Safeguarding U.S. Rulemaking Act
- Bill Number
- S. 3416
- Origin Chamber
- Senate
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Government Operations and Politics
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-12-10: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
- Last Updated
- 2026-01-07T23:13:50Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The Safeguarding U.S. Rulemaking Act aims to protect the U.S. federal rulemaking process by excluding foreign governments designated as adversaries, along with their nationals and incorporated entities, from submitting public comments or petitions. This is intended to safeguard domestic regulatory decisions from potential foreign influence.
Key Provisions
- Amendment to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA): The bill modifies Section 553 of Title 5, U.S. Code, which governs how federal agencies create and issue regulations (known as rulemaking).
- It adds exceptions to the standard requirements for accepting public comments (subsection (c)) and petitions for rulemaking (subsection (e)), limiting these to cases not involving foreign adversaries.
- Definition of Ineligible Parties (New Subsection (f)):
- A "foreign adversary" is determined by the Secretary of Commerce under existing regulations (15 CFR 791.4(a)), which typically include nations posing national security risks, such as certain governments involved in trade or technology threats.
- Ineligible participants include:
- The foreign adversary government itself.
- Nationals (citizens) of that government.
- Entities incorporated in that government.
- These parties cannot submit comments during the public notice-and-comment period or petition agencies to start or change rulemaking.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Prior Law: Under the current APA, federal agencies must allow public participation in rulemaking, including comments from anyone affected, without nationality-based restrictions. Petitions to initiate rulemaking are also broadly open.
- New Changes: Introduces a nationality-based exclusion for foreign adversaries, creating the first explicit bar on participation by specific foreign entities in the APA process. This narrows access while preserving participation for U.S. citizens, residents, and non-adversary foreign parties.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Federal agencies (e.g., those in the executive branch like the Environmental Protection Agency or Department of Commerce) will need to verify commenter identities and exclude submissions from ineligible foreign adversaries, potentially adding administrative burdens like screening tools or legal reviews. This could streamline processes by reducing foreign-influenced input but may complicate enforcement.
- On Citizens: U.S. citizens and domestic entities remain unaffected and can fully participate, potentially giving their voices more weight in regulatory decisions.
- On International Relations: Could strain ties with designated adversary nations (e.g., by signaling distrust), possibly leading to reciprocal restrictions on U.S. participation in their processes. It may enhance U.S. national security in sensitive areas like trade or technology regulations but risks diplomatic backlash.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- U.S. Federal Agencies: Primary implementers, responsible for enforcing the exclusions in rulemaking.
- U.S. Citizens and Domestic Entities: Beneficiaries, as their input is prioritized without competition from excluded foreign parties.
- Foreign Adversary Governments, Nationals, and Entities: Directly restricted, losing the ability to influence U.S. regulations through public comments or petitions (e.g., companies or individuals from designated countries like China or Russia, based on Commerce Department lists).
- Non-Adversary Foreign Parties: Unaffected and can continue participating.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal Implications: The change could face challenges under administrative law for potentially overbroad exclusions, requiring agencies to define and apply "nationals" or "incorporated entities" clearly to avoid arbitrary enforcement. It aligns with existing national security tools but may need court clarification on due process in screening comments.
- Constitutional Implications: Primarily affects non-U.S. persons, so it avoids direct First Amendment (free speech) issues for Americans. However, if applied to dual nationals or U.S.-based foreign entities, it might raise equal protection concerns under the Fifth Amendment.
- Political Implications: Reflects a bipartisan emphasis on countering foreign influence (sponsored by Senators Lummis, Ricketts, Grassley, and Sheehy), potentially advancing national security agendas in Congress. It could set a precedent for broader restrictions on foreign involvement in U.S. governance, influencing future legislation on trade, tech, or espionage.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Sen. Lummis, Cynthia M. [R-WY]
Cosponsors (4)
Sen. Ricketts, Pete [R-NE], Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA], Sen. Sheehy, Tim [R-MT], Sen. Moody, Ashley [R-FL]
Recent Actions
- 2025-12-10: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
- 2025-12-10: Introduced in Senate
Bill Versions
- Safeguarding U.S. Rulemaking Act — issued 2025-12-10 — PDF (2 pages)