MATCH Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/8170
Last Updated: September 13, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Baumgartner, Michael [R-WA-5]

ID: B001322

Follow the money

The bill

MATCH Act

HR. 8170, 119th Congress — read as touching Semiconductors & Hardware.

The sponsor

Rep. Baumgartner, Michael [R-WA-5]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$126,974 raised

26 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Commerce" section, p. 705-707 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 36 - 8.

April 21, 2026

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the intellectually bankrupt inhabitants of Congress. The MATCH Act, a bill so cleverly crafted to sound like it's about national security, but in reality, it's just another symptom of the disease that plagues our political system: corruption, greed, and a healthy dose of stupidity.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to restrict the export of certain semiconductor manufacturing equipment and components to countries deemed "adversaries" by the United States. Because, you know, those pesky Chinese companies might actually start producing advanced-node integrated circuits that could rival our own. The horror! The real objective, of course, is to protect the interests of American corporations that dominate the semiconductor industry, while pretending to care about national security.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the government to identify and restrict the export of covered semiconductor manufacturing equipment and components to countries like China. It also mandates diplomatic efforts to convince allied countries to adopt similar controls, because who needs international cooperation when you can just strong-arm your friends into doing your bidding? The bill also establishes a licensing policy of denial for exports to certain facilities, because why bother with due process when you can just deny everything?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include American corporations that produce semiconductor manufacturing equipment, Chinese companies like Huawei and SMIC, and allied countries that will be pressured into adopting similar controls. Oh, and let's not forget the poor souls who actually have to implement these restrictions – the bureaucrats who will have to navigate this Byzantine regulatory landscape.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is to further escalate the ongoing tech Cold War between the United States and China. It will likely lead to retaliatory measures from China, which could harm American businesses that rely on Chinese supply chains. But hey, who needs a functioning global economy when you can have a good old-fashioned trade war? The implications are clear: this bill is a recipe for disaster, a perfect storm of protectionism, nationalism, and bureaucratic incompetence.

In conclusion, the MATCH Act is a textbook example of how to write a bill that sounds good on paper but is actually a thinly veiled attempt to protect corporate interests while pretending to care about national security. It's a disease, really – a symptom of a broader illness that afflicts our political system. And we're all just along for the ride, watching as our elected officials engage in this farcical dance of legislative theater, completely oblivious to the fact that they're making fools of themselves and harming the very people they claim to represent. Bravo, Congress. Bravo.

Related Topics

Trade & International Commerce
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Baumgartner, Michael [R-WA-5]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$126,974
21 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$12,900
Committees
$0
Individuals
$114,074

No PAC contributions found

1
THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION
3 transactions
$8,600
2
KALISPEL TRIBAL ECONOMIC AUTHORITY
2 transactions
$3,300
3
YAKAMA NATION
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
JHASHI, VAJA
1 transaction
$13,200
2
PLATH, PETER
2 transactions
$13,200
3
SCHNAUBELT, CHRISTOPHER
2 transactions
$6,870
4
BENNETT, GREGG
1 transaction
$6,600
5
CONNORS, JOHN
1 transaction
$6,600
6
CONNORS, KATHY
1 transaction
$6,600
7
MERCK, MAGGIE
1 transaction
$6,600
8
ODERMAT, MARY
1 transaction
$6,600
9
PARKS, DAVE
1 transaction
$6,600
10
CHAUDHRY, ASIF
1 transaction
$6,600
11
MAHMOOD, ARSHAD
1 transaction
$6,600
12
SLIVKA, BENJAMIN
1 transaction
$5,829
13
JOHNSON, KEVIN
1 transaction
$5,000
14
ANDERSON, MARK
1 transaction
$3,435
15
BRIDGEWATER, JACK
1 transaction
$3,435
16
HERCHE, THOMAS
1 transaction
$3,435
17
RINDLAUB, SARAH
1 transaction
$3,435
18
WETZEL, SCOTT
1 transaction
$3,435

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Moolenaar, John R. [R-MI-2]

ID: M001194

Top Contributors

36

1
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI
$3,300
Aug 30, 2023
2
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Aug 30, 2023
3
POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS
OrganizationDOWAGIAC, MI
$3,300
Aug 30, 2023
4
SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE TRIBAL OPERATIONS
OrganizationMOUNT PLEASANT, MI
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023
5
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS
OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023
6
NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI
OrganizationFULTON, MI
$3,300
Mar 12, 2024
7
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$3,300
Jun 20, 2024
8
SAULT STE. MARIE TRIBE CHIPPEWA INDIANS
OrganizationSAULT SAINTE MARIE, MI
$2,900
Dec 19, 2023
9
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$2,500
Mar 4, 2024
10
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS
OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA
$2,500
Sep 30, 2024

Rep. McCormick, Richard [R-GA-7]

ID: M001218

Top Contributors

20

1
OGLESBY, CHARLES
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSUWANEE, GA
$10,000
Jan 18, 2024
2
OGLESBY, CHARLES
IndividualSUWANEE, GA
$10,000
Jan 22, 2024
3
HAMILTON, ANNE
THORNBRIAR CAPITAL LLC • BUSINESS OWNER
IndividualCUMMING, GA
$10,000
Feb 13, 2023
4
VERMA, VIKAS
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualATLANTA, GA
$6,600
Oct 28, 2024
5
KLINGENSTEIN, THOMAS
COHEN KLINGENSTEIN • INVESTMENT ADVISOR
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Oct 28, 2023
6
LUKE, DEBRA
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualPHOENIX, AZ
$6,600
Feb 6, 2024
7
BATMASIAN, JAMES H
INVESTMENTS LIMITED • OWNER
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$6,600
May 25, 2023
8
KOLLAR, CLINT
SIXTH STREET PARTNERS • INVESTOR
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$6,600
May 28, 2023
9
KOLLAR, HEATHER
SELF • MOTHER
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$6,600
May 28, 2023
10
STEBBINS, ROBERT
WILLKIE FARR GALLAGHER • ATTORNEY
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Apr 1, 2023

Rep. Mannion, John W. [D-NY-22]

ID: M001231

Top Contributors

22

1
POLITY GROUP LLC
OrganizationPORTLAND, OR
$2,500
Oct 28, 2024
2
LYNN D'ELIA TEMES & STANCZYK
OrganizationSYRACUSE, NY
$1,000
Mar 12, 2024
3
SLOME, IAN
SLOME CAPITAL LLC • INVESTOR
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
May 18, 2024
4
SPITZER, ELIOT
SELF-EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
May 1, 2024
5
CUTLER, RANDI
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualBOSTON, MA
$6,600
Jun 11, 2024
6
MCDOLE, MORGAN
CITY OF SYRACUSE • FIREFIGHTER
IndividualFAYETTEVILLE, NY
$6,600
Jun 20, 2024
7
ALBERTS, EDWARD
LITTLE LUKES • SELF-EMPLOYED
IndividualBALDWINSVILLE, NY
$6,600
Jul 13, 2023
8
STONE, JAMES M
PLYMOUTH ROCK COMPANY, INC. • EXECUTIVE
IndividualBOSTON, MA
$5,000
Oct 11, 2024
9
FAIVUS, HARRY E.
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,000
Oct 25, 2024
10
BASCH, ELI B.
BASCH &KEEGAN LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualKINGSTON, NY
$5,000
Oct 28, 2024

Rep. Golden, Jared F. [D-ME-2]

ID: G000592

Top Contributors

29

1
PENOBSCOT INDIAN NATION
OrganizationINDIAN ISLAND, ME
$3,300
Oct 19, 2024
2
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Feb 8, 2024
3
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Mar 13, 2024
4
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Sep 28, 2023
5
NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI
OrganizationFULTON, MI
$2,000
Oct 15, 2024
6
PASSAMAQUODDY TRIBE AT INDIAN TOWNSHIP
OrganizationPERRY, ME
$1,000
Oct 28, 2024
7
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$1,000
Oct 31, 2024
8
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$1,000
Jun 27, 2024
9
ONEIDA NATION
OrganizationONEIDA, WI
$1,000
Sep 26, 2024
10
KIRK, GARRETT JR
SELF EMPLOYED • INVESTOR
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Nov 2, 2024

Rep. Huizenga, Bill [R-MI-4]

ID: H001058

Top Contributors

28

1
POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS
OrganizationDOWAGIAC, MI
$3,300
Dec 11, 2023
2
THALOP LLC
OrganizationINDIANAPOLIS, IN
$1,000
Aug 29, 2024
3
BARREL DOG, LLC
OrganizationHOLLAND, MI
$1,000
Sep 1, 2024
4
NOAH HOMES LLC
OrganizationINDIANAPOLIS, IN
$1,000
Sep 30, 2024
5
THALOP LLC
OrganizationINDIANAPOLIS, IN
$1,000
Sep 30, 2024
6
B&B DAIRY
OrganizationPLAINVIEW, TX
$500
Jul 28, 2024
7
B&B DAIRY
OrganizationPLAINVIEW, TX
$500
Sep 5, 2024
8
STRAIGHT LINE RED ANGUS
OrganizationBANGOR, MI
$250
Jul 23, 2024
9
VAN ANDEL, AMY
THE STEVE AND AMY VAN ANDEL FOUNDATION • EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
IndividualADA, MI
$75,000
Mar 29, 2024
10
VAN ANDEL, STEPHEN
AMWAY • CHAIRMAN
IndividualADA, MI
$75,000
Mar 29, 2024

Rep. Shreve, Jefferson [R-IN-6]

ID: S001229

Top Contributors

20

1
SASSO, APRIL
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualCARMEL, IN
$6,600
Oct 30, 2024
2
PONDER, JACQUELINE
BOWMAN FAMILY HOLDINGS • LAWYER
IndividualGREENWOOD, IN
$3,437
Oct 29, 2024
3
KING, CHRISTOPHER M.
RUNNEBOHM CONSTRUCTION, INC. • OWNER
IndividualSHELBYVILLE, IN
$3,300
Jun 7, 2024
4
CALDWELL, JORDAN
CALDWELL'S INC. • EXECUTIVE
IndividualSHELBYVILLE, IN
$3,300
Oct 20, 2024
5
DOPPELT, BRIAN
BAINBRIDGE COMPANIES • EXECUTIVE
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
6
KING, KYLIE A.
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualSHELBYVILLE, IN
$3,300
Oct 20, 2024
7
SASSO, RICK C.
INDIANA SPINE GROUP • PHYSICIAN
IndividualCARMEL, IN
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
8
SCHUMACHER, AMY MAE
THE HERITAGE GROUP • CEO
IndividualCARMEL, IN
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
9
MCALLISTER, CHRIS
TARBERT PROPERTIES LP • PARTNER
IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
10
ZINK, JAMES C.
ZINK DISTRIBUTING • CHAIRMAN / CEO
IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN
$3,300
Nov 2, 2024

Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17]

ID: L000599

Top Contributors

21

1
MURTAGH, COSSU, VENDITTI & CASTRO-BLANCO, LLP
OrganizationWHITE PLAINS, NY
$1,000
Feb 24, 2024
2
BATMASIAN, JAMES
INVESTMENTS LIMITED • OWNER
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$6,600
Sep 27, 2023
3
BATMASIAN, JAMES
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$6,600
Sep 29, 2023
4
AUSTIN, ROBERT
UNAKA CO., INC. • BUSINESSMAN
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$6,600
Jul 18, 2024
5
SILVERMAN, JEFFREY
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSURFSIDE, FL
$6,534
Feb 15, 2024
6
SILVERMAN, JEFFREY
IndividualSURFSIDE, FL
$6,534
Feb 22, 2024
7
SCALA, MARY ELLEN
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualPORT CHESTER, NY
$5,300
Aug 27, 2023
8
DEUTSCH, SHMULEY
SELF • PRESIDENT
IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY
$3,900
Jun 24, 2024
9
DEUTSCH, SHMULEY
IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY
$3,900
Jun 25, 2024
10
PERLMUTTER, RAFUEL
GOLDEN TASTE • CEO
IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY
$3,400
Jun 24, 2024

Rep. Riley, Josh [D-NY-19]

ID: R000622

Top Contributors

25

1
HOPE SPRINGS FARM
OrganizationROXBURY, NY
$3,300
Aug 20, 2024
2
THE PLANTSMEN NURSERY
OrganizationGROTON, NY
$500
Oct 11, 2024
3
FLOWERS BY ORZEL
OrganizationWHITNEY POINT, NY
$300
May 6, 2024
4
FLOWERS BY ORZEL
OrganizationWHITNEY POINT, NY
$300
Jun 5, 2024
5
HOPE SPRINGS FARM
OrganizationROXBURY, NY
$50
Sep 13, 2024
6
KIRK, CLAY KENAN
SELF-EMPLOYED • INVESTOR
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Sep 23, 2024
7
KIRK, GARRETT JR
SELF-EMPLOYED • INVESTOR
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Sep 23, 2024
8
TRONE, DAVID J.
IndividualPOTOMAC, MD
$6,600
Jan 21, 2024
9
LANDEGGGER, GEORGE F.
IndividualRYE BROOK, NY
$5,000
Jul 31, 2024
10
FAIVUS, HARRY
SELF-EMPLOYED • PHYSICIAN
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,000
Oct 28, 2024

Rep. Goodlander, Maggie [D-NH-2]

ID: G000604

Top Contributors

20

1
MCLAUGHLIN, JANE
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualLYME, NH
$4,500
Aug 24, 2024
2
FLORY, ROBERT H. JR
FLORY INVESTMENTS, INC. • PRESIDENT
IndividualDAMARISCOTTA, ME
$4,100
Sep 30, 2024
3
FLORY, ROBERT H. JR
FLORY INVESTMENTS, INC. • PRESIDENT
IndividualDAMARISCOTTA, ME
$4,100
Sep 30, 2024
4
KRAUSZ, STEVEN
US VENTURE PARTNERS • VENTURE CAPITAL
IndividualPORTOLA VALLEY, CA
$3,300
Oct 23, 2024
5
HIRSHBERG, GARY
STONYFIELD FARM INC. • SENIOR ADVISOR
IndividualCONCORD, NH
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
6
DRAKE, LAWRENCE C JR
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPORTSMOUTH, NH
$3,300
Oct 19, 2024
7
CUTLER, DOULGAS
CUTLER MANAGEMENT CORP • MANAGEMENT
IndividualDANIA, FL
$3,300
Oct 17, 2024
8
JAMES, AMABEL
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Oct 24, 2024
9
NUNNELLY, MARK
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualDOVER, MA
$3,300
Oct 21, 2024
10
ROBY, DAVID M.
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualLYME, NH
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024

Rep. Subramanyam, Suhas [D-VA-10]

ID: S001230

Top Contributors

23

1
FRIENDS OF RUSSET PERRY
OrganizationLEESBURG, VA
$1,000
May 16, 2024
2
GRO MORE DULANY BUILDERS
OrganizationMCLEAN, VA
$1,000
Sep 19, 2024
3
ELECT ATOOSA REASER
OrganizationSTERLING, VA
$250
Sep 30, 2024
4
IRUDHAYANATHAN, ANTHONY
ZILLION • IT
IndividualASHBURN, VA
$6,600
Jun 12, 2024
5
JACOBS, IRWIN M
IndividualLA JOLLA, CA
$3,300
Dec 31, 2024
6
ACHARYA, SANKET
7-ELEVEN • BUSINES OWNER
IndividualNEWPORT NEWS, VA
$3,300
Nov 19, 2023
7
ALDANA, AIME
DLA PIPER • OF COUNSEL
IndividualBURBANK, CA
$3,300
Nov 14, 2023
8
ALI, TAJAMMAL
TAJAMMAL ALI • SELF EMPLOYED
IndividualLEESBURG, VA
$3,300
Dec 11, 2023
9
BHUTADA, RISHI
STAR PIPE PRODUCTS • SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
IndividualSUGAR LAND, TX
$3,300
Dec 8, 2023
10
CHALLA, JAYANTH
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualVIENNA, VA
$3,300
Nov 16, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Baumgartner, Michael [R-WA-5]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 38 nodes and 50 connections

Total contributions: $50

Top Donors - Rep. Baumgartner, Michael [R-WA-5]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

3 Orgs18 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 harmed.

  • Section 3(c)(3) establishes U.S. jurisdiction and applies countrywide controls to covered semiconductor manufacturing equipment exported from allied supplier countries, requiring licenses with a policy of denial for servicing and end-use controls, directly restricting the industry's ability to export equipment and components to countries of concern.

  • Section 2(2) notes that advanced computing applications like AI are transforming military affairs, and the bill's export controls on semiconductor manufacturing equipment (Section 3) indirectly hinder AI development by limiting access to advanced-node integrated circuits, which are foundational for AI hardware.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Baumgartner, Michael [R-WA-5])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.

Industries this bill HARMS

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Commerce

Strong
Vector: 67%
Pages: 705-707AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The MATCH Act directly implements export restrictions on semiconductor manufacturing equipment—a foundational technology—to countries of concern, aligning with Project 2025’s goal of regulating emerging/foundational technologies to protect U.S. technological advantage and national security."

Key themes:export controlssemiconductor technologycountries of concernnational securityfoundational technologies

— 672 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise regulate exports of emerging and foundational technologies. Although the scope of such technologies is vast, to date BIS has only controlled just over 40 of these technologies. This does not meet the clear statutory intent of Congress that ECRA be leveraged to ensure that the United States maintains a technological advantage in technologies bearing upon national security interests. Currently, BIS self-identifies technologies that merit control under the EAR with minimal input from other federal agencies. This mechanism should be improved. BIS should create an open, transparent rulemaking process by which any industry participant, private entity, or branch of the government may, at any time, submit nominations for emerging/foundational technologies for control. Then, on a quarterly basis, BIS should make public such recommendations (while holding the identity of the submitter confidential) for public input, followed by an explanation about its ultimate decision to control or not control the items, its reasons, the level of controls applied (stringent or permissive), and the relevant Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) under the Commerce Control List. Commerce should also institute a mechanism whereby its decisions can be challenged, including on a confidential basis. Licensing Procedures: Adjudication and Transparency. Currently, if the Departments of Defense, State, Commerce, and Energy disagree on an export license decision, the disagreement may be escalated to the Operating Commit- tee—and subsequently to the Advisory Committee on Export Policy led by BIS’s Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. The Assistant Secretary does not need to lead the dispute resolution, and this process should be revised by giving lead authority to BIS’s Under Secretary, who is better able to account for diverging views. Moreover, BIS’s authority to overrule other agency votes should be changed. Each agency should have one equal vote and, if a licensing dispute remains unre- solved, the final decision should be elevated to the National Security Advisor and the Secretaries of Defense, State, Commerce, and Energy. Additionally, to improve congressional oversight of BIS’s license adjudication process, BIS should provide specific congressional committees with data from the Automated Export System on a quarterly basis. Electronic files should contain U.S. exporter by name; product description (e.g., harmonized system code and ECCN/U. S. Munitions List designation); end user and destination country; and when a license was required, whether the license was granted or denied. BIS cur- rently denies just 1.2 percent of export licenses. These data reporting requirements can help Congress better determine whether BIS is adequately protecting national security through appropriate use of export controls or whether additional direction from Congress is required. Improve End-Use Checks. The integrity of the export control system may be validated only through adequate end-use checks. BIS must deny export licenses to countries that do not permit adequate end-use checks (e.g., China/Russia) by U.S. authorities. BIS should also strengthen the forensic audit capabilities of its — 673 — Department of Commerce Export Enforcement officers through improved and frequent training so they are able to detect export-control violations. EAR Revisions. The U.S. Government needs a new export control moderniza- tion effort to tighten the EAR policies governing licenses to countries of concern, including China and Russia (specifically, revise and/or reverse the 2008 through 2016 policies). When authoritarian governments explain what they plan to do, believe them unless hard evidence demonstrates otherwise. Case in point: China’s and Russia’s stated civil–military fusion policies demand central government command-and-control style systems in which every private entity serves the interests of the state and is forced to provide technology, services, capacity, and data to the central govern- ment and the military. Through this structure, commercial activities are routinely weaponized by authoritarian regimes that repeatedly identify the U.S. as an enemy. Accordingly, U.S. export control policies must be updated to reflect these realities and the associated threats to national security. Key priorities for EAR modernization for countries of concern should be: l Eliminating the “specially designed” licensing loophole; l Redesignating China and Russia to more highly prohibitive export licensing groups (country groups D or E); l Eliminating license exceptions; l Broadening foreign direct product rules; l Reducing the de minimis threshold from 25 percent to 10 percent—or 0 percent for critical technologies; l Tightening the deemed export rules to prevent technology transfer to foreign nationals from countries of concern; l Tightening the definition of “fundamental research” to address exploitation of the open U.S. university system by authoritarian governments through funding, students and researchers, and recruitment; l Eliminating license exceptions for sharing technology with controlled entities/countries through standards-setting “activities” and bodies; and l Improving regulations regarding published information for technology transfers.

Department of Commerce

Strong
Vector: 65%
Pages: 705-707AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The MATCH Act directly advances the Project 2025 goal of regulating exports of emerging/foundational technologies to protect national security, focusing on semiconductor manufacturing equipment and imposing strict controls on adversaries. While it shares the core objective of strengthening export controls, it does not address the specific procedural reforms (transparent rulemaking, licensing dispute resolution, congressional oversight) emphasized in the Policy."

Key themes:export controlssemiconductor technologynational securityemerging/foundational technologiesdiplomatic engagement

— 672 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise regulate exports of emerging and foundational technologies. Although the scope of such technologies is vast, to date BIS has only controlled just over 40 of these technologies. This does not meet the clear statutory intent of Congress that ECRA be leveraged to ensure that the United States maintains a technological advantage in technologies bearing upon national security interests. Currently, BIS self-identifies technologies that merit control under the EAR with minimal input from other federal agencies. This mechanism should be improved. BIS should create an open, transparent rulemaking process by which any industry participant, private entity, or branch of the government may, at any time, submit nominations for emerging/foundational technologies for control. Then, on a quarterly basis, BIS should make public such recommendations (while holding the identity of the submitter confidential) for public input, followed by an explanation about its ultimate decision to control or not control the items, its reasons, the level of controls applied (stringent or permissive), and the relevant Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) under the Commerce Control List. Commerce should also institute a mechanism whereby its decisions can be challenged, including on a confidential basis. Licensing Procedures: Adjudication and Transparency. Currently, if the Departments of Defense, State, Commerce, and Energy disagree on an export license decision, the disagreement may be escalated to the Operating Commit- tee—and subsequently to the Advisory Committee on Export Policy led by BIS’s Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. The Assistant Secretary does not need to lead the dispute resolution, and this process should be revised by giving lead authority to BIS’s Under Secretary, who is better able to account for diverging views. Moreover, BIS’s authority to overrule other agency votes should be changed. Each agency should have one equal vote and, if a licensing dispute remains unre- solved, the final decision should be elevated to the National Security Advisor and the Secretaries of Defense, State, Commerce, and Energy. Additionally, to improve congressional oversight of BIS’s license adjudication process, BIS should provide specific congressional committees with data from the Automated Export System on a quarterly basis. Electronic files should contain U.S. exporter by name; product description (e.g., harmonized system code and ECCN/U. S. Munitions List designation); end user and destination country; and when a license was required, whether the license was granted or denied. BIS cur- rently denies just 1.2 percent of export licenses. These data reporting requirements can help Congress better determine whether BIS is adequately protecting national security through appropriate use of export controls or whether additional direction from Congress is required. Improve End-Use Checks. The integrity of the export control system may be validated only through adequate end-use checks. BIS must deny export licenses to countries that do not permit adequate end-use checks (e.g., China/Russia) by U.S. authorities. BIS should also strengthen the forensic audit capabilities of its

26

Strong
Vector: 65%
Pages: 801-803AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the MATCH Act and the Project 2025 section emphasize using trade policy tools to protect U.S. economic and national security by countering unfair practices from China and safeguarding critical industries. They share a focus on strategic sectors (semiconductors/arsenal of democracy) and the need for reciprocal, defensive measures against adversarial economic threats."

Key themes:economic securitynational securityChina threatexport controls/trade restrictionsprotecting critical industries

— 768 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise has a quality of its own.” In World War II in particular, it was not just the brave soldiers, sailors, and pilots who beat the Nazis and Imperial Japan. It was America’s factories—its “arsenal of democracy”—that overwhelmed the Axis forces. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, almost certainly spawned in a CCP biological weapons lab in Wuhan, China,5 global supply chains have been under significant pressures from lockdown policies, energy price shocks, and other dis- ruptions, including labor market disruptions. At the height of the pandemic, the rising geopolitical risk associated with globalized supply chains was underscored when Communist China, which controls much of the world’s pharmaceutical pro- duction and supply chains, threatened to plunge America “into a mighty sea of coronavirus” through pharmaceutical export controls6 if American politicians dared to investigate what happened at the Wuhan lab. Add all this up, and America’s trade situation and massive trade imbalances pose not only a severe economic security threat, but also a national security threat. As President Donald Trump indicated in announcing his 2017 National Security Strategy, “economic security is national security.”7 CHALLENGE #1: UNFAIR AND NONRECIPROCAL TRADE INSTITUTIONALIZED IN WTO RULES Tonight, I am also asking you to pass the United States Reciprocal Trade Act, so that if another country places an unfair tariff on an American product, we can charge them the exact same tariff on the exact same product that they sell to us. President Donald J. Trump, 2019 State of the Union Address8 The World Trade Organization, with its 164 members, governs international trade rules. Under its most favored nation (MFN) rule, each WTO member must apply the lowest tariffs it applies to the products of any one country to the products of every other WTO country. Importantly, nothing in the MFN rule requires a WTO member to provide equal—that is, reciprocal or mirror—tariff rates to its trading partners. Rather, under MFN, WTO members can charge systematically higher tariffs to other countries to the extent negotiated in their WTO tariff schedules so long as they apply those same higher tariffs to all countries. As a poster child for the kind of nonreciprocal tariffs that American manufactur- ers often face, the MFN tariff for automobiles applied by the U.S. is only 2.5 percent. In contrast, the EU charges 10 percent, Communist China 15 percent, and Brazil 35 percent. Similarly, while the U.S. applies an MFN tariff rate of 6.2 percent on the rice it buys from Malaysia, Malaysia applies an ad-valorem equivalent tariff of 40 percent on rice from the U.S. Meanwhile, European milk producers are shielded — 769 — Trade TABLE 2 Nonreciprocal Tariff Rates Under “Most Favored Nation” Rule Foreign U.S. and Foreign Partner Applies U.S. Applies Partner Apply 132-Country Sample Higher Tariff Higher Tariff Same Tariff Number of HS6 Product Lines 467,015 141,736 87,319 Percent of HS6 Product Lines 67% 20% 13% Tariff Diff erential 12.3% 8.7% 0.0% NOTE: HS6—Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System. SOURCE: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, “Trade Analysis Information System,” https:// databank.worldbank.org/source/unctad-%5E-trade-analysis-information-system-(trains) (accessed March 21, 2023). A heritage.org by 67 percent tariffs while American milk producers benefit only from a 15 percent tariff on foreign imports.9 From the perspective of strategic game theory, the WTO’s MFN rule provides little or no incentive for higher-tariff countries to lower their tariffs. Rather, under these conditions, the dominant strategy of any relatively high-tariff country is simply to maintain those high tariffs while free riding off the lower-tariff countries. The U.S. is disproportionately harmed by the WTO’s nonreciprocal tariff regime. The countries that are hurt most by the WTO’s nonreciprocal tariff regime are those like the United States that charge the lowest tariffs on average. This point is illustrated in Table 2, which reports information on nonreciprocal tariffs that are applied under the MFN rule on product lines at the six-digit level of the Harmo- nized Commodity Description and Coding System (HS6).10 Table 2 presents results for a broad sample of 132 countries that account for more than 60 percent of total U.S. trade and 98 percent of U.S. trade that is not cov- ered by free trade agreements (FTAs). Within this broad sample of 132 countries, U.S. exporters face higher tariffs in 467,015 different cases compared to 141,736 cases in which the U.S. charges higher nonreciprocal rates. In other words, U.S. exporters face higher tariffs more than three times as often as the U.S. applies higher tariffs. Moreover, when American exporters face higher tariffs, the nonreciprocal tar- iffs are typically much higher. As row 4 of Table 2 indicates, in the 467,015 cases in which foreign partners charge higher tariffs, the average rate applied by the foreign partners is 12.3 percentage points above the rate applied by the U.S. In contrast,

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

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.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills