Automotive National and Economic Security Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Harshbarger, Diana [R-TN-1]
- Committees
- Science, Space, and Technology Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 16, 2026
Bottom line
The bill requires a federal study to identify and evaluate the risks that foreign adversary involvement in the U.S. automotive sector, particularly concerning advanced technologies, poses to national and economic security.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a comprehensive study on the national and economic security risks posed by foreign adversaries to the United States automotive industry. The study will assess manufacturers' engagement in "covered activities" (various commercial arrangements with foreign adversaries), analyze potential adverse impacts on national security, economic competitiveness, and intellectual property, and examine the transfer of critical and emerging technologies.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this study is crucial for safeguarding the U.S. automotive industry, which is vital for both national security and economic prosperity. They contend that understanding the extent of foreign adversary influence, especially regarding critical technologies like AI and semiconductors in vehicles, is a necessary first step to mitigate potential vulnerabilities, protect intellectual property, and ensure the long-term competitiveness of American manufacturers.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that while the intent to protect national security is valid, such a study could lead to increased scrutiny and potential restrictions on international collaborations, which are often essential for innovation and global supply chain resilience in the complex automotive sector. They might also suggest that existing mechanisms for foreign investment review are sufficient, and this bill could create unnecessary bureaucratic burdens or deter beneficial foreign investment.
The bill is very concise and can be read and understood quickly, allowing ample time for stakeholders to evaluate its implications.
Section 3(a)
Mandate for Study on Foreign Adversary Engagement in U.S. Automotive Industry
This provision requires the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study specifically examining "covered activities" by manufacturers within the U.S. automotive industry. These activities involve commercial arrangements or agreements with foreign adversaries or entities controlled by them, related to the manufacturing of motor vehicles, covered hardware, or covered software. The goal is to identify and understand the scope of such engagements.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this study is a critical proactive measure to identify potential national and economic security vulnerabilities before they become irreversible. Understanding the landscape of foreign adversary involvement is essential for informed policymaking.
Critics contend
Some might argue that existing intelligence and economic monitoring agencies already track such risks, and a new, specific study might duplicate efforts or create redundant bureaucratic processes without adding significant new insights.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between the need for comprehensive intelligence on potential threats and the potential for overreach or duplication of existing government functions.
Section 3(b)
Scope and Specific Assessments of the Study
This section details what the Secretary must assess in the study. It includes evaluating adverse impacts on U.S. national security, economic competitiveness, and intellectual property protection resulting from covered activities. It also requires examining the involvement of state-directed investment vehicles controlled by foreign adversaries and any transfer of critical and emerging technologies to these entities or foreign adversary-controlled manufacturers. Furthermore, it mandates an assessment of the manufacturer's operations and employees in foreign adversary countries related to these activities.
The bill defines "foreign adversary" by referencing "covered nation" in section 4872(f) of title 10, United States Code. This external reference means the list of specific countries considered foreign adversaries is not explicitly stated within this bill but is determined by another statute.
Section 2(8)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid redundancy and ensure consistency across different laws that address foreign adversaries. It allows the list of adversaries to be updated without amending this specific bill.
Case for: Supporters argue that this approach ensures legal consistency and flexibility, as the list of foreign adversaries can evolve based on national security assessments without requiring constant legislative updates to every relevant bill.
Case against: Critics might contend that relying on external definitions makes the bill less transparent for the average reader, who may not easily know which nations are currently designated as "covered nations" under the referenced statute.
Estimated impact: The impact is significant as it determines the entire scope of the study, defining which countries' involvement in the U.S. automotive industry will be scrutinized.
The definitions of "covered hardware" and "covered software" are quite broad, encompassing software-enabled/programmable components connected to radio frequency communications, electronic systems in EV batteries, and any software enabling covered hardware or automated driving systems. This wide scope ensures that the study captures a vast array of modern automotive technologies, including those related to connectivity, electric vehicles, and autonomous driving.
Sections 2(5) and 2(6)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure legal precision and comprehensive coverage of the intended subject matter. The detail is necessary to prevent loopholes.
Case for: Proponents argue that these broad definitions are essential to capture the full spectrum of advanced technologies in modern vehicles that could pose security risks, preventing foreign adversaries from exploiting narrow definitions.
Case against: Critics might argue that such broad definitions could lead to an overly inclusive study that burdens manufacturers with reporting on technologies that pose minimal actual risk, potentially hindering innovation and competitiveness.
Estimated impact: The impact is substantial as it dictates the technological frontier of the automotive industry that will be under scrutiny, affecting R&D, supply chains, and manufacturing processes involving advanced components.