HB252 adds a new provision to Title 46 that prohibits the owner or operator of a port facility that requires a facility security plan from entering into any contract for ownership, leasing, or operation with an entity that is a Chinese, Russian, North Korean, or Iranian state-owned enterprise, or with any foreign entity that has ownership by one of those countries. The prohibition is designed to prevent external influence over critical port infrastructure by limiting who can own or operate port facilities.
The measure builds on existing security controls by tying the restriction to the facility-security regime in section 70103(c) and aligning with the definitions in section 70101. The text also requires a clerical amendment to insert 70015 into the table of sections for chapter 700.
The practical effect is a gatekeeping rule for new contracts affecting port ownership and operation, with implications for foreign investment and port governance in the United States.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds new Section 70015 prohibiting ownership, leasing, or operation contracts for port facilities with state-owned enterprises from China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran, or any entity with ownership by those countries.
Who It Affects
Port facility owners/operators covered by a facility security plan (per 70103), plus foreign entities seeking control of such facilities.
Why It Matters
Establishes a codified security barrier to prevent foreign control over critical port infrastructure, signaling a national-security stance on port operations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a new prohibition that targets who can own or operate a U.S. port facility that requires a facility security plan. Under the new rule, a port facility owner or operator cannot enter into a contract for ownership, leasing, or operation with any state-owned enterprise from China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran, or with any foreign entity that has ownership from one of those countries.
The prohibition relies on the existing framework for what constitutes a facility and who is considered an owner or operator, using the definitions already in Title 46. To codify this policy, the act directs a clerical amendment to insert 70015 into the chapter’s list of sections.
In short, it blocks a specific set of foreign-affiliated entities from obtaining contracts to own or run port facilities that require security planning, reinforcing the security regime around critical infrastructure.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds new Section 70015 to Title 46 prohibiting contracts for port ownership/operation with restricted foreign state-owned enterprises.
The prohibition applies specifically to facilities that require a facility security plan under 70103(c).
The list of restricted entities includes state-owned enterprises from China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, and any foreign entity with ownership by those countries.
Definitions for 'facility' and 'owner or operator' are the ones in Section 70101, maintaining consistency with existing security rules.
A clerical amendment inserts 70015 into the Chapter 700 table of sections.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Prohibition on contracts for port ownership/operation
This subsection bars the owner or operator of a port facility that requires a facility security plan from entering into any contract for ownership, leasing, or operation with an entity that is a Chinese, Russian, North Korean, or Iranian state-owned enterprise, or with any foreign entity that has ownership by one of those countries. The prohibition is aimed at preventing foreign-controlled arrangements in critical port infrastructure.
Definitions relied upon
This subsection confirms that the terms 'facility' and 'owner or operator' have the meanings given in section 70101, ensuring the prohibition aligns with the existing security regime governing port facilities and their management.
Table of sections update
Inserts after the item relating to section 70014 the entry for 70015, so the new prohibition is codified in the chapter’s table of sections as part of the same subchapter on port operations and security.
Effective date and transition
The text does not specify an effective date or transition period. Practically, the prohibition would apply to new contracts for ownership, leasing, or operation entered after enactment, subject to implementation by the relevant agencies and courts interpreting the statute.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government 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.-based port authorities and port operators, by gaining a clear rule about eligible counterparties and reducing risk of foreign-state influence over critical infrastructure.
- Domestic shippers and cargo owners, who benefit from a more secure and potentially stable operating environment for essential supply chains.
- Federal security and homeland protection agencies (e.g., DHS, Coast Guard) that oversee port security by having codified tools to limit foreign-state risks in critical infrastructure.
Who Bears the Cost
- Foreign state-owned enterprises that would be restricted from pursuing port ownership or operation contracts.
- Foreign entities with any ownership by the listed countries that seek to control port facilities.
- Certain domestic port investment or development proposals that involve restricted counterparties, potentially delaying or altering deals.
- Compliance costs for port facilities to verify ownership structures and ensure contract screening aligns with the new prohibition.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing a protective national-security approach—preventing foreign-state influence over critical port operations—with the realities of global investment, supply chains, and diplomatic relations, while avoiding ambiguity about enforcement, timing, and scope.
The bill creates a tight constraint on who can contract for ownership or operation of port facilities, tying it directly to the national-security posture around critical infrastructure. While the prohibition is clear, the text leaves several practical questions open for later interpretation.
There is no explicit penalty or enforcement mechanism described in the new section, and it does not address how to handle existing contracts or pending negotiations with restricted entities. The reliance on existing definitions and the facility-security framework means enforcement will hinge on established regulatory and judicial pathways, potentially raising questions about how broadly 'ownership' and 'control' are interpreted in complex corporate structures or in cases of private-public partnerships.
These gaps could shape how efficiently the rule is applied in real-world port operations.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.