The bill
Mexican Energy Trade Enforcement Act
HR. 5926, 119th Congress — read as touching Electric Utilities.
Sponsored by
Rep. Arrington, Jodey C. [R-TX-19]
ID: A000375
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 5926, 119th Congress — read as touching Electric Utilities.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
22 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Department of Energy and Related Commissions" section, p. 398-400 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Invalid Date
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Mexican Energy Trade Enforcement Act (HR 5926) is a thinly veiled attempt to strong-arm Mexico into complying with certain obligations under the USMCA. The bill's sponsors claim it's about protecting American commerce abroad and promoting fair trade practices. How quaint.
In reality, this bill is a desperate attempt to placate the energy lobby, which has been whining about Mexico's favoritism towards its state-owned electrical utility and petroleum companies. It's a classic case of "we can't compete on a level playing field, so let's use the government to tilt the scales in our favor."
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to either request a dispute resolution panel with Mexico under the USMCA or initiate an investigation under the Trade Act of 1974. Oh, and they have to submit a report to Congress within 90 days detailing their actions. Wow, I bet the USTR is just shaking in their boots.
The bill also defines "covered actions" as those taken by Mexico that favor its state-owned companies and negatively impact American energy companies operating in Mexico. How convenient that this definition just so happens to align with the interests of the energy lobby.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved here:
* The energy lobby, which is salivating at the prospect of getting a leg up on their Mexican competitors. * American energy companies operating in Mexico, who will no doubt use this bill as an excuse to cry foul and demand more government handouts. * The USTR, which will have to pretend to take action while actually doing nothing to rock the boat. * Mexico, which will likely respond with a mix of outrage and indifference.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a joke. It's a toothless attempt to bully Mexico into compliance, and it will likely achieve nothing except to further strain relations between the two countries.
In reality, this bill is just another example of Congress's addiction to symbolic legislation. They know it won't actually accomplish anything, but it makes for great campaign fodder and allows them to pretend they're doing something about "unfair trade practices."
The real impact will be on American taxpayers, who will foot the bill for this legislative posturing. And, of course, the energy lobby will continue to reap the benefits of their cozy relationship with Congress.
In conclusion, HR 5926 is a pathetic attempt at legislating. It's a symptom of a deeper disease: the corruption and cronyism that infests our government. But hey, at least it makes for good theater.
Rep. Arrington, Jodey C. [R-TX-19]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 43 nodes and 22 connections (46 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $69,200
Showing top 17 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.
Section 2(a)(2) requires Mexico to provide non-discriminatory access for United States energy companies, which would benefit U.S. electric utilities operating in or exporting to Mexico.
Section 2(a)(2) requires Mexico to provide non-discriminatory access for United States energy companies, which would benefit U.S. oil and gas companies operating in or exporting to Mexico.
Section 2(a)(2) requires Mexico to provide non-discriminatory access for United States energy companies, which would benefit U.S. energy infrastructure firms involved in cross-border energy trade with Mexico.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Arrington, Jodey C. [R-TX-19])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
AI Analysis:
"The bill focuses on enforcing trade obligations under USMCA to protect U.S. energy companies in Mexico, which aligns with Project 2025's goal of promoting U.S. energy resources and reducing unfair disadvantages for domestic energy interests. However, it does not directly address repealing subsidies, ending government interference, or refocusing agencies like DOE or FERC as emphasized in the Project 2025 policy."
— 365 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions l Support repeal of massive spending bills like the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)3 and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA),4 which established new programs and are providing hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to renewable energy developers, their investors, and special interests, and support the rescinding of all funds not already spent by these programs. l Unleash private-sector energy innovation by ending government interference in energy decisions. l Stop the war on oil and natural gas. l Allow individuals, families, and business to use the energy resources they want to use and that will best serve their needs. l Secure and protect energy infrastructure from cyber and physical attacks. l Refocus the Department of Energy on energy security, accelerated remediation, and advanced science. l Promote U.S. energy resources as a means to assist our allies and diminish our strategic adversaries. l Refocus FERC on ensuring that customers have affordable and reliable electricity, natural gas, and oil and no longer allow it to favor special interests and progressive causes. l Ensure that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission facilitates rather than hampers private-sector nuclear energy innovation and deployment. American Science Dominance. Ever since the age of Benjamin Franklin, the United States has been at the forefront of scientific discovery and technological advancement. Beginning with the groundbreaking science of the Manhattan Proj- ect, the U.S. has developed 17 National Laboratories that conduct fundamental and advanced scientific research. The National Labs have been critical in supporting national defense and ensuring that the United States leads on scientific discoveries with transformative applications that benefit America and the world. In recent years, however, U.S. science has been under threat. Externally, adversaries like the Chinese military have been engaged in scientific espionage, infiltrating taxpayer-funded scientific research projects, and funding their own science research. In addition, the National Labs have been too focused on climate change and renewable technologies.
AI Analysis:
"The bill focuses on enforcing USMCA obligations against Mexico's state-owned energy firms, which aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on strengthening trade dispute resolution mechanisms and promoting fair trade practices, though it does not address the broader tariff, China, or WTO reform elements of the policy."
— 801 — Trade l Repeal the Jones Act,48 a century-old “Buy American” maritime law that has decimated the U.S. shipbuilding industry. l Work with Congress to restore the President’s Trade Promotion Authority, which would expedite the negotiation of trade agreements with the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Taiwan, the European Union, and other allies, and keep trade-unrelated provisions out of trade agreements. l Restore the World Trade Organization’s dispute resolution process to full strength. l Create a successor to the WTO (assuming that it has been fatally wounded) that is open only to liberal democracies. This would prevent authoritarian countries like China from abusing the organization for their own ends. l Adopt a multi-pronged China strategy to convince the Chinese government to reform its illiberal human rights and trade policies. l Rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), whose 11 members are developing institutional trade norms in an important geopolitical region without U.S. input or involvement. l Reorient the proposed Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity to focus only on trade issues, which it currently ignores in favor of progressive wish-list policies. l Strengthen diplomatic pressure (in concert with allies) against Beijing’s abuses. Encourage cultural and intellectual engagement with the Chinese people, remembering that blue jeans and rock ’n’ roll helped to win the Cold War. Tariff Relief. When people try something repeatedly and it still doesn’t work, they should stop doing it—especially when the consequences turn out to be just what conservative economists have long predicted they would be.49 With tariffs, the proper reform is not only to get rid of the individual tariffs that have backfired, but also to build institutional safeguards against future abuse. We are five years into the biggest experiment with tariffs since the Great Depres- sion, and the results are in: The new tariffs raise consumer prices for ordinary Americans by about $1,200 per household every year50 and benefit only a small number of special interests. Steel and aluminum tariffs, enacted on national security grounds, angered allies. Beijing made not a single substantive reform in — 802 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise response to four rounds of tariffs plus an attempted Phase One agreement. The Biden Administration has left the tariffs in place and is expanding them to pursue progressive policy goals. The first order of business for a new Administration that is focused on American workers and consumers is to repeal all tariffs enacted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 196251 and Sections 201 and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.52 The President can do this unilaterally, and Congress can do it through legislation. The second order of business requires Congress to pass legislation repealing Sections 232, 201, and 301. The U.S. Constitution places all taxing authority with Congress53 and none with the President. Congress used those provisions of law to delegate some of its taxing authority to the President because it was having trouble passing “clean” tariff legislation in the 1960s and 1970s. Unless and until this constitutional question about delegation is addressed, important reforms are available to the next Congress and the next President. Congress faced a problem of collective action in the 1960s and 1970s. As a whole, Members generally wanted to lower tariffs, but few individual Members were will- ing to remove tariffs that benefited special interests in their districts. Trade bills were invariably watered down through amendments and logrolling. The thinking was that the President, whose constituency is the entire nation, would be less prone to special-interest pleading than Members of Congress would be, so Congress del- egated some of its tariff-making authority to the President in 1962 and 1974 trade legislation. Delegating tariff-making might have worked in the short run, but in the long run, it was both constitutionally dubious and ripe for abuse. That came to pass in 2018. The Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, invoked in 2018 against Canada, Europe, and other allies on national security grounds, raised car prices by an aver- age of $250 per vehicle and gave America the world’s highest steel prices. They also harmed the construction, canned food and beverage, and other metal-us- ing industries. While this may have benefited the steel industry itself, each steel job saved cost an average of $650,000 per year that had been taken from elsewhere in the econo- my.54 That is no way to strengthen American manufacturing. The New York Federal Reserve estimated in 2019 that the Section 301 China tariffs cost the average house- hold $831 per year,55 a figure that has likely increased with inflation. The new tariffs have a clear record of failure—as conservative economists almost unanimously warned would be the case. Job number one for the next Administration is to return to sensible trade policies and eliminate the destruc- tive Trump–Biden tariffs. Strengthening American Manufacturing. The decline of American manu- facturing is a common political trope in both parties, typically invoked before a call for more government intervention. This narrative has several problems. One is that
AI Analysis:
"The bill focuses on enforcing USMCA trade obligations to protect U.S. energy companies in Mexico, while the Project 2025 section concerns FERC reforms, natural gas pipeline permitting, and LNG export facilitation. Both touch on U.S. energy exports, but their substantive objectives and mechanisms differ significantly."
— 407 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions New Policies FERC should: l Recommit itself to the NGA’s purpose of providing the American people with access to affordable and reliable natural gas. l Limit its NGA decision-making on natural gas pipeline certificates to the question of whether there is a need for the natural gas. l Limit its NEPA analysis to the impacts of the actual pipeline itself, not indirect upstream and downstream effects. In addition, Congress, the states, and FERC should consider how better to pro- tect and compensate property owners whose property is taken for the benefit of the public. FERC also needs to be mindful that natural gas pipelines and projects are important for domestic access to natural gas, including local natural gas utilities, natural gas–fired electric generation, and manufacturing, as well as for exports of liquefied natural gas. FERC: LNG EXPORT FACILITIES Mission/Overview FERC permits, sites, and authorizes the construction and operation of LNG export facilities.125 It does not authorize the export of natural gas; DOE exercises that authority. LNG export facilities are important for delivering natural gas to markets around the world and have become an important policy tool in limiting the ability of Russia and Middle Eastern countries to use energy as a tool in for- eign affairs. Needed Reforms LNG exports are opposed by climate activists. In addition, some domestic man- ufacturers argue that LNG exports decrease available U.S. supplies of natural gas and increase the domestic price, thereby harming the competitive advantages of U.S. manufacturers in world markets. Currently, most LNG export facilities are along the Gulf of Mexico in Texas and Louisiana.126 Attempts to build facilities on the west coast (Jordan Cove LNG127) and the east coast have not moved forward for a variety of reasons; delays and costs of litigation can cause developers to cancel projects. An Alaska facility was approved by FERC in 2020, and the Biden Administration has indicated its sup- port.128 An east coast facility in Pennsylvania (or nearby) would unlock Marcellus shale natural gas for export.
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.