Jodey Arrington (R-TX)
Securing Accountability in Foreign Entries Act
A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Securing Accountability in Foreign Entries Act aims to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to change how importers of record are defined and held accountable. It requires importers of record to be located in the United States, specifying requirements for individuals and entities. The bill mandates that importers pay duties, taxes, and fees through specific electronic transfers from verified domestic accounts. Additionally, it increases bonding requirements for importers who use continuous import bonds. These changes include specific provisions for express consignment operators and carriers.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +3
Does this tighten control of the border?
The bill tightens control over the importation process by requiring domestic presence and verified accounts.
- Scored +3
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
The bill increases continuous import bond requirements to at least $100,000 to ensure revenue protection.
- Scored +2
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill requires more rigorous verification of importer identities through domestic banking institutions.
The opposite
- Scored -5
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
The bill imposes strict physical location and higher bonding requirements that may burden smaller importing entities.
- Scored -4
Would business owners be better off under this?
The bill imposes new financial and physical operational burdens on those acting as importers of record.
- Scored -1
Would people in cities be better off under this?
The bill's requirement for physical business locations may disadvantage those relying on virtual or remote business models.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Accountability for Importers: The bill requires an importer of record to have a physical location in the United States and at least one owner or full-time employee who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident (Section 2(a)(ii)(II)).
-
Direct Payment Verification: By requiring duties, taxes, and fees to be paid via electronic transfer from a verified domestic depository institution, the bill establishes a clear system for the collection of funds (Section 3(b)).
-
Enhanced Revenue Protection: The bill increases the required amount for continuous import bonds to not less than $100,000 to protect revenue and ensure compliance (Section 4(a)(1)).
-
Accountability for Large U.S. Entities: Affiliates of large U.S. companies can serve as importers if they agree to joint and several liability for duties, taxes, fees, and penalties (Section 2(a)(ii)(III)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Strict Requirements for Importers: Entities must meet specific criteria, such as having a physical location that is not a shared office or virtual address, which could create hurdles for some businesses (Section 2(a)(ii)(III)(I)).
-
Increased Financial Burdens: Importers of record using a continuous import bond must maintain a bond of at least $100,000 (Section 4(a)(1)).
-
Complex Banking Requirements: Importers must provide specific account information and receive an attestation from their depository institution regarding the verification of their identity (Section 3(b)(4)).
-
Limitations on Individual Importers: An individual is prohibited from serving as the importer of record for more than one entity (Section 2(a)(iv)).
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.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill imposes new financial and physical operational burdens on those acting as importers of record. Would people in cities be better off under this? — The bill's requirement for physical business locations may disadvantage those relying on virtual or remote business models.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this tighten control of the border? — The bill tightens control over the importation process by requiring domestic presence and verified accounts.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires more rigorous verification of importer identities through domestic banking institutions.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — The bill increases continuous import bond requirements to at least $100,000 to ensure revenue protection. Does this raise the taxes companies pay? — The bill increases revenue protection requirements for importers which may act as an indirect cost on corporate operations. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill enhances the collection of duties and taxes through stricter verification of importer accounts. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The bill imposes strict physical location and higher bonding requirements that may burden smaller importing entities.
- 3/5/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.