Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
The bill prohibits federal agencies from directly or indirectly funding research that will be conducted by the Government of the People’s Republic of China, the Chinese Communist Party, or any entity owned or controlled by either. The ban applies across grants, subgrants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other funding vehicles and names multiple Cabinet agencies while applying to any federal agency generally.
Progressives emphasize harm to scientific collaboration and public-health research.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a succinct, sweeping statutory prohibition on federal support for research conducted by entities linked to the People’s Republic of China or the Chinese Communist Party, but it lacks the definitions, procedural guidance, fiscal acknowledgement, integration with existing law, edge-case handling, and accountability mechanisms typically expected for a government-wide substantive policy change.
The bill prohibits federal agencies from directly or indirectly funding research that will be conducted by the Government of the People’s Republic of China, the Chinese Communist Party, or any entity owned or controlled by either.
The ban applies across grants, subgrants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other funding vehicles and names multiple Cabinet agencies while applying to any federal agency generally.
The text sets a broad prohibition but does not include detailed exemptions, implementation rules, or definitions beyond the ownership/control language.
Substantive, ideologically charged restriction with limited compromise features reduces chances despite some political appeal; Senate hurdles and implementation concerns lower likelihood.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a succinct, sweeping statutory prohibition on federal support for research conducted by entities linked to the People’s Republic of China or the Chinese Communist Party, but it lacks the definitions, procedural guidance, fiscal acknowledgement, integration with existing law, edge-case handling, and accountability mechanisms typically expected for a government-wide substantive policy change.
Progressives emphasize harm to scientific collaboration and public-health research.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize harm to scientific collaboration and public-health research.
Skeptical of a broad blanket ban.
Supportive of protecting sensitive technologies, but worried this will damage climate, public health, and academic collaboration.
Concerned about overbroad definitions chilling open science and disadvantaging U.S. researchers.
Views the bill as a reasonable security-oriented proposal needing refinement.
Supports protecting sensitive research but wants clear scope, implementation guidance, and narrowly targeted exceptions to avoid unnecessary harms.
Generally favorable.
Sees the bill as a necessary measure to prevent U.S. taxpayer dollars from aiding a strategic rival.
Prefers strong, clear prohibitions and robust enforcement.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Substantive, ideologically charged restriction with limited compromise features reduces chances despite some political appeal; Senate hurdles and implementation concerns lower likelihood.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize harm to scientific collaboration and public-health research.
Substantive, ideologically charged restriction with limited compromise features reduces chances despite some political appeal; Senate hurdl…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a succinct, sweeping statutory prohibition on federal support for research conducted by entities linked to the People’s Republic of China or the Chinese Communist…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.