Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S1746-1747)
This bill (FIGHT China Act of 2025) creates authorities to block and sanction certain Chinese (and China-related) entities, prohibits or requires notification for specified investments by U.S. persons in technologies tied to national security, and restricts U.S. holdings in entities on the Non-SDN Chinese Military-Industrial Complex Companies List. It defines covered foreign persons, prohibited and notifiable technologies (advanced semiconductors, AI, quantum, hypersonics, supercomputing, surveillance, etc.), sets civil penalties and divestment authorities, authorizes $150 million for Treasury/Commerce implementation, and requires recurring reports and multilateral coordination.
Scope and specificity of technical definitions (liberal and centrist caution versus conservative support)
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy statute that is well-constructed in its core mechanisms, statutory integration, implementation responsibilities, and oversight requirements.
This bill (FIGHT China Act of 2025) creates authorities to block and sanction certain Chinese (and China-related) entities, prohibits or requires notification for specified investments by U.S. persons in technologies tied to national security, and restricts U.S. holdings in entities on the Non-SDN Chinese Military-Industrial Complex Companies List.
It defines covered foreign persons, prohibited and notifiable technologies (advanced semiconductors, AI, quantum, hypersonics, supercomputing, surveillance, etc.), sets civil penalties and divestment authorities, authorizes $150 million for Treasury/Commerce implementation, and requires recurring reports and multilateral coordination.
The President/Secretary of the Treasury (and Commerce in consultation) get delegated rulemaking, waiver, and enforcement roles, with termination tied to removal of China from Commerce’s ‘‘foreign adversary’’ list.
Significant national-security appeal balanced by regulatory complexity, economic costs, likely industry pushback, and judicial risk; negotiable but not assured.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy statute that is well-constructed in its core mechanisms, statutory integration, implementation responsibilities, and oversight requirements. It provides detailed definitions, specific technical thresholds for covered technologies, explicit regulatory timelines, enforcement tools, and reporting and interagency coordination duties appropriate to a complex national-security regulatory program.
Scope and specificity of technical definitions (liberal and centrist caution versus conservative support)
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Scope and specificity of technical definitions (liberal and centrist caution versus conservative support)
Likely broadly supportive of strong national-security safeguards on advanced technologies and curbing Chinese military access to sensitive capabilities.
Will stress the need for worker, supply-chain, and human-rights considerations, plus strong transparency and due-process protections for affected parties.
Concerned about economic fallout for workers and communities reliant on affected firms, and the potential for overbroad or poorly targeted sanctions.
Viewed as a pragmatic, targeted national-security measure but requiring careful rulemaking to avoid market disruption.
Support contingent on clear definitions, minimization of compliance burdens, timely guidance, and measurable cost estimates.
Concerned with avoiding unnecessary damage to U.S. investors, maintaining international coordination, and ensuring administrative capacity to implement rules fairly.
Strongly supportive of hardline measures that restrict Chinese access to advanced U.S. technology and capital.
Views sanctions, investment prohibitions, and divestment rules as necessary to protect national security and maintain technological advantage.
May nevertheless press for sharper focus on enforcement efficiency and protection of U.S. economic interests, and caution about administrative expansion.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Significant national-security appeal balanced by regulatory complexity, economic costs, likely industry pushback, and judicial risk; negotiable but not assured.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Scope and specificity of technical definitions (liberal and centrist caution versus conservative support)
Significant national-security appeal balanced by regulatory complexity, economic costs, likely industry pushback, and judicial risk; negoti…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy statute that is well-constructed in its core mechanisms, statutory integration, implementation responsibilities, and oversight requirements. I…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.