Pete Ricketts (R-NE)
PRC Military and Human Rights Capital Markets Sanctions Act of 2025
A Republican bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
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
This bill, known as the "PRC Military and Human Rights Capital Markets Sanctions Act of 2025," aims to prohibit the purchase of certain securities from various covered entities. The President is required to compile and maintain a public list of these entities, which include various sanctioned Chinese entities and those related to military-industrial complexes or forced labor. Once identified, United States persons are prohibited from purchasing, selling, or holding specific publicly traded securities related to these entities. The Act mandates that United States persons must divest of these securities within specific timeframes after the bill's enactment or identification. Violations of these rules can result in significant civil and criminal penalties.
Yes
- Scored +4
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill mandates a single, publicly available list of covered entities to increase market transparency.
- Scored +3
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill expands the President's authority to identify and prohibit securities trading.
- Scored +3
Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated?
The bill addresses human rights abuses related to forced labor, which can impact racial equity.
The opposite· 3 of 4
- Scored -2
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
The significant civil and criminal penalties could pose risks to individuals if not strictly enforced.
- Scored -2
Would middle-income households be better off under this?
The requirement to divest assets within strict timelines may negatively impact retail investors.
- Scored -2
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The mandatory divestment requirements may impose financial burdens and transaction costs on individual investors.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Enhanced Transparency: The President is tasked with compiling a single, public list of covered entities, which may include unique identification numbers to help people identify exactly which entities are restricted (Section 2(b)).
-
Divestment Facilitation: The Act allows for exceptions to the prohibition for those who are actively facilitating the divestment of the prohibited securities (Section 2(c)(2)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Financial Penalties: United States persons who violate the Act could face heavy civil penalties, which can be up to $250,000 or twice the amount of the transaction involved (Section 2(d)(1)(A)).
-
Criminal Consequences: For those who willfully violate or conspire to violate the law, the penalties include fines up to $1,000,000 and, for individuals, a prison sentence of up to 20 years (Section 2(d)(1)(B)).
-
Mandatory Divestment Burdens: United States persons are required to divest of specific securities within strictly defined timelines—either within 180 days of the Act's enactment or within 180 days of the President's identification of a security (Section 2(c)(1)).
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.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill mandates a single, publicly available list of covered entities to increase market transparency. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill expands the President's authority to identify and prohibit securities trading. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The significant civil and criminal penalties could pose risks to individuals if not strictly enforced.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The bill addresses human rights abuses related to forced labor, which can impact racial equity.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The requirement to divest assets within strict timelines may negatively impact retail investors.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The mandatory divestment requirements may impose financial burdens and transaction costs on individual investors.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this make trade with other countries easier? — Sanctions on major Chinese entities may create trade friction and economic uncertainty.
- 6/4/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/12/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
- Introduced in Senate
David McCormickRepublican · Pennsylvania