HR-2715-119
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Sponsored by Clay Higgins (R-LA)
What it does
This bill would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to order the destruction of imported articles that have already been refused entry into the U.S. and are found to present a "significant public health concern." Currently, refused imports can be exported back to their country of origin; this bill would remove that option when a public health concern is found. The owner or consignee of the article would be responsible for carrying out and paying for the destruction within 90 days. The bill also requires HHS to establish due process regulations — including notice and a hearing opportunity — before any destruction order takes effect, and makes unauthorized movement of a destruction-ordered article a prohibited act under federal law.
Who benefits
U.S. consumers who could be protected from hazardous imported food, drugs, cosmetics, or medical devices re-entering the market through third countries. Domestic manufacturers of competing products who would no longer face competition from hazardous imports that might otherwise be re-exported and re-enter through other channels. U.S. public health agencies that would gain a stronger enforcement tool. Retailers and distributors who could face liability from hazardous products in the supply chain.
Who is hurt
Foreign exporters and importers whose goods are refused entry and ordered destroyed, bearing the full financial cost of destruction with no option to recover value through re-export. U.S.-based importers and consignees who could face significant financial losses if goods are destroyed rather than returned. Small importers with fewer resources to absorb destruction costs or mount a legal challenge. Trading partners whose goods are subject to destruction orders may face diplomatic or trade friction. Businesses that rely on re-exporting refused goods to recoup partial losses.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that allowing refused hazardous imports to be re-exported creates a loophole where dangerous goods — such as adulterated drugs or contaminated food — can re-enter the U.S. through third countries or continue to harm consumers elsewhere. They contend that the existing export option undermines the purpose of import refusal and that the bill's built-in due process protections, including notice and a hearing, ensure that destruction orders are not issued arbitrarily. They point to documented cases of refused FDA imports being re-exported and later re-appearing in U.S. supply chains as evidence that the current system has real enforcement gaps.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill grants the executive branch broad, discretionary authority to destroy private property based on the undefined standard of "significant public health concern," without sufficient statutory guardrails to prevent overreach. They contend that the financial burden placed entirely on owners and consignees — who may have had no knowledge of a defect — is disproportionate and could expose the government to takings claims under the Fifth Amendment. They further argue that the 18-to-30-month regulatory timeline before the law takes effect leaves a prolonged gap in clarity, and that the bill's vague key term could invite inconsistent or politically motivated enforcement.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to regulate imported goods flows from the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) and the Taxing and Spending Clause. The bill delegates significant discretionary authority to HHS/FDA to define "significant public health concern" through rulemaking; post-Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), courts will independently review whether that delegation and any resulting regulations stay within the bounds of the statutory text, without deferring to the agency's own interpretation. The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause may also be relevant, as the bill mandates destruction of private property at the owner's expense.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (HHS/FDA) gains new authority to order destruction of private property; checks include a mandatory notice-and-hearing due process requirement, a rulemaking process open to public comment, judicial review of destruction orders, and Congress's ongoing oversight authority.
Historical precedent
The FDA has long held authority to refuse admission of imported articles under Section 801 of the FDCA, but the specific power to mandate destruction — rather than re-export — of refused imports is a new extension of that existing framework.