A Republican bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
In the other chamber's committee
Passed one chamber and has been handed to a committee in the other.
The committee decides whether it goes any further, and most bills that reach a committee never leave it. A committee that simply does nothing kills a bill without anyone ever voting against it, so no news from here is usually the news.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House voice vote
- In Senate committee
The House by voice vote (members called out yes or no together): no member's position on it was recorded.
What this bill would do
The ``Secure Our Ports Act of 2025'' aims to amend title 46 of the United States Code. This bill focuses on prohibiting certain contracts regarding port operations and management. Specifically, it prevents owners or operators of certain facilities from entering into contracts for ownership, leasing, or operation with specific foreign entities. These prohibited entities include state-owned enterprises from China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran. The ban also extends to foreign entities that have any percentage of ownership by those same countries.
Yes· 3 of 7
- Scored +3
Does this tighten control of the border?
Securing port operations can contribute to more controlled and secure maritime borders.
- Scored +2
Does this better protect the country from computer attacks?
Limiting foreign control of critical port infrastructure reduces the risk of foreign-led cyber threats to maritime operations.
- Scored +2
Does this strengthen ties with allied countries?
By limiting the influence of adversarial nations, the bill aligns with broader US strategic foreign policy goals.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Restricting foreign influence in port operations: The bill prohibits owners or operators of facilities requiring a security plan from contracting with state-owned enterprises from China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran (Section 2(a)(1)). This ensures that specific foreign governments do not have direct ownership, leasing, or operational control over these facilities.
-
Preventing indirect foreign control: The Act targets foreign entities that are even partially owned by countries like China, Russia, Norths Korea, or Iran (Section 2(a)(2)). This prevents entities from using partial ownership to gain a foothold in port management.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts are explicitly stated in the text: The provided text focuses solely on the prohibitions and does not list any potential negative consequences or burdens.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this better protect the country from computer attacks? — Limiting foreign control of critical port infrastructure reduces the risk of foreign-led cyber threats to maritime operations. Does this strengthen ties with allied countries? — By limiting the influence of adversarial nations, the bill aligns with broader US strategic foreign policy goals. Does this make trade with other countries easier? — The bill aims to secure port infrastructure by limiting foreign ownership from adversarial nations.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this tighten control of the border? — Securing port operations can contribute to more controlled and secure maritime borders.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill uses federal authority to prohibit specific types of private contracts regarding critical infrastructure.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Domestic port operators may face less competition from state-owned enterprises from adversarial nations.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this repair or build roads and bridges? — Securing the management of port facilities supports the overall stability of national logistics infrastructure.
- 6/10/2025
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
- 6/9/2025
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2556)
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2556)
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 252.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2556-2557)
- Mr. Ezell moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
- 6/6/2025
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 119-148.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 117.
- 4/2/2025
- Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Discharged
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
- 4/1/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 2/24/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 1/10/2025
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
- 1/9/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
- Introduced in House
John GaramendiDemocrat · California
Carlos GimenezRepublican · Florida