The bill directs the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a year-long study across each critical infrastructure sector to identify products that are in high demand and currently imported due to manufacturing, material, or supply chain constraints in the United States. It requires an assessment of the costs and benefits of domestic production, including effects on jobs and the product’s price, and it asks for identification of products that could feasibly be manufactured domestically.
The study also analyzes the feasibility of locating production in rural areas or industrial parks and culminates in a report to Congress within 18 months, with the report publicly available on the Department of Commerce website. The Act does not authorize the Secretary to compel private information from individuals or entities.
At a Glance
What It Does
Directs the Secretary of Commerce to complete a year-long study across all critical infrastructure sectors, identifying products in high demand that are imported due to constraints; analyzes costs/benefits of domestic production; identifies truly feasible domestic products; and assesses rural/industrial park feasibility.
Who It Affects
Affects manufacturers and suppliers in the 16 critical infrastructure sectors, rural economic development programs, industrial parks, and government agencies involved in supply-chain resilience.
Why It Matters
Provides a structured, evidence-based basis for decisions about domestic manufacturing capacity in critical infrastructure, informing policy options while preserving flexibility and avoiding overreach into private data collection.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Critical Infrastructure Manufacturing Feasibility Act requires the Secretary of Commerce to undertake a comprehensive survey of products essential to critical infrastructure. The objective is to pinpoint items that the United States relies on imports for because of current manufacturing or supply chain constraints and to evaluate whether those items could be produced domestically.
The study must also consider the broader economic impact, including how domestic production would affect employment and the overall cost of the products. In addition, it asks researchers to examine whether production could be located in rural areas or in industrial parks, recognizing how geography and local infrastructure influence feasibility.
A key feature is the reporting requirement: once the study is complete, the Secretary must submit a report to Congress within 18 months and publish the findings publicly on the Department of Commerce website. Importantly, the bill clarifies that it does not give the Secretary authority to compel private entities to provide information, limiting the government’s coercive power and signaling that the study will rely on voluntary data and publicly available information.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a year-long study identifying products in high demand that are imported due to constraints.
The study must analyze costs and benefits of domestic production, including job impacts and product cost.
It must identify products that could feasibly be manufactured in the United States.
It must analyze the feasibility of manufacturing those products in rural areas or industrial parks.
The Secretary is prohibited from compelling information and must publish the report publicly within 18 months.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
This section provides the formal title of the Act, the Critical Infrastructure Manufacturing Feasibility Act.
Study on critical infrastructure manufacturing in the United States
Section 2 directs the Secretary of Commerce to complete a year-long study across each of the 16 designated critical infrastructure sectors. The study must identify products in high demand that are imported due to manufacturing, material, or supply chain constraints, analyze the costs and benefits of domestic production (including job effects and product costs), identify products that could feasibly be manufactured domestically, and evaluate the feasibility of producing those products in rural areas or in industrial parks.
Limitation on Authority
This section clarifies that nothing in the Act authorizes the Secretary to compel a person to provide information described in the section, keeping data collection voluntary.
Definition of Critical Infrastructure Sector
Defines the term “critical infrastructure sector” as the 16 sectors identified in Presidential Policy Directive 21 of February 12, 2013, tying the Act to the established federal framework for critical infrastructure.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Infrastructure across all five countries.
Explore Infrastructure 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. manufacturers in the identified product areas may gain visibility into domestic opportunities and potential market expansion.
- Rural communities and rural manufacturing facilities could benefit from proximity to new or expanded production if feasible locations are identified.
- Industrial parks and local economic development agencies gain a roadmap for resilient supply chains and investment opportunities.
- Federal and state policymakers focusing on supply chain resilience obtain a data-driven basis for strategic decisions and potential incentives.
- Workers in domestic manufacturing sectors may see improved job stability and opportunities as domestic production is evaluated and potentially expanded.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal budget and staff time for the Department of Commerce to conduct the study and analyze data.
- Private sector costs are minimized by the voluntary data approach; any costs borne by businesses would be through time spent supplying information on a voluntary basis.
- Potential opportunity costs for sectors that must adjust operations or supply chains in response to new insights, if policymakers pursue actions based on the study.
- State and local governments may bear costs related to infrastructure or incentives if the policy regime evolves to support rural or industrial park manufacturing.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether a thorough, data-informed assessment of domestic manufacturing feasibility for critical infrastructure can be completed within a fixed timeline and with voluntary data, while avoiding unintended economic costs or misalignment with broader policy goals.
The Act creates a forward-looking research mandate without imposing new procurement obligations or data-collection demands on private entities. Because it relies on voluntary information, there may be gaps in data quality or completeness, which could affect the conclusiveness of the findings.
The 18-month reporting deadline places emphasis on timely analysis, but the absence of a mandate means real-world implementation still depends on subsequent legislation or policy actions. The definition of “critical infrastructure sectors” anchors the study to a fixed federal framework (PPD 2013), which could limit scope if sectors evolve.
Overall, the bill attempts to balance a resilience-driven objective with practical constraints on government authority and private sector burden. It raises questions about how to translate a feasibility assessment into actionable policy, how to measure true feasibility in diverse geographies, and how to align findings with broader industrial and energy strategies.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.