Safeguarding US Rulemaking Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Moore, Barry [R-AL-1]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 10, 2025
Bottom line
This bill aims to protect U.S. federal regulatory processes from undue influence by foreign adversaries by barring their participation in public comment periods and agency petitions.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to prohibit foreign governments designated as foreign adversaries by the Secretary of Commerce, along with their nationals or entities, from participating in federal agency rulemaking processes or petitioning agencies. It explicitly excludes these entities from submitting public comments on proposed regulations or making formal requests to agencies.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill is a critical national security measure designed to protect the integrity of U.S. federal rulemaking from espionage, disinformation, and undue influence by hostile foreign powers. They contend that allowing foreign adversaries to comment on proposed regulations could provide them with insights into U.S. policy vulnerabilities or allow them to subtly steer policy in their favor, thereby undermining American interests and national security.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that this bill could inadvertently stifle valuable input, as some foreign entities, even those from adversary nations, might offer legitimate technical or economic perspectives that could improve regulations. They may also raise concerns about potential overreach, the definition of 'foreign adversary,' and whether such a broad prohibition could be seen as an act of diplomatic hostility or lead to reciprocal measures against U.S. entities abroad.
The bill is exceptionally short and can be read and understood quickly by any informed reader, requiring only a few minutes.
Section 2, amending 5 U.S.C. 553(c) and (e) and adding (f)
Prohibition on Public Comments from Foreign Adversaries
This provision amends the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the foundational law governing federal agency rulemaking, to prevent foreign governments identified as adversaries by the Secretary of Commerce, along with their citizens or corporations, from submitting public comments on proposed federal regulations or petitioning federal agencies. It specifically references the Commerce Department's existing definition of 'foreign adversary' (15 CFR 791.4(a)) to determine which entities are excluded from participating in these public processes.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this is a necessary national security measure to prevent hostile foreign actors from exploiting the transparency of the U.S. regulatory system to gather intelligence, sow disinformation, or subtly influence policy outcomes to their strategic advantage. They contend that the integrity of U.S. lawmaking must be protected from those actively working against U.S. interests.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that while the intent is valid, a blanket prohibition could remove potentially valuable technical or economic input from entities that, despite their government's designation, might have legitimate expertise relevant to specific regulations. They may also suggest that such a measure could be seen as escalatory or counterproductive in certain diplomatic contexts, potentially leading to reciprocal actions.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the desire for open and transparent government processes, which typically encourages broad public participation, against national security concerns regarding potential manipulation by hostile foreign states. It trades off potential diverse input for enhanced security against foreign influence in critical policy areas.
The bill defines 'foreign adversary' by reference to an existing Commerce Department regulation (15 CFR 791.4(a)), which currently includes countries such as China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela. This external reference is crucial for understanding the specific scope of the prohibition.
Section 2(3), new subsection (f), referencing 15 CFR 791.4(a)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid repeating lengthy definitions and to leverage existing administrative determinations. It ensures consistency with current executive branch policy regarding national security threats and avoids the need for Congress to continually update a list of adversaries.
Case for: Supporters would argue that using an existing, established definition from the Commerce Department provides clarity, avoids redundancy, and ensures that the bill's scope aligns with current executive branch assessments of national security threats. It leverages existing expertise and avoids creating a separate, potentially conflicting, definition.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying on an external, potentially changing regulatory definition delegates significant power to the executive branch without direct congressional oversight on who is designated as an 'adversary' for the purposes of this law. This could lead to a lack of transparency or accountability in determining which entities are excluded.
Estimated impact: This reference determines the specific countries and associated entities that will be barred from participating in U.S. rulemaking processes, directly impacting their ability to engage with federal agencies.