H.R.2246 establishes a Treasury-led sanctions authority and a new investment control regime that targets Chinese (including Hong Kong and Macau) entities engaged in advanced semiconductors, AI, quantum, hypersonics and related sectors. It amends the Defense Production Act by adding a Title VIII that lets the Secretary of the Treasury prohibit certain “covered national security transactions,” require post-transaction notifications for other transactions, and impose civil penalties and divestment orders; it also mandates reports, a public (non‑exhaustive) database, and a divestment requirement for U.S. holdings of firms on the Non‑SDN Chinese Military‑Industrial Complex Companies List.
The bill matters because it layers a novel U.S. investment-control regime on top of existing tools (CFIUS, export controls, OFAC) and codifies technical thresholds—semiconductor nodes, AI training compute, supercomputer capacity—that will determine which projects and investments require filings, face prohibition, or trigger forced divestment. That combination creates rapid compliance decisions for investors, potential forced sales for funds and public investors, and new coordination responsibilities for Treasury and Commerce.
At a Glance
What It Does
Delegates broad blocking-sanctions authority under IEEPA to the Secretary of the Treasury for ‘‘covered foreign persons’’ and amends the Defense Production Act to add a new Title VIII that (1) permits prohibitions on particular transactions in specified ‘‘prohibited technologies,’’ (2) requires notifications for other covered transactions in ‘‘notifiable technologies,’’ and (3) authorizes civil penalties, divestment and a public database.
Who It Affects
U.S. persons investing in or entering joint ventures with PRC‑connected entities (including venture capital limited partners, private equity, public investors); companies producing advanced semiconductors, AI, quantum, hypersonics, and HPC; financial institutions that process or underwrite cross‑border transactions; and Treasury/Commerce as implementing agencies.
Why It Matters
It creates explicit statutory thresholds (e.g., semiconductor node/stacking parameters, AI compute thresholds, supercomputer metrics) that convert technical capabilities into regulatory triggers, raises the prospect of compelled divestment and penalties, and institutes reporting, confidentiality, and multilateral coordination duties that will reshape cross‑border capital flows into sensitive tech sectors.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
H.R.2246 is structured in three main parts. Title I gives the Secretary of the Treasury authority, with State Department consultation, to designate ‘‘covered foreign persons’’ and to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to block and prohibit transactions and property interests in the United States.
The statute requires periodic reports about whether entities on the Non‑SDN Chinese Military‑Industrial Complex Companies List should be treated as covered foreign persons and delegates implementation authority to Treasury.
Title II is the operational core. It inserts a new Title VIII into the Defense Production Act that creates two complementary regimes: a prohibition power that lets the Secretary ban U.S. persons from knowingly engaging in specified ‘‘covered national security transactions’’ involving ‘‘prohibited technologies,’’ and a notification regime that requires filings for transactions in ‘‘notifiable technologies’’ unless a prohibition is in place.
The statute lays out what counts as a covered transaction (equity, convertible debt, joint ventures, certain LP interests in funds, acquisitions of assets in-country, and transactions that give management control), and it also lists detailed categories of prohibited and notifiable technologies (advanced semiconductor fabrication and design, specific semiconductor node and memory thresholds, AI models above compute thresholds, quantum systems, hypersonics, and high‑performance computers). The statute requires the Secretary to issue regulations (subject to notice-and-comment) and to provide confidential, non‑binding pre‑transaction feedback and a mechanism for self‑disclosure and potential mitigation.Enforcement tools in Title VIII include civil penalties (the greater of $250,000 or twice the value of the transaction), the authority to compel divestment, and referral to the DOJ for injunctive relief.
The Secretary bears the burden of proof in enforcement proceedings under the Administrative Procedure Act provisions cited. The bill also establishes confidentiality protections for submitted notifications, with narrow exceptions for classified material, Congress, or disclosures the parties consent to.Title II further requires regular reporting and testimony to key congressional committees on enforcement actions, aggregated notification patterns by technology and country, and recommendations on whether to add or remove technologies or countries from the covered lists.
It directs Treasury and Commerce to seek multilateral coordination and to stand up a public, non‑exhaustive database of identified covered foreign persons while allowing confidential submissions of evidence.Title III focuses on securities: within a year Treasury must report on PRC entities identified on certain export‑control and entity lists and, after that process, the President must issue rules prohibiting U.S. persons from knowingly holding securities of entities on the Non‑SDN list 365 days after enactment (with a narrowly tailored divestment‑only exception and a case‑by‑case presidential waiver process requiring congressional notice). The Act is funded at $150 million for the first two fiscal years and includes limited direct‑hire authority; it terminates only if Commerce removes the People’s Republic of China from its regulatory ‘‘foreign adversary’’ list in 15 C.F.R. §791.4.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Regulatory timelines: the Secretary must issue the DPA‑related regulations within 450 days of enactment; mandatory notifications must be filed within 30 days after a covered transaction’s completion.
Penalties and remedies: regulations may impose civil fines up to the greater of $250,000 or twice the transaction value, and Treasury can compel divestment of transactions found in violation.
Technical thresholds: the bill converts technical metrics into triggers—examples include integrated‑circuit nodes at 16/14 nm or below, NAND with 128+ layers, DRAM with 18 nm half‑pitch or less, AI models trained with ≥10^25 floating‑point operations as ‘prohibited’, and a notifiable AI threshold at >10^23 operations.
Fund and securities impact: U.S. persons must divest securities of entities on the Non‑SDN Chinese Military‑Industrial Complex Companies List within 365 days of enactment unless divesting under a pre‑existing sale; the President can waive that requirement case‑by‑case for national‑interest reasons with advance congressional notice.
Implementation scope and delegation: the President delegates authorities to the Secretary of the Treasury; the statute authorizes $150 million for Treasury (transferable to Commerce) and up to 15 direct hires to administer the new regime.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Funding and limited hiring authority for Treasury and Commerce
The bill authorizes $150 million for each of the first two fiscal years to Treasury, with transfer authority to Commerce for joint outreach and implementation, and permits up to 15 direct appointments outside normal competitive hiring rules for positions to administer the Act. Practically, that creates a near‑term resource base but also signals an expectation that Treasury and Commerce will build a specialized enforcement and review capacity quickly.
IEEPA sanctions authority and covered person definition
Title I permits the President (delegated to the Treasury Secretary) to use IEEPA blocking powers against any ‘‘covered foreign person’’—a broad definition that captures firms incorporated, principally‑based, or controlled by the People’s Republic of China, including entities owned 50%+ or subject to CCP control, provided they ‘‘knowingly engaged in significant operations’’ in defense or surveillance sectors. The statute folds in existing OFAC lists for connectivity and requires annual reporting on whether entities on the Non‑SDN Chinese Military‑Industrial Complex Companies List qualify as covered foreign persons. That gives Treasury both sanction and labeling tools targeted at strategic sectors.
DPA amendment: prohibition of covered national security transactions
Section 801 authorizes the Secretary to prohibit U.S. persons from knowingly engaging in specified covered national security transactions involving a defined set of ‘‘prohibited technologies’’—from advanced IC design/fab and EUV‑only supply chains to AI models above compute thresholds, quantum platforms, hypersonic components, and certain supercomputers. The provision includes an explicit waiver mechanism for narrowly tailored national‑interest exemptions and requires five‑day congressional notice after issuing a waiver. The Secretary must promulgate notice‑and‑comment rules, but can include confidential, non‑binding pre‑transaction feedback to market participants.
Mandatory notifications, confidentiality, and administrative relief
Section 802 requires Treasury to issue rules (within 450 days) making U.S. persons submit written notifications within 30 days after completing a covered transaction in a prohibited or notifiable technology, unless a prohibition applies. The rules must provide procedures for completeness checks, allow self‑disclosure and mitigation consideration, impose civil penalties for failures to notify, and protect submitted materials from public disclosure except to Congress, courts, allied governments (as authorized), or by party consent. These mechanics create a post‑closing filing obligation and give the agency tools to prioritize enforcement and remediation.
Enforcement reporting, annual assessments, and allied engagement
The Secretary must publish annual reports (with classified annexes as needed) detailing enforcement actions, notification aggregates by technology and country, and recommendations on whether to add or remove technologies or countries from covered lists; secretarial testimony to committees is required for five years. The statute also directs proactive bilateral/multilateral outreach to align allied controls and information‑sharing, and mandates a 180‑day strategy to engage partners—indicating Congress expects coordination rather than unilateral action.
Non‑exhaustive public database and confidential submissions
Treasury (with Commerce) may create a publicly accessible, non‑exhaustive database identifying covered foreign persons while accepting confidential evidence submissions. The provision instructs that the database not be treated as a comprehensive list; nevertheless, public naming—even if non‑exhaustive—creates reputational and commercial consequences for listed entities and raises legal and evidentiary questions about inclusion criteria and appeal rights.
Non‑SDN list review and mandatory divestment of securities
Within one year and biennially for six years, Treasury must report on whether PRC entities named on various export‑control and entity lists merit placement on the Non‑SDN Chinese Military‑Industrial Complex Companies List and may require U.S. persons to divest securities of entities on that list 365 days after enactment. The President can waive divestment on a case‑by‑case national‑interest basis but must notify relevant congressional committees in advance and brief them within 30 days—creating a statutory divestment deadline with a narrow, transparent waiver path.
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. national‑security agencies (Treasury, Commerce, Defense, Intelligence): the bill centralizes information flows and grants clearer statutory authorities—sanctions, divestment, notification and reporting—to disrupt PRC acquisition of sensitive capabilities.
- Domestic advanced‑technology manufacturers (semiconductor fabs, AI and quantum firms): reduced risk of enabling foreign adversary supply chains and a legislative push toward domestic supply expansion that could attract government support recommended in required reports.
- Allied governments and multilateral partners: the bill creates formal U.S. outreach and coordination mandates, offering opportunities for harmonized controls that can amplify joint export‑control and investment‑screening effects.
Who Bears the Cost
- U.S. venture capital, private equity funds, and limited partners: new notification and de‑facto divestment risk for LP stakes; caps/exceptions for small commitments still force enhanced diligence, contractual covenants, and possible forced sales.
- Public and institutional investors (pension funds, ETFs): forced divestment of holdings in entities on the Non‑SDN list can create realized losses, liquidity squeezes, and valuation haircuts when sales are concentrated within a 365‑day window.
- Financial institutions and service providers (banks, custodians, underwriters): expanded KYC/onboarding obligations, screening against a new public database and confidential lists, and possible exposure to penalties for processing prohibited or evasive transactions.
- U.S. companies engaged in joint ventures or supply relationships with PRC entities: the prohibition and waiver regime can block or unwind existing commercial arrangements and impose compliance costs to document historical activity that may be excepted.
- Treasury and Commerce (implementation cost): while $150M is authorized and 15 hires allowed, the agencies will face heavy IT, legal, and enforcement workloads and coordination demands across executive branch and allied governments.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is trade‑off between hard national‑security controls and preserving open, efficient capital markets for innovation: the bill tightens the government’s ability to block and unwind transactions to prevent technology transfer, but it does so by creating bright‑line technical triggers and mandatory divestment signals that can chill investment, force fire‑sales, and increase compliance costs—especially where technological thresholds and corporate control questions are ambiguous.
The bill packs technical definitions—semiconductor node sizes, memory layer counts, AI training‑compute thresholds, and supercomputer capacity—into statutory text. That approach reduces policy discretion but risks rapid obsolescence: hardware and model architectures evolve quickly, so statutory numeric cutoffs (for example, 10^25 FLOPs) may either under‑capture future threats or sweep in benign research before agencies can update rules.
The statute anticipates regulatory updates, but the notice‑and‑comment timeline plus the 450‑day regulatory deadline create an initial period of uncertainty in which market participants must determine risk without final implementing guidance.
Operational overlaps are another core implementation issue. H.R.2246 operates alongside CFIUS, Commerce export controls (EAR), OFAC sanctions and securities law—each with its own definitions and standards.
The bill attempts coordination through reporting and interagency consultation, but it also creates separate mechanics (post‑closing notifications, a public database, divestment mandates, and an IEEPA‑based sanctions path) that could lead to duplicative or conflicting agency actions. The bill’s confidentiality rules protect filings from FOIA release but permit disclosure to Congressional committees and allied governments, which raises classification and legal‑process questions about how sensitive business information will be handled and adjudicated.
Finally, the act places the burden of proof on Treasury in enforcement actions under the cited APA provisions; that evidentiary posture will require the agency to build a litigation‑grade factual record upfront, increasing investigatory costs and extending timelines.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.