Technical corrections only. The engrossed version (v3) contains the identical legislative text as the reported version (v2), with only updates to the congressional boilerplate and status information indicating passage by the House. No substantive policy changes were made.
Protecting American Industry and Labor from International Trade Crimes Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Hinson, Ashley [R-IA-2]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 14, 2026
This analysis was written for v2 (REPORTED IN HOUSE, Aug 27, 2026). ENGROSSED IN HOUSE changed too little to need its own, so it reuses that one rather than a rewrite. The differences between the two are summarized above. View v2
Bottom line
The bill aims to bolster the Department of Justice's ability to combat various forms of international trade crime by creating a specialized enforcement unit and increasing prosecutorial resources.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a new dedicated structure within the Department of Justice's Criminal Division to investigate and prosecute a broad range of trade-related crimes, excluding national security offenses. It mandates the creation of new prosecutor positions, promotes inter-agency training and partnerships, and requires annual reporting to Congress on enforcement activities and funding needs. The aim is to enhance the DOJ's capacity to combat violations related to duties, tariffs, import/export restrictions, trade-based money laundering, and smuggling.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that strengthening enforcement against trade-related crimes is crucial for protecting American industries and workers from unfair competition, ensuring a level playing field, and safeguarding the integrity of the U.S. trade system. They contend that current enforcement mechanisms may be insufficient to address the growing complexity and volume of these crimes, and a dedicated structure will improve coordination and effectiveness, ultimately benefiting the U.S. economy and national security (excluding direct national security laws).
Opponents contend
No organized opposition is explicitly stated in the provided text. However, potential critics might argue that creating a new, separate structure within the DOJ could lead to bureaucratic inefficiencies or duplication of efforts with existing enforcement bodies. Some might also raise concerns about the potential for overreach or the allocation of resources that could be better utilized elsewhere within the justice system, especially without a clear cost-benefit analysis.
The bill is concise and straightforward, making it highly accessible for a reader to understand its core provisions within a short timeframe.
Section 1
Short Title
This section formally names the Act the "Protecting American Industry and Labor from International Trade Crimes Act of 2026." This title clearly communicates the bill's primary objective: to safeguard domestic industries and jobs by combating illegal trade activities.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a clear and strong title reinforces the bill's purpose of protecting American economic interests and signals a serious commitment to combating trade crimes.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the short title of a bill, as it is primarily for identification and branding.
Tradeoffs
None apparent for the short title itself.
Section 2
Defining "Trade-Related Crimes"
This section broadly defines "trade-related crimes" to include violations related to evading duties, tariffs, import/export fees, restrictions, or requirements under various trade acts (Tariff Act of 1930, Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Trade Act of 1974, Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act). It also covers other laws concerning criminal activities in U.S. imports/exports, trade-based money laundering, and smuggling. This comprehensive definition sets the scope for the new enforcement structure.
Section 3
Creation of International Trade Crimes Task Force
This section mandates the establishment of a task force, named program, or similar structure within the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice within 120 days of appropriations. This structure will specifically investigate and prosecute trade-related crimes, with a focus on certain enumerated statutes. The Attorney General is directed to create new positions for criminal trial attorneys and support staff, ensure experienced prosecutors are involved, and promote interaction with law enforcement, industry, and the public.
Section 4
Mandated Activities and Scope of Enforcement
This section details the specific responsibilities of the new DOJ trade crimes structure. It requires increasing prosecution capabilities and the number of investigations, particularly for health, safety, financial, and economic trade-related crimes, listing numerous relevant U.S. Code sections (e.g., mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, smuggling, false statements, trafficking in counterfeit goods, food/drug violations). It explicitly excludes national security-related laws from this list. The structure must also participate in training with other federal agencies (HSI, CBP), develop multi-jurisdictional partnerships, and ensure inter-component consultation within the DOJ.
Section 5
Congressional Oversight and Reporting Requirements
This section mandates that the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, submit an annual report to specific Congressional committees. The report must include statistics on publicly charged trade-related crimes and indictments, a summary of how appropriated funds were utilized (staff, operating expenses), and an estimate of additional funding needed. The first report is due one year after enactment, and annually thereafter by February 1st.
This provision explicitly states that for the purposes of this Act, the list of trade-related crimes does not include violations of national security-related laws and regulations, such as the Arms Export Control Act, International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Export Control and Reform Act, and Trading with the Enemy Act.
Section 4(a)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to clarify scope and avoid overlap with existing, often more severe, national security enforcement regimes. It ensures the new structure focuses specifically on economic and commercial trade crimes.
Case for: Proponents would argue this carve-out prevents duplication of effort with existing national security enforcement agencies and allows the new structure to specialize in economic trade crimes, where different expertise and resources might be needed.
Case against: Critics might argue that trade crimes often have national security implications, and a strict separation could hinder holistic enforcement or create jurisdictional ambiguities, potentially allowing some critical offenses to fall through the cracks between agencies.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries for the new DOJ unit, preventing overlap with established national security enforcement and potentially streamlining focus.