Safeguarding U.S. Rulemaking Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Lummis, Cynthia M. [R-WY]
- Committees
- Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 10, 2025
Bottom line
This bill seeks to safeguard U.S. federal rulemaking processes from perceived undue influence by foreign adversary governments and their associated individuals and entities by prohibiting their participation in public comment periods.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to explicitly prohibit foreign governments designated as adversaries by the Secretary of Commerce, along with their nationals or entities incorporated within those countries, from participating in the public comment phase of federal agency rulemaking or from petitioning agencies. It creates a new exception to the general public participation requirements for these designated actors, aiming to prevent perceived undue influence on U.S. regulatory policy.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that foreign adversaries exploit the public comment process to undermine U.S. national security, economic interests, and democratic institutions by submitting comments that are misleading, manipulative, or designed to disrupt regulatory processes. This bill would close a critical loophole, ensuring that U.S. regulations are shaped by domestic interests and expertise, free from hostile foreign interference.
Opponents contend
Critics might contend that this bill could inadvertently stifle valuable input, as some foreign entities or nationals might offer legitimate, expert perspectives on complex regulatory issues that affect global markets or international relations. They may also argue it sets a dangerous precedent by restricting participation based on national origin, potentially leading to reciprocal actions by other countries, and could be seen as an overreach that limits transparency and public engagement in governance.
The bill text is extremely short and can be read in under two minutes, making it highly accessible for public review.
Section 2, amending 5 U.S.C. 553(c) and (e) and adding subsection (f)
Prohibition on Public Comments from Foreign Adversaries
This provision modifies the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to explicitly bar foreign governments identified as adversaries by the Secretary of Commerce, along with their citizens or entities incorporated within those countries, from participating in the public comment phase of federal agency rulemaking or from petitioning agencies. It adds a new subsection (f) to 5 U.S.C. 553, creating an exception to the general public participation requirements for these designated actors.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is a vital national security measure, preventing hostile foreign actors from manipulating U.S. regulatory processes to advance their own strategic interests, steal intellectual property, or sow discord. It ensures that U.S. policy is made for and by Americans.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that this blanket prohibition could exclude valuable technical or economic expertise from foreign entities that might otherwise contribute to well-informed regulations, especially in areas with international implications. They may also raise concerns about the potential for overreach or misidentification of 'adversaries' and the chilling effect on legitimate international engagement.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances national security concerns and the desire to prevent foreign interference against the principle of broad public participation in government processes and the potential loss of diverse perspectives, even from foreign sources, that could inform better policy.
The bill defines 'foreign adversary' by referencing an existing regulation, 15 CFR 791.4(a), which is maintained by the Department of Commerce. This regulation currently lists specific countries.
Section 2(f) of the amended 5 U.S.C. 553
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid redundancy and allow for administrative flexibility in updating the list of foreign adversaries without requiring new legislation.
Case for: Referencing an existing regulation provides a clear, established definition and allows the list of foreign adversaries to be updated by the executive branch as geopolitical circumstances evolve, without needing new congressional action.
Case against: Critics might argue that delegating the definition of 'foreign adversary' to an administrative regulation reduces direct congressional oversight over which entities are subject to this prohibition, potentially allowing for executive discretion that could be politically influenced.
Estimated impact: This mechanism determines the scope of the bill's application, directly impacting which foreign governments and associated entities are barred from commenting.