Territorial De Minimis Exemption Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/5960

Last Updated: November 10, 2025

Territorial De Minimis Exemption Act

HR. 5960, 119th Congress — read as touching E-commerce & Online Retail.

The sponsor

Del. King-Hinds, Kimberlyn [R-MP-At Large]

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of the Treasury" section, p. 730-732 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:

**Bill Analysis: HR 5960 - Territorial De Minimis Exemption Act**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this bill through the lens of wealth creation and strategic opportunity.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Territorial De Minimis Exemption Act aims to permanently grant de minimis treatment to articles imported from certain US territories, effectively exempting them from duties and taxes. This move is a calculated attempt to stimulate economic growth in these regions by reducing trade barriers.

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

1. **De Minimis Treatment:** The bill extends the privilege of de minimis treatment to articles originating from the US Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. 2. **Aggregate Value Limitation:** The aggregate fair retail value of exempted articles is capped at $800 per person per day. 3. **Evasion Prohibition:** Regulations will be established to prevent abuse of this privilege by splitting merchandise into separate lots.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **US Territories:** Local businesses and residents in the covered territories stand to benefit from reduced trade barriers and increased economic activity. 2. **Importers and Exporters:** Companies trading with these territories may experience reduced costs and increased competitiveness. 3. **Treasury Department:** The Secretary of the Treasury will be responsible for implementing regulations and ensuring compliance.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Economic Growth:** By reducing trade barriers, this bill may stimulate economic growth in the covered territories, creating new opportunities for investment and job creation. 2. **Increased Competitiveness:** US-based companies trading with these territories may gain a competitive edge in the global market due to reduced costs and increased efficiency. 3. **Regulatory Efficiency:** The Treasury Department's regulatory framework will be crucial in preventing abuse of this privilege and ensuring a level playing field.

**Strategic Opportunity:** As a forward-thinking entrepreneur, I recognize that this bill presents an opportunity for strategic investment in the covered territories. By leveraging the reduced trade barriers and increased economic activity, savvy investors can capitalize on emerging markets and create new wealth streams.

In conclusion, HR 5960 is a calculated move to stimulate economic growth in US territories by reducing trade barriers. As a visionary entrepreneur, I'll be monitoring this bill's progress and exploring opportunities for strategic investment and growth.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

No campaign finance data available for Del. King-Hinds, Kimberlyn [R-MP-At Large]

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped.

+E-commerce & Online Retailconfidence 0.80
Section 2(a) provides de minimis treatment to articles originating from certain territories, which could increase online retail sales and benefit ecommerce platforms by reducing duties on imports from these territories
+Big-Box Retailconfidence 0.70
Section 2(a) also benefits traditional retailers by exempting certain imports from duty, potentially increasing their competitiveness and profitability

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 the Treasury

Moderate

Vector: 60%

Pages: 730-732AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both HR 5960 and the Project 2025 Treasury proposals aim to reduce tax burdens to stimulate economic growth and simplify compliance, though one addresses customs duties on territorial goods while the other focuses on federal income and estate tax reforms."

Key themes:tax reliefeconomic growthadministrative simplificationbusiness competitiveness

Department of the Treasury

Moderate

Vector: 58%

Pages: 730-732AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and Project 2025 seek to reduce tax burdens and simplify tax/customs procedures to spur economic growth, but the bill focuses narrowly on territorial customs exemptions while Project 2025 addresses broad domestic tax reform, resulting in moderate thematic overlap."

Key themes:tax reductionadministrative simplificationeconomic competitivenesscustoms/duty reliefpro-growth policy

— 697 — Department of the Treasury time for any purpose. This would allow the vast majority of American families to save and invest without facing a punitive double layer of taxation. Entrepreneurship. To encourage entrepreneurship, the business loss limita- tion should be increased to at least $500,000. Businesses should also be allowed to fully carry forward net operating losses. Extra layers of taxes on investment and capital should also be eliminated or reduced. The net investment income surtax and the base erosion anti-abuse tax should be eliminated. The estate and gift tax should be reduced to no higher than 20 percent, and the 2017 tax bill’s temporary increase in the exemption amount from $5.5 million to $12.9 million (adjusted for inflation) should be made permanent.21 The tax on global intangible low-taxed income should be reduced to no higher than 12.5 percent, with the 20 percent haircut on related foreign tax credits reduced or eliminated.22 All non-business tax deductions and exemptions that were temporarily sus- pended by the 2017 tax bill should be permanently repealed, including the bicycle commuting expense exclusion, non-military moving expense deductions, and the miscellaneous itemized deductions.23 The individual state and local tax deduction, which was temporarily capped at $10,000, should be fully repealed. Deductions related to educational expenses should be repealed. Special business tax pref- erences, such as a special deduction for energy-efficient commercial building properties, should be eliminated.24 Wages vs. Benefits. The current tax code has a strong bias that incentivizes businesses to offer employees more generous benefits and lower wages. This limits the freedom of workers and their families to spend their compensation as they see fit—and it can trap workers in their current jobs due to the jobs’ benefit pack- ages. Wage income is taxed under the individual income tax and under the payroll tax. However, most forms of non-wage benefits are wholly exempt from both of these taxes. To reduce this tax bias against wages (as opposed to employee benefits), the next Administration should set a meaningful cap (no higher than $12,000 per year per full-time equivalent employee—and preferably lower) on untaxed benefits that employers can claim as deductions. Employee benefit expenses other than tax-deferred retirement account contributions should count toward the limita- tion, whether offered to specific employees or whether the costs relate to a shared benefit like building gym facilities for employees.25 Tax-deferred retirement con- tributions by employers should not count toward this limitation insofar as they are fully taxable upon distribution. Only a percentage of Health Savings Accounts (HSA) contributions (which are not taxed upon withdrawal) should count toward the limitation.26 The limitation on benefit deductions should not be indexed to increase with inflation.27 Employers should also be denied deductions for health insurance and other benefits provided to employee dependents if the dependents are aged 23 or older. — 698 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Fundamental Tax Reform. Achieving fundamental tax reform offers the prospect of a dramatic improvement in American living standards and an equally dramatic reduction in tax compliance costs. Lobbyists, lawyers, benefit consul- tants, accountants, and tax preparers would see their incomes decline, however. The federal income tax system heavily taxes capital and corporate income and discourages work, savings, and investment. The public finance literature is clear that a consumption tax would minimize government’s distortion of private economic decisions and thus be the least eco- nomically harmful way to raise federal tax revenues.28 There are several forms that a consumption tax could take, including a national sales tax, a business transfer tax, a Hall–Rabushka flat tax,29 or a cash flow tax.30 Supermajority to Raise Taxes. Treasury should support legislation instituting a three-fifths vote threshold in the U.S. House and the Senate to raise income or corporate tax rates to create a wall of protection for the new rate structure. Many states have implemented such a supermajority vote requirement. Tax Competition. Tax competition between states and countries is a positive force for liberty and limited government.31 The Biden Administration, under the direction of Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, has pushed for a global minimum corporate tax that would increase taxation and the size of government in the U.S. and around the world. This attempt to “harmonize” global tax rates is an attempt to create a global tax cartel to quash tax competition and to increase the tax burden globally. The U.S. should not outsource its tax policy to international organizations. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. The Organi- zation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in conjunction with the European Union, has long tried to end financial privacy and impose regulations on countries with low (or no) income taxes. In fact, on tax, environmental, corpo- rate governance and employment issues, the OECD has become little more than a taxpayer-funded left-wing think tank and lobbying organization.32 The United States provides about one-fifth of OECD’s funding.33 The U.S. should end its finan- cial support and withdraw from the OECD. TAX ADMINISTRATION The Internal Revenue Service is a poorly managed, utterly unresponsive and increasingly politicized agency, and has been for at least two decades. It is time for meaningful reform to improve the efficiency and fairness of tax administration, better protect taxpayer rights, and achieve greater transparency and accountability. A substantial number of the problems attributed to the IRS are actually a function of congressional action that has made the Internal Revenue Code ridiculously complex, imposed tremendous administrative burdens on both the public and the IRS, and given massive non-tax missions to the IRS. But the culture, administrative practices, and management at the IRS need to change.

Trade

Moderate

Vector: 58%

Pages: 834-836AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 5960 aligns with Project 2025's trade policy by promoting tariff relief and reducing trade barriers, particularly through de minimis exemptions that lower costs for consumers and businesses in U.S. territories. While not directly addressing the core Project 2025 goals like repealing Section 232/301 tariffs or restoring TPP, it supports broader trade liberalization principles by simplifying customs and enhancing territorial competitiveness."

Key themes:tariff relieftrade simplificationeconomic competitivenesscustoms efficiency

— 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

Trade

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 813-815AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 5960 focuses on providing de minimis customs treatment for specific U.S. territories to promote local economic growth, while Project 2025’s Trade section emphasizes reducing the U.S. trade deficit through reciprocal tariffs, addressing nonreciprocal trade barriers, and leveling the playing field for American industries via mechanisms like the USRTA. The bill does not address trade deficits, reciprocity, or broader trade enforcement strategies central to Project 2025."

Key themes:trade policycustoms procedureseconomic competitiveness

— 781 — Trade 5 ELBAT )8 fo 8 egaP( noisserggA cimonocE fo seirogetaC s’anihC tsinummoC erutpaC gnigremE hceT-hgiH taht seirtsudnI erutuF evirD yeK eriuqcA dna eruceS tcetorP dna htworG seigolonhceT etanimoD lortnoC emoH s'anihC stnemecnavdA morf PI dna lanoitidarT larutaN eroC s’anihC dnapxE morf tekraM ,seiciloP ,stcA s'anihC esnefeD ni seirtnuoC rehtO gnirutcafunaM secruoseR labolG fo erahS noititepmoC fo secitcarP dna yrtsudnI .S.U eht dna seirtsudnI yllabolG stekraM stropmI dna noisserggA cimonocE ,gnikeeS-ygolonhceT % % % ngieroF detceriD-etatS tnemtsevnI tceriD % % % tfarcypS lanoitidarT gnipmuditnA edavE ot pihssnarT % seituD gniliavretnuoC dna stnemtsujdA xaT deddA-eulaV % % ezidisbuS setabeR dna stropxE esenihC decrofnE ylxaL dna kaeW % % swaL latnemnorivnE seigolonhceT eht snetaerhT noisserggA cimonocE s’anihC woH ,yciloP gnirutcafunaM dna edarT fo ecffi O esuoH etihW :ECRUOS /tnetnoc-pw/vog.sevihcra.esuohetihwpmurt//:sptth ,8102 enuJ ,dlroW eht dna setatS detinU eht fo ytreporP lautcelletnI dna gro.egatireh A .)3202 ,12 hcraM dessecca( fdp.FDP-81.81.6-tropeR-ygolonhceT-anihC-LANIF/60/8102/sdaolpu — 782 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise reduction in the U.S. bilateral trade deficit with India. Similarly, if Taiwan were to reduce its tariffs to U.S. levels, the size of the U.S. bilateral trade deficit with Taiwan would fall by 6 percent. If the U.S. imposed a mirror tariff, its bilateral trade deficit with Taiwan would fall by 59 percent. These results again underscore the high degree of unfair, unbalanced, and nonreciprocal trade that currently exists between the U.S. and much of the rest of the world, which penalizes American farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and workers because of the WTO-MFN conundrum. These simulations also demon- strate that implementation of the USRTA most likely would substantially reduce the U.S. trade deficit while creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs. These benefits notwithstanding, however, the U.S. would still face a substantial over- all trade deficit and substantial bilateral trade deficits with many of its major trading partners. Why might this be so? Because under WTO rules, America still faces numerous nonreciprocal nontariff barriers around the world. For example, one of America’s largest trading partners, Japan, runs a significant bilateral trade surplus in goods with the U.S.—more than $70 billion a year. While Japan has relatively low tariffs, it ranks high on the nontariff barrier scale. In such cases, which are numerous, pas- sage of the USRTA would likely also be very helpful in reducing nontariff barriers. This is because under the powers provided by the USRTA, if a foreign country imposes significantly higher nontariff barriers, then the President has the authority to “negotiate and seek to enter into an agreement” that “commits the country to… eliminate [its] nontariff barriers.”16 If the country refuses to come to the negoti- ating table and lower its nontariff barriers, the President has the authority to levy reciprocal duties to offset or mirror those barriers. In summary, passage of the USRTA would go a long way toward leveling the playing field for American farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and workers who are now forced to compete in an intrinsically unfair, unbalanced, and nonreciprocal WTO-MFN system. Nor is the USRTA necessarily the only possible legislative way to address this issue. In 2017, then-House Speaker Paul Ryan (R–WI) and then-House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R–TX) proposed a “border adjust- ment tax.” The proposed border adjustment would have eliminated the ability of corporations to deduct the cost of imports while eliminating the tax on income attributable to exports. This border adjustment tax would have shifted the U.S. corporate income tax from an origin-based tax applying to the production of goods and services in the United States to a destination-based tax applying to the con- sumption of goods and services in the U.S. This tax—strongly opposed by American multinational corporations and big- box retailers—not only would have leveled the playing field with respect to WTO rules, but also would have provided an innovative alternative to the application of

Department of Homeland Security

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 177-179AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses customs de minimis treatment for U.S. territories to promote trade, whereas the Project 2025 DHS section focuses on immigration enforcement, denaturalization, agency restructuring, and merit‑based immigration. Both involve DHS agencies (CBP) and regulatory actions, but their substantive goals are largely unrelated."

Key themes:Department of Homeland SecurityCustoms and Border ProtectionRegulatory reform

— 144 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise prosecuting criminal and civil denaturalization cases, in combination with the Department of Justice, for aliens who obtained citizenship through fraud or other illicit means. Additionally, USCIS should create a criminal enforcement compo- nent within the agency to investigate immigration benefits fraud under Title 8 (perhaps requiring additional legislative and regulatory authorities for the offi- cers themselves) and to prosecute cases through Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys (SAUSAs) with substantive knowledge in the field. Particular attention should be given to addressing increasing incidents of forced labor trafficking in temporary work visa programs. While the Biden regulatory agenda has focused on at least two major rules—the credible fear rule and the public charge rule—USCIS has utilized other policy and internal procedural mechanisms to extend employment authorization to large groups of people who are in the country without legal status. The agency has taken quiet steps to cut corners and lessen adjudicatory standards. During a tran- sition period, a complete audit of agency policies, memoranda, and management directives issued during the Biden Administration should be completed, and rescis- sion documents should be prepared for issuance within the first few days of the incoming Administration. Additionally, regulatory documents should be drafted to review or reverse all regulations promulgated during the Biden Administration. New Policies To advance the national interest, the three core immigration agencies—USCIS, ICE, and CBP—should remerge and have immigration elements outside of DHS (such as ORR of HHS) included. The fragmented immigration enforcement frame- work that developed in the wake of the Homeland Security Act has weakened each agency and should be remediated. Combining these critical agencies would strengthen their capabilities, ensure cooperation, and promote information-shar- ing. Agency responsibilities and the delineation of authorities, such as inconsistent use of deferred action and issuance of NTAs by each agency, have long been a point of contention that would be addressed much more easily if they were recombined into a single entity. Alternatively, new policies for USCIS as it currently exists should focus on mat- ters that can be addressed through administrative action. l The workforce should be realigned and, as necessary, retrained on base eligibility and fraud detection rather than speed in processing. l Training should be returned to Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC), which would underscore the enforcement role of USCIS as a vetting agency, and be rebranded accordingly. — 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;

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 Del. King-Hinds, Kimberlyn

TASA Act of 2025

119/hr/6448

Northern Mariana Islands Small Business Access Act

119/hr/3496

TRAVEL Act of 2025

119/hr/3400

Back to All Bills

Territorial De Minimis Exemption Act