A Republican bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
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 PROTECT USA Act of 2025 seeks to prohibit certain business entities deemed integral to United States national interests from complying with foreign sustainability due diligence regulations. These regulations include requirements to assess, address, and report on the environmental or social impacts of operations or value chains, specifically mentioning the European Union's Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. The bill defines integral entities as those involved in sectors like extraction, manufacturing, or national defense. It establishes a prohibition on such compliance while allowing exceptions for ordinary business activities or through a presidential hardship relief process. Additionally, the act prohibits adverse actions against these entities for their compliance with this law and prevents foreign judgments related to these regulations from being recognized in U.S. courts.
Yes· 3 of 8
- Scored +7
Would business owners be better off under this?
The bill provides significant legal and regulatory relief to large-scale industrial and manufacturing entities.
- Scored +5
Is this likely to grow the economy?
By removing regulatory barriers for integral entities, the bill aims to promote domestic economic development and stability.
- Scored +4
Would farmers be better off under this?
The bill explicitly identifies the extractive and agricultural sectors as integral to the national interest.
The opposite· 3 of 8
- Scored -5
Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?
By prohibiting due diligence on environmental impacts, the bill may hinder efforts to monitor and reduce carbon footprints.
- Scored -5
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The act limits the ability of U.S. companies to comply with environmental impact assessments required by foreign laws.
- Scored -4
Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced?
The bill's focus on protecting the extractive sector may act against the transition away from fossil fuels.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection of Economic Stability and Employment: The bill finds that foreign restrictions can have serious adverse effects on employment and economic stability (Section 2, Finding 4). By prohibiting compliance with these foreign regulations, the act aims to prevent such negative effects on entities integral to national interests (Section s 2 and 4).
-
Ensuring Access to Essential Materials: The bill notes that maintaining access to supplies from the extractive sector—such as agriculture, energy, mining, and timber—is critically important for economic development and human progress (Section 2, Finding 3). Prohibiting foreign regulatory burdens may help maintain this access (Section 4).
-
Legal Protections Against Foreign Judgments: The act provides a safeguard by stating that no judgment by a foreign court regarding these sustainability regulations shall be recognized in United States courts (Section 5, Subsection b).
-
Hardship Relief for Businesses: Entities facing particular hardship due to the prohibition can petition the President for an exemption (Section 4, Subsection c, Paragraph 1).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Restrictions on Regulatory Compliance: The bill prohibits entities integral to the national interests of the United States from participating in or complying with foreign sustainability due diligence regulations, which include assessments and reporting of environmental or social impacts (Section 3, Subsection 3 and Section 4, Subsection a).
-
Limited Scope for Exceptions: While there is a hardship relief process, it is subject to a presidential decision which may be granted or denied (Section 4, Subsection c, Paragraph 2).
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 provides significant legal and regulatory relief to large-scale industrial and manufacturing entities. Would farmers be better off under this? — The bill explicitly identifies the extractive and agricultural sectors as integral to the national interest. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The protection of the extractive sector often benefits regions with high concentrations of mining and agricultural work. Would union members be better off under this? — The bill aims to protect employment stability within the manufacturing and extractive sectors.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The act limits the ability of U.S. companies to comply with environmental impact assessments required by foreign laws. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — By prohibiting due diligence on environmental impacts, the bill may hinder efforts to monitor and reduce carbon footprints. Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced? — The bill's focus on protecting the extractive sector may act against the transition away from fossil fuels.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — By removing regulatory barriers for integral entities, the bill aims to promote domestic economic development and stability. Is this likely to create jobs? — The bill seeks to protect employment by preventing foreign regulatory burdens on key industrial sectors. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The prohibition of sustainability due diligence may reduce transparency regarding social and environmental impacts of products.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this make trade with other countries easier? — The bill aims to protect U.S. entities from foreign regulatory costs that could impede their commercial activities. Does this strengthen ties with allied countries? — Prohibiting compliance with major foreign regulations like the EU's directive may strain international diplomatic and trade relations. Does this favour talking over confrontation abroad? — The unilateral nature of the prohibition could complicate international diplomatic efforts.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Limiting sustainability due diligence may reduce protections against social impact disparities in supply chains.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill expands presidential authority to grant exemptions and take actions to protect specific entities. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — By limiting compliance with sustainability reporting, the bill may reduce transparency regarding corporate environmental impacts.
- 6/10/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/12/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
- Introduced in Senate
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Pete RickettsRepublican · Nebraska