Technical corrections only. v3 adds the attestation signature of the House Clerk and notes the bill's referral to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. No substantive policy changes were made to the bill's text.
No Dollars to Uyghur Forced Labor Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Moran, Nathaniel [R-TX-1]
- Committees
- Foreign Relations Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 6, 2025
Bottom line
This bill aims to prevent U.S. foreign aid from inadvertently supporting forced labor practices in China's Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region by restricting the use of goods sourced from the region or from entities implicated in forced labor.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits the Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) from using appropriated funds for any policy, program, or contract that knowingly uses goods, wares, articles, or merchandise mined, produced, or manufactured in whole or in part in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of the People's Republic of China or by a 'covered entity' (as defined by existing law related to forced labor). It includes a narrow exception for specific authorization by the Secretary of State with congressional notification and mandates annual reporting on enforcement.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill strengthens the U.S. commitment to human rights and prevents taxpayer dollars from indirectly funding forced labor in Xinjiang, aligning U.S. foreign policy with its values and sending a clear message to the People's Republic of China regarding its human rights abuses.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that such broad prohibitions could inadvertently complicate humanitarian aid or development projects in regions reliant on supply chains that may unknowingly include components from Xinjiang, potentially hindering U.S. diplomatic efforts or increasing administrative burdens for implementing agencies and their partners.
The bill is very short and clearly written, allowing for quick and complete comprehension by any interested reader.
Section 2(a)
Prohibition on Use of Funds Supporting Activities in Xinjiang
This provision forbids the Department of State and USAID from using any appropriated funds for policies, programs, or contracts that knowingly involve goods, wares, articles, or merchandise produced in whole or in part in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of China, or by entities identified as using forced labor. This aims to prevent U.S. foreign assistance from directly or indirectly supporting forced labor practices and to ensure ethical sourcing standards.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision directly addresses human rights concerns by ensuring U.S. taxpayer money does not inadvertently support forced labor in Xinjiang, aligning U.S. foreign policy with its stated values. It sends a clear message to the PRC regarding human rights abuses and reinforces ethical sourcing.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that such a broad prohibition could create significant administrative hurdles for State and USAID programs, potentially delaying or complicating critical foreign assistance delivery, especially in regions where supply chain tracing is difficult or where alternative sources are limited.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the imperative to uphold human rights and avoid complicity in forced labor against potential administrative complexities and the risk of disrupting legitimate aid programs in regions with complex global supply chains.
Section 2(b)
Exception for Specifically Authorized Activities
This section allows the Secretary of State to authorize an activity otherwise prohibited, provided two conditions are met. First, the Secretary must obtain written assurance from the relevant program partner or contractor that they will not use prohibited goods and will develop a system to ensure compliance. Second, the Secretary must notify key congressional committees (House Foreign Affairs, Senate Foreign Relations) not later than 15 days before authorizing the activity. The activity must also not be prohibited by other existing laws.
Section 2(c)
Annual Report on Enforcement and Violations
The Secretary of State is required to submit an annual report for three years to the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations Committees. This report must detail any prohibited activities carried out in violation of the act (i.e., not specifically authorized), challenges encountered in enforcing the requirements of this section, and a plan to improve future enforcement.
Defines 'covered entity' by referencing specific clauses (i), (ii), (iv), or (v) of section 2(d)(2)(B) of Public Law 117-78 (135 Stat. 1527) under the strategy developed by section 2(c) of such Public Law 117-78.
Section 2(e)(1)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid reprinting lengthy definitions or lists already established in existing law, ensuring consistency across statutes and leveraging existing enforcement frameworks.
Case for: Referencing existing law streamlines the bill and ensures that the definition of 'covered entity' remains consistent with broader U.S. policy on forced labor in Xinjiang, as established by the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA). This avoids creating conflicting definitions.
Case against: A casual reader without access to or knowledge of Public Law 117-78 would not immediately understand the full scope of entities targeted by this bill, potentially obscuring its reach and the full extent of the prohibition.
Estimated impact: This definition significantly broadens the scope of the prohibition beyond just goods produced *in* Xinjiang to include goods produced by specific entities identified by the U.S. government as being involved in forced labor, regardless of their physical location, thereby increasing the bill's impact.
Defines 'forced labor' by referencing section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1307).
Section 2(e)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to maintain consistency with established legal definitions, particularly in areas like trade and labor law, where 'forced labor' has a long-standing legal interpretation.
Case for: Using an established definition of 'forced labor' ensures legal consistency across U.S. statutes and leverages existing enforcement mechanisms and interpretations under the Tariff Act, which has a long history of application and precedent.
Case against: A reader unfamiliar with 19 U.S.C. 1307 would not immediately grasp the specific legal criteria for 'forced labor' as applied by this bill, potentially leading to a less precise understanding of the bill's scope.
Estimated impact: This definition provides the legal basis for identifying the human rights abuses the bill seeks to counter, linking it to established U.S. policy against forced labor in general and ensuring a consistent legal standard.