Stop Stealing our Chips Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Kean, Thomas H. [R-NJ-7]
- Committees
- Foreign Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 22, 2026
Bottom line
The "Stop Stealing our Chips Act" aims to bolster national security by incentivizing and protecting whistleblowers who report violations of export control laws, particularly those involving advanced technology like AI chips, through financial rewards and anti-retaliation measures.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 to establish a whistleblower incentive program and provide robust protections for individuals who report violations of U.S. export control laws. It creates an online portal for anonymous reporting, mandates expedited review of credible reports, and offers monetary awards of 10-30% of fines exceeding $1,000,000. Additionally, it prohibits employer retaliation against whistleblowers and establishes the Export Compliance Accountability Fund to finance the program and awards.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is crucial for national security, as it leverages the unique position of insiders to detect and prevent the illegal diversion of sensitive technologies, such as leading-edge AI chips, to adversarial nations. They contend that a robust incentive program will significantly enhance enforcement efforts by encouraging individuals to come forward with high-value information, while strong protections will safeguard them from employer retaliation, fostering a culture of compliance and accountability.
Opponents contend
Opponents might raise concerns about the potential for frivolous or malicious reports, despite provisions to address this, and the administrative burden on the Department of Commerce to manage a new whistleblower program. Some may also argue that the financial incentives could lead to a "bounty hunter" mentality, potentially undermining internal compliance programs if employees are incentivized to bypass internal reporting mechanisms.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to evaluate its provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 3, new 1761A(b)(1)
Establishment of Whistleblower Incentive Program
This provision mandates the Secretary of Commerce to establish a whistleblower incentive program within 120 days of the bill's enactment. The program is designed to reward individuals who provide original information that leads to the imposition of significant fines (over $1,000,000) for violations of export control laws or related enforcement actions. This creates the foundational framework for the entire incentive system.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that a formal, government-backed incentive program is essential to encourage individuals with critical information to come forward, thereby significantly enhancing the government's ability to enforce export control laws and protect national security.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that establishing such a program could create an additional bureaucratic layer and administrative burden on the Department of Commerce, potentially diverting resources from existing enforcement activities.
Tradeoffs
The tradeoff involves balancing the potential benefits of increased enforcement intelligence against the administrative costs and complexities of setting up and running a new federal program.
Section 3, new 1761A(b)(2)(A)-(B)
Online Reporting Portal and Anonymity
This provision requires the Secretary of Commerce to establish and maintain a secure online portal within 120 days for whistleblowers to report original information related to export control violations. It also explicitly allows for anonymous submissions, including through an attorney, though the whistleblower's identity may be required to receive an award. This ensures accessibility and offers a degree of protection for those reporting.
Section 3, new 1761A(b)(2)(C)
Expedited Review and Notification Requirements
The bill mandates that the Secretary of Commerce must review whistleblower reports within 60 days to determine credibility and, if credible, initiate a formal investigation. The investigation must be pursued with urgency and concluded within a reasonable timeframe. Furthermore, whistleblowers must be updated on the status of their report and investigation every 60 days initially, and then every 180 days thereafter, subject to confidentiality requirements for sensitive information.
Section 3, new 1761A(b)(3)(A), (C)
Whistleblower Award Eligibility and Amount
This provision establishes that whistleblowers are eligible for an award if their original information leads to the imposition of fines greater than $1,000,000 for export control violations or a related enforcement action. The total award sum for a particular action must be between 10 percent and 30 percent of the amount collected from the fine. This applies even if the violation occurred before the bill's enactment, as long as the report is submitted after.
Section 3, new 1761A(b)(3)(B)
Disqualification Criteria and Exceptions for Awards
This provision outlines specific circumstances under which a whistleblower may be disqualified from receiving an award. Disqualification generally applies if the information was obtained through certain internal roles (e.g., officer handling internal processes, compliance/audit employee, public accounting firm employee on a federal engagement) or through means violating criminal law. However, there are crucial exceptions: if the whistleblower reasonably believed disclosure was necessary to stop significant financial harm, if the entity was obstructing an investigation, or if 120 days passed since reporting internally without action.
Section 3, new 1761A(c)(1)
Prohibition Against Retaliation and Enforcement
This provision prohibits employers from impeding an individual's communication with the Department of Commerce or retaliating against a whistleblower for lawful acts of reporting violations (whether to the employer, law enforcement, or the Secretary) or assisting in investigations. Retaliation includes discharge, demotion, harassment, or discrimination. An individual alleging retaliation can bring a civil action in U.S. district court, with remedies including reinstatement, double back pay with interest, and legal fees. The protections apply even if the retaliation occurs before or without a formal report to the Department of Commerce, but not if the whistleblower knowingly reports false information.
Section 3, new 1761A(c)(2)
Whistleblower Confidentiality Protections
This provision mandates that the Secretary of Commerce and Department employees must not disclose any information that could reasonably reveal a whistleblower's identity, except when required for a public legal proceeding or to a defendant/respondent. It also clarifies that this confidentiality provision is an exemption under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Information can be shared with other federal law enforcement, national security, or regulatory agencies, and foreign authorities, provided confidentiality is maintained.
Section 3, new 1761A(d)
Establishment and Use of Export Compliance Accountability Fund
This provision establishes the 'Export Compliance Accountability Fund' in the U.S. Treasury within 90 days. The fund is capitalized by fines collected from export control violations that result from whistleblower information. It is available to the Secretary without further appropriation for paying whistleblower awards, funding program activities (like reviewing reports, training, IT), and, if all awards are paid, for general enforcement expenses. At the end of each fiscal year, the fund retains $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or the amount needed for pending awards, with any surplus transferred to the general fund of the Treasury.
The term 'related action' is defined to mean any judicial or administrative action brought by a United States government entity that is based upon the original information provided by a whistleblower and led to a successful export control enforcement action.
Section 3, new 1761A(a)(3)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining terms that have specific legal implications throughout the bill, ensuring clarity and consistency without cluttering operative sections.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this broad definition ensures whistleblowers are rewarded not only for direct fines under the Export Control Reform Act but also for information that aids other government entities in related enforcement, maximizing the incentive for comprehensive reporting.
Case against: Critics might argue that the broadness of 'related action' could create ambiguity regarding which actions qualify for awards, potentially leading to disputes over eligibility and the allocation of funds.
Estimated impact: Expands the scope of potential awards for whistleblowers beyond direct fines under the Export Control Reform Act.
The definition of 'whistleblower' explicitly excludes Federal employees acting within the scope of their duties and individuals on specific government sanction lists (OFAC SDN, Denied Persons List, Entity List).
Section 3, new 1761A(a)(2)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to precisely define who is eligible or ineligible for the program, preventing unintended beneficiaries and ensuring program integrity.
Case for: Proponents would argue that these exclusions are necessary to prevent conflicts of interest (e.g., federal employees being paid for information they are already obligated to report) and to ensure that individuals actively engaged in illicit activities or sanctioned by the U.S. government do not benefit from the program.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against these exclusions, as they are generally accepted as reasonable safeguards for such a program.
Estimated impact: Narrows the pool of eligible whistleblowers to those outside of specific government roles and sanctioned entities.
The Export Compliance Accountability Fund is designed to retain an amount equivalent to $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or the total amount necessary to satisfy any pending whistleblower award determinations, whichever is greater, at the end of each fiscal year before transferring any remaining surplus to the general fund of the Treasury.
Section 3, new 1761A(d)(2)
Why it matters:This is a technical accounting detail crucial for the fund's long-term solvency and fiscal management, typically placed in the administrative provisions.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this retention mechanism ensures the fund's stability and ability to pay future awards, preventing it from being depleted by annual transfers and providing a reliable source for program operations.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision, as it is a standard mechanism for managing dedicated funds to ensure their ongoing functionality.
Estimated impact: Ensures the long-term financial stability of the Export Compliance Accountability Fund and the whistleblower program.