HR-6581-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Barry Moore (R-AL)
What it does
This bill would amend the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to prohibit foreign governments designated as "foreign adversaries" by the Secretary of Commerce — and any nationals or entities incorporated in those countries — from submitting public comments during federal agency rulemaking or petitioning federal agencies. The designation of foreign adversaries is determined under an existing Commerce Department regulation (15 C.F.R. § 791.4(a)), which currently lists countries including China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela.
Who benefits
U.S. domestic businesses and industry groups that compete with foreign adversary-linked entities and would no longer share the public comment process with them. Federal agencies that may find it easier to filter out foreign-influenced comments. U.S. citizens and advocacy groups whose voices would carry relatively more weight in rulemaking. National security-focused policymakers seeking to limit foreign influence in domestic regulatory processes. Domestic manufacturers and technology companies concerned about foreign adversary access to pre-decisional regulatory information.
Who is hurt
Nationals of designated foreign adversary countries — including lawful permanent residents, visa holders, students, and researchers living in the U.S. — who would lose the ability to participate in federal rulemaking. U.S. subsidiaries or joint ventures with ownership ties to entities incorporated in designated countries could face eligibility questions. Academic institutions and think tanks that collaborate with researchers from designated countries may lose some voices in regulatory proceedings. Multinational companies with operations in designated countries could face uncertainty about their eligibility. Agencies may face increased administrative burden verifying commenter eligibility.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the federal rulemaking process was designed for input from the American public and U.S. stakeholders, not foreign governments or their nationals — particularly those from countries the U.S. government has formally identified as adversaries. They contend that allowing China, Russia, Iran, and other designated adversaries to shape U.S. regulations through public comment creates a national security vulnerability, potentially enabling foreign influence over rules governing critical infrastructure, technology, and trade. They further argue the bill uses an already-established, legally defined list of foreign adversaries, providing a clear and administrable standard rather than creating new bureaucratic discretion.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill would bar broad categories of people — including lawful U.S. residents, students, and researchers from designated countries — from a foundational democratic process, raising serious First Amendment and due process concerns. They contend the bill's reliance on national origin and country of incorporation as the sole eligibility criteria is both over-inclusive (excluding harmless commenters) and under-inclusive (missing foreign-influenced U.S. entities), making it a blunt instrument that may not meaningfully reduce foreign influence. Critics also argue that agencies benefit from technically expert comments regardless of their origin, and that excluding foreign nationals could impoverish rulemaking on complex scientific, environmental, or trade regulations where global expertise is relevant.
Constitutional context
The First Amendment's petition clause protects the right to petition the government, but courts have generally held that non-citizens outside the U.S. have limited constitutional protections, while lawful residents inside the U.S. retain broader rights. The bill's exclusion of nationals physically present in the U.S. could face Fifth Amendment Due Process challenges. The Nondelegation Clause is also relevant, as the bill ties eligibility to a Commerce Department regulatory designation (15 C.F.R. § 791.4(a)), raising questions about whether Congress is delegating the scope of a statutory right to executive branch rulemaking — a question courts may scrutinize more closely post-Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024).
Checks and balances
The executive branch (Secretary of Commerce) gains indirect influence over who may participate in rulemaking, since the foreign adversary designation list that determines eligibility is set by executive regulation rather than statute; Congress retains authority to modify the APA or the designation criteria, and courts could review eligibility determinations and the constitutionality of the exclusion.
Historical precedent
No directly analogous federal statute has previously restricted participation in APA notice-and-comment rulemaking based on foreign adversary status; however, the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and lobbying disclosure laws impose transparency requirements on foreign-influenced advocacy without outright exclusion.