China AI Power Report Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Husted, Jon [R-OH]
- Committees
- Foreign Relations Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 7, 2026
Bottom line
The bill requires comprehensive, multi-agency annual reports to Congress for three years detailing the People's Republic of China's advanced artificial intelligence capabilities and supply chains.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the Secretaries of Commerce and State, in consultation with other key agency heads, to submit annual reports to Congress for three years on the advanced artificial intelligence capabilities of the People's Republic of China (PRC). These reports must include detailed assessments of PRC's AI integrated circuits, semiconductor manufacturing facilities, electronic design automation software, AI models, research, funding, computational capacity, humanoid robots, AI applications, regulatory framework, global standards diplomacy, and the effectiveness of U.S. export controls.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that a comprehensive understanding of China's AI advancements, from foundational hardware to deployed applications and regulatory strategies, is critical for U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. They contend that these reports will provide essential intelligence to inform U.S. policy on export controls, research and development investments, and strategic competition, ensuring the U.S. maintains its technological edge.
Opponents contend
No specific opposition arguments are explicitly raised against the requirement for a report. Potential implicit concerns might include the significant resource allocation required from multiple federal agencies to produce such detailed and technically complex reports, or the risk of publicly disclosing sensitive intelligence, even in unclassified summaries.
The bill text is relatively short but highly technical, requiring an informed reader to dedicate sufficient time to grasp the detailed reporting requirements.
Sec. 2(b)(1)
Assessment of PRC AI Integrated Circuits
This provision requires an assessment of integrated circuits designed or optimized for advanced artificial intelligence by PRC chip designers like Huawei and Cambricon. The assessment must detail technical specifications such as processing power, memory, power efficiency, transistor count, process node, and the ability to run AI models effectively, along with production numbers and foundries used.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that understanding the technical specifications and production capabilities of PRC AI chips is fundamental to assessing their overall AI power and informing U.S. export control policies and R&D priorities.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision, as gathering intelligence on competitor technology is widely accepted as a national security imperative. Concerns might center on the feasibility of obtaining such precise data.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for granular technical intelligence with the inherent difficulty and resource intensity of acquiring such data on a foreign adversary's sensitive technological developments.
Sec. 2(b)(2), (3), (4)
Assessment of PRC Semiconductor Manufacturing & Equipment
This section mandates detailed assessments of PRC semiconductor fabrication facilities for logic and memory integrated circuits, including those operated by SMIC, ChangXin Memory Technologies, and Yangtze Memory Technologies Corp. It also requires an assessment of PRC semiconductor manufacturing equipment companies like NAURA Technology Group. The reports must cover production capacity, yield, most advanced process nodes, types of equipment used, country of origin for equipment, collaborations with non-PRC firms, progress in indigenizing export-controlled technologies, and market share.
Sec. 2(b)(5)
Assessment of PRC Electronic Design Automation (EDA) Software
This provision requires an assessment of electronic design automation (EDA) software used in the PRC for designing advanced AI integrated circuits, focusing on companies like Empyrean Technology and Primarius Technologies. The report must detail the software's capabilities across design stages, compatibility with advanced process nodes, ability to design AI-specific components, and integration with cloud resources. It also covers market share, critical technology components used in software development, and progress in indigenizing foreign EDA technologies.
Sec. 2(b)(6)
Assessment of PRC Advanced AI Models
This provision mandates an assessment of advanced AI models developed by PRC laboratories or companies, especially those affiliated with the People's Liberation Army or universities. The report must analyze models based on parameters, training compute, benchmark performance, and advanced capabilities like cyber offense or biological applications. It also requires evaluation of open-weight models, algorithmic alignment training, compute infrastructure used, societal deployment within the PRC (including military and surveillance), international diffusion, alignment to CCP propaganda, and potential vulnerabilities.
Sec. 2(b)(7), (8), (9)
Assessment of PRC AI Research, Funding, and Computational Capacity
This section requires assessments of PRC AI research (academic publications, patents, funding), aggregate public funding and capital flows supporting AI development (national, provincial, municipal investment, subsidies, foreign capital), and aggregate AI computational capacity. The computational capacity assessment must detail the 5 most capable PRC entities, their hardware, sourcing, and datacenter locations and specifications.
Sec. 2(b)(10), (11)
Assessment of PRC Humanoid Robots and AI Applications
This section mandates assessments of leading PRC humanoid robot manufacturers (e.g., Unitree Robotics, Fourier), covering production capacity, unit cost, semiconductor components, critical components, task capabilities, operational autonomy, deployment across sectors (military, manufacturing, healthcare), international diffusion, and cybersecurity vulnerabilities. It also requires an assessment of the most advanced or widely used AI-powered applications developed by PRC entities, including the models used, deployment means, purposes, data usage, and risks to U.S. national security or data privacy.
Sec. 2(b)(12), (13)
Assessment of PRC AI Regulatory Framework and Standards Diplomacy
This section requires an assessment of the PRC's regulatory framework governing AI development, deployment, and usage. This includes explicit and implicit restrictions on AI models, their impact on innovation and competitiveness, efforts by the CCP to gain insight into advanced AI and reduce strategic surprise, and efforts to assess/mitigate national security threats from AI. It also mandates an assessment of PRC's global AI standards diplomacy efforts, mapping fora, outlining policy objectives, identifying jurisdictions adopting PRC-promoted standards, and suggesting U.S. opportunities to counter these efforts.
Sec. 2(b)(14), (15), (16)
Assessment of AI Compute Diversion and Export Control Effectiveness
This section requires an assessment of the degree to which PRC entities remotely access AI computational resources (e.g., cloud services, international data centers) and circumvent U.S. export controls. It also mandates an assessment of diverted U.S.-controlled integrated circuits (GPUs, ASICs) to the PRC, including methods, pathways, quantities, and companies/countries of origin, and the estimated total compute capacity enabled by these diversions. Finally, it requires an assessment of the effectiveness of U.S. export controls in restricting PRC access to AI-relevant technologies, identifying loopholes, and recommending legislative and administrative actions to strengthen controls.
Defines 'Secretaries' as the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of State.
Sec. 2(j)(5)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to consolidate definitions at the end of a bill.
Case for: Clearly assigns primary responsibility for the report to two key cabinet-level officials, ensuring high-level accountability and inter-agency coordination.
Case against: No specific case against; this is a necessary clarifying definition.
Estimated impact: Crucial for understanding the executive branch's chain of command for report generation.
Defines 'covered agency heads' to include the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Energy, Director of National Intelligence, Director for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and any other relevant Federal department or agency head the Secretary determines necessary.
Sec. 2(j)(3)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to consolidate definitions at the end of a bill.
Case for: Ensures a broad range of expertise and perspectives from across the U.S. government are brought to bear on the complex issue of China's AI capabilities, reflecting the multi-faceted nature of the challenge.
Case against: No specific case against; this is a necessary clarifying definition.
Estimated impact: Broadens the scope of agencies involved in the report's consultation process, ensuring comprehensive input.
Requires the Secretaries to prioritize the identification and analysis of semiconductors, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and critical components that are or are likely to become critical to the supply chains for the training or inference of the most advanced artificial intelligence systems, and items that enable or could enable advanced model performance, pose national security implications, or are foundational to future AI systems.
Sec. 2(c)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative technique to guide implementation without altering the core mandate, often placed after the main requirements.
Case for: Ensures that the extensive reporting requirements are focused on the most strategically important and rapidly evolving aspects of AI technology, maximizing the utility of the reports for national security.
Case against: No specific case against; this provision enhances the strategic focus of the report.
Estimated impact: Directs the allocation of significant analytical resources towards the most critical areas of AI development, influencing the content and strategic value of the reports.