ANTE Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 3575
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Foreign Trade and International Finance
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-05-23: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
- Last Updated
- 2025-12-05T22:54:39Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
The Axing Nonmarket Tariff Evasion Act (ANTE Act), H.R. 3575, aims to strengthen U.S. trade enforcement by authorizing the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to investigate and impose penalties on entities from "nonmarket economy countries" (countries where government heavily influences prices and production, like certain nations on trade watch lists) that try to dodge import duties. These duties are typically imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to counter unfair trade practices. The bill targets evasion tactics, such as shifting production to third countries to avoid U.S. tariffs.
Key Provisions
- Inquiry Process: The USTR can start an investigation (called an "inquiry") to check if a "covered entity" (an entity owned, controlled, or significantly influenced— at least 25% equity—by a nonmarket economy country) is setting up, planning, or has set up investments in a third country to bypass Section 301 duties. Inquiries can be self-initiated by the USTR, requested by interested parties (e.g., U.S. businesses or workers affected by imports), or by Congress.
- Initiation and Timelines:
- Within 45 days of a request, the USTR decides if an inquiry is needed based on a "reasonable indication" of evasion.
- Federal agencies must provide relevant information to the USTR upon request.
- Within 180 days of starting an inquiry, the USTR must determine if evasion is occurring (i.e., the entity is establishing or has established production of duty-subject goods in the third country).
- Remedial Measures: If evasion is confirmed, the USTR (under presidential direction if specified) can impose duties or other penalties on goods produced in the third country by the covered entity. These duties must be at least equal to the original Section 301 duty on the product from the nonmarket economy country. Measures can apply:
- Immediately if production has started.
- Prospectively (in advance) if production is planned.
- Additional Measures: Beyond basic remedies, the USTR can impose broader unilateral actions against the covered entity or its third-country goods, again under presidential direction. If no measures are imposed, the USTR must report to Congress with reasons, including social and economic effects. Measures last as long as the original Section 301 duties or until the nonmarket economy loses control of the investment, whichever ends first.
- Definitions:
- Covered Entity: Broadly includes entities under the control or significant ownership of a nonmarket economy country, including through joint ventures, derivatives, or contracts.
- Nonmarket Economy Country: A country designated as such under U.S. trade law (e.g., for antidumping calculations) and on the U.S. Trade Representative's "Priority Watch List" for intellectual property issues.
- Control: Defined by existing federal regulations on foreign investments.
The bill also makes a clerical update to the Trade Act's table of contents.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
This legislation adds a new Section 311 to Title III of the Trade Act of 1974 (which deals with trade dispute remedies). Previously, Section 301 allowed duties on unfair trade but lacked specific tools to address evasion via third-country investments by nonmarket economy entities. The new section introduces proactive inquiries, mandatory timelines, and authority for equivalent or broader penalties, expanding USTR's enforcement powers beyond direct imports from the targeted country.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Empowers the USTR with new investigative and penalty tools, requiring coordination with other federal agencies (e.g., Commerce Department) for data sharing. Increases workload for monitoring global investments but streamlines responses to evasion complaints.
- On Citizens and Businesses: U.S. industries facing unfair competition (e.g., manufacturing sectors hit by cheap imports) may benefit from better protection of jobs and markets. However, higher duties on third-country goods could raise costs for U.S. consumers and importers reliant on global supply chains.
- On International Relations: Could heighten trade tensions with nonmarket economy countries (e.g., China, often on watch lists) by targeting their overseas investments, potentially leading to retaliatory measures or disputes at the World Trade Organization. It signals stronger U.S. commitment to countering economic influence from such nations but might strain relations with third countries hosting these investments.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- U.S. Government Entities: USTR (leads enforcement), Congress (can request inquiries and receives reports), and federal agencies (provide support data).
- U.S. Businesses and Workers: "Interested persons" like domestic industries petitioning for protection from dumped or subsidized imports.
- Foreign Entities: Covered entities from nonmarket economy countries and their third-country operations, facing potential duties and investment restrictions.
- Third Countries and Global Trade Partners: Nations receiving investments from nonmarket economies, which could see U.S. penalties disrupt local production and exports.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Enhances executive branch authority in trade policy without needing new congressional approval for each action, but ties major decisions to presidential oversight. Aligns with existing Section 301 by extending its reach, potentially reducing legal challenges to evasion schemes under current law. Definitions of "control" and "covered entity" are broad, which could invite litigation over ownership thresholds or jurisdiction.
- Constitutional: Relies on Congress's commerce clause powers to regulate foreign trade; no direct challenges noted, but expansive USTR discretion might raise separation-of-powers concerns if seen as overly delegating to the executive.
- Political: Positions the U.S. as tougher on trade imbalances with nonmarket economies, appealing to protectionist sentiments in Congress and among voters in import-impacted regions. Could influence bipartisan support for trade enforcement but risks escalating geopolitical rivalries, especially if applied to major economies on the watch list.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Arrington, Jodey C. [R-TX-19]
Cosponsors (5)
Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1], Rep. Van Duyne, Beth [R-TX-24], Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17], Rep. Biggs, Sheri [R-SC-3], Rep. Moolenaar, John R. [R-MI-2]
Recent Actions
- 2025-05-23: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
- 2025-05-23: Introduced in House
- 2025-05-23: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Axing Nonmarket Tariff Evasion Act — issued 2025-05-23 — PDF (8 pages)