Safeguarding US Rulemaking Act
Summary
The "Safeguarding US Rulemaking Act" (H.R. 6581) aims to amend Section 553 of Title 5, United States Code, to restrict public comments during rulemaking processes. Specifically, it seeks to prohibit foreign governments designated as adversaries by the Secretary of Commerce, as well as their nationals and entities, from participating in rulemaking or petitioning agencies. This bill intends to limit public input to U.S. citizens and entities.
The bill modifies existing subsections (c) and (e) of Section 553 and adds a new subsection (f) to codify these restrictions. The determination of a "foreign adversary" relies on criteria outlined in section 791.4(a) of title 15, Code of Federal Regulations.
The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on December 10, 2025, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Expected Effects
The primary effect of this bill, if enacted, would be to exclude certain foreign entities and individuals from the public comment process in U.S. federal rulemaking. This could streamline the rulemaking process by reducing the volume of comments agencies must consider.
It may also lead to legal challenges based on arguments related to freedom of speech and due process, potentially delaying or altering the implementation of new regulations. The bill could also impact international relations and perceptions of fairness in U.S. governance.
Potential Benefits
- Potentially streamlines the rulemaking process by reducing the volume of comments.
- May enhance national security by limiting influence from foreign adversaries.
- Could ensure that U.S. citizens' voices are prioritized in domestic policy decisions.
- May reduce the risk of foreign interference in U.S. regulatory processes.
- Could lead to regulations more aligned with U.S. interests.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- May infringe on principles of open government and inclusive decision-making.
- Could face legal challenges based on First Amendment (freedom of speech) concerns.
- May negatively impact international relations and perceptions of fairness.
- Could limit access to valuable expertise and diverse perspectives from foreign entities.
- May create a chilling effect on international collaboration and information sharing.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutional alignment is questionable, particularly concerning the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and the right to petition the government. While the government has some latitude to regulate speech, restrictions based on nationality may face strict scrutiny.
However, the bill could be argued as aligning with the government's power to conduct foreign relations and protect national security, potentially justifying some restrictions on foreign entities' participation in domestic rulemaking. The balance between these competing interests would likely be a key factor in any legal challenge.
Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, which could be interpreted to support some restrictions on foreign influence in rulemaking.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).