Semiconductor Controls Effectiveness Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Stanton, Greg [D-AZ-4]
- Committees
- Foreign Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 22, 2026
Bottom line
The bill requires a detailed, interagency report on the effectiveness and impact of U.S. semiconductor export controls on China, aiming to inform future policy decisions and enhance transparency.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security and the Director of National Intelligence, to submit a comprehensive report within 360 days. The report must assess the impact and effectiveness of U.S. semiconductor export controls on the People's Republic of China (PRC), detailing specific controls, their goals, and their effects on the PRC's military, indigenous semiconductor industry, and AI capabilities, as well as on U.S. companies and technology leadership. It also requires recommendations for improving the export control regime.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that rigorous, data-driven evaluation of export controls is critical for U.S. national security and maintaining a lead in the Artificial Intelligence race with China. They contend that public disclosure of this impact analysis will help the American public understand the national security, foreign policy, and economic implications of these policies, ensuring controls are effective and do not disproportionately harm U.S. industry.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that such a comprehensive report, especially one requiring quantitative data on sensitive topics like foreign military capabilities and AI development, could be difficult to produce accurately and within the given timeframe. Some might also express concern that public disclosure of detailed analysis, even with a classified annex, could inadvertently reveal sensitive intelligence or strategic vulnerabilities to adversaries, or that the report could become a vehicle for industry lobbying against controls.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward, allowing a reader to quickly grasp its intent and requirements.
Section 2
Sense of Congress
This section declares Congress's belief that U.S. export controls on semiconductor manufacturing equipment and advanced integrated circuits are vital for national security and the AI competition with China. It emphasizes the need for rigorous, data-driven evaluation of these controls and highlights their impact on China's military, indigenous semiconductor industry, and AI development. It also states that public disclosure of impact analysis benefits the American public.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that clearly stating the 'Sense of Congress' provides essential context and demonstrates the legislative intent behind the mandated report, underscoring the strategic importance of semiconductor export controls.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against 'Sense of Congress' provisions as they are non-binding statements of legislative opinion, though the underlying policy positions may be contentious.
Tradeoffs
This section balances the assertion of strong national security interests with the stated need for rigorous, data-driven evaluation, implying a tension between policy conviction and empirical assessment.
Section 3(a)
Report Mandate and Timeline
This provision requires the Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research, working with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security and the Director of National Intelligence, to submit a comprehensive report. This report must be delivered to specific congressional committees within 360 days of the bill's enactment.
Section 3(b)
Detailed Elements of the Report
This section specifies the comprehensive details that must be included in the report for each U.S. export control on semiconductors and semiconductor manufacturing equipment (SME) destined for the PRC. It requires a description of the control, its type (technology, end-use, or end-user), whether it's unilateral or multilateral, and a detailed quantitative analysis of its impact. This impact analysis must cover the control's effect on the PRC's military, intelligence, surveillance, advanced integrated circuit development, indigenous semiconductor industry, and AI capabilities. It also requires an assessment of the control's impact on U.S. companies' revenue, global market share, and U.S. long-term technology leadership, along with a determination of the control's effectiveness in achieving its national security objective.
Section 3(c)
Recommendations for Export Control Regime
This section mandates that the report identify which controls have been most successful in constraining China's strategic capabilities and which, if any, have failed while disproportionately harming U.S. industry. It also requires recommendations on how to improve cooperation with U.S. industry to enhance compliance and overall effectiveness, and a set of recommendations to improve the efficacy of the export control regime, including specific refinements to existing controls, methods for bolstering enforcement, and ways to close diversion loopholes.