Secure Our Ports Act of 2025
- Bill Number
- H.R. 252
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Transportation and Public Works
- Status
- Passed House
- Latest Action
- 2025-06-10: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
- Last Updated
- 2026-07-11T02:53:22Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The Secure Our Ports Act of 2025 aims to enhance national security by restricting foreign involvement in the ownership, leasing, or operation of U.S. port facilities. It prevents contracts with entities linked to countries considered security risks, focusing on protecting critical maritime infrastructure from potential threats.
Key Provisions
- Prohibition on Contracts: Owners or operators of port facilities that require a security plan (under existing maritime security laws) cannot enter into agreements for ownership, leasing, or operation with:
- State-owned enterprises from China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran.
- Any foreign entity that is partially owned (even a small percentage) by one of these countries.
- Definitions:
- "Facility" refers to ports or terminals handling cargo, passengers, or vessels.
- "Owner or operator" means the person or company in charge of the facility's day-to-day management or legal control.
- Legislative Addition: The act adds a new section (70015) to title 46 of the U.S. Code, which governs shipping and maritime security, and updates the chapter's table of contents.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- This introduces a new explicit ban in subchapter II of chapter 700 of title 46, U.S. Code, building on the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (which requires security plans for ports but does not specifically prohibit contracts with these nations).
- It expands restrictions beyond current general foreign investment reviews (e.g., under the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS) by targeting port-specific contracts directly through maritime law.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The U.S. Coast Guard (responsible for port security enforcement) may face increased oversight duties, including reviewing contracts and investigating violations, potentially straining resources.
- On Citizens and Businesses: U.S. port operators and shipping companies could see limited partnership options, possibly raising operational costs or disrupting supply chains; citizens might experience indirect effects through higher shipping fees or delays in goods imports.
- On International Relations: The law could strain ties with China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran by signaling distrust, potentially leading to retaliatory trade measures or diplomatic tensions, while strengthening alliances with U.S. partners in global shipping.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Port Owners and Operators: U.S.-based companies managing facilities subject to security plans, who must now vet foreign partners more rigorously.
- Foreign Entities: State-owned firms and partially owned businesses from the listed countries, which are barred from U.S. port contracts.
- Shipping and Trade Industry: Importers, exporters, and logistics firms reliant on efficient port access, facing potential disruptions.
- U.S. Government: Agencies like the Coast Guard and Department of Homeland Security, tasked with implementation and enforcement.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Enforces national security through contract prohibitions, with potential penalties (e.g., fines or contract invalidation) under broader maritime laws; it may lead to court challenges over contract enforcement or discrimination claims.
- Constitutional: Relies on Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, including ports as critical infrastructure, without directly infringing on free trade rights.
- Political: Highlights bipartisan concerns over foreign influence in infrastructure, potentially influencing future security legislation, but risks accusations of protectionism or escalating geopolitical rivalries with the named nations.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (2)
Rep. Gimenez, Carlos A. [R-FL-28], Rep. Garamendi, John [D-CA-8]
Recent Actions
- 2025-06-10: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
- 2025-06-09: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- 2025-06-09: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2556)
- 2025-06-09: Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2556)
- 2025-06-09: DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 252.
- 2025-06-09: Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2556-2557)
- 2025-06-09: Mr. Ezell moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
- 2025-06-06: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 117.
- 2025-06-06: Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 119-148.
- 2025-06-06: Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 119-148.
- 2025-04-02: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
- 2025-04-02: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- 2025-04-02: Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Discharged
- 2025-01-10: Referred to the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
- 2025-01-09: Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Bill Versions
- Secure Our Ports Act of 2025 — issued 2025-06-09 — PDF (4 pages)
- Secure Our Ports Act of 2025 — issued 2025-01-09 — PDF (2 pages)
- Secure Our Ports Act of 2025 — issued 2025-06-10 — PDF (3 pages)
- Secure Our Ports Act of 2025 — issued 2025-06-06 — PDF (6 pages)