S-3608-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Sponsored by Tim Sheehy (R-MT)
What it does
This bill would require the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretaries of State, Commerce, and Treasury, to submit a strategy within 180 days to expand Trade Transparency Units (TTUs) — bilateral and multilateral partnerships between U.S. and foreign customs agencies used to detect international money laundering through trade. It would also require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to independently assess that strategy within 180 days of its submission and report findings to Congress.
Who benefits
U.S. law enforcement agencies (CBP, HSI, FinCEN) that would gain clearer direction and potentially expanded resources for anti-money-laundering operations. Foreign partner governments whose customs agencies would benefit from improved information-sharing frameworks. Businesses harmed by competitors who use trade-based money laundering to gain unfair pricing advantages. Communities affected by criminal organizations that rely on international money laundering. Taxpayers broadly, if expanded TTUs reduce illicit financial flows.
Who is hurt
Federal agencies that would bear the administrative burden of developing, coordinating, and submitting the strategy across four cabinet departments. Congressional staff and GAO analysts who would be tasked with reviewing and assessing the strategy. Entities engaged in trade-based money laundering schemes, including criminal networks and potentially some import/export businesses, who may face increased scrutiny under an expanded TTU framework.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that trade-based money laundering — in which criminals manipulate import/export invoices to move illicit funds across borders — is one of the most significant and underaddressed methods used by drug cartels, terrorist financiers, and organized crime. They contend that TTUs have already proven effective in partner countries and that a formal, coordinated expansion strategy would close critical gaps in U.S. financial intelligence, strengthen multilateral partnerships, and give Congress meaningful oversight through the required GAO assessment.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that this bill produces only a strategy document and a GAO report — neither of which compels any operational change, new funding, or binding interagency action — making it largely a procedural exercise that consumes agency resources without guaranteeing results. They contend that existing authorities under DHS, Treasury, and Commerce already permit TTU expansion, and that without accompanying appropriations or enforcement mandates, the strategy requirement may generate bureaucratic output rather than meaningful disruption of money laundering networks.
Constitutional context
The Foreign Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) gives Congress broad authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, which encompasses trade-based financial crimes. The bill's coordination requirement across executive departments is consistent with Congress's power to structure and direct executive branch activities, though the President retains discretion over how foreign information-sharing agreements are negotiated under the Treaty Clause and the executive's foreign affairs powers.
Checks and balances
The executive branch — specifically DHS in coordination with State, Commerce, and Treasury — gains a formal mandate to develop foreign policy and law enforcement strategy, but Congress retains oversight through the required strategy submission and the independent GAO assessment.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously required executive strategy documents on related financial crime topics, such as the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, which mandated Treasury reporting and strategy development on beneficial ownership and illicit finance.