social services are on the brink of collapse.
'As a medical missionary, I spent a great deal of time in Haiti and understand first-hand the issues that are plaguing the country and the need for stability,' Murphy said. 'I am proud to support the bipartisan Sak Pase Act with Ranking Member Meeks and look forward to exploring ways the U.S. can bring peace to Haiti.'
The legislation, if it passes, would require Secretary of State Marco Rubio to submit to Congress a comprehensive strategy to counter gang violence and advance stability in Haiti within 90 days of enactment.
The State Department would also need to consult with key groups in developing a strategy, including Haitian civil society, international partners such as the European Union, Canada, the 15-member Caribbean Community known as CARICOM, as well as the United Nations and other international agencies. The legislation also requires the secretary of state to submit to Congress a report describing progress made in implementing the strategy no later than 120 days after the submission of the strategy and annually thereafter for five years.
One requirement in the bill that sets it apart from other congressional legislation is that it also asks for an assessment on the importance of supporting the Haitian national police, the Armed Forces of Haiti, the Multinational Security Support mission headed by Kenay and other security forces to counter gang activity and violence in Haiti. The legislation also seeks to support the current under-resourced Kenya-led security mission, whose funding runs out in September, and figure out the feasibility of a formal U.N. peacekeeping mission.
The inclusion of the Armed Forces of Haiti is unusual and underscores a growing call among Haitians for the formal recognition of the country's small army and the need for its use in the fight against gangs. The force was disbanded years ago, and past human rights violations have prevented it from being properly armed or supported by U.S. officials.
Nevertheless, there is emerging consensus that Haiti needs a second force and that the country's army, barely 1,000 individuals, can't remain on the sidelines at at time gangs have forced 1.3 million people out of their homes and pushed schools, hospitals and the economy to the brink of collapse.
The Trump administration has yet to define a clear strategy on Haiti. U.S. officials have commended Kenya for stepping up to help the Haitian police fight gangs, but have not said if they will continue to support the mission, which remains under-equipped and under-funded as its mandate heads to renewal before the U.N. Security Council in October.
That lack of clarity has also stalled any action by the U.N. Security Council, whose members on Wednesday once more condemned the escalation in gang violence and armed gangs' rapes, murders and recruitment of childre,n but failed to take any serious action.
'The lack of security, and overall instability in Haiti, threatens to impede the holding of free and fair elections in a timely manner, while the territorial expansion of the gangs threatens to undermine the important gains made by both the Haitian National Police and the Multinational Security Support mission,' John Kelly, the U.S.'s acting representative at the U.N., said Wednesday during a discussion on the situation in Haiti to decide on the renewal of the mandate of the U.N. office, which expires on July 5.
'A few days ago, at the OAS general assembly, the United States made clear we believe this regional organization needs to take a stronger role in Haiti. That is why the United States co-sponsored a resolution to galvanize action for Haiti and complement efforts here at the U.N.,' Kelly said. 'The resolution passed unanimously. As we have said before, an increased role for the OAS is compatible with various models of U.N. support under consideration.'
Last month, while answering a question about the escalating gang violence in Haiti, Rubio said the State Department was currently working on a strategy.
In the meantime, Haiti observers have watched contradictory measures by the Trump administration, which recently used Haiti's ongoing gang violence as a rationale for ending immigration protections for hundreds of thousands of Haitians in the U.S. under Temporary Protected Status.
Both Meeks and Murphy say the United States has a national security interest in helping Haiti deal with the security, economic, political and humanitarian crises. Their bill also mentions expanding economic opportunity for Haitians through the duty-free Haiti HOPE/HELP program.
'The gangs unleashing violence and suffering across Haiti represent a threat to stability in Haiti and the region,' the legislation says. 'Stabilization of the security situation and full participation of civil society in Haiti must be a precondition for open democratic political processes; and a lasting solution to the crisis in Haiti must garner support from and be led by the Haitian people.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
42 minutes ago
- The Hill
Massie says Epstein controversy ‘going to hurt Republicans in the midterms'
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) on Sunday said that the current controversy over convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein is 'going to hurt Republicans in the midterms.' 'This is going to hurt Republicans in the midterms, the voters will be apathetic if we don't hold the rich and powerful accountable,' Massie told NBC News's Kristen Welker on 'Meet the Press' in an interview alongside Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) 'I think when we get back, we can get the signatures required to force this to the floor. Speaker Mike Johnson should do the right thing and just bring it to the floor and not require us to force it. And he'll have a choice once we get those 218 signatures,' he added, talking about the House's current recess and his resolution with Khanna on files related to Epstein. President Trump and his administration have recently been facing pressure from both sides of the aisle over Epstein's case, with the saga throwing Congress into chaos. The House broke on Wednesday for its weeks-long August recess, shutting down one day earlier than initially planned, as the chamber was stuck in a logjam over the Epstein controversy. Massie and Khanna's bill is one of two measures linked to the Epstein files, with 34 co-sponsors, 11 of them Republican. Some of the GOP names backing the bill include Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) and Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.). House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said in an interview that aired Thursday that files related to Epstein are 'not a hoax.' 'It's not a hoax, of course not,' Johnson said in an interview with CBS News's Major Garrett on 'The Takeout.' 'I mean, there are real victims here, but that's part of a delicate — the balance that's being done here is, I tried to explain in my press conference this week, man, we want full disclosure. If I had … these things in my possession, I would have put them out a long time ago, but I would also have been very careful to protect the innocent,' the Speaker added. The Hill has reached out to Johnson's office for comment.
Epoch Times
43 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
Some Democrats Absent as National Governors Association Wrestles With Partisanship
COLORADO SPRINGS—In the shadow of the Rockies at a resort hotel, state leaders assembled on July 25 and 26—some of them, anyway. They came to the Broadmoor for the National Governors Association's summer meeting, where Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, handed over the leadership gavel to Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump team's ‘pocket rescission' idea runs into GOP opposition
Some Republicans in Congress are uneasy about the possibility the Trump administration will use a 'pocket rescission' to claw back already approved government funding as fears of a fall shutdown rise. The Trump administration has already clawed back funds through the use of a rescissions package that passed both chambers of Congress, and some GOP lawmakers are concerned about having to vote on a second, possibly politically tougher, package of cuts. But these lawmakers say the use of pocket rescissions, an idea floated by the White House's budget chief that could yank back money without input from lawmakers, could create bad feelings not only with Democrats, but also with Republicans. 'Pocket rescissions, I think, are unconstitutional,' said Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), a spending cardinal, this week. 'So, just like impoundment, I think, is unconstitutional.' 'So we'll see how it goes,' he said. Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought referred to pocket rescissions as 'one of the executive tools' that are 'on the table' earlier this month, as the administration continues a sweeping operation aimed at reducing federal spending. 'The president was elected to get us to balance, to deal with our fiscal situation, and we're going to use all of the tools that are there depending on the situation, and as we move through the year,' he said at an event. However, he also noted then that the administration hasn't yet 'made a determination to use it in part because we're making progress during the normal course of business with Congress.' Trump became the first president in decades to successfully claw back funds through the special rescissions process, with the GOP-led Congress agreeing to pull back about $9 billion in previously allocated funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting. The Impoundment Control Act (ICA) lays out rules governing that process and allows the administration to temporarily withhold funding for 45 days while Congress considers the request. If Congress opts not to approve the request in the timeframe, the funds must be released. Under a pocket rescission, however, experts say the president would send the same type of request to Congress, but do so within 45 days of the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. The targeted funds could then essentially be held until the clock runs out and they expire. Vought has described the tactic as 'no different than a normal rescission, except for the timing of when it occurs.' 'A pocket rescission occurs later in the end of the fiscal year, within 45 days of the time that you have to hold the funding, and then the money evaporates at the end of the fiscal year,' he said. But some budget experts have strongly pushed back on the budget chief's characterization, arguing the tactic is 'illegal' and undermines the intent of the ICA. The Government Accountability Office also said during Trump's first presidential term that the law does not allow 'the withholding of funds through their date of expiration.' 'It is a method through which [Vought] would get to impound funds against congressional intent,' said Bobby Kogan, a former Senate budget aide and senior director of federal budget policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, in a recent interview. 'Pocket rescission says, 'Well, what if I send up a request 45 days before the end of the fiscal year, then even if Congress says no, I can still end all funding for the rest of the year, right?'' he argued. 'Like that's the concept behind a pocket rescission. Profoundly illegal because it would allow you to impound funds without congressional approval, which is illegal.' At the same time, other experts have argued impoundment law is murky on the matter and have described the tactic as a potential loophole. Some have defended the administration's interpretation of the law and argue lawmakers would have prohibited the maneuver over the years if they wanted to. Not all Republicans are certain about the legality of the use of pocket rescissions, however. 'I don't know. I haven't researched it,' Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a senior appropriator and former attorney, said this week when asked by reporters whether pocket rescissions were legal. 'I'd prefer that we not do it that way.' The Louisiana Republican, who has been pushing for the White House to work with Congress to get more rescissions packages out the door, instead said it 'wouldn't bother' him if the administration sent 'a rescission package a week and spell out in detail what they want to propose we cut.' There's been concern from members on both sides of the aisle that the administration's plans to continue to claw back federal funding with only GOP support could threaten bipartisan funding talks for fiscal 2026. But Republican rifts over the president's latest rescissions requests were also an issue. The party clashed over potential cuts to programs like the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and public broadcasting dollars that help fund not only PBS and NPR, but also local stations some Republicans say their constituents depend on. Under the pocket rescissions strategy, experts say the administration could reduce some funding by strategically holding up appropriations set to expire at the end of the fiscal year. If Congress chooses not to approve the administration's request for cuts, it could still provide funding for the program as part of a deal to keep the government open past September. Congress often opts to keep government funding levels mostly the same at the start of a new fiscal year to buy time for a larger deal updating funding levels. But experts have emphasized that would be 'new funding,' noting funding an account was denied at the end of the fiscal year as part of a pocket rescission likely would not roll over into the next. Asked whether another rescissions plan could worsen the outlook for a funding deal for fiscal 2026, House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said this week that 'the only thing that would worry me is if Congress didn't get a chance to vote on it, that's the key thing.' 'I don't want to see things up here that get jammed where Congress doesn't vote.' Cole was asked whether he was referring to pocket rescissions. 'I don't care procedurally what you want to call it,' he responded. 'I expect Congress to vote on these things, and you know that would worry me, and I know that would worry my colleagues in the other chamber, on both sides of the aisle, certainly worry my Democratic colleagues here.' 'And there's a lot of Republican concern about this too,' he added. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
