Stop Stealing our Chips Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 6322
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Foreign Trade and International Finance
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2026-04-22: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 43 - 1.
- Last Updated
- 2026-04-28T08:05:50Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
The "Stop Stealing our Chips Act" (H.R. 6322) aims to strengthen U.S. export control enforcement by encouraging individuals to report violations, particularly the illegal export or diversion of advanced technologies like artificial intelligence chips to U.S. adversaries. It does this by creating financial incentives for whistleblowers and legal protections against retaliation, helping to protect national security.
Key Provisions
- Whistleblower Definitions:
- Original information refers to firsthand, voluntary details about potential violations that are not already known to the government and not solely from public sources.
- Whistleblower includes any individual (even non-U.S. citizens) who reports such information, but excludes federal employees acting in their official roles or people on certain government sanction lists (e.g., blocked persons or denied export privileges).
- Related action means any follow-up legal or administrative case stemming from the whistleblower's tip that leads to successful enforcement.
- Whistleblower Incentive Program:
- The Secretary of Commerce must establish the program within 120 days of enactment, rewarding whistleblowers whose tips lead to fines over $1 million or property forfeitures.
- A secure online portal will be created for anonymous or attorney-submitted reports, with expedited review (initial credibility check within 60 days) and status updates to reporters.
- Awards range from 10% to 30% of collected fines (split if multiple whistleblowers), based on factors like accuracy and timeliness; disqualifications apply if information was obtained illegally or through certain internal roles (with exceptions for urgent cases).
- Public outreach plan required to promote the program.
- Protections for Whistleblowers:
- Employers cannot retaliate (e.g., fire, demote, or harass) against whistleblowers for reporting violations internally, to the government, or in investigations.
- Whistleblowers can sue in federal court for violations, with a statute of limitations of up to 10 years; successful cases provide remedies like job reinstatement, double back pay, and legal fees.
- Strict confidentiality rules protect whistleblower identities, with limited sharing allowed for enforcement (e.g., with law enforcement or foreign authorities under safeguards).
- Export Compliance Accountability Fund:
- A new fund in the U.S. Treasury will collect fines from whistleblower-led cases to pay awards, cover program costs (e.g., investigations, training, portal maintenance), and support broader export enforcement if awards are settled.
- Excess funds transfer to the general Treasury annually, maintaining a minimum balance for pending awards.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
This bill amends the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 by adding a new section (1761A), introducing the first dedicated whistleblower program for export controls. Previously, there were no specific incentives or anti-retaliation protections tailored to export violations, unlike programs for securities or tax issues. It also creates a dedicated fund for enforcement, separate from general appropriations, and ensures no impact on existing victim compensation funds.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The Department of Commerce (via its Bureau of Industry and Security) will gain tools for faster detection and investigation of export violations, potentially increasing enforcement efficiency and reducing reliance on internal audits. It may require new resources for portal management and training.
- On Citizens: Encourages employees in export-related industries to report issues without fear, promoting self-policing by companies and potentially preventing violations. Whistleblowers could receive significant financial rewards, but frivolous reporters may face restrictions.
- On International Relations: By targeting diversions to adversaries, it bolsters U.S. national security efforts, such as curbing technology transfers that could aid foreign military advancements. This may strain relations with countries involved in violations but strengthen alliances through better control of sensitive exports.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Whistleblowers: Individuals in private companies, supply chains, or related fields who report violations, gaining incentives and protections.
- Exporting Companies and Industries: Tech firms (especially AI and semiconductor sectors) face heightened scrutiny, encouraging better compliance but risking internal disruptions from reports.
- U.S. Government Entities: Primarily the Department of Commerce and Bureau of Industry and Security for program administration; also law enforcement agencies benefiting from shared information.
- Adversaries and Sanctioned Entities: Indirectly affected through increased barriers to obtaining restricted U.S. technologies.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Establishes new civil remedies for retaliation (e.g., court actions with specific timelines and relief), expanding whistleblower rights beyond general labor laws. Confidentiality provisions align with privacy statutes like the Privacy Act but create exemptions for enforcement, potentially influencing how evidence is shared in court.
- Constitutional: Supports First Amendment protections by safeguarding communications about potential illegal activities, without compelling speech. No direct challenges noted, but anti-retaliation rules could intersect with employment rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
- Political: Emphasizes national security priorities in technology exports, signaling bipartisan concern over adversarial threats (e.g., to China). It promotes voluntary reporting over stricter regulations, balancing enforcement with industry incentives, but may spark debates on fund allocation or overreach in global trade monitoring.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (12)
Rep. Johnson, Julie [D-TX-32], Rep. Krishnamoorthi, Raja [D-IL-8], Rep. Moolenaar, John R. [R-MI-2], Rep. McClain, Lisa C. [R-MI-9], Rep. Harder, Josh [D-CA-9], Rep. Matsui, Doris O. [D-CA-7], Rep. Moran, Nathaniel [R-TX-1], Rep. McDonald Rivet, Kristen [D-MI-8], Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17], Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5], Rep. Crawford, Eric A. "Rick" [R-AR-1], Rep. LaHood, Darin [R-IL-16]
Recent Actions
- 2026-04-22: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 43 - 1.
- 2026-04-22: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- 2025-11-28: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
- 2025-11-28: Introduced in House
- 2025-11-28: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Stop Stealing our Chips Act — issued 2025-11-28 — PDF (20 pages)