PLO and PA Terror Payments Accountability Act of 2025
HB1710, titled the PLO and PA Terror Payments Accountability Act of 2025, would direct the President to impose sanctions on foreign persons and foreign financial institutions connected to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) if they are involved in a system of payments, salaries, or benefits to terrorists or the families of terrorists. The bill defines this compensation system broadly to include entities and individuals that direct, facilitate, materially support, or conduct significant transactions tied to those payments, and it specifically references organizations such as the Commission of Prisoners and Released Prisoners and the Institute for the Care of the Families of the Martyrs and the Wounded.
The sanctions would include blocking property and interests in property under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, visa and entry restrictions, revocation of existing visas, and restrictions on foreign financial institutions that process or facilitate such transactions, including limits on correspondent and payable-through accounts in the United States. The bill also requires the President to respond to congressional requests about whether a person meets the sanctions criteria and to issue implementing regulations or guidance within 60 days of enactment.
The bill’s stated policy is to hold the PLO and PA accountable for what Congress describes as a system that incentivizes and rewards terrorism, and it ties the measure to the Taylor Force Act and to the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. It would remain in force until the Secretary of State certifies that the compensation system has ceased and is no longer taking place.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text and sponsorship is strongly supportive of punitive action against the PLO and PA, with bipartisan sponsorship suggesting cross-party agreement on the need to target terrorism-related payments. No committee debate or recorded votes were provided, so there is no evidence in the supplied materials of organized opposition or amendment activity, but the bill’s broad sanctions framework and its linkage to Palestinian institutions and financial intermediaries indicate the main policy focus is deterrence and financial pressure rather than aid or diplomacy.
Notable points of contention are likely to center on whether the bill’s sanctions are too broad, whether they could affect legitimate Palestinian governance or humanitarian-related financial channels, and how directly the targeted payments are connected to terrorism under U.S. law. The bill also raises potential concerns about implementation, evidentiary standards for designations, and the impact on foreign banks and other third parties that may have indirect dealings with the PLO or PA.
If enacted, HB1710 would add a new federal sanctions regime targeting foreign persons and foreign financial institutions linked to the PLO/PA compensation system described in the bill. It would expand the use of IEEPA-based blocking sanctions, immigration restrictions, and financial-account restrictions, while also creating reporting and implementation duties for the executive branch. The measure would not directly amend the Taylor Force Act, but it would build on that framework by creating additional mandatory sanctions and a termination standard tied to a State Department certification that the compensation system has ended.
The bill is framed in strongly condemnatory terms and is intended to increase pressure on the PLO and Palestinian Authority over alleged payments to terrorists and their families. The sponsorship by members from both parties suggests at least some bipartisan support for the underlying objective of counterterrorism sanctions. Because no committee transcripts or votes were provided, the available record does not show formal opposition, but the bill’s aggressive sanctions approach implies that any debate would likely be centered on scope, effectiveness, and unintended consequences.
The main points of contention are likely to be the breadth of the sanctions triggers, especially the inclusion of entities or persons that “knowingly” provide significant support or engage in significant transactions with sanctioned parties, and the potential for collateral effects on legitimate banking, governance, or humanitarian activity. Critics may also question whether the bill duplicates or extends existing law under the Taylor Force Act, while supporters are likely to argue that prior measures have not stopped the compensation system and that stronger sanctions are necessary to deter terrorism-related payments.