S-618-118
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 368.
Sponsored by Christopher Coons (D-DE)
What it does
This bill would direct the Department of State to create the U.S. Foundation for International Conservation, a new tax-exempt organization. The foundation would award grants to projects that protect and manage land, coastal, and marine conservation areas — such as parks, conservancies, and reserves — in lower- and middle-income countries with significant biodiversity. All grant recipients would be required to match U.S. funding with money from non-U.S. government sources, and the foundation would be barred from funding governments or entities linked to terrorism, gross human rights violations, or U.S. sanctions.
Who benefits
Communities in lower- and middle-income countries that live near or depend on protected natural areas; wildlife and ecosystems in biodiverse regions targeted for grants; conservation-focused nonprofits and organizations that could receive or administer grants; U.S. and international environmental research institutions that may partner on eligible projects; species and habitats in terrestrial, coastal, and marine protected areas that would receive management funding.
Who is hurt
U.S. taxpayers who fund the foundation if grants produce limited measurable conservation outcomes; industries such as logging, mining, or fishing that operate in or near areas that could become newly protected or more strictly managed under funded projects; governments or entities in eligible countries that are excluded due to terrorism or human rights violation designations; competing priorities for State Department funding that could be displaced by the foundation's budget.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that establishing a dedicated foundation would give the United States a focused, efficient vehicle for protecting the world's most biologically important areas at a critical time for global biodiversity. They contend that the cost-matching requirement ensures U.S. dollars are leveraged with outside funding, multiplying impact and reducing the burden on American taxpayers. Supporters also argue that concentrating grants on lower- and middle-income countries — where conservation funding is scarcest and biodiversity is often richest — maximizes the return on each dollar spent. They further argue that built-in safeguards, including bars on funding state sponsors of terrorism and sanctioned entities, ensure U.S. resources are directed responsibly and in alignment with broader foreign policy goals.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that creating a new government-chartered foundation adds bureaucratic complexity and overhead costs without clear evidence that a new entity would outperform existing agencies — such as USAID or the Fish and Wildlife Service — that already fund international conservation. They contend that the cost-matching requirement, while fiscally appealing, could systematically exclude the poorest and most conservation-critical countries that lack the local funding capacity to meet the match threshold. Opponents also argue that placing grant authority in a State Department-affiliated foundation blurs the line between conservation policy and diplomatic objectives, potentially distorting which projects receive funding based on geopolitical rather than ecological priorities. They further argue that without strong congressional oversight mechanisms, the foundation's tax-exempt status and operational independence could limit accountability for how public funds are spent.
Constitutional context
The bill operates primarily under Congress's Foreign Commerce Clause power (Art. I, Sec. 8) and the Executive's foreign affairs authority. The State Department's role in establishing the foundation implicates the Appointments Clause (Art. II, Sec. 2) regarding how foundation leadership is selected. The foundation's grant restrictions tied to terrorism designations and sanctions connect to the President's Commander-in-Chief and foreign relations powers. Relevant precedent includes Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015), which affirmed broad executive authority in foreign recognition and relations, and Trump v. Hawaii (2018), which upheld executive discretion in restricting dealings with foreign governments on national security grounds.
Checks and balances
The bill shifts some foreign conservation spending authority to the Executive Branch by creating a State Department-chartered foundation with independent grant-making power. Congress retains indirect control through appropriations and the foundation's authorizing statute, but the foundation's tax-exempt, quasi-independent structure could reduce day-to-day legislative oversight compared to a standard federal agency program.
Historical precedent
The structure resembles the National Endowment for Democracy (1983) and the U.S. African Development Foundation, both of which are federally chartered, tax-exempt foundations created by Congress to advance U.S. foreign policy goals through grants, while operating with some independence from direct agency control.