A substantive expansion of the whistleblower program. v2 broadens the categories of individuals excluded from whistleblower status and expands the types of violations that can trigger an award to include property forfeiture. It also introduces a requirement for information to be submitted under penalty of perjury and clarifies fund allocation.
Stop Stealing our Chips Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Rounds, Mike [R-SD]
- Committees
- Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 21, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to bolster national security by enhancing the enforcement of U.S. export control laws, particularly concerning advanced technology like AI chips, through incentivizing and protecting whistleblowers.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 to establish a whistleblower incentive program and provide protections to individuals who report violations of export control laws. It mandates the creation of a secure online portal for reporting, offers monetary awards of 10 to 30 percent of collected fines to eligible whistleblowers, and prohibits employer retaliation against those who report. The bill also establishes a dedicated fund, financed by collected fines, to cover awards and program administration.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that violations of U.S. export control laws, especially the diversion of leading-edge artificial intelligence chips to adversaries, pose a significant threat to national security. They contend that an incentive program will encourage individuals with valuable information to come forward, thereby playing a crucial role in identifying and mitigating these threats and significantly enhancing enforcement efforts.
Opponents contend
Opponents might raise concerns about the potential for an increase in frivolous or malicious reports, which could strain administrative resources at the Department of Commerce. Some may also argue that such programs could foster a climate of distrust within companies or that existing enforcement mechanisms are sufficient without the need for additional financial incentives.
The bill is relatively concise and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a reasonable amount of time.
Section 1
Short Title
This section establishes the short title of the Act as the 'Stop Stealing our Chips Act'. This title clearly communicates the bill's primary focus on preventing the illicit transfer of critical technology, specifically artificial intelligence chips, to foreign adversaries.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a clear and impactful short title helps to communicate the bill's purpose and urgency to the public and policymakers, highlighting the national security implications of technology diversion.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the short title of a bill, as it is primarily a descriptive element.
Tradeoffs
N/A
Section 2
Congressional Findings
This section outlines Congress's findings, stating that violations of export control laws, particularly the diversion of leading-edge AI chips to adversaries, threaten U.S. national security. It also recognizes the significant role whistleblowers play in identifying these threats and asserts that an incentive program will enhance enforcement.
Section 3, amending Section 1761A(b)(1) of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018
Establishment of Whistleblower Incentive Program
This provision mandates the Secretary of Commerce to establish a whistleblower incentive program within 120 days of enactment. The program is designed to reward individuals who provide original information leading to the imposition of fines or forfeiture of property for violations of export control laws.
Section 3, amending Section 1761A(b)(2) of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018
Whistleblower Reporting and Expedited Review
This provision requires the Secretary to develop and maintain a secure online portal for whistleblowers to submit original information, allowing for anonymous submissions. It also mandates an expedited review process, requiring the Secretary to determine credibility within 60 days and initiate a formal investigation if credible, pursuing it with urgency. Whistleblowers are to receive status updates every 90 days.
Section 3, amending Section 1761A(b)(3) of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018
Whistleblower Awards and Disqualifications
This section details the award structure, stipulating that eligible whistleblowers receive between 10 and 30 percent of the collected fines resulting from their original information. It also outlines specific disqualifications, such as information obtained through certain internal compliance roles or illegal means, but includes exceptions if the whistleblower believed disclosure was necessary to stop significant harm, if obstruction of investigation occurred, or if 120 days passed since internal reporting.
Section 3, amending Section 1761A(c)(1) of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018
Protection Against Retaliation
This provision prohibits employers from discharging, demoting, suspending, threatening, harassing, or discriminating against whistleblowers for lawfully reporting violations to their employer, the Secretary, or assisting in investigations. It grants whistleblowers a private cause of action in federal court for violations, allowing them to seek reinstatement, double back pay with interest, and litigation costs. An exception applies if the whistleblower knowingly submitted false information.
Section 3, amending Section 1761A(d) of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018
Export Compliance Accountability Fund
This section establishes the 'Export Compliance Accountability Fund' in the U.S. Treasury, to be funded by fines collected from export control violations that result from whistleblower information. The fund is available to the Secretary without further appropriation for paying whistleblower awards, funding program activities (like reviewing reports, training, and portal maintenance), and, if all awards are paid, for general enforcement expenses. Any remaining funds at year-end are transferred to the general Treasury fund.
Excludes Federal employees acting within the scope of their duties and individuals on specific government watchlists (Specially Designated Nationals, Denied Persons List, Entity List) from being considered 'whistleblowers' eligible for awards.
Section 3, amending Section 1761A(a)(2)(B) of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define terms and exclusions upfront, though the implications of these exclusions are significant.
Case for: Supporters argue that excluding Federal employees prevents double-dipping for information they are already paid to uncover, and excluding individuals on watchlists prevents adversaries or sanctioned entities from exploiting the program.
Case against: No specific case against these exclusions is typically made, as they are widely seen as reasonable safeguards for national security and program integrity.
Estimated impact: Ensures the program targets private citizens and prevents misuse by hostile actors or those already compensated for similar duties.
Provides exceptions to the disqualification criteria for whistleblowers who obtain information through certain internal roles (e.g., officer, director, compliance employee). These exceptions apply if the whistleblower had a reasonable belief that disclosure was necessary to stop significant financial harm, if the entity obstructed an investigation, or if 120 days elapsed since internal reporting without action.
Section 3, amending Section 1761A(b)(3)(B)(ii) of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018
Why it matters:This is a technically complex carve-out designed to balance competing policy goals, often requiring precise legal language.
Case for: Proponents argue these exceptions are crucial to prevent entities from using internal compliance roles as a shield against external reporting, ensuring that critical information reaches authorities when internal channels fail or are compromised.
Case against: Critics might argue that these exceptions could still encourage employees to bypass internal compliance mechanisms prematurely, potentially disrupting corporate governance and internal investigations.
Estimated impact: Significantly broadens the pool of eligible whistleblowers by allowing those with internal knowledge to report under specific circumstances, potentially increasing the flow of high-value information.
Authorizes the Secretary to prohibit individuals from making future reports if they have previously submitted multiple reports determined not to be credible.
Section 3, amending Section 1761A(b)(2)(D) of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018
Why it matters:This is a practical administrative detail to manage program efficiency and prevent abuse, rather than a core policy statement.
Case for: Supporters argue this is a necessary safeguard to prevent the program from being overwhelmed by frivolous or vexatious reports, allowing the Secretary to focus resources on credible threats.
Case against: No specific case against this provision is typically made, as it is a standard administrative tool to ensure program integrity.
Estimated impact: Helps maintain the efficiency and credibility of the whistleblower program by deterring repeat submission of non-credible information.