Technical corrections only. The changes between v2 and v3 reflect the bill's procedural progression from being engrossed in the House to being referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. No substantive policy changes were made.
Economic Espionage Prevention Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. McCormick, Richard [R-GA-7]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 6, 2025
Bottom line
This bill aims to counter economic espionage and material support to foreign adversaries, particularly China's alleged aid to Russia's military, through reporting requirements and presidential sanction authority.
What it actually does
H.R. 1486, the "Economic Espionage Prevention Act," mandates the Secretary of State to report on foreign persons, particularly those from the People's Republic of China, who materially support Russia's defense industrial base or violate U.S. export controls. It also authorizes the President to impose sanctions, including property blocking and visa ineligibility, on foreign adversary entities found to be engaging in economic espionage, providing material support to foreign adversaries' military or intelligence entities, or violating U.S. export control laws.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill is a critical tool to protect U.S. national security and economic interests by deterring foreign adversaries, especially China, from engaging in economic espionage and from supporting hostile military actions, such as Russia's war in Ukraine. They contend it strengthens existing sanctions regimes and provides necessary flexibility for the President to respond to evolving threats.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the bill grants overly broad authority to the President, potentially leading to unintended diplomatic or economic consequences, or that it could complicate international relations with key trading partners. Some may also raise concerns about the potential for these sanctions to impact legitimate business activities or to be difficult to enforce effectively without harming U.S. economic interests.
The bill is relatively short and its core provisions are clear, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its main objectives within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 3
Mandated Report on Foreign Support to Russia's Defense Industrial Base
This section requires the Secretary of State, in coordination with other federal agencies, to submit a written report to the appropriate congressional committees within 90 days of the Act's enactment. The report must analyze the extent to which Chinese persons or entities are knowingly providing critical components to Russia's defense industrial base, engaging in transactions with Russia's defense or intelligence sectors, or have been previously sanctioned under related acts.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this report is essential for understanding the scope of foreign, particularly Chinese, assistance to Russia's military and for informing future policy decisions and potential sanctions. It provides transparency and accountability regarding critical supply chains.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against reporting requirements, though some might argue it could strain diplomatic relations or reveal intelligence methods if not handled carefully.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the need for intelligence and public awareness regarding foreign support to adversaries against potential diplomatic sensitivities and the resources required for comprehensive analysis.
Section 4
Presidential Authority to Impose Sanctions for Economic Espionage and Adversary Support
This section grants the President discretionary authority to impose sanctions on "foreign adversary entities" that knowingly engage in economic or industrial espionage against U.S. persons, provide material support or services to foreign adversaries' military, intelligence, or national security entities, or violate U.S. export control laws. The sanctions include blocking property and interests in property within U.S. jurisdiction, and denying or revoking visas and admission to the United States.
Section 5
Exemption for Importation of Goods from Sanctions
This section explicitly states that the authorities to impose sanctions under this Act do not include the power or requirement to impose sanctions on the importation of goods. This means that while entities can be sanctioned, the act cannot be used to block goods from entering the U.S., thereby limiting potential disruptions to U.S. supply chains and consumer markets.
The bill defines key terms like "economic or industrial espionage," "own," "proprietary information," and "trade secret" by referencing definitions found in Section 1637(d) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (50 U.S.C. 1708(d)).
Section 6(2) and 6(5)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid redundancy and ensure consistency across federal law. It's not necessarily evasive, but it does require extra effort for full comprehension.
Case for: Supporters would argue that referencing existing definitions ensures legal consistency and avoids creating conflicting interpretations of established terms, streamlining the legislative process and leveraging existing legal precedent.
Case against: Critics might contend that this practice makes bills less accessible to the public and requires specialized legal knowledge to fully grasp the implications of the law, potentially hindering transparency for non-legal experts.
Estimated impact: These definitions fundamentally determine the precise scope of the prohibited conduct, directly impacting who can be sanctioned and for what actions under the Act.
The term "foreign adversary" is defined as "the countries listed in section 7.4 of title 15, Code of Federal Regulations."
Section 6(8)
Why it matters:This allows the list of foreign adversaries to be updated administratively by the executive branch without requiring new legislation, providing necessary flexibility to adapt to evolving geopolitical threats.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this method provides necessary flexibility for the executive branch to adapt to evolving geopolitical threats without constant legislative amendments, ensuring the sanctions remain relevant and responsive.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this delegates significant authority to the executive branch, potentially reducing congressional oversight over which countries are designated as "foreign adversaries" for the purpose of these sanctions.
Estimated impact: This definition determines the specific countries whose entities are subject to the bill's sanctions, making it a critical element for understanding the Act's reach.