The bill inserts a new paragraph into 18 U.S.C. §207(f) that forbids former State Department and Department of Defense employees from making communications or appearances intended to influence U.S. foreign military sales under the Arms Export Control Act for three years after leaving government. It targets ex‑employees who participated in any program, project, or activity related to foreign military sales during the three‑year lookback period and makes violations subject to criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. §216.
This is a narrow, subject‑specific expansion of post‑employment restrictions aimed squarely at the “revolving door” between defense‑related policymaking and private sector lobbying. For compliance officers and defense contractors, it creates a new, easily identifiable prohibition to screen for when hiring former DoD or State staff and when structuring lobbying activity on FMS matters.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds a new paragraph to 18 U.S.C. §207(f) that (1) triggers when a former State or DoD employee participated in any program, project, or activity relating to foreign military sales during the three years immediately preceding separation, and (2) bars that former employee from making communications or appearances to federal officers, agency staff, or Congress with the intent to influence FMS determinations under chapter 2 of the Arms Export Control Act.
Who It Affects
Former State Department and Department of Defense employees who worked on FMS‑related programs within the three years before leaving office, plus private employers and lobbying firms that would engage those individuals on FMS issues. Ethics offices at both agencies will also face new enforcement questions.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a categorical, subject‑specific post‑employment ban that is easier to identify than matter‑by‑matter restrictions, potentially limiting former officials’ access to decisionmakers on arms sales and changing hiring and lobbying practices in the defense and security assistance sectors.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill amends the federal criminal post‑employment statute to add a focused prohibition on ex‑employees of the State Department and the Department of Defense when it comes to U.S. foreign military sales. Rather than relying only on existing matter‑specific or broad post‑employment rules, this change carves out foreign military sales — the statutory program administered under chapter 2 of the Arms Export Control Act — and imposes a three‑year period after separation during which covered former employees may not lobby the U.S. Government on those matters.
Coverage turns on two linked concepts in the new paragraph: participation and intent. A person is covered if, during the three years before leaving government, they “participated in any program, project, or activity relating to foreign military sales.” The prohibition then targets any knowing communication or appearance before federal officers, agency employees, or Congress made with the intent to influence a federal determination authorized under AECA chapter 2.
That combination makes the rule both subject‑specific (FMS) and fact‑triggered (recent participation), and it requires a showing of intent for criminal liability.Enforcement follows the penalty provision referenced in the bill: violations are punished as provided in 18 U.S.C. §216. Practically, agencies, private employers, and former employees will need to treat FMS‑related matters as a discrete compliance category: employers should screen hires for recent FMS participation, counsel should advise new hires on permissible work and communications, and ethics offices must decide how to document ‘‘participation’’ and to detect intent.
The amendment is limited in scope — it applies only to former State and DoD employees and only to matters authorized under chapter 2 — but it creates a bright‑line, three‑year window that changes how defense contractors and trade associations will plan engagement with former officials.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates a three‑year post‑employment ban tied to a lookback: the covered period is the three years ending on separation from Federal employment.
Coverage requires that the former employee ‘‘participated in any program, project, or activity relating to foreign military sales’’ during that three‑year window — the statute does not define ‘‘participated,’’ leaving interpretation to enforcement and courts.
The prohibition applies to any knowing communication or appearance to federal department or agency officers or employees, or to Congress, made with the intent to influence a federal determination under chapter 2 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2761 et seq.).
Violations are subject to criminal penalties as provided in 18 U.S.C. §216; the bill references that enforcement mechanism rather than creating a new civil remedy or administrative penalty.
The amendment is limited to former employees of the State Department and the Department of Defense and specifically redesignates existing paragraph numbering in §207(f) to accommodate the new paragraph.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the measure the “No revolving doors in FMS Act of 2025.” This is purely stylistic but signals the bill's focus on post‑employment ethics in foreign military sales.
Adds a new FMS‑specific post‑employment prohibition
The core change is insertion of a new paragraph (3) into subsection (f) of §207. Paragraph (3)(A) sets the coverage trigger: a former State or DoD employee who participated in any program, project, or activity related to foreign military sales at any time during the three years ending on separation. Paragraph (3)(B) describes the prohibited conduct: knowingly making, with intent to influence, communications or appearances before federal officers, agency employees, or Congress concerning decisions authorized under chapter 2 of the Arms Export Control Act. The draft therefore links a participation lookback to a targeted communications ban and uses an intent element for criminal culpability.
Redesignation of existing paragraph
The bill redesignates the current paragraph (3) of §207(f) as paragraph (4) to accommodate the new paragraph. That is a drafting housekeeping step but important for counsel reading the statute: existing regulatory or advisory language tied to paragraph numbers will need review to confirm continued accuracy.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Defense across all five countries.
Explore Defense 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
- Competing defense firms without recently hired ex‑officials — they may face fewer instances of preferential, insider access to decisionmakers on FMS cases, which can level competitive dynamics.
- Agency ethics offices and public‑interest watchdogs — the bright‑line, subject‑specific ban simplifies monitoring of post‑employment activity on FMS issues and creates a clear statutory hook for enforcement.
- Foreign governments and purchasers seeking arms sales — they may receive fewer direct interventions by former U.S. officials in Washington, narrowing avenues for influence that could undermine transparent procurement processes.
- Law firms and compliance consultancies that advise on ethics and hiring — demand for screening and compliance counseling around FMS‑related hiring and engagement is likely to grow.
Who Bears the Cost
- Defense contractors, trade associations, and lobbying firms that customarily hire former State or DoD staff for FMS expertise — they will lose some hiring flexibility and may need to change engagement strategies or pay premium rates for non‑covered advisers.
- Former State and DoD employees whose post‑government careers rely on FMS subject‑matter work — the statute restricts a common career path and could reduce market value for certain kinds of expertise during the three‑year window.
- Agency ethics offices and prosecutors — enforcing the new provision will require resources to investigate intent and to document ‘‘participation’’ histories, potentially increasing administrative and investigative burden.
- Small advisory firms and foreign‑based intermediaries that relied on U.S. ex‑officials to facilitate access — they may see business losses or need to shift to non‑FMS services to avoid legal risk.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill confronts a classic tradeoff: it seeks to prevent undue post‑government influence over sensitive arms‑sale decisions by imposing a clear, subject‑specific ban, but doing so risks curtailing legitimate private‑sector work, hampering knowledge transfer, and creating enforcement gaps and burdens that may blunt the measure’s practical effectiveness.
The bill raises several implementation and enforcement questions that will determine how broadly it bites. First, the statutory trigger—having ‘‘participated in any program, project, or activity’’ related to FMS—is fact‑dependent and undefined.
Agencies and courts will have to develop a workable threshold for participation: does drafting policy count, or must the person have been the case manager on an FMS case? Second, the mens rea element—knowing communications made with the intent to influence—focuses criminal liability on purposeful lobbying, but proving intent is often difficult and may require evidence beyond the content of a single communication.
Third, the statute limits coverage to former ‘‘employees’’ of State and DoD; it does not cover contractors or non‑employee advisers who performed substantial FMS work while not federal employees, which leaves a hole that private sector actors might exploit.
There are also practical compliance frictions. Employers must create screening processes to identify hiring risks and to determine whether proposed engagements involve ‘‘determinations authorized pursuant to chapter 2’’ of the AECA.
Ethics offices will need to reconcile this new, subject‑specific ban with existing §207 matter‑specific prohibitions and waivers or recusal processes. Finally, the criminal‑only enforcement route (via §216) gives agencies limited administrative levers; prosecutors will weigh resource costs and First Amendment‑adjacent defenses in deciding whether to pursue cases, which could limit the provision’s deterrent effect in practice.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.