Bill Overview
Title: Guaranteeing Ukrainian Autonomy by Reinforcing its Defense (GUARD) Act of 2022
Description: This bill provides support for Ukraine and imposes sanctions related to Nord Stream 2, the pipeline constructed to increase exports of natural gas from Russia. The Department of State must periodically report to Congress a determination as to whether Russia's government meets the criteria to be designated a state sponsor of terrorism. The bill authorizes the State Department to provide Foreign Military Financing assistance to Ukraine in FY2022. The bill also authorizes providing Ukraine with lethal assistance, such as anti-armor weapon systems and anti-aircraft weapons systems. From FY2022-FY2026, Ukraine shall have priority access to excess defense articles. During the same time period, the bill also authorizes providing Ukraine with assistance, including (1) International Military Education and Training assistance; (2) assistance to strengthen cybersecurity and intellectual property enforcement; (3) support and training for banking reform, subsidy reform, corporate governance, and the privatization of state-owned enterprises; and (4) assistance to combat corruption and improve the rule of law. Within 15 days of this bill's enactment, the President must impose sanctions on any entity responsible for planning, constructing, or operating Nord Stream 2, as well as any corporate officer of such an entity. The bill also subjects the President's authority to waive certain sanctions to congressional review. The U.S. Agency for Global Media may expand broadcasting in countries of the former Soviet Union to combat Russian disinformation. The bill requires reports to Congress on various topics, including a strategy on using U.S. diplomacy to support Ukraine.
Sponsors: Rep. McCaul, Michael T. [R-TX-10]
Target Audience
Population: People in Ukraine, Russia, European countries, United States
Estimated Size: 331000000
- The bill concerns providing military and financial assistance to Ukraine, which directly impacts the Ukrainian population by influencing their defense capabilities and economic stability.
- The sanctions related to Nord Stream 2, which targets Russian natural gas exports, will directly impact the European countries relying on this natural gas, potentially affecting their energy supplies and prices, thereby affecting their population.
- The bill will financially and strategically impact U.S. foreign relations and defense spending, involving the U.S. population indirectly as taxpayers and citizens.
- The cybersecurity, education, and governance initiatives may have secondary effects on sectors worldwide that deal with these fields.
Reasoning
- The GUARD Act primarily impacts U.S. taxpayers since it involves substantial foreign military and financial assistance. The direct impact on individual U.S. citizens may be limited to their perceptions of foreign policy and defense expenditures.
- Stakeholders such as companies involved with Nord Stream 2 and certain political interest groups will experience more immediate impacts through sanctions and adjustments in geopolitical strategies.
- The policy's secondary effects may be seen in economic factors like natural gas prices and political stability in Europe, influencing general public sentiment on energy policies.
- Given the U.S. population's size and diversity, only a minority will feel direct and immediate effects, especially those working in relevant industries or with vested interests in the regions affected by the bill (like Ukrainian or Russian Americans, defense contractors, etc.).
- The spread of misinformation and foreign influence is a concern that may indirectly affect the public's trust in media, influencing broader societal discussions and political alignments.
Simulated Interviews
Defense Contractor (Washington D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone working in defense, this bill likely sustains my industry which is reassuring, although I am cautious about fiscal spendings on foreign aid.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Natural Gas Trader (New York City, NY)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While the sanctions might create volatility, they also present market opportunities. It's a dynamic situation I need to manage daily.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Environmental Activist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm disappointed that the focus is still on fossil fuel geopolitics rather than shifting entirely to renewable energy initiatives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Oil and Gas Executive (Houston, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is challenging for our business, raising concerns about future project viability and market dynamics.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Software Engineer (Austin, TX)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Efforts to strengthen cybersecurity in an international context are good, might lead to more job opportunities in my field.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
College Professor (Miami, FL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy provides an interesting case for geopolitical strategy and its influence on international relationships.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired (Columbus, OH)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel discouraged every time I hear about military aid spending. I worry about its impact on our national debt.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Journalist (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This provides rich content for reporting on international relations and will keep my work busy and relevant.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Public School Teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's important for students to understand these global dynamics, and this policy is a good case study.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Seattle, WA)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any shift in energy prices due to geopolitical tensions can affect my business costs, though indirectly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1500000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $2000000000)
Year 2: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1500000000)
Year 3: $800000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 5: $600000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $1000000000)
Year 10: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $200000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $150000000)
Key Considerations
- Differences in geopolitical outcomes make financial impacts subject to uncertainty, influencing cost predictions directly.
- Defense logistics involved in transferring military goods and advisory personnel to Ukraine involve significant operational expenditure.
- International sanctions might yield secondary economic ramifications affecting future U.S. policy options.
- Implementation of increased media broadcasting and disinformation countermeasures entails sustained operational investments.