S. 765 (119th)Bill Overview

No DeepSeek on Government Devices Act

Government Operations and Politics|Computers and information technologyComputer security and identity theft
Cosponsors
Support
Lean Republican
Introduced
Feb 27, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

The bill requires the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with several agencies, to issue standards within 60 days directing executive agencies to remove the DeepSeek application (and successors provided by High Flyer or entities it owns) from agency information technology. It defines covered application, executive agency, and information technology, and creates exceptions for law enforcement, national security activities, and security researchers, with required documented risk mitigation for authorized uses.

Why people may split

Liberals emphasize privacy gains and want stronger oversight

Watch point

Narrow, low-cost executive-branch restriction likely attracts pragmatic support; company-targeting could prompt opposition.

The bill requires the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with several agencies, to issue standards within 60 days directing executive agencies to remove the DeepSeek application (and successors provided by High Flyer or entities it owns) from agency information technology.

It defines covered application, executive agency, and information technology, and creates exceptions for law enforcement, national security activities, and security researchers, with required documented risk mitigation for authorized uses.

Passage45/100

Low fiscal cost and national-security framing aid enactment, but naming a single private company and potential legal or political pushback reduce likelihood.

CredibilityPartial

How solid the drafting looks.

Contention65/100

Liberals emphasize privacy gains and want stronger oversight

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Federal agenciesLikely burdened

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Federal agenciesReduces cybersecurity and data-exfiltration risk from the specified application on federal IT systems.
  • Federal agenciesClarifies federal policy by requiring a uniform removal standard across executive agencies.
  • Federal agenciesProtects sensitive federal information and personnel privacy from potential vendor vulnerabilities.
Likely burdened
  • Potential burdenAgencies may incur costs to remove, replace, or mitigate reliance on the prohibited application.
  • Potential burdenOperational disruptions could occur where agencies currently depend on the application for workflows.
  • Potential burdenTargeting a single named vendor could prompt legal challenges alleging procurement or administrative overreach.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Liberals emphasize privacy gains and want stronger oversight
Progressive85%

Likely supportive as a targeted federal step to reduce potential data exposure and protect privacy on government devices.

Would welcome the national security and researcher exceptions but press for transparency, oversight, and broader vendor restrictions or auditing requirements.

Leans supportive
Centrist70%

Generally supportive of a narrowly tailored security measure but cautious about evidence and implementation details.

Will look for clear risk assessments, defined enforcement, and limited costs to agencies before fully backing the measure.

Leans supportive
Conservative40%

Mixed to skeptical: may agree on national-security-driven bans but worry about federal overreach and singling out a private company without public justification.

Concerned about precedent for banning specific commercial apps and potential limits on individual choice by the state.

Split reaction
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood45/100

Low fiscal cost and national-security framing aid enactment, but naming a single private company and potential legal or political pushback reduce likelihood.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Potential legal challenges to singling out a named private company
  • Whether OMB guidance will be classified or publicly detailed
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Liberals emphasize privacy gains and want stronger oversight

Low fiscal cost and national-security framing aid enactment, but naming a single private company and potential legal or political pushback…

Unlocked analysis

Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for No DeepSeek on Government Devices Act.

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis