The SCREEN Act narrows how the Department of State can fund or provide technical support for film production that uses DoS assets. A U.S. company must disclose every film it has submitted to PRC or CCP authorities for evaluation in the prior 10 years, provide titles and submission dates, enter into a written agreement not to alter content in response to PRC/CCP requests, and submit that agreement to the Secretary of State as a condition of funding or access.
It also bars funding for co-productions with PRC entities that impose content conditions or for companies listed in the required report. The bill requires a recurring Congress-wide report (within 180 days of enactment and annually thereafter) detailing the disclosed films, submissions, agreements, and any content alterations.
These provisions create a formal accountability path for funding decisions and aim to reduce foreign content influence in U.S.-backed film projects.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Secretary of State can only authorize technical support or access to DoS assets for a film contract if the U.S. company provides a list of films submitted to PRC/CCP, includes titles and submission dates, and signs an agreement not to alter content in response to PRC/CCP requests, with the agreement submitted to the Secretary.
Who It Affects
U.S.-based film companies seeking DoS-backed support, DoS asset managers, and the offices that implement compliance and reporting.
Why It Matters
Establishes transparency and guardrails against foreign content pressure in U.S.-funded film projects, creating an oversight regime that informs Congress about potential PRC influence.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 1 names the act the SCREEN Act. Section 2 imposes funding-related conditions on film production using Department of State assets.
A U.S. company must (a) list all films submitted to PRC/CCP officials for evaluation in the prior 10 years, including titles and submission dates, (b) sign a written agreement not to alter film content in response to PRC/CCP requests, and (c) provide that agreement to the Secretary. It also prohibits funding for films co-produced with PRC entities that impose content conditions or for companies listed in the annual report.
Section 2(c) requires the Secretary to submit a Congress-wide report every 180 days after enactment and annually thereafter detailing the disclosures, agreements, and any content alterations. Definitions clarify terms like “United States company,” “content,” and the scope of “appropriate committees of Congress.” The overarching goal is to ensure funding decisions are transparent and insulated from coercive influence by PRC or CCP actors.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill limits DoS-funded film production to contracts with U.S. companies that disclose PRC/CCP submissions of past films.
Each listed film must include its title and submission date to PRC/CCP evaluation.
Companies must enter into a written agreement not to alter content in response to PRC/CCP requests and submit that agreement.
Funding is prohibited for PRC co-productions with content-imposing conditions or for listed companies.
The Secretary must report to Congress within 180 days of enactment and annually after, detailing disclosures, agreements, and content alterations.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
Designates the act as “Stopping Communist Regimes from Engaging in Edits Now Act” (the SCREEN Act), establishing its legal identity and scope.
Limitation on use of funds for production
The Secretary of State may only provide technical support or access to DoS assets for a film contract with a U.S. company if the company (1) lists all films it submitted to PRC/CCP officials for evaluation during the shorter of the prior 10 years or since enactment, (2) includes in that list the film titles and submission dates, (3) enters into a written agreement not to alter film content in response to PRC/CCP requests, and (4) submits that agreement to the Secretary.
Prohibition on funds for PRC-content conditioned films
Notwithstanding subsection (a), the President may not authorize DoS-related support or contracts to a U.S. company if the film is co-produced with a PRC entity subject to content restrictions, or if the company is listed in the report under subsection (c) (as applicable). This creates a substantive ban on funding when PRC-imposed content conditions or disclosed company risk factors are present.
Report to Congress
The Secretary must produce a report within 180 days after enactment and annually thereafter, detailing: the disclosed films, their titles, submission dates, and submitting companies; any written agreements not to alter content; and descriptions of films where content was altered following PRC/CCP requests, including the titles and involved companies.
Definitions
Defines terms used in Section 2, including ‘appropriate committees of Congress,’ ‘content,’ and ‘United States company,’ clarifying that a United States company is a private entity incorporated under U.S. law.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Foreign Affairs across all five countries.
Explore Foreign Affairs in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- U.S. Department of State – gains explicit authority and a framework for oversight and enforcement
- Appropriate committees of Congress (Senate Foreign Relations and House Foreign Affairs) – obtain regular, structured reporting that informs oversight
- U.S.-based film studios that comply with disclosures and written agreements – can plan with clearer rules and avoid unintended PRC-driven edits
- U.S. taxpayers – potential for better accountability and transparency in government-funded film programs
- National security and foreign policy community – alignment with counter-PRC influence goals
Who Bears the Cost
- U.S.-based film producers that fail to meet disclosure or agreement requirements – face loss of DoS support and potential penalties
- DoS and related agencies – increased administrative burden to collect, verify, and report on disclosures and agreements
- PRC co-producers and partners – higher barriers to collaboration with U.S. funding
- Smaller or independent studios with limited compliance capacity – greater regulatory and reporting load
- Administrative and vendor costs associated with implementing the reporting regime – periodical data collection and auditing
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether the government should impose strict, retrospective disclosure and content-preservation requirements on DoS-funded film production to guard against PRC influence, even if this raises compliance costs and could deter legitimate collaboration with international partners.
The SCREEN Act carves out a clear policy space: it seeks to minimize foreign government leverage over the content of films that rely on U.S. government funding or resources. While this improves transparency and accountability, it also creates potential friction for collaborations with international partners and for studios that rely on a fast-moving creative process.
The reporting requirements could impose a significant compliance burden on companies, especially smaller ones, and might chill certain cross-border collaborations that would otherwise be common in the industry. Verifications of past submissions and the accuracy of dates rely on robust record-keeping, which could become a point of administrative risk if records are incomplete or contested.
The tension lies in balancing a protective stance against foreign influence with the practical realities of film production and international cooperation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.