HR-8574-119
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Sponsored by Julie Johnson (D-TX)
What it does
This bill would repeal a 1994 statutory restriction that prevented the federal government from directly funding U.S. pavilions at international expositions and world's fairs. It would authorize the Secretary of State to use existing Department of State funds for this purpose, subject to a 15-day advance notice requirement to congressional committees. The bill would also require a post-event report on U.S. business participation and funding sources, and mandate anti-corruption and anti-human trafficking certifications from contractors.
Who benefits
The Department of State, which would gain a stable, direct funding mechanism for expo participation. U.S. businesses — particularly in technology, tourism, and manufacturing — that use expo pavilions to reach international audiences and attract foreign investment. American workers in construction, design, and event management who build and operate pavilions. U.S. diplomatic and public diplomacy interests broadly. Host countries and international visitors who would see consistent U.S. participation. Indirectly, American exporters and companies seeking overseas market access.
Who is hurt
Private-sector donors and foundations that currently fund U.S. pavilions, who may see reduced influence over pavilion content and branding if federal funding displaces their role. U.S. taxpayers who would bear the cost of pavilion construction and operation previously covered by private fundraising. Other State Department programs that could face indirect competition for existing discretionary funds, since the bill authorizes use of "funds otherwise available" rather than new appropriations. Competing countries' pavilions may face a more prominent U.S. presence.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that sole reliance on private fundraising has repeatedly undermined U.S. diplomatic credibility — the U.S. withdrew from the 2000 Hanover Expo, declined the 2008 Zaragoza Expo, and at Expo 2020 Dubai was forced to accept funding from the host country, the United Arab Emirates, for the first time in history. They contend that the 2025 Osaka Expo, the first to receive federal authorization of up to $25 million, proved the model works: the U.S. pavilion became the most visited at the event, demonstrating measurable return on public diplomacy investment.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the federal government should not permanently subsidize what has historically been a private-sector function, particularly at a time of fiscal pressure on discretionary spending. They contend that the bill provides no dedicated appropriation or spending cap, leaving the cost undefined and potentially drawing funds away from other State Department priorities. Critics may also argue that private funding — as demonstrated at Osaka — can be secured when the diplomatic case is strong, and that a permanent federal backstop reduces incentives for industry to invest in showcasing American products and innovation abroad.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to fund foreign public diplomacy activities is grounded in the Foreign Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) and its broad power over foreign affairs spending. No active constitutional dispute surrounds this type of legislation; the bill operates squarely within established congressional appropriations and foreign affairs authority.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (Secretary of State) gains spending flexibility, but Congress retains oversight through a mandatory 15-day advance notification requirement, post-event reporting obligations, and control over the underlying appropriations from which funds would be drawn.
Historical precedent
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 authorized up to $25 million for the U.S. pavilion at Expo 2025 Osaka — the first such federal authorization — serving as the direct legislative model this bill would make permanent and broadly applicable.