American Glove Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Moreno, Bernie [R-OH]
- Committees
- Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 4, 2026
Bottom line
The American Glove Act of 2026 aims to bolster the domestic supply chain for critical nitrile gloves by mandating exclusive U.S. manufacturing and long-term contracts for federal procurements, thereby reducing reliance on foreign sources.
What it actually does
This bill mandates that federal agencies procuring nitrile gloves, particularly through the AbilityOne Program, adhere to strict domestic sourcing and long-term contracting requirements. It defines a 'qualified domestic manufacturer' with specific U.S. ownership and control criteria, explicitly prohibiting significant foreign influence, and requires agencies to certify compliance with these provisions.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is essential for national security, ensuring a resilient domestic supply chain for vital personal protective equipment (PPE) like nitrile gloves. They contend it will create American jobs, stimulate domestic manufacturing investment, and prevent future shortages or dependencies on potentially adversarial foreign entities, drawing lessons from past supply chain disruptions.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that these stringent domestic sourcing requirements could lead to increased procurement costs for federal agencies and, by extension, taxpayers, due to reduced competition. They may also raise concerns about potential limitations on product availability or innovation if the pool of eligible manufacturers is too narrowly defined, or if domestic capacity cannot meet demand efficiently.
The bill is concise and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a short timeframe.
Section 2
Key Definitions for Domestic Procurement
This section establishes critical definitions that govern the bill's scope. It defines 'covered agency' (e.g., DHS, HHS, VA, DoD) and 'covered nitrile glove' (non-surgical gloves for various protective uses). Crucially, it defines a 'qualified domestic manufacturer' as an entity that manufactures gloves in the U.S., is majority-owned by U.S. persons, is free from significant foreign influence, and has commercial-scale manufacturing capacity. It also specifies what constitutes 'manufacture' (e.g., dipping, curing, testing, packaging) and a 'supplier agreement' (a binding, long-term commitment with a domestic manufacturer).
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that precise and strict definitions are vital to prevent circumvention of the bill's intent, ensuring that federal funds genuinely support American manufacturing and secure supply chains. They believe these definitions close potential loopholes that could allow foreign-controlled entities or mere distributors to benefit from domestic sourcing mandates.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that overly restrictive definitions, particularly for 'qualified domestic manufacturer' and 'manufacture,' could limit the pool of eligible suppliers, potentially hindering competition and increasing costs. They may also argue that some beneficial foreign partnerships or specialized manufacturing steps could be inadvertently excluded.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire for stringent domestic sourcing and supply chain security with the potential for reduced market flexibility and increased administrative burden in verifying compliance with complex ownership and manufacturing process criteria.
Section 3
Mandatory Domestic Sourcing and Long-Term Contracting
This section requires covered agencies to structure all procurement vehicles for covered nitrile gloves to comply with the domestic sourcing and long-term contracting mandates of the Make PPE in America Act. It explicitly requires these vehicles to include supplier agreements with qualified domestic manufacturers, with a minimum term of two years and binding purchase commitments. The bill also mandates that all furnished gloves must be manufactured exclusively by qualified domestic manufacturers and prohibits using intermediary contracts (like AbilityOne arrangements) to bypass these requirements.
Section 4
Strict Domestic Ownership and Foreign Influence Prohibition
This section reinforces the requirement that a qualified domestic manufacturer must be majority-owned and controlled by United States persons. It goes further to explicitly prohibit any significant influence, direct or indirect, by a 'foreign entity of concern.' This prohibition covers a broad range of arrangements, including parent companies, subsidiaries, joint ventures, contractual agreements affecting control over production or intellectual property, financing arrangements, and technology licensing that creates material dependence.
Section 5
Compliance Certification and Enforcement
This section mandates that for each covered procurement vehicle, the responsible federal agency must make and retain a written certification in the contract file. This certification must affirm that the vehicle complies with the Act's requirements, including that covered nitrile gloves are manufactured in the United States by qualified domestic manufacturers and that required supplier agreements have a minimum two-year term with binding purchase commitments. If non-compliance is found, the agency is required to take appropriate corrective action under federal procurement law. The section also clarifies that it does not impose separate statutory certification obligations on AbilityOne Program entities or manufacturers.
Section 6
Preservation of AbilityOne Program with Domestic Manufacturing Mandate
This section includes rules of construction to clarify the Act's relationship with the AbilityOne Program. It explicitly states that the Act does not prohibit the use of the AbilityOne Program for nitrile glove procurement, nor does it require removing covered nitrile gloves from the Procurement List or terminating existing AbilityOne arrangements solely due to the involvement of qualified domestic manufacturers. However, it critically clarifies that no part of the AbilityOne Program's existing legal framework or arrangements can be used by a covered agency to avoid the domestic sourcing, ownership and control, certification, enforcement, or long-term supplier agreement requirements established by this Act.
The definition of 'manufacture' explicitly excludes activities such as resale, brokerage, distribution, warehousing, relabeling, repackaging, and other logistical handling of gloves manufactured by another entity.
Section 2(6)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining terms precisely, but its importance for preventing circumvention of the domestic manufacturing requirement could be easily overlooked by a casual reader focusing on the main operative sections.
Case for: Supporters argue this precise exclusion is vital to ensure that only genuine producers, not intermediaries or distributors, qualify under the Act, thereby preventing shell companies or foreign-manufactured goods from being passed off as domestically produced.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against this definitional clarity, as it directly supports the bill's stated purpose of promoting actual domestic production.
Estimated impact: Ensures that federal procurement benefits actual U.S. manufacturing operations rather than just U.S.-based logistical or distribution companies for foreign goods.
The 'Foreign Influence Prohibition' broadly defines 'significant influence' by a foreign entity of concern to include various indirect arrangements, such as joint ventures, contractual agreements giving control over production or intellectual property, financing arrangements, and technology licensing that creates 'material dependence.'
Section 4(b)
Why it matters:This level of detail is necessary for legal precision to prevent sophisticated circumvention. However, the comprehensive nature of these indirect influence mechanisms might not be immediately apparent without close scrutiny.
Case for: Proponents argue that this detailed prohibition is essential to prevent sophisticated foreign actors from indirectly controlling or influencing critical domestic supply chains, even without direct majority ownership, thereby safeguarding national security and technological independence.
Case against: Critics might argue that the broad scope, particularly including 'material dependence' from technology licensing, could inadvertently exclude legitimate domestic manufacturers that rely on global technology partnerships, potentially hindering innovation or access to cutting-edge processes.
Estimated impact: Significantly tightens the criteria for what constitutes a truly 'domestic' and independent manufacturer, potentially reducing the pool of eligible suppliers but enhancing supply chain security.
This sub-section explicitly states that nothing in chapter 85 of title 41, United States Code (which governs the AbilityOne Program), or any related regulation or contract, shall be construed to permit a covered agency to avoid the domestic sourcing, ownership and control, certification, enforcement, or long-term supplier agreement requirements of this Act.
Section 6(c)
Why it matters:Rules of construction are technical provisions designed to clarify how a new law interacts with existing statutes. While legally crucial, they are often placed in less prominent sections.
Case for: Proponents argue this is a critical safeguard to prevent the new domestic manufacturing requirements from being undermined by existing, potentially conflicting, procurement frameworks like AbilityOne, ensuring the Act's supremacy in this specific area.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against this clarifying language, as it serves to ensure the legislative intent of the new Act is upheld without ambiguity.
Estimated impact: Ensures that the AbilityOne Program, while preserved, must fully comply with the new domestic manufacturing mandates for nitrile gloves, preventing it from being used as a loophole.