Congress funnels $160M in visa fees to tourism marketing nonprofit

What it does

This bill transfers $160 million from the Travel Promotion Fund (money collected from visa fees) directly to Brand USA, a nonprofit corporation that markets U.S. tourism abroad. The transfer bypasses the normal statutory cap on how much can be moved from the fund in a single year, though Brand USA must still match the funds with private donations and follow other existing rules.

Why we flagged it

The bill's operative mechanism is a direct transfer of $160 million in public funds (collected as visa fees) to Brand USA, a private nonprofit corporation engaged in tourism marketing. This is functionally a subsidy to the travel and tourism sector, structured as a one-time appropriation from an existing fee-funded account.

What the text implies

• The $160M transfer bypasses the annual cap on Travel Promotion Fund distributions, setting a precedent for future large transfers and potentially weakening the statutory limit's enforceability.
• Brand USA must match the $160M with private donations under existing rules, but the bill does not specify how Brand USA will source or account for matching funds, creating potential for opaque private-sector influence over U.S. tourism messaging.
• Visa fees are collected from international travelers as a condition of entry; redirecting this revenue to domestic tourism marketing effectively makes foreign visitors subsidize promotion of U.S. travel destinations to other foreign visitors and domestic travelers.
• The bill does not require Brand USA to report publicly on how the $160M is spent, creating an accountability gap for a large transfer of public funds to a private entity.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

The bill redirects visa-fee revenue (paid by international travelers seeking entry to the U.S.) to fund tourism marketing that benefits the travel industry and domestic tourism-dependent businesses. While tourism promotion may have broad economic spillover, the mechanism is a direct subsidy to a private nonprofit using fees collected from foreigners, with no clear public return or accountability mechanism for how the funds are spent.

Who stands to gain

• Brand USA (nonprofit tourism marketing corporation)
• Travel and tourism industry (hotels, airlines, attractions, tour operators)
• Destination marketing organizations and convention bureaus

Named in the bill

Brand USA, Corporation for Travel Promotion, Travel Promotion Fund, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Immigration and Nationality Act Section 217(h)(3)(B)(i)(I), Travel Promotion Act of 2009

Where it stands

18 cosponsors: 12 Democrats, 6 Republicans.

• Nov 19, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Nov 19, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

12 lobbying clients named this bill on 15 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $3,290,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 3 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 93% of bills with at least one filing.

Gus Bilirakis, the sponsor, reported $937,250 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle. $4,500 of that came from 2 PACs tied to these lobbying clients.

• Jpmorgan Chase Holdings LLC — $1,190,000 on 1 filing
• U.S. Travel Association — $800,000 on 1 filing
• Airbnb, Inc. — $480,000 on 1 filing
• American Resort Development Assn — $270,000 on 1 filing
• Hilton Worldwide — $270,000 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.