Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
This bill adds 46 U.S.C. chapter 700, section 70015, prohibiting an owner or operator of a facility that requires a facility security plan under 46 U.S.C. 70103(c) from entering contracts for ownership, leasing, or operation with: (1) Chinese, Russian, North Korean, or Iranian state-owned enterprises; or (2) any foreign entity partially or wholly owned by those countries. It references definitions in 46 U.S.C. 70101 and makes a clerical amendment to the title 46 table of contents.
Security emphasis: conservatives prioritize immediate protection; liberals want safeguards.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear substantive prohibition on specified foreign‑tied entities entering into port ownership, leasing, or operation contracts and amends title 46 accordingly.
This bill adds 46 U.S.C. chapter 700, section 70015, prohibiting an owner or operator of a facility that requires a facility security plan under 46 U.S.C. 70103(c) from entering contracts for ownership, leasing, or operation with: (1) Chinese, Russian, North Korean, or Iranian state-owned enterprises; or (2) any foreign entity partially or wholly owned by those countries.
It references definitions in 46 U.S.C. 70101 and makes a clerical amendment to the title 46 table of contents.
The effect is a statutory ban on certain port operations and management contracts involving specified state-affiliated foreign entities.
Technically narrow national-security bill with modest friction; procedural Senate obstacles and legal/industry pushback lower odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear substantive prohibition on specified foreign‑tied entities entering into port ownership, leasing, or operation contracts and amends title 46 accordingly. However, it provides limited drafting detail beyond the core prohibition.
Security emphasis: conservatives prioritize immediate protection; liberals want safeguards.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Security emphasis: conservatives prioritize immediate protection; liberals want safeguards.
Likely cautiously supportive of protecting critical infrastructure from adversary state control, but concerned about broad wording and civil liberties.
Worries include potential discrimination, economic disruption, and weak oversight; would seek clearer criteria, transparency, and human-rights safeguards.
Some impacts (trade disruption, legal challenges) are plausible but speculative.
Pragmatic support for preventing adversary control of ports, balanced against concerns about vagueness and downstream costs.
Would push for precise definitions, regulatory guidance, legal risk assessment, and limited transition rules.
Economic and trade impacts are plausible but uncertain.
Strongly supportive as a necessary national-security measure to block adversary state access to U.S. ports.
Views the ban as straightforward protection of sovereignty and critical infrastructure.
Some may still seek tight enforcement mechanisms, but overall backing is high.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically narrow national-security bill with modest friction; procedural Senate obstacles and legal/industry pushback lower odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Security emphasis: conservatives prioritize immediate protection; liberals want safeguards.
Technically narrow national-security bill with modest friction; procedural Senate obstacles and legal/industry pushback lower odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear substantive prohibition on specified foreign‑tied entities entering into port ownership, leasing, or operation contracts and amends title 46 accor…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.