Bill Overview
Title: Euro-Atlantic Solidarity and Major Democratic Ally Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes a new category under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, major democratic allies , giving certain countries a priority status in U.S. transfers of defense articles. The bill also requires the State Department to appoint a Special Advisor for Major Non-NATO Allies and Major Democratic Allies and requires U.S. representatives to NATO to advocate for the accession of Ukraine and Georgia to NATO.
Sponsors: Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9]
Target Audience
Population: People in nations classified as 'major democratic allies' and NATO states
Estimated Size: 50000000
- The bill affects countries that are considered 'major democratic allies' according to the new category in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
- This will tangibly impact defense articles transfers which directly affect military capabilities and defense strategies of these allied nations.
- Countries like Ukraine and Georgia are mentioned specifically as potential NATO members, which can change their security dynamics substantially.
- Citizens of these countries might experience increased security or military presence, affecting their sense of security or national defense capabilities.
- The increased focus on NATO could indirectly impact the citizens of NATO member countries.
Reasoning
- A significant portion of the U.S. population may perceive indirect effects rather than direct ones, as the policy primarily targets foreign assistance and defense strategies related to allied countries rather than domestic programs.
- Those involved in the defense industry, including workers and contractors, might experience operational changes due to reshaped priorities in defense article distributions and financial budgets.
- Military families, especially those stationed in Europe, might experience shifts in deployment or mission focus, impacting their future wellbeing.
- Given the budget constraints, direct economic effects on the employment front will likely be limited but the policy could influence strategic military commitments over time.
- NATO-related discussions can influence public opinion on defense spending and foreign policy priorities, indirectly affecting political climates and public sentiment in the U.S.
- The policy does not create direct welfare benefits for U.S. citizens but alters geopolitical commitments, which may influence national security perceptions.
Simulated Interviews
Defense contractor (Virginia)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I expect increased workload due to the policy’s focus on defense article transfers.
- Financially, this could be beneficial for my company and job stability.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Military personnel (California)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If Ukraine and Georgia join NATO, security operations might shift, impacting my deployment.
- I worry about being separated from my family for longer periods.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Military analyst (Texas)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The focus on NATO expansion has significant strategic importance, changing threat perceptions.
- I might see increased demand for expertise, which is professionally rewarding.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Diplomat (New York)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Could lead to more diplomatic engagements and a busy workload.
- Aligns with strategic goals, but aligns resources away from other areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Defense policy advisor (Washington)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill is likely to redirect existing funds, which requires strategic management.
- Impact won’t be immediate domestically but long-term strategic implications are significant.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
National security consultant (Florida)
Age: 42 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will expand my consulting services, influencing national security evaluations.
- Economic impact is minimal immediately but strategic for U.S. foreign policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Retired military officer (Ohio)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- NATO's strengthening should make America and its allies safer.
- The bill reinforces long-standing military strategies, although it doesn't directly affect my daily life.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Defense industry worker (Maryland)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Manufacturing demand might increase if more defense articles are moved to these allies.
- Provides job stability for the immediate future.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Civilian with military family (Colorado)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy could shift family members' roles, influencing where they're stationed.
- Anxious about potential extended deployments though increase in support for allies is good.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Political science professor (Illinois)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- From a geopolitical standpoint, the policy enhances ally security and regional stability.
- No direct impact on my daily routine, but important for research and analysis.
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 | 4 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 2: $210000000 (Low: $157500000, High: $262500000)
Year 3: $220500000 (Low: $165375000, High: $275625000)
Year 5: $243500000 (Low: $182625000, High: $304375000)
Year 10: $295000000 (Low: $221250000, High: $368750000)
Year 100: $740000000 (Low: $555000000, High: $925000000)
Key Considerations
- The geopolitical climate and the response from U.S. allies and adversaries to this policy could fluctuate, impacting costs and benefits.
- The accession of countries like Ukraine and Georgia to NATO could have significant political and economic repercussions.
- Coordination between multiple government agencies and international organizations will be crucial in implementing the policy effectively.