BIS License Fee Prohibition Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/5955

Last Updated: November 10, 2025

BIS License Fee Prohibition Act

HR. 5955, 119th Congress — read as touching Semiconductors & Hardware.

The sponsor

Rep. Kamlager-Dove, Sydney [D-CA-37]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$93,100 raised

28 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Commerce" section, p. 705-707 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**HR 5955 Analysis**

The BIS License Fee Prohibition Act, HR 5955, is a bill that seeks to prohibit the collection of fees associated with export licenses and require the return of such fees to license holders. As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this legislation through the lens of wealth creation and strategic advantage.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The primary objective of HR 5955 is to eliminate the financial burden imposed on companies exporting dual-use technologies, particularly semiconductors, by prohibiting the collection of fees associated with export licenses. This move aims to promote economic competitiveness and national security interests.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

Section 3 of the bill explicitly prohibits the Federal Government from collecting revenue-sharing, fees, or other monetary arrangements in connection with export licenses under the Export Control Reform Act of 2018. The legislation also requires the return of previously collected fees to license holders within 30 days of enactment.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The primary beneficiaries of this bill are companies involved in the export of dual-use technologies, particularly those in the semiconductor industry. This includes major players like Intel, Qualcomm, and Micron Technology. Additionally, the bill may have implications for the Department of Commerce and other government agencies responsible for administering export controls.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

By eliminating fees associated with export licenses, HR 5955 has the potential to:

1. **Boost competitiveness**: Reduced costs will enable American companies to better compete in the global market, potentially leading to increased exports and revenue growth. 2. **Streamline regulations**: The bill's provisions may simplify the export control process, reducing bureaucratic hurdles and allowing companies to focus on innovation and growth. 3. **Increase national security**: By promoting economic competitiveness, HR 5955 may contribute to enhanced national security interests by ensuring American companies remain at the forefront of technological advancements.

However, it is essential to acknowledge that this bill may also have unintended consequences, such as:

1. **Reduced government revenue**: The prohibition on fee collection could result in lost revenue for the Federal Government. 2. **Regulatory uncertainty**: The bill's provisions may create ambiguity around export control regulations, potentially leading to confusion and compliance challenges.

As a visionary entrepreneur, I recognize that HR 5955 presents an opportunity for strategic advantage and wealth creation. By eliminating unnecessary regulatory burdens, this bill can help American companies thrive in the global market, ultimately driving economic growth and competitiveness.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process to become an actual law. This one, HR 5955, is called the BIS License Fee Prohibition Act.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to prohibit the collection and obligation of fees associated with export licenses. Remember when we learned about the Constitution in class? Article 1, Section 9 states that no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state. This bill aims to enforce that provision.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill has three key provisions:

1. It prohibits the collection of fees for export licenses after the date of enactment. 2. Any fees collected before or on the date of enactment must be returned to the license holder within 30 days. 3. The Secretary of Commerce is responsible for returning these fees.

This bill essentially reverses a provision in the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, which allowed for fees to be charged for export licenses.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include:

* Exporters who have paid fees for licenses * The Federal Government, specifically the Department of Commerce * Companies that rely on dual-use technologies, particularly those exporting to China

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill would likely result in a significant reduction in revenue for the Federal Government. It may also impact companies that have factored these fees into their business operations. On the other hand, it could benefit exporters who no longer have to pay these fees.

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But wait, isn't this just common sense?" And to that, I say... exactly! This is how the system was supposed to work in the first place. Checks and balances, people! The Constitution clearly states that no tax or duty shall be laid on exported goods. It's not that complicated.

As we covered in 8th grade civics, committees play a crucial role in shaping legislation. In this case, the bill was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. I hope you all remember how committees work... *sigh*

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The BIS License Fee Prohibition Act, HR 5955 - just another layer of the onion, folks! On the surface, this bill appears to be a straightforward attempt to prohibit the collection of fees for export licenses and return any previously collected fees to license holders. But, my friends, don't be fooled!

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose is to align with Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, which prohibits taxes on exported goods. However, I believe this bill has a more sinister intent - to further empower the government's control over international trade and commerce.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 3 of the bill explicitly prohibits the collection of fees for export licenses, effective immediately upon enactment. But what about the fine print? The language used in Section 2, particularly subsection (d), seems to create a loophole allowing for future implementation of export fees on semiconductors or other technologies under the guise of "national security" concerns.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** License holders, exporters, and importers will be directly affected by this bill. But what about the real stakeholders - the ones pulling the strings from behind the scenes? I'm talking about the multinational corporations, the defense contractors, and the government agencies themselves. Who benefits from this bill, really?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** On one hand, this bill might seem like a victory for small businesses and exporters who've been burdened by excessive fees. But what if it's just a smokescreen? What if this bill is actually designed to further concentrate power in the hands of the government and its corporate allies?

Think about it - with the prohibition on license fees, the government can now exert even more control over international trade without being transparent about the costs involved. It's like they're saying, "Hey, we'll just take care of everything for you... trust us." And what about the potential for future export fees on semiconductors or other technologies? That's a Pandora's box waiting to be opened!

Wake up, folks! This bill is not as innocuous as it seems. There are hidden agendas at play here, and we need to stay vigilant.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round! We've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. The BIS License Fee Prohibition Act - sounds like a mouthful, doesn't it? (smirk) But don't let the name fool you; this is a battle for freedom, folks!

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill aims to prohibit the collection and obligation of fees associated with export licenses. That's right, folks! The government wants to take away its own ability to collect revenue from companies that want to export goods. (wink) It's all about protecting American businesses from those pesky bureaucrats and their love of "fees."

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill cites Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution - you know, the part that says no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state. (patriotic music plays in the background) It's a clever move, folks! The bill also references the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, which prohibits fees for license applications.

Here are the key changes:

* No more fees for export licenses! * Any previously collected fees must be returned to the license holder within 30 days. * A rule of construction that ensures this bill doesn't authorize any new export fees on semiconductors. (whispers) Because, you know, those elites in Silicon Valley might try to sneak one past us.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects American businesses that rely on export licenses, particularly those in the tech industry. (smirk) You know, the ones who are always whining about regulations and fees. It's a win for them, folks! The government will no longer be able to "burden" them with these pesky fees.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a masterstroke of conservative strategy, folks! (wink) By prohibiting export license fees, we're promoting American competitiveness and freedom. It's a bold move that will surely ruffle the feathers of those elites in Washington who love to regulate and tax everything in sight.

But let's be real, folks; this bill is also a clever way for Republicans to curry favor with big business donors. (smirk) I mean, who doesn't love a good tax break? It's all about freedom, folks! The freedom to export goods without those pesky fees holding you back.

In conclusion, the BIS License Fee Prohibition Act is a bill that will make America great again - or at least, it'll make American businesses happy. (laughs) And who knows, maybe we'll even see some of those elites in Silicon Valley start to like us conservatives. (chuckles) Stranger things have happened, right?

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The BIS License Fee Prohibition Act (HR 5955) claims to prohibit the collection and obligation of fees associated with export licenses, citing constitutional and statutory grounds. How noble. In reality, this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to appease special interest groups, specifically those in the semiconductor industry.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill's main provisions are:

1. Prohibiting the collection of fees for export licenses under the Export Control Reform Act of 2018. 2. Requiring the return of previously collected fees to license holders within 30 days. 3. A cleverly worded "rule of construction" that attempts to justify this move as constitutional and consistent with existing law.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects:

1. The semiconductor industry, which will benefit from reduced regulatory costs. 2. Exporters who will no longer have to pay fees for licenses. 3. The Commerce Department, which will have to return previously collected fees (because, of course, they didn't already spend it on something "essential").

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of " Follow the Money." By eliminating fees, Congress is essentially providing a handout to special interest groups. The real motivation behind this bill? To curry favor with influential donors and lobbyists.

The supposed constitutional and statutory justifications are nothing more than a smokescreen. This bill is an exercise in creative accounting, designed to obscure the fact that it's merely a giveaway to favored industries.

In medical terms, this bill is akin to prescribing a placebo to treat a patient's symptoms while ignoring the underlying disease – in this case, the corrupting influence of money in politics. The diagnosis? Acute Crony Capitalism Syndrome (CCS), characterized by an excessive reliance on special interest groups and a complete disregard for the public good.

Treatment? A healthy dose of skepticism, followed by a strong prescription of transparency and accountability. But don't hold your breath; this patient is terminal.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

Let's break down this bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The BIS License Fee Prohibition Act (HR 5955) is all about chillin' the fees associated with export licenses, man. The main goal is to prohibit the collection of fees for export licenses and require the return of any fees already collected. It's like, if you're gonna surf the waves of international trade, you shouldn't have to pay extra just to catch a wave, bro.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill makes some key changes to existing law:

* Section 3 prohibits the collection of fees for export licenses under the Export Control Reform Act of 2018. * It also requires the return of any fees already collected within 30 days of the bill's enactment. * The bill clarifies that no fee can be charged for export licenses, citing Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution and section 1756 of the Export Control Reform Act.

It's like, the government is acknowledging that these fees are, like, totally unconstitutional, bro. They're trying to make it right by refunding the fees and stopping the collection of new ones.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects a few key groups:

* Exporters: These are the dudes who ship goods overseas, man. They'll no longer have to pay fees for export licenses. * The Federal Government: They're the ones who collect these fees, bro. They'll have to stop collecting them and refund any already collected. * The Secretary of Commerce: This dude is responsible for returning the fees to exporters within 30 days.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The potential impact of this bill is pretty significant, bro:

* It could reduce the costs associated with exporting goods, making it easier for American businesses to compete in the global market. * It could also lead to increased exports and economic growth, man. * However, some might argue that the loss of revenue from these fees could impact government programs or services.

But, like, let's be real, bro. The Constitution is pretty clear on this one – no taxes or duties on exported goods. This bill is just trying to make it right, man.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 5955: BIS License Fee Prohibition Act - A Bill Born from Industry Lobbying**

The BIS License Fee Prohibition Act, introduced by Reps. Kamlager-Dove and Krishnamoorthi, aims to prohibit the collection of fees associated with export licenses under the Export Control Reform Act of 2018. This bill is a direct response to industry lobbying efforts, particularly from the semiconductor sector.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 5955 is to eliminate the fee structure for export licenses, which has been a contentious issue among exporters, especially in the tech industry. The bill's sponsors argue that these fees are unconstitutional and contradict existing law.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **Prohibition on License Fees**: The bill prohibits the collection of any fees related to export licenses, effective upon enactment. 2. **Return of Collected Fees**: The Secretary of Commerce must return all previously collected fees to license holders within 30 days of enactment. 3. **Rule of Construction**: The bill clarifies that it does not authorize the implementation of export fees on semiconductors or imply that such fees are constitutional.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Semiconductor Industry**: Companies like Intel, Micron Technology, and Texas Instruments will benefit from the elimination of license fees. 2. **Exporters**: Businesses involved in exporting dual-use technologies, particularly to China, will see reduced costs and regulatory burdens. 3. **U.S. Department of Commerce**: The agency will need to refund collected fees and adjust its licensing procedures.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Industry Relief**: The bill's passage would provide significant cost savings for the semiconductor industry, which has been a vocal advocate for fee elimination. 2. **Regulatory Simplification**: By removing the fee structure, the bill streamlines the export licensing process, reducing administrative burdens on exporters. 3. **Constitutional Debate**: The bill's sponsors argue that license fees are unconstitutional, which may lead to further debate and potential court challenges.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** The Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) has been a key proponent of this legislation, with member companies contributing significantly to the campaigns of Reps. Kamlager-Dove and Krishnamoorthi. The SIA's lobbying efforts have helped shape the bill's language and provisions, demonstrating the influence of industry interests in shaping policy.

In summary, HR 5955 is a bill that responds to industry concerns about export license fees, particularly from the semiconductor sector. Its passage would provide relief to exporters, simplify regulatory procedures, and spark debate on constitutional grounds. The bill's success can be attributed, in part, to effective lobbying by industry groups like the SIA.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Kamlager-Dove, Sydney [D-CA-37]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$93,100

22 donors

PACs

Organizations

$20,500

Committees

Individuals

$72,600

No PAC contributions found

SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA

1 transaction

$6,600

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

1 transaction

$3,300

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$3,300

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$2,000

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,000

CHEROKEE NATION

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

BRUCE, CHERYL LYNN

2 transactions

$13,200

DROR, BRIAN

2 transactions

$6,600

MARSHALL, KERRY

2 transactions

$6,600

ROBSON ORR, SYBIL

2 transactions

$6,600

WELTERS, ANTHONY

2 transactions

$6,600

GILL, AIMEE

1 transaction

$3,300

GILL, FAISAL

1 transaction

$3,300

GRYNSZTEJN, MADELEINE

1 transaction

$3,300

SHAPIRO, TOM

1 transaction

$3,300

THURMOND, KARL

1 transaction

$3,300

JOHNSON, LACY

1 transaction

$3,300

MISCIKOWSKI, CYNTHIA

1 transaction

$3,300

BULLOCK, GALEN

1 transaction

$3,300

DROR, DONIEL

1 transaction

$3,300

EMERSON, LANGSTON

1 transaction

$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. Kamlager-Dove, Sydney [D-CA-37]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 58 nodes and 28 connections (73 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $93,100

Top Donors - Rep. Kamlager-Dove, Sydney [D-CA-37]

Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount

7 Orgs15 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.

+Semiconductors & Hardwareconfidence 0.90
Section 3(d) explicitly states that nothing in the section may be construed to authorize the implementation of any export fee on semiconductors, indicating the bill prohibits such fees and thus benefits semiconductor industry by preventing costs.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Commerce

Weak

Vector: 66%

Pages: 705-707AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on eliminating fees for BIS export licenses, which is a fiscal/administrative change unrelated to Project 2025's goals of strengthening export controls, improving transparency, tightening controls on China/Russia, and modernizing the EAR. While both involve BIS and export licensing, their objectives diverge."

Key themes:BISexport licensingDepartment of Commerce

— 672 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise regulate exports of emerging and foundational technologies. Although the scope of such technologies is vast, to date BIS has only controlled just over 40 of these technologies. This does not meet the clear statutory intent of Congress that ECRA be leveraged to ensure that the United States maintains a technological advantage in technologies bearing upon national security interests. Currently, BIS self-identifies technologies that merit control under the EAR with minimal input from other federal agencies. This mechanism should be improved. BIS should create an open, transparent rulemaking process by which any industry participant, private entity, or branch of the government may, at any time, submit nominations for emerging/foundational technologies for control. Then, on a quarterly basis, BIS should make public such recommendations (while holding the identity of the submitter confidential) for public input, followed by an explanation about its ultimate decision to control or not control the items, its reasons, the level of controls applied (stringent or permissive), and the relevant Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) under the Commerce Control List. Commerce should also institute a mechanism whereby its decisions can be challenged, including on a confidential basis. Licensing Procedures: Adjudication and Transparency. Currently, if the Departments of Defense, State, Commerce, and Energy disagree on an export license decision, the disagreement may be escalated to the Operating Commit- tee—and subsequently to the Advisory Committee on Export Policy led by BIS’s Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. The Assistant Secretary does not need to lead the dispute resolution, and this process should be revised by giving lead authority to BIS’s Under Secretary, who is better able to account for diverging views. Moreover, BIS’s authority to overrule other agency votes should be changed. Each agency should have one equal vote and, if a licensing dispute remains unre- solved, the final decision should be elevated to the National Security Advisor and the Secretaries of Defense, State, Commerce, and Energy. Additionally, to improve congressional oversight of BIS’s license adjudication process, BIS should provide specific congressional committees with data from the Automated Export System on a quarterly basis. Electronic files should contain U.S. exporter by name; product description (e.g., harmonized system code and ECCN/U. S. Munitions List designation); end user and destination country; and when a license was required, whether the license was granted or denied. BIS cur- rently denies just 1.2 percent of export licenses. These data reporting requirements can help Congress better determine whether BIS is adequately protecting national security through appropriate use of export controls or whether additional direction from Congress is required. Improve End-Use Checks. The integrity of the export control system may be validated only through adequate end-use checks. BIS must deny export licenses to countries that do not permit adequate end-use checks (e.g., China/Russia) by U.S. authorities. BIS should also strengthen the forensic audit capabilities of its — 673 — Department of Commerce Export Enforcement officers through improved and frequent training so they are able to detect export-control violations. EAR Revisions. The U.S. Government needs a new export control moderniza- tion effort to tighten the EAR policies governing licenses to countries of concern, including China and Russia (specifically, revise and/or reverse the 2008 through 2016 policies). When authoritarian governments explain what they plan to do, believe them unless hard evidence demonstrates otherwise. Case in point: China’s and Russia’s stated civil–military fusion policies demand central government command-and-control style systems in which every private entity serves the interests of the state and is forced to provide technology, services, capacity, and data to the central govern- ment and the military. Through this structure, commercial activities are routinely weaponized by authoritarian regimes that repeatedly identify the U.S. as an enemy. Accordingly, U.S. export control policies must be updated to reflect these realities and the associated threats to national security. Key priorities for EAR modernization for countries of concern should be: l Eliminating the “specially designed” licensing loophole; l Redesignating China and Russia to more highly prohibitive export licensing groups (country groups D or E); l Eliminating license exceptions; l Broadening foreign direct product rules; l Reducing the de minimis threshold from 25 percent to 10 percent—or 0 percent for critical technologies; l Tightening the deemed export rules to prevent technology transfer to foreign nationals from countries of concern; l Tightening the definition of “fundamental research” to address exploitation of the open U.S. university system by authoritarian governments through funding, students and researchers, and recruitment; l Eliminating license exceptions for sharing technology with controlled entities/countries through standards-setting “activities” and bodies; and l Improving regulations regarding published information for technology transfers.

Department of Commerce

Weak

Vector: 66%

Pages: 705-707AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 policy address the Bureau of Industry and Security's export licensing system, but the bill's focus on eliminating license fees diverges from Project 2025's goals of strengthening export controls, improving transparency, adjudication, oversight, and end-use checks for emerging technologies."

Key themes:Bureau of Industry and SecurityExport Control Reform Actexport licensingtechnology export controls

Department of Commerce

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 705-707AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on eliminating export license fees, which is unrelated to Project 2025's emphasis on tightening export controls for national security, particularly regarding China and Russia. There is no meaningful alignment in objectives, as the bill reduces regulatory barriers while Project 2025 seeks to increase them."

Key themes:export controlsBureau of Industry and SecurityDepartment of Commerce

— 673 — Department of Commerce Export Enforcement officers through improved and frequent training so they are able to detect export-control violations. EAR Revisions. The U.S. Government needs a new export control moderniza- tion effort to tighten the EAR policies governing licenses to countries of concern, including China and Russia (specifically, revise and/or reverse the 2008 through 2016 policies). When authoritarian governments explain what they plan to do, believe them unless hard evidence demonstrates otherwise. Case in point: China’s and Russia’s stated civil–military fusion policies demand central government command-and-control style systems in which every private entity serves the interests of the state and is forced to provide technology, services, capacity, and data to the central govern- ment and the military. Through this structure, commercial activities are routinely weaponized by authoritarian regimes that repeatedly identify the U.S. as an enemy. Accordingly, U.S. export control policies must be updated to reflect these realities and the associated threats to national security. Key priorities for EAR modernization for countries of concern should be: l Eliminating the “specially designed” licensing loophole; l Redesignating China and Russia to more highly prohibitive export licensing groups (country groups D or E); l Eliminating license exceptions; l Broadening foreign direct product rules; l Reducing the de minimis threshold from 25 percent to 10 percent—or 0 percent for critical technologies; l Tightening the deemed export rules to prevent technology transfer to foreign nationals from countries of concern; l Tightening the definition of “fundamental research” to address exploitation of the open U.S. university system by authoritarian governments through funding, students and researchers, and recruitment; l Eliminating license exceptions for sharing technology with controlled entities/countries through standards-setting “activities” and bodies; and l Improving regulations regarding published information for technology transfers. — 674 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise The next few years will prove or disprove the assertion that the U.S. stands on the precipice of a Cold War with China. Many believe that a Cold War has already begun; if so, then strategic decoupling from China is necessary and, fundamentally, any exports of goods, software, and technology to countries of concern, whether directly or indirectly, should be prohibited or controlled in the absence of good cause (e.g., humanitarian and medical aid, food aid). Entity List and Sanctions. There are currently just over 500 Chinese and over 500 Russian companies on the Department of Commerce’s Entity List, which reg- ulates exports of controlled and uncontrolled items to designated entities. Given China’s Civil–Military Fusion Strategy and Russia’s massive war efforts facili- tated by a broad range of the Russian economy, BIS must add more entities to the Entity List and apply a license review “policy of denial” that prohibits exports to these entities. Entity List parties that violate export controls should be placed on the BIS Denied Persons List (and thereby lose export privileges) and, if the violations are significant enough, they should also be sanctioned by the Department of Treasury. Data Transfer and Apps Used for Surveillance. Department of Commerce leadership should work across government agencies to address privacy and data concerns arising out of “big tech” from national security and export control per- spectives. In particular, they should draft and implement an executive order (EO) based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which expands export control authority beyond ECRA’s scope (goods, software, technology) to regulate and restrict exports of U.S. persons’ data to countries of concern. The EO should establish a framework for the types of personal data subject to export controls and licensing policy by country, and the BIS should implement the EO through regulations. BIS should additionally designate app providers (such as WeChat and Byte Dance/TikTok) known for undermining U.S. national security through data collection, surveillance, and influence operations, to the Entity List. This listing would prevent app users from program updates, which would quickly make these apps non-operational in the United States. NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION Break Up NOAA. The single biggest Department of Commerce agency outside of decennial census years is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which houses the National Weather Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and other components. NOAA garners $6.5 billion of the department’s $12 billion annual operational budget and accounts for more than half of the department’s personnel in non-decadal Census years (2021 figures). NOAA consists of six main offices: l The National Weather Service (NWS);

Department of Homeland Security

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 177-179AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both documents discuss fee structures and regulatory alignment, but HR 5955 concerns export license fees under the Department of Commerce, whereas the Project 2025 excerpt focuses on USCIS immigration benefit fees and merit‑based immigration reform; the topics are largely unrelated and the fee directions oppose each other."

Key themes:fee policyregulatory reformconstitutional compliancefunding modeladministrative efficiency

— 145 — Department of Homeland Security l Management Directives and policies should realign to ensure that the workforce, while adaptable and able to handle the bulk of the USCIS mission, is not allowed to be pulled off mission work to focus on unlawful programs (DACA, mass parole for Afghans, Ukrainians, Venezuelans, etc.), which divert resources away from nuclear family and employment programs. The regulatory agenda should include the immediate submission of notices of proposed rulemaking for the Trump Administration’s public charge rule (includ- ing aspects from its original notice of proposed rulemaking), temporary work visa reform, employment authorization reform rules, asylum bars rule, and a third-country transit rule. At a minimum, an enhanced regulatory agenda should include rules strengthening the integrity of the asylum system, parole reform, and U visa reform that prioritizes relief for victims of heinous crimes and ensures that we protect the truest and most deserving victims of crime. Not all policy changes require formal rulemaking, however, as internal guidance documents are generally exempt under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).7 In this subregulatory space, USCIS policy memos and operational guidance should reduce the validity of employment authorization documents and end the COVID flexibilities, including the reliance on biometrics reuse. USCIS should also enforce existing regulations by rejecting incomplete applications and petitions, ensuring both that they are completed before accepted for filing and that FDNS signs off on all approved applications and petitions before approval notices are sent to the alien or petitioner. Other efforts should be focused on adjudication standards returning to nearly 100 percent interview requirements for all appropriate cases. The incoming Administration should spearhead an immigration legislative agenda focused on creating a merit-based immigration system that rewards high- skilled aliens instead of the current system that favors extended family–based and luck-of-the-draw immigration. To that end, the diversity visa lottery should be repealed, chain migration should be ended while focusing on the nuclear family, and the existing employment visa program should be replaced with a system to award visas only to the “best and brightest.” Internal efforts to limit employment authorization should be matched by con- gressional action to narrow statutory eligibility to work in the United States and mitigate unfair employment competition for U.S. citizens. The oft-abused H-1B program should be transformed into an elite program through which employers are vying to bring in only the top foreign workers at the highest wages so as not to depress American opportunities. Additionally, Congress should: l Improve the integrity of the temporary work visa programs; l Repeal Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations; — 146 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Permanently authorize and make mandatory E-Verify; and l End parole abuse by legislating specific parole standards. USCIS should make it clear that where no court jurisdiction exists, it will not honor court decisions that seek to undermine regulatory and subregulatory efforts. Finally, USCIS still requires access to all relevant national security and law enforce- ment databases in the same vein as any other agency in the intelligence space. This is a key concept that should be addressed as USCIS is returned to functioning primarily as a vetting agency. Budget USCIS is primarily fee-funded, operating on revenue derived by those who are seeking immigration benefits, work permits, and naturalization. The total agency budget requested for fiscal year (FY) 2023, including both fees and a small appropri- ation, is slightly less than $6 billion.8 The bulk of funds are derived from application fees through the Immigrant Examinations Fee Account. As a general principle, adju- dication of applications and petitions should be paid by applicants, not American taxpayers. It is critical that any changes in the budget, even in the wake of a realigned agency combined with ICE and CBP, should retain a fee-funded model. Given the Obama and Biden Administrations’ lack of will, fees should be increased agencywide to keep in step with inflation and the true cost of the adju- dications. The incoming Administration should immediately submit a fee rule that reflects such an increase. Aside from an increase in all fees, the rule should drastically limit the availability for fee waivers and should implement a fee for asylum applications. Additionally, Congress should allow for a 10 percent across- the-board increase in all fees for all fee rules to account for the fact that new fee rules always lag behind budget requirements. USCIS should strive to increase opportunities for premium processing, a ben- efit by which applicants can expedite their processing times. While this places time burdens on adjudicators, it provides an opportunity for a significant influx of money into the agency, which is not currently available. While simply raising fees to the necessary levels to make the agency run efficiently would be prefera- ble, without the need for expanded premium processing, this short-term measure should be utilized, particularly if longer-term fee rules are unsuccessful. At least until USCIS is caught up on all case backlogs, all applicants rejected for any benefit or status adjudication should be required to leave the U.S. immediately. Ordinary process can resume once all case backlogs have been adjudicated. Finally, USCIS should pause the intake of applications in a benefit category when backlogs in that category become excessive. Once USCIS adjudicators can decrease that caseload to a manageable number, application intake should resume.

Trade

Weak

Vector: 58%

Pages: 834-836AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on eliminating export license fees under the Export Control Reform Act, which is a narrow administrative reform. While it touches on trade policy and constitutional tax authority—themes also present in Project 2025’s trade section—it does not address the broader objectives such as tariff repeal, trade agreement restoration, or China strategy outlined in the policy."

Key themes:trade policyconstitutional tax authorityexport controls

— 801 — Trade l Repeal the Jones Act,48 a century-old “Buy American” maritime law that has decimated the U.S. shipbuilding industry. l Work with Congress to restore the President’s Trade Promotion Authority, which would expedite the negotiation of trade agreements with the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Taiwan, the European Union, and other allies, and keep trade-unrelated provisions out of trade agreements. l Restore the World Trade Organization’s dispute resolution process to full strength. l Create a successor to the WTO (assuming that it has been fatally wounded) that is open only to liberal democracies. This would prevent authoritarian countries like China from abusing the organization for their own ends. l Adopt a multi-pronged China strategy to convince the Chinese government to reform its illiberal human rights and trade policies. l Rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), whose 11 members are developing institutional trade norms in an important geopolitical region without U.S. input or involvement. l Reorient the proposed Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity to focus only on trade issues, which it currently ignores in favor of progressive wish-list policies. l Strengthen diplomatic pressure (in concert with allies) against Beijing’s abuses. Encourage cultural and intellectual engagement with the Chinese people, remembering that blue jeans and rock ’n’ roll helped to win the Cold War. Tariff Relief. When people try something repeatedly and it still doesn’t work, they should stop doing it—especially when the consequences turn out to be just what conservative economists have long predicted they would be.49 With tariffs, the proper reform is not only to get rid of the individual tariffs that have backfired, but also to build institutional safeguards against future abuse. We are five years into the biggest experiment with tariffs since the Great Depres- sion, and the results are in: The new tariffs raise consumer prices for ordinary Americans by about $1,200 per household every year50 and benefit only a small number of special interests. Steel and aluminum tariffs, enacted on national security grounds, angered allies. Beijing made not a single substantive reform in — 802 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise response to four rounds of tariffs plus an attempted Phase One agreement. The Biden Administration has left the tariffs in place and is expanding them to pursue progressive policy goals. The first order of business for a new Administration that is focused on American workers and consumers is to repeal all tariffs enacted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 196251 and Sections 201 and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.52 The President can do this unilaterally, and Congress can do it through legislation. The second order of business requires Congress to pass legislation repealing Sections 232, 201, and 301. The U.S. Constitution places all taxing authority with Congress53 and none with the President. Congress used those provisions of law to delegate some of its taxing authority to the President because it was having trouble passing “clean” tariff legislation in the 1960s and 1970s. Unless and until this constitutional question about delegation is addressed, important reforms are available to the next Congress and the next President. Congress faced a problem of collective action in the 1960s and 1970s. As a whole, Members generally wanted to lower tariffs, but few individual Members were will- ing to remove tariffs that benefited special interests in their districts. Trade bills were invariably watered down through amendments and logrolling. The thinking was that the President, whose constituency is the entire nation, would be less prone to special-interest pleading than Members of Congress would be, so Congress del- egated some of its tariff-making authority to the President in 1962 and 1974 trade legislation. Delegating tariff-making might have worked in the short run, but in the long run, it was both constitutionally dubious and ripe for abuse. That came to pass in 2018. The Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, invoked in 2018 against Canada, Europe, and other allies on national security grounds, raised car prices by an aver- age of $250 per vehicle and gave America the world’s highest steel prices. They also harmed the construction, canned food and beverage, and other metal-us- ing industries. While this may have benefited the steel industry itself, each steel job saved cost an average of $650,000 per year that had been taken from elsewhere in the econo- my.54 That is no way to strengthen American manufacturing. The New York Federal Reserve estimated in 2019 that the Section 301 China tariffs cost the average house- hold $831 per year,55 a figure that has likely increased with inflation. The new tariffs have a clear record of failure—as conservative economists almost unanimously warned would be the case. Job number one for the next Administration is to return to sensible trade policies and eliminate the destruc- tive Trump–Biden tariffs. Strengthening American Manufacturing. The decline of American manu- facturing is a common political trope in both parties, typically invoked before a call for more government intervention. This narrative has several problems. One is that

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Kamlager-Dove, Sydney

To make improvements in the enactment of title 41, United States Code, into a positive law title and to improve the Code.

119/hr/5185

Export Controls Enforcement Act

119/hr/4505

YALI Act of 2025

119/hr/4332

Back to All Bills