Deterring American AI Model Theft Act of 2026

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/8283
Last Updated: September 13, 2026

Sponsored by

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

ID: H001058

Follow the money

The bill

Deterring American AI Model Theft Act of 2026

HR. 8283, 119th Congress — read as touching AI & Cloud Infrastructure.

The sponsor

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

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

The money

$323,650 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Trade" section, p. 852-854 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 (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 43 - 0.

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 geniuses in Congress. The "Deterring American AI Model Theft Act of 2026" - because who doesn't love a good acronym? Let's dissect this farce and uncover the real motivations behind it.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to prevent foreign adversaries from stealing American-owned artificial intelligence (AI) models. Or, in other words, to protect the intellectual property of corporations that have invested heavily in developing these AI models. The real purpose? To further entrench the interests of these corporations and maintain their grip on the AI market.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill defines "closed-source AI models" as proprietary models with restricted access, governed by terms of service or contractual agreements. It also identifies "countries of concern" (China, Russia, and others) and "entities of concern" (foreign persons or entities operating in these countries). The bill aims to punish and deter model extraction attacks on closed-source AI models by these entities. But let's be real, this is just a thinly veiled attempt to justify more stringent export controls and surveillance.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved: private sector companies owning closed-source AI models, the US government, and foreign entities (countries of concern). Oh, and let's not forget the lobbyists who will be lining their pockets with cash as a result of this bill. The real stakeholders? The corporations that stand to gain from this legislation, and the politicians who will reap the benefits of their "tough on national security" stance.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications for AI research, development, and deployment. It could stifle innovation by restricting access to AI models and limiting collaboration between researchers. The bill's focus on export controls and surveillance may also lead to a chilling effect on academic freedom and open research. But hey, who needs progress when you can have profits and power?

In conclusion, the "Deterring American AI Model Theft Act of 2026" is a classic case of legislative myopia, driven by corporate interests and a misguided notion of national security. It's a disease, really - a symptom of a deeper illness that afflicts our political system: the prioritization of profits over people, and the relentless pursuit of power at any cost. And we're just along for the ride, watching as our elected officials peddle their wares to the highest bidder. Joy.

Related Topics

National Security & Intelligence
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

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

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$323,650
24 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$8,550
Committees
$0
Individuals
$315,100

No PAC contributions found

1
POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
2
THALOP LLC
2 transactions
$2,000
3
BARREL DOG, LLC
1 transaction
$1,000
4
NOAH HOMES LLC
1 transaction
$1,000
5
B&B DAIRY
2 transactions
$1,000
6
STRAIGHT LINE RED ANGUS
1 transaction
$250

No committee contributions found

1
VAN ANDEL, AMY
1 transaction
$75,000
2
VAN ANDEL, STEPHEN
1 transaction
$75,000
3
HAWORTH, RICHARD G
1 transaction
$47,900
4
SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE H.
1 transaction
$11,600
5
SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN A
1 transaction
$11,600
6
HAWORTH, MATT R
1 transaction
$11,600
7
QUINTILIAN, JOSEPH
1 transaction
$11,600
8
HIBMA, DANIEL
2 transactions
$11,600
9
SHINELDECKER, SHAR
2 transactions
$10,200
10
KLINSKY, STEVEN B.
1 transaction
$6,600
11
DIPRISCO, GREGORY
1 transaction
$6,600
12
PAYNE, ROBERT
1 transaction
$5,800
13
BAKER, JEFFREY
1 transaction
$5,000
14
CARMICHAEL, CATHRYN B
1 transaction
$5,000
15
PETERS, JAMES
1 transaction
$5,000
16
LANTING, ARLYN
1 transaction
$5,000
17
LANTING, MARCIA
1 transaction
$5,000
18
WORKMAN, JOHN
1 transaction
$5,000

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. 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. Crawford, Eric A. "Rick" [R-AR-1]

ID: C001087

Top Contributors

20

1
KAMPETER, MICHAEL MR.
SNK REAL PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLC • PARTNER
IndividualMETA, MO
$3,300
Dec 14, 2023
2
KAMPETER, MICHAEL MR.
SNK REAL PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLC • PARTNER
IndividualMETA, MO
$3,300
Dec 14, 2023
3
SILBEY, ALEXANDER MR.
ATS COMMUNICATIONS • CONSULTANT
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Jan 24, 2023
4
WALTON, ROB MR.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualBENTONVILLE, AR
$3,300
Jun 30, 2023
5
HEDGE, BETTY MRS.
HEDGES INC. • OWNER
IndividualPARAGOULD, AR
$3,300
Jun 4, 2024
6
HEDGE, RANDY MR.
HEDGES INC • OWNER
IndividualPARAGOULD, AR
$3,300
Jun 4, 2024
7
DILLARD, DENNIS ALEXANDER MR.
DILLARD'S INC • PRESIDENT
IndividualLITTLE ROCK, AR
$3,300
Sep 17, 2024
8
LAMBERT, RYAN MR.
SELF EMPLOYED • ENTREPRENEUR
IndividualMCLEAN, VA
$3,300
Oct 29, 2024
9
COOPER, JOHN A. MR. III
COOPER COMMUNITIES INC. • PRESIDENT
IndividualROGERS, AR
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024
10
STEPHENS, WARREN A. MR.
STEPHENS INC • PRESIDENT & CEO
IndividualLITTLE ROCK, AR
$3,300
Jul 31, 2023

Rep. Kamlager-Dove, Sydney [D-CA-37]

ID: K000400

Top Contributors

28

1
SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA
OrganizationLEMOORE, CA
$6,600
May 12, 2024
2
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Jan 16, 2024
3
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Jun 30, 2023
4
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA
$2,000
Jun 30, 2024
5
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Apr 29, 2024
6
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Jun 15, 2023
7
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$1,000
Apr 23, 2024
8
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$1,000
Sep 30, 2024
9
BRUCE, CHERYL LYNN
SELF-EMPLOYED • ACTOR
IndividualCHICAGO, IL
$6,600
Jan 1, 2024
10
BRUCE, CHERYL LYNN
IndividualCHICAGO, IL
$6,600
Jan 14, 2024

Rep. LaHood, Darin [R-IL-16]

ID: L000585

Top Contributors

34

1
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$3,300
Mar 30, 2023
2
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$3,300
Jun 14, 2024
3
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
May 15, 2024
4
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Jun 16, 2023
5
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$1,300
Oct 28, 2024
6
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA
$1,000
Feb 8, 2023
7
ONEIDA NATION
OrganizationONEIDA, WI
$1,000
Mar 30, 2023
8
SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$1,000
Mar 31, 2023
9
D CONSTRUCTION, INC.
OrganizationCOAL CITY, IL
$1,000
Mar 29, 2024
10
ONEIDA NATION
OrganizationONEIDA, WI
$1,000
Jun 30, 2024

Rep. Cline, Ben [R-VA-6]

ID: C001118

Top Contributors

21

1
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$1,000
Oct 31, 2023
2
JOHNSON, CAMERON MR.
MAGIC CITY FORD • CAR DEALER
IndividualROANOKE, VA
$3,300
Nov 21, 2024
3
ROSENBERG, DIANE MS.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualROANOKE, VA
$3,300
Nov 4, 2024
4
STOLTZFUS, MELISSA
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualBRIDGEWATER, VA
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
5
STOLTZFUS, MICHAEL
DYNAMIC AVIATION • PRESIDENT & CEO
IndividualBRIDGEWATER, VA
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
6
STOLTZFUS, MICHAEL
DYNAMIC AVIATION • PRESIDENT & CEO
IndividualBRIDGEWATER, VA
$3,300
Nov 13, 2024
7
CLINE, JULIA S MRS.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualLEXINGTON, VA
$3,300
Dec 31, 2023
8
CLINE, JULIA S MRS.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualLEXINGTON, VA
$3,300
Dec 31, 2023
9
CARTLEDGE, GEORGE B MR. III
GRAND HOME FURNISHINGS • PRESIDENT
IndividualROANOKE, VA
$3,300
Mar 30, 2023
10
CARTLEDGE, GEORGE B MR. III
GRAND HOME FURNISHINGS • PRESIDENT
IndividualROANOKE, VA
$3,300
Mar 30, 2023

Rep. Harrigan, Pat [R-NC-10]

ID: H001101

Top Contributors

20

1
STARNES, BRYAN
ALG SENIOR LLC • CFO
IndividualGRANITE FALLS, NC
$3,300
Oct 23, 2024
2
ATALA, KATHERINE DAWSON
WAKE FOREST UNIV SCHOOL OF MED • PHYSICIAN
IndividualWINSTON SALEM, NC
$3,300
Oct 21, 2024
3
SMITH, HARRY
RISE CAPITAL • FOUNDER
IndividualATLANTIC BEACH, NC
$3,300
Oct 31, 2024
4
CHEROKEE INDIANS, EASTERN BAND OF
INDIAN TRIBE • INDIAN TRIBE
IndividualCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024
5
TREFZGER, CHARLIE
ALG SENIOR • CEO
IndividualGRANITE FALLS, NC, NC
$3,300
Oct 23, 2024
6
SMITH, HARRY
RISE CAPITAL • FOUNDER
IndividualATLANTIC BEACH, NC
$3,300
Oct 31, 2024
7
KELLIGREW, JIM
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualCHARLOTTE, NC
$3,300
Nov 19, 2024
8
DUNN, MELANIE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualMORGANTON, NC
$3,300
Oct 31, 2024
9
WILSON, PETE
WILSON WALSH CONSULTING • ATTORNEY CONSULTANT
IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Oct 31, 2024
10
SCHILBERG, BERNARD
IMC • CEO
IndividualSOUTH WINDSOR, CT
$3,300
Oct 31, 2024

Rep. McCaul, Michael T. [R-TX-10]

ID: M001157

Top Contributors

22

1
SOUTH SPUR LP
OrganizationHOUSTON, TX
$3,300
Jan 31, 2024
2
TRACEY FOX KING & WALTERS
OrganizationHOUSTON, TX
$1,000
Feb 17, 2023
3
CHILDS, JOHN W.
JW CHILDS ASSOCIATES • OWNER
IndividualVERO BEACH, FL
$50,000
Dec 12, 2023
4
LANIER, BECKY MRS.
LANIER LAW FIRM • ATTORNEY
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$50,000
Mar 4, 2024
5
LANIER, MARK W.
LANIER LAW FIRM • ATTORNEY
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$50,000
Mar 4, 2024
6
CHILDS, JOHN W
IndividualVERO BEACH, FL
$38,400
Mar 15, 2024
7
CHILDS, JOHN W.
JW CHILDS ASSOCIATES • OWNER
IndividualVERO BEACH, FL
$38,400
May 7, 2024
8
CHILDS, JOHN W
IndividualVERO BEACH, FL
$33,400
Nov 14, 2024
9
CARLTON, C. CRAIG MR.
C.C. CARLTON INDUSTRIES • OWNER
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$25,000
Feb 13, 2024
10
LUROS, HILARY
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSUGAR LAND, TX
$25,000
Feb 27, 2024

Rep. Moore, Barry [R-AL-1]

ID: M001212

Top Contributors

45

1
WINRED TECHNICAL SERVICES
OrganizationARLINGTON, VA
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023
2
ENTERPRISE TARPAULIN PRODUCTS, INC.
OrganizationENTERPRISE, AL
$3,300
Aug 9, 2023
3
WINRED TECHNICAL SERVICES
OrganizationARLINGTON, VA
$3,300
Jul 16, 2023
4
WINRED TECHNICAL SERVICES
OrganizationARLINGTON, VA
$3,300
Jul 16, 2023
5
NORTH MONTGOMERY MATERIALS LLC
OrganizationMILLBROOK, AL
$3,300
Sep 11, 2023
6
PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, P.C.
OrganizationENTERPRISE, AL
$3,300
Aug 21, 2023
7
SOUTHLAND STRUCTURAL LLC
OrganizationFLORALA, AL
$3,300
Aug 22, 2023
8
WATSON GLASS
OrganizationENTERPRISE, AL
$3,300
Sep 13, 2023
9
WATSON GLASS
OrganizationENTERPRISE, AL
$3,300
Sep 13, 2023
10
ARGUTA RESOURCES, LLC
OrganizationEUFAULA, AL
$2,500
Aug 2, 2023

Rep. Salazar, Maria Elvira [R-FL-27]

ID: S000168

Top Contributors

23

1
POARCH BANK OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
May 26, 2023
2
POARCH BANK OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Jun 7, 2024
3
MICCOSUKEE TRIBE
OrganizationMIAMI, FL
$1,000
Dec 19, 2023
4
DIAZ-OLIVER, REMEDIOS MRS.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualMIAMI, FL
$6,600
Dec 29, 2023
5
FALIC, JANA
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualBAL HARBOUR, FL
$6,600
Dec 31, 2023
6
MENDOZA GOMEZ, ROSSY A.
ROSE CAFE • OWNER
IndividualCORAL GABLES, FL
$6,600
Dec 29, 2023
7
SILVERMAN, JEFFREY
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSURFSIDE, FL
$6,600
Oct 17, 2023
8
WEEKLEY, RICHARD
SELF-EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$6,600
Nov 7, 2023
9
BARQUET, ROY
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualMIAMI, FL
$6,600
Dec 6, 2023
10
PETERFFY, THOMAS
INTERACTIVE BROKERS GROUP • CHAIRMAN
IndividualPALM BEACH, FL
$6,600
Dec 27, 2023

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

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 45 nodes and 47 connections

Total contributions: $47

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

Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount

6 Orgs18 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • The bill aims to protect closed-source AI models from model extraction attacks by foreign entities, which benefits AI and cloud infrastructure providers (e.g., OpenAI, AWS, Azure, Google Cloud) by safeguarding their proprietary models and intellectual property. This is supported by Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5, which define closed-source AI models, mandate assessments of model extraction attacks, and establish deterrence measures including sanctions and entity list additions.

  • +Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.85

    Major technology companies (Meta, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple) own closed-source AI models that are protected under this bill. The legislation seeks to prevent foreign adversaries from extracting model capabilities, thereby protecting the IP and competitive advantage of these firms. This is grounded in Sections 2(1)-(2), 3(2), 3(13), and 5, which focus on safeguarding U.S.-owned closed-source AI models.

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.

Trade

Strong
Vector: 63%
Pages: 852-854AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 trade section focus on protecting U.S. technological intellectual property from foreign adversaries, particularly China, through government-private cooperation and national security measures."

Key themes:intellectual property protectionChina economic aggressionnational securitytechnology thefttrade policy

— 819 — Trade 14. Adam Behsudi, “Duffy Finds 18 Co-sponsors for Bill to Increase Trump’s Tariff Powers,” Politico, January 24, 2019, https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/24/duffy-finds-18-co-sponsors-for-bill-to-increase-trumps- trade-powers-2555509 (accessed February 26, 2023). 15. FTAs like NAFTA represent a carve-out from the WTO’s unconditional MFN rule and generally lead to tariffs that tend to be set at more reciprocal levels. 16. H.R.764, United States Reciprocal Trade Act, § 3(b)(1) and (b)(2). 17. Damian Paletta, “Speaker Ryan Admits Defeat, Giving up on Border Adjustment Tax,” The Washington Post, July 27, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/27/paul-ryan-admits-defeat-giving- up-on-border-adjustment-tax/ (accessed February 25, 2023). 18. This section draws on analyses in White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, How China’s Economic Aggression Threatens the Technologies and Intellectual Property of the United States and the World, June 2018, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/FINAL-China-Technology- Report-6.18.18-PDF.pdf (accessed February 25, 2023). 19. Bloomberg News, “Xi’s Vow of World Dominance by 2049 Sends Chill Through Markets,” October 26, 2022, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-26/xi-s-vow-of-world-dominance-by-2049-sends-chill- through-markets?leadSource=uverify%20wall (accessed February 25, 2023). 20. Executive Office of the President, United States Trade Representative, 2017 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, January 2018, https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/Press/Reports/China%202017%20 WTO%20Report.pdf (accessed February 25, 2023). 21. White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, How China’s Economic Aggression Threatens the Technologies and Intellectual Property of the United States and the World. 22. The National Medium- and Long-Term Program for Science and Technology Development Plan (2006–2020): An Outline, The State Council, The People’s Republic of China, p. [55], https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/ Cybersecurity/Documents/National_Strategies_Repository/China_2006.pdf (accessed March 21, 2023). 23. Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property, Update to the IP Commission Report: The Theft of American Intellectual Property: Reassessments of the Challenge and United States Policy, February 2017, pp. 2, 11, and 12, http://www.ipcommission.org/report/IP_Commission_Report_Update_2017.pdf (accessed February 25, 2023). 24. The laws, which have been put in place for national security purposes, have been promulgated under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), 22 U.S.C. Ch. 39, §§ 2751–2756, 2761–2781, 2785, and 2791–27999aa-2, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/chapter-39 (accessed February 25, 2023) and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. Ch. 35, §§ 1701–1708, https://www.law.cornell.edu/ uscode/text/50/chapter-35 (accessed February 25, 2023). 25. Ministry of Education, People’s Republic of China, “Statistics on Studying in China in 2018,” http://www.moe. gov.cn/was5/web/search?searchword=Statistics+on+Studying+in+China+in+2018&channelid=254028&page=1 (accessed March 21, 2023). 26. Michael Brown and Pavneet Singh, “China’s Technology Transfer Strategy: How Chinese Investments in Emerging Technology Enable a Strategic Competitor to Access the Crown Jewels of U.S. Innovation, Updated with 2016 and 2017 Data,” Defense Innovation Unit Experimental (DIUx), January 2018, https://admin.govexec. com/media/diux_chinatechnologytransferstudy_jan_2018_(1).pdf (accessed February 25, 2023). The DIUx describes itself as “the only DOD Organization focused on accelerating the adoption of commercial and dual- use technology to solve operational challenges at speed and scale.” Defense Innovation Unit Experimental, “About,” https://www.diu.mil/ (accessed February 25, 2023). 27. Brown and Singh, “China’s Technology Transfer Strategy: How Chinese Investments in Emerging Technology Enable a Strategic Competitor to Access the Crown Jewels of U.S. Innovation, Updated with 2016 and 2017 Data,” p. 18. 28. Ingrid Lunden, “Huawei Puts $1M into a New AI Research Partnership with UC Berkeley,” TechCrunch, October 11, 2016, https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/11/huawei-puts-1m-into-a-new-ai-research-partnership-with- ucberkeley/ (accessed February 25, 2023). 29. Press release, “President Trump Announces Strong Actions to Address China’s Unfair Trade,” Office of the United States Trade Representative, March 22, 2018, https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/ press-releases/2018/march/president-trump-announces-strong (accessed February 25, 2023).

Department of Commerce

Strong
Vector: 62%
Pages: 705-707AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 policy seek to protect U.S. technological advantages—particularly in AI—from adversarial acquisition, emphasizing tighter controls on transfers to countries of concern like China and Russia and enhancing government‑private sector cooperation to safeguard national security."

Key themes:AI technology protectionexport controlsChina/Russia concernsnational securitytechnology transfer prevention

— 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.

Intelligence Community

Strong
Vector: 62%
Pages: 257-259AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's focus on countering foreign adversaries in technology and finance, enhancing intelligence capabilities, and leveraging public-private cooperation to protect national security interests in emerging tech domains like AI."

Key themes:foreign adversariestechnology securitypublic-private cooperationintelligence modernizationeconomic competitiveness

— 224 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Enhanced metrics for accuracy of classification. l A general simplification of the overall system for the benefit of users. On the back end, an ODNI-run declassification process that is faster, nimbler, default-to-automated, and larger-scale should be a priority. Additionally, investments in IT are required to deal with the growing volumes of CNSI collected and produced in the digital age, along with many years’ worth of existing analog and digital holdings that could provide valuable historical insights. An incoming Administration needs to explore options to prioritize funding for innovation in declassification management: for example, by establishing a budget line item specifically for the modernization of declassification or designating fund- ing for program classification management as a special-interest item. The Administration will also need to transition to using technology, including tools and services for managing Big Data (which provide a robust electronic record repository, making information within and across agencies easier to organize and locate and facilitating more rapid review and release capabilities for records of emerging interest); artificial intelligence/machine learning (which, when incor- porated into existing business practices, enables machine interpretation of unstructured text and data, applies decision support technology to enable more consistent classification decisions, and expedites reviews between agencies); and expansion of Commercial Cloud services (which facilitate the rapid testing and deployment of new tools and technologies). However, technology is not a panacea; human expertise in information holdings and routine validation of the technology will always be necessary. With or with- out machine assistance, agencies will require more people and more varied skill sets to improve their ability to meet the electronic records era’s classification and declassification demands and serve an incoming Administration’s goals. Broader U.S. Government and IC Intelligence Needs. Increasingly, con- flicts among U.S. adversaries such as China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are conducted in the realms of technology and finance.40 This challenge requires new tools, authorities, and technological expertise across the U.S. government, par- ticularly at the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which is housed at the Treasury Department. An incoming conservative President should task his DNI and Secretary of Commerce with increasing coordination, the resources needed for BIS and SCIF capacity, and proper and necessary intelligence sharing to counter the activities of multifaceted adversaries such as China. This would include additional work with private-sector expertise, granting clearances to niche sector experts and United States citizen commercial and financial partners as needed. — 225 — Intelligence Community Cover in the Digital Age. Even in the public domain, it is becoming increas- ingly clear that protecting the identities of undercover intelligence officers is difficult in the digital age.41 The truth is that as our daily activities are conducted predominantly in the digital domain, our antiquated system for providing cover to undercover officers has lagged woefully behind the threat from foreign adversaries. The DIA, CIA, and FBI are increasingly aware of this threat and are devoting resources to the problem. Their back-office infrastructure, however, is such that they are still using methods for providing cover from decades past that put valuable intelligence officers at unnecessary risk. How intelligence officers and their fami- lies are taught to use smartphones and social media, travel, conduct banking, and take and share pictures—even how and when they are paid—can make it difficult to protect identities.42 Legends, fake backstories, and identities are often weak, incomplete, and unable to stand up to a basic Google search.43 Officers operat- ing under nonofficial cover are offered even less protection and training to help them succeed. In addition, ubiquitous technical surveillance (UTS) techniques being refined by technologies emanating from the regimes in China and Russia will continue to be highly challenging for intelligence officers. An incoming Administration will need to double down on resourcing and training so that members of the IC will have the expertise they need to operate clandestinely (and successfully) against hard targets. Privacy Shield. For many years, the European Union (EU) has tried to force U.S. companies operating in Europe to follow its data privacy regulations. Misleading claims in the 2013 Snowden leaks destroyed the initial Safe Harbor Framework44 that allowed American companies to transfer data across the Atlantic; its succes- sor, the Privacy Shield Framework,45 was struck down by European courts on the grounds that it provides insufficient protections for EU citizens against hypothet- ical U.S. government surveillance. Those same European courts exempted the intelligence services of EU member states from the standards applied to the U.S., suggesting that trade protectionism may be the real motive behind data privacy regulations. In 2022, the Biden Administration negotiated a new agreement, the Trans-At- lantic Data Privacy Framework,46 intended to withstand European legal challenges. Given the fate of its predecessors, it is not certain that it will survive. Executive Order 14086, “Enhancing Safeguards for United States Signals Intelligence Activi- ties,”47 implements this new framework by attempting to align signals intelligence collection practices with European privacy regulations. At most, the executive order’s changes will be helpful support for the framework in future European litigation; at worst, they could throw sand in the gears of important intelli- gence programs. An incoming conservative President should reset Europe’s expectations. Brus- sels has always arbitraged the difference between being a military ally against, for

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