Military Installation Retail Security Act of 2025

Bill Number

H.R. 2551

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Armed Forces and National Security

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-04-01: Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.

Last Updated

2025-06-06T14:17:56Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The Military Installation Retail Security Act of 2025 aims to protect national security by restricting long-term business agreements (concessions) on U.S. military bases with retailers that are controlled by certain foreign countries considered potential threats, known as "covered nations" (e.g., nations like China or Russia, as defined in existing law under 10 U.S.C. § 4872). It ensures that such retailers cannot operate physical stores or businesses on these bases unless they meet strict review and approval processes.

Key Provisions

• Prohibition on New or Renewed Agreements: The Secretary of Defense cannot renew, extend, or enter into long-term concessions agreements (contracts, leases, or licenses for operating businesses on bases) with retailers controlled by a covered nation. "Controlled" means the retailer is organized under that nation's laws, at least 20% owned by it, or directly influenced by it. This applies to agreements starting after the law's enactment.
• Waiver Option: The Secretary can waive the prohibition if the retailer's goods or services are essential for the well-being and morale of military members (e.g., no other options available) and security risks are adequately addressed. A report justifying the waiver and detailing risk mitigation must be sent to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees within 30 days.
• Termination for Misrepresentation: Agreements can be ended if a retailer lied about its ownership or control to win the contract.
• Review Process for Existing Retailers (Covered Retailers): Retailers with pre-enactment agreements must notify the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS, a government panel that reviews foreign investments for security risks) within 30 days of the law's enactment, disclosing any ties to covered nations. CFIUS investigates national security impacts and must approve or disapprove within 180 days. Approved retailers must submit annual updates on ownership changes; failure leads to immediate termination.
• Secretary of Defense Assessment: Within 180 days of enactment, the Secretary must review all existing long-term agreements with covered retailers for ties to covered nations. If control by a covered nation is found, the agreement must be terminated within 30 days (or up to one year in some cases per the bill text).
• Definitions:
• Covered Military Installation: Any U.S.-based military base or facility.
• Long-Term Concessions Agreement: Any deal allowing business operations on a base, including through nonappropriated fund instrumentalities (base-funded entities like exchanges).
• Retailer: Businesses or base entities operating stores or services on bases.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

This bill adds a new section (10 U.S.C. § 4664) to Chapter 363 of Title 10, United States Code, which previously had no specific rules on foreign control of retail concessions on military bases. It introduces mandatory CFIUS reviews, prohibitions based on foreign ownership thresholds, waiver requirements with congressional reporting, and automatic termination triggers—none of which existed before. It builds on but expands existing foreign investment review laws by targeting military base operations specifically.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: The Department of Defense (DoD) will face increased administrative burdens, including reviews, terminations, and coordination with CFIUS, potentially straining resources. Base nonappropriated fund entities (like post exchanges) may need to find new vendors, disrupting operations.
• On Citizens (Military Personnel and Families): Service members and their families could lose access to certain retail options on bases if agreements are terminated without quick alternatives, affecting convenience for essentials like groceries or clothing. Waivers aim to preserve vital services, but gaps might temporarily impact morale and daily life.
• On International Relations: Could heighten tensions with covered nations by signaling U.S. distrust of their businesses, potentially leading to reciprocal restrictions on American firms abroad or broader trade disputes. It reinforces U.S. efforts to limit foreign influence in sensitive military areas.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Department of Defense and Military Departments: Responsible for implementing reviews, terminations, and waivers; directly manages base concessions.
• Military Personnel and Dependents: Users of base retail services, potentially facing changes in availability of goods.
• Retailers on Bases: Especially those with foreign ties; existing operators must comply with disclosures or risk losing contracts, while U.S.-based ones may gain opportunities.
• Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS): Gains new review responsibilities for base-related notices.
• Congress (Armed Services Committees): Receives reports on waivers and terminations, providing oversight.
• Covered Nations and Their Businesses: Face barriers to operating on U.S. bases, limiting market access.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: Strengthens national security screening under existing frameworks like CFIUS but applies it uniquely to military bases (federal property), potentially raising contract law issues for terminations without compensation (though military contracts often include security clauses). The 20% ownership threshold aligns with investment review standards but could invite challenges over "control" definitions.
• Constitutional: Operates within Congress's authority over military affairs (Article I, Section 8), but abrupt terminations might prompt due process claims from affected retailers under the Fifth Amendment; however, as government contracts on secure sites, courts typically defer to security needs.
• Political: Reflects bipartisan concerns over foreign adversaries' influence in the U.S. military sphere, amid rising geopolitical tensions. It could set precedents for broader restrictions on foreign entities in defense-related sectors, influencing future legislation on supply chains or investments, without overt partisan framing in the bill text.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

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

Cosponsors (21)

Rep. Gill, Brandon [R-TX-26], Rep. Knott, Brad [R-NC-13], Rep. Ogles, Andrew [R-TN-5], Rep. Evans, Gabe [R-CO-8], Rep. Cline, Ben [R-VA-6], Rep. Tenney, Claudia [R-NY-24], Rep. Gooden, Lance [R-TX-5], Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX-36], Rep. Green, Mark E. [R-TN-7], Rep. Barrett, Tom [R-MI-7], Rep. Hamadeh, Abraham [R-AZ-8], Rep. Biggs, Sheri [R-SC-3], Rep. Moore, Riley [R-WV-2], Rep. Stefanik, Elise M. [R-NY-21], Rep. Wied, Tony [R-WI-8], Rep. Van Drew, Jefferson [R-NJ-2], Rep. Van Orden, Derrick [R-WI-3], Rep. Stauber, Pete [R-MN-8], Rep. McGuire, John J. [R-VA-5], Rep. Hinson, Ashley [R-IA-2], Rep. Wilson, Joe [R-SC-2]

Recent Actions

• 2025-04-01: Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
• 2025-04-01: Introduced in House
• 2025-04-01: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Military Installation Retail Security Act of 2025 — issued 2025-04-01 — PDF (9 pages)