S-233-119
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 340.
Sponsored by Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
What it does
This bill would require the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to annually evaluate whether the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) meets specific governance standards, including independent leadership, fair U.S. representation, and transparent athlete selection processes. If WADA is found to fall short, the ONDCP would be required to use all available tools to push WADA into compliance and would be authorized to withhold up to the full amount of U.S. membership dues paid to WADA.
Who benefits
U.S. competitive athletes — particularly Olympic and Paralympic athletes — who would gain stronger institutional advocates pushing for fair governance and athlete representation in international anti-doping decisions. The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) and the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC), whose input would be formally incorporated into the annual review. American athletes who have previously been disadvantaged by WADA governance decisions, including those affected by controversies over inconsistent enforcement. Taxpayers who fund U.S. dues to WADA and may prefer conditional rather than unconditional contributions.
Who is hurt
WADA as an institution, which could face financial pressure and reduced U.S. influence if dues are withheld. Other member nations whose anti-doping programs depend on WADA's stable funding and operations — a U.S. dues withholding could destabilize WADA's budget. International athletes who rely on a well-funded WADA to enforce clean competition globally. U.S. athletes could face retaliatory exclusion from international competition if WADA or other nations respond adversely to U.S. pressure. The ONDCP, which would bear new administrative and diplomatic responsibilities.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that WADA has faced serious, documented governance failures — most notably its handling of the 2021 Chinese swimmer doping case, in which WADA allowed dozens of athletes to compete despite positive tests, raising credible questions about independence and equal enforcement. They contend that the U.S. contributes approximately $3.4 million annually in dues and that conditioning those funds on verifiable governance standards is a legitimate exercise of financial leverage to protect the integrity of clean sport for American and global athletes alike.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that unilaterally withholding dues could undermine the very international anti-doping system the bill seeks to strengthen, since WADA's enforcement capacity depends on stable, predictable funding from member nations. They contend that using dues as a pressure tool risks politicizing anti-doping governance, inviting retaliatory measures against U.S. athletes, and setting a precedent that other nations could use to defund WADA for self-interested reasons — ultimately weakening global clean sport standards rather than improving them.
Constitutional context
No significant constitutional tension is present. Congress has broad authority under the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8) and the Commerce Clause to condition U.S. contributions to international organizations. Delegating the annual compliance determination to the ONDCP is a routine exercise of executive agency authority; given the bill's specific criteria, it is unlikely to raise major questions doctrine concerns under West Virginia v. EPA (2022), as the scope of discretion is narrowly defined by statute.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (ONDCP) gains new authority to evaluate WADA and withhold dues; Congress retains oversight through the annual reporting structure and controls the underlying appropriation of dues funds.
Historical precedent
The Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act of 2020 similarly extended U.S. legal reach into international anti-doping enforcement, establishing federal criminal penalties for doping fraud affecting U.S.-connected competitions.