HR-9892-119
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Sponsored by Craig Goldman (R-TX)
What it does
This bill would require the U.S. Trade Representative to open a Section 301 investigation within 30 days into whether certain European Union laws—covering corporate sustainability due diligence, sustainability reporting, deforestation-related imports, and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism—unfairly burden U.S. companies. The USTR would have 12 months (plus a possible 60-day extension) to determine whether to take retaliatory trade action, such as tariffs or suspending trade benefits, and must report findings to Congress throughout the process.
Who benefits
Large U.S.-based multinational companies with EU operations or supply chains that currently face compliance costs from EU sustainability reporting, due diligence, and carbon border rules, particularly in energy, manufacturing, and agriculture sectors. Trade associations representing these industries and members of Congress representing affected industrial states would also see their concerns formally investigated.
Who is hurt
U.S. exporters and companies that could face EU retaliatory tariffs if the U.S. imposes duties on EU goods, as well as U.S. importers and consumers who may pay higher prices on EU products if tariffs result. Companies in industries linked to deforestation-risk commodities or high emissions that have already invested in EU compliance systems could see disrupted business relationships if the dispute escalates.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that EU rules like the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive impose compliance costs and legal liability on U.S. companies for conduct occurring entirely outside the EU, conflicting with U.S. corporate law and creating an uneven playing field. They contend that other trading partners including Australia, Brazil, and India share these concerns, and that Section 301—used previously against unfair foreign trade practices—is the appropriate tool to press the EU to honor its 2025 commitment to limit extraterritorial reach.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that mandating a Section 301 investigation by statute, rather than leaving it to executive discretion, could inject Congress into sensitive ongoing trade diplomacy and risk a tit-for-tat tariff escalation with one of the largest U.S. trading partners. They contend that U.S. companies choosing to sell into the EU market can already adapt to EU rules as a cost of market access, similar to how EU companies must comply with U.S. regulations, and that retaliatory tariffs could raise costs for American consumers and exporters facing EU counter-retaliation.
Constitutional context
Congress holds authority under the Foreign Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) to regulate trade with foreign nations, and this bill exercises that power by directing the executive branch's use of an existing statutory tool, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, rather than creating new independent authority. Because it directs a subordinate executive process without displacing the President's own trade negotiation authority (which Section 5 expressly preserves), it does not implicate the recognition or treaty-making disputes seen in cases like Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015).
Checks and balances
Congress directs the executive branch (USTR) to act within a set timeline and requires ongoing reporting, but leaves ultimate discretion over what remedial action, if any, to take with the USTR and President, preserving executive control over trade negotiations.
Historical precedent
Section 301 investigations have previously been used or mandated by Congress against other trading partners, including the 2017-2019 investigation into Chinese intellectual property practices that led to tariffs.